Appendix K

APPENDIX K
PUBLIC COMMENTS (ON CD W/EXCEPTION OF INDEX

OF PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS)
Index of Public Comment Letters
Public Comment Letters (2016)
September 20, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript
October 25, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript

Index of Public Comment Letters
INDEX OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Town of Colonie Landfill Area 7 Development
Colonie, New York
Document Comment Date of

ID # Designations File Name Correspondence Company/Affiliation First Name Last Name Address City, State Zip Code
1 A 2016.09.05 Citizens Concerned About LF Expansion letter.pdf 9/5/2016 Citizens Concerned About Landfill Expansion Frank Hartley 48 Church Hill Road Waterford, NY 12188
2 A 2016.09.14 Paul Reepmeyer.pdf 9/14/2016 Paul Reepmeyer 112A Fonda Road
3 A 2016.09.15 Miller Mannix postpone letter.pdf 9/15/2016 Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC on behalf of Town of Waterford Mark Schachner 15 West Notre Dame Street, P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, NY 12801
4 A 2016.09.15 Town of Halfmoon.pdf 9/15/2016 Town of Halfmoon Kevin Tollisen 2 Halfmoon Town Plaza Halfmoon, NY 12065
5 A to G 2016.09.16 Assemblyman McDonald.pdf 9/19/2016 The Assembly State of NY Albany John McDonald, III Room 417, Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12248
6 A 2016.09.19 Erie Canalway.pdf 9/19/2016 Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Bob Radliff P.O. Box 219 Waterford, NY 12188
7 A 2016.09.19 John Rice.pdf 9/19/2016 John Rice 1 Stone Road Halfmoon, NY 12065
8 A 2016.09.19 Loomacres.pdf 9/19/2016 Loomacres Wildlife Management Cody Baciuska P.O. Box 361 Warrenville, NY 12187
9 A to B 2016.09.20 Paul Reepmeyer note photos.pdf 9/20/2016 Paul Reepmeyer 112A Fonda Road
10 A to B 2016.09.21 Michelle Parvana.pdf 9/21/2016 Michelle Parvana Halfmoon, NY 12065
11 A 2016.09.22 Miller Mannix letter re DEIS.pdf 9/22/2016 Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC on behalf of Town of Waterford Mark Schachner 15 West Notre Dame Street, P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, NY 12801
12 A 2016.09.26 Susan Miron.pdf 9/26/2016 Susan Miron 74 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
13 A to D 2016.09.26 Town of Halfmoon letter.pdf 9/26/2016 Town of Halfmoon Kevin Tollisen 2 Halfmoon Town Plaza Halfmoon, NY 12065
14 A 2016.10.04 Against Air Pollution in Halfmoon letter.pdf 10/4/2016 Against Air Pollution in Halfmoon Guideboard Rd. Halfmoon, NY 12065
15 A 2016.10.05 Miller Manix FOIL request.pdf 10/5/2016 Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC on behalf of Town of Waterford Mark Schachner 15 West Notre Dame Street, P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, NY 12801
16 A 2016.10.09 Ricchiuti letter.pdf 10/9/2016 Leonard Ricchiuti, Jr. P.O. Box 8532 Albany, NY 12208
17 A to F 2016.10.14 Lamoutte letter.pdf 10/14/2016 Kathyrn and Keith Lamoutte 19 Oregon Trail Waterford, NY 12188
18 A to B 2016.10.18 Bob and Mary Santa Lucia.pdf 10/18/2016 Bob and Mary Santa Lucia Arrowhead Lane
19 A to G 2016.10.19 Joe McTague.pdf 10/19/2016 Joe McTague 26 Heritage Ct. Cohoes, NY 12047
20 A to L 2016.10.21 Stephen and Donna Ellrot.pdf 10/24/2016 Stephen and Donna Ellrott 96A Fonda Road Cohoes, NY 12047
21 A to D 2016.10.25 Mary Bolognino.pdf 10/25/2016 Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Mary Bolognino Halfmoon, NY 12065
22 A to E 2016.10.25 Thomas Romano.pdf 10/25/2016 Thomas Romano 979 Kings Rd. Schenectady, NY 12303
23 A 2016.10.26 brbr0073@aol.com.pdf 10/26/2016 brbr0073@aol.com
24 A 2016.10.26 Brian Garland.pdf 10/26/2016 Brian Garland Heritage Court
25 A 2016.10.26 Cole Zapp.pdf 10/26/2016 Cole Zapp Colonie Resident
26 A 2016.10.26 David Buckley.pdf 10/26/2016 Dave Buckley Halfmoon, NY 12065
27 A to C 2016.10.26 James Murdico Joanne Tedesco.pdf 10/26/2016 James (Joanne) Murdico (Tedesco) 78 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
28 A to D 2016.10.26 Jamie Sullivan.pdf 10/26/2016 Jamie Sullivan Gadwall Drive Waterford, NY 12188
29 A 2016.10.26 Jason Treffiletti.pdf 10/26/2016 Jason Treffiletti Cohoes/Latham border
30 A to F 2016.10.26 John Szemansco.pdf 10/26/2016 The Oakcliff Bed and Breakfast John Szemansco Halfmoon, NY 12065
31 A to C 2016.10.26 Lisa Easterly‐Klaas.pdf 10/26/2016 Lisa Easterly‐Klaas 19 New Holland Drive Cohoes, NY 12047
32 A 2016.10.26 Rick Feiden.pdf 10/26/2016 Rick Feiden
33 A to E 2016.10.26 Thomas Green.pdf 10/26/2016 Thomas Green
34 A to E 2016.10.26 Tim Donnelly.pdf 10/26/2016 Tim Donnelly Cohoes, NY 12047
35 A to D 2016.10.26 Tony and Michelle Noto.pdf 10/26/2016 Tony & Michelle Noto 56 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
36 A to G 2016.10.27 Aaron Heyman.pdf 10/27/2016 Aaron Heyman 43 Towpath Lane Waterford, NY 12188
37 A to F 2016.10.27 Jenne Patricia.pdf 10/27/2016 Patricia Jenne Waterford, NY 12188
38 A 2016.10.28 Anne Miller.pdf 10/28/2016 Anne Miller
39 A to D 2016.10.28 Betty Hartley 2nd email.pdf 10/28/2016 Betty Hartley 48 Church Hill Road Halfmoon, NY 12065
40 A 2016.10.28 Betty Hartley.pdf 10/28/2016 Betty Hartley 48 Church Hill Road Halfmoon, NY 12065
41 A 2016.10.28 Don Porter.pdf 10/28/2016 Don Porter 18 Ashford Lane Schenectady, NY 12309
42 A to D 2016.10.28 Donna Ellrott.pdf 10/28/2016 Donna Ellrott 96A Fonda Road Cohoes, NY 12047
43 A to B 2016.10.28 Linda Milligan.pdf 10/28/2016 Linda & John Milligan off Middletown Rd. Waterford, NY 12188
44 A to C 2016.10.28 Lisa Campo.pdf 10/28/2016 Lisa Campo 33 Commons Blvd. Halfmoon, NY 12065
45 A 2016.10.28 Lois Porter.pdf 10/28/2016 Lois Porter 18 Ashford Lane Schenectady, NY 12309
46 A to E 2016.10.28 Pat Quinn‐Pickett.pdf 10/28/2016 Pat Quinn‐Pickett 46 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
47 A to C 2016.10.28 Terry Morgante.pdf 10/28/2016 Theresa Peace 31 Captains Blvd. Waterford, NY 12188
48 A to F 2016.10.29 Carol Sheffer.pdf 10/29/2016 Carol Sheffer 60 Mallards Landing Waterford, NY 12188
49 A 2016.10.29 Daria Wolf.pdf 10/29/2016 Daria Wolf 24 Heritage Court Cohoes, NY
50 A to C 2016.10.29 Don Allard.pdf 10/29/2016 Don Allard
51 A 2016.10.29 Frank Murray 2nd email.pdf 10/29/2016 Francis Murray Town of Colonie
52 A 2016.10.29 Frank Murray.pdf 10/31/2016 Francis Murray Town of Colonie
53 A 2016.10.29 Gail Monast.pdf 10/29/2016 Gail Monast
54 A 2016.10.29 George Wolf.pdf 10/29/2016 George Wolf 29 Heritage Court Town of Colonie
55 A 2016.10.29 Joe Edmund.pdf 10/29/2016 Joe Edmund Cohoes, NY
Page 1 of 3
Colonie, New York

56 A 2016.10.29 Laurie Morse.pdf 10/30/2016 Laurie Morse 1547 Route 9 Clifton Park, NY 12065
57 A to D 2016.10.30 Dawn Harrington ‐ Dominic Montello.pdf 10/30/2016 Dawn (Dominic) Harrington (Montello) 17 Gadwall Drive Waterford, NY 12188
58 A to J 2016.10.30 Doris and Warren Stout.pdf 10/30/2016 Doris & Warren Stout 32 Oregon Trail Waterford, NY 12188
59 A to C 2016.10.30 John Kenney.pdf 10/30/2016 John Kenney Halfmoon, NY 12065
60 A 2016.10.30 Louise Golub.pdf 10/30/2016 League of Women Voters of Saratoga County Louise Golub
61 A to E 2016.10.30 Nancy Mallory.pdf 10/30/2016 Nancy Mallory 70 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
62 A to B 2016.10.30 Stephen Shafer.pdf 10/30/2016 Stephen Shafer 8 Mynderse St. Saugerties, NY 12477
63 A to B 2016.10.30 Tina Lieberman.pdf 10/30/2016 Sierra Club Hudson‐Mohawk Group / People's Climate Movement Tina Lieberman 30 Aspen Circle Albany, NY 12208
64 A to B 2016.10.31 Aimee McKane.pdf 10/31/2016 Aimee McKane 10 Homestead Drive Latham, NY 12110
65 A to B 2016.10.31 Anne Sage.pdf 10/31/2016 Anne Sage 4 Abedar Lane Latham, NY 12110
66 A 2016.10.31 Bernard Desroches.pdf 10/31/2016 Bernard Desroches
67 A to C 2016.10.31 Daniel Sheffer.pdf 10/31/2016 Northside Fire District Daniel Sheffer 85 Saratoga Ave. Waterford, NY 12188
68 A 2016.10.31 David Galdun.pdf 10/31/2016 Dave Galdun Colonie, NY
69 A 2016.10.31 Deborah Hartman‐Symanski.pdf 10/31/2016 RealtyUSA Deborah Hartman‐Symanski
70 A 2016.10.31 Diane Baker.pdf 10/31/2016 Diane Baker
71 A 2016.10.31 Donald Baker.pdf 10/31/2016 Donald Baker 133 Fonda Rd. Waterford, NY 12188
72 A to E 2016.10.31 Donald Howe.pdf 10/31/2016 Donald Howe 50 Wolf Rd, 3rd Floor Albany, NY 12205
73 A to C 2016.10.31 Dorrae & Frank Ferris.pdf 10/28/2016 Dorrae & Frank Ferris 34 Heritage Court Cohoes, NY 12047
74 A 2016.10.31 Edith Tull.pdf 10/31/2016 Edith Tull
75 A 2016.10.31 Frank Francis Murray.pdf 10/31/2016 Francis Murray Town of Colonie
76 A to K 2016.10.31 Frank Hartley.pdf 10/31/2016 Citizens Concerned About Landfill Expansion Frank Hartley 48 Church Hill Road Waterford, NY 12188
77 A 2016.10.31 Gail Monast.pdf 10/31/2016 RealtyUSA Gail Monast
78 A to I 2016.10.31 George Bigaouette.pdf 10/31/2016 George Bigaouette 7 Widgeon Way Waterford, NY 12188
79 A to D 2016.10.31 James Paglia.pdf 10/25/2016 James Paglia 10 Steamboat Landing Waterford, NY 12188
80 A `````` 10/31/2016 Jeffrey Wilson
81 A 2016.10.31 jhdrake40.pdf 10/31/2016 J Drake
82 A to B 2016.10.31 Joe Hetko.pdf 10/31/2016 Joe Hetko 14 Lawrence St. Boght Corners, NY 12047
83 A 2016.10.31 John Lawler.pdf 10/31/2016 John Lawler
84 A to D 2016.10.31 Marcia Fazio.pdf 10/31/2016 Marcia Fazio 12 Widgeon Way Waterford, NY 12188
85 A 2016.10.31 Marie Johnson.pdf 10/31/2016 Marie Johnson
86 A 2016.10.31 Mark Quandt.pdf 10/31/2016 Regional Food Bank of Northeastern NY Mark Quandt 965 Albany‐Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110
87 A to E 2016.10.31 Patricia Quinn‐Pickett.pdf 10/28/2016 Patricia Quinn‐Pickett 46 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
88 A to C 2016.10.31 Patrick Quinn.pdf 10/31/2016 Patrick Quinn Thistledown Ct. Loudonville, NY 12211
89 A to B 2016.10.31 Paula Weiss.pdf 10/31/2016 Paula Weiss 14 Lawrence St. Boght Corners, NY 12047
90 A to C 2016.10.31 Phil Silverman.pdf 10/31/2016 Phil Silverman Halfmoon, NY 12065
91 A to B 2016.10.31 Robert Schlieman.pdf 10/31/2016 Robert Schlieman 4 Tamarack Lane Schenectady, NY 12309
92 A to D 2016.10.31 Ronnie Senez.pdf 10/31/2016 Ronnie Senez 11 Gadwall Drive Waterford, NY 12188
93 A 2016.10.31 Roseanne Van Heertum.pdf 10/31/2016 Rosanne VanHeertum Latham, NY
94 A to C 2016.10.31 Steven Bower.pdf 10/26/2016 Steven Bower 22 Gadwall Dr. Waterford, NY 12188
95 A 2016.10.31 Susan Weber.pdf 10/31/2016 Susan Weber 14 Pepper Lane Loudonville, NY 12211
96 A 2016.10.31 Susanna Crump.pdf 10/31/2016 Susanna Crump 1104 Loudon Rd. Boght Corners, NY 12047
97 A 2016.10.31 Tamara Baker.pdf 10/31/2001 Tamara Baker
98 A‐J 2016.10.31 Terry Little.pdf 10/31/2016 RealtyUSA Terry Little 23 Gadwall Drive Waterford, NY 12188
99 A to B 2016.11.01 Anthony and Mary Benjamin.pdf 11/1/2016 Dr. & Mrs. Anthony Benjamin, M.D. 47 Dutch Meadows Drive Cohoes, NY 12047
100 A 2016.11.01 Brad Anthony.pdf 11/1/2016 Brad Anthony
101 A 2016.11.01 Carl Murray.pdf 11/1/2016 Carl Murray
102 A to B 2016.11.01 Cathy Knightes.pdf 11/1/2016 Cathy Knightes Guilderland, NY
103 A to C 2016.11.01 Charles and Marcia Kees.pdf 11/1/2016 Charles and Marcia Kees 34 Plank Road Halfmoon, NY 12065
104 A 2016.11.01 Crystal Bruno.pdf 11/1/2016 Crystal Bruno 47 Forts Ferry Road Latham, NY 12110
105 A to C 2016.11.01 Cynthia DeViddio.pdf 11/1/2016 Cynthia DeViddio 64 Mallards Landing So. Waterford, NY 12188
106 A 2016.11.01 Dan and Linda Knightes.pdf 11/1/2016 Dan & Linda Knightes Rotterdam, NY
107 A to H 2016.11.01 David Engel.pdf 11/1/2016 Town of Halfmoon, Nolan & Heller, LLP Dave Engel 39 N. Pearl St. Albany, NY 12207
108 A to C 2016.11.01 Erin Doran ‐ John Parker ‐ Riverkeeper.pdf 11/1/2016 Riverkeeper, Inc. Erin Doran E‐House, 78 North Broadway White Plains, NY 10603
109 A to AL 2016.11.01 George Harris.pdf 11/1/2016 Church Hill Historic District George Harris 66 Church Hill Road Waterford, NY 12188
110 A to C 2016.11.01 Harry Kornblau.pdf 11/1/2016 Harry Kornblau 34 Campus View Drive Loudonville, NY 12211
Page 2 of 3
Colonie, New York

111 A 2016.11.01 James Bold.pdf 11/1/2016 Jim Bold
112 A to F 2016.11.01 Janet Levine.pdf 11/1/2016 Janet Levine 58 Mallards Landing So. Waterford, NY 12188
113 A 2016.11.01 Joanne Mack.pdf 11/1/2016 Joanne Mack
114 A 2016.11.01 Joshua Mack.pdf 11/1/2016 Joshua Mack
115 A to B 2016.11.01 Karin White.pdf 11/1/2016 Form letter ‐ Residents of Brookfield Place in Halfmoon, NY Karin White 14 Chester Dr. Waterford, NY 12188
116 A 2016.11.01 Kevin Tollisen 2nd email.pdf 11/1/2016 Kevin Tollisen
117 A 2016.11.01 Kevin Tollisen.pdf 11/1/2016 Kevin Tollisen
118 A to C 2016.11.01 Lisa Barron.pdf 11/1/2016 Elizabeth Barron 1 North Lane Loudonville, NY 12211
119 A‐C 2016.11.01 Maribeth Dooley.pdf 11/1/2016 Maribeth Dooley
120 A to G 2016.11.01 Mark Schachner.pdf 11/1/2016 Special Counsel for the Town of Waterford Mark Schachner
120.1 A to AD Attached letter 10/31/2016 Gifford Engineering Gregory Gifford
120.2 A to Y Attached letter 10/31/2016 LADA, P.C. Terri‐Ann Hahn
120.3 A to H Attached letter 10/28/2016 HMMH Christopher Bajdek
120.4 A to Q Attached letter 10/31/2016 Epsilon Associates, Inc. Dorothy Buckoski
120.5 A to BU Attached letter 11/1/2016 Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. Mark Millspaugh
121 A 2016.11.01 Martine Male 2nd email.pdf 11/1/2016 Martine Male
122 A 2016.11.01 Martine Male.pdf 11/1/2016 Martine Male
123 A to C 2016.11.01 Megan Murad.pdf 11/1/2016 Megan Murad 43 Towpath Ln Waterford, NY 12188
124 A to E 2016.11.01 Patricia Jenne.pdf 10/27/2016 Patricia Jenne 68 Mallards Lndg S Waterford, NY 12188
125 A 2016.11.01 Raya Ioffe.pdf 11/1/2016 Raya Ioffe Latham, NY 12110
126 A 2016.11.01 Ronald Moraski Jr.pdf 11/1/2016 Ron Moraski 36 Towpath Ln Waterford, NY 12188
127 A 2016.11.01 Sheila Kiehle.pdf 11/1/2016 Sheila Kiehle
128 A 2016.11.01 Steve Ellrott.pdf 11/1/2016 Steve Ellrott Fonda Road Colonie, NY
129 A to C 2016.11.01 Susan Laurilliard.pdf 11/1/2016 Susan Laurilliard
130 A to B 2016.11.01 Suzanne Maloney.pdf 11/1/2016 Suzanne Maloney 17 Campus View Dr Loudonville, NY 12211
131 A 2016.11.01 Sylvia Barnard.pdf 11/1/2016 Sylvia Barnard
132 A to B 2016.11.01 Thomas Pickett.pdf 11/1/2016 Tom Pickett 46 Mallards Landing South Waterford, NY 12188
133 A 2016.11.01 Tim Truscott.pdf 11/1/2016 Tim Truscott
134 A to C 2016.11.01 Timothy Nichols.pdf 11/1/2016 Tim Nichols 6 Crystal Lane Latham, NY 12110
135 A to C 2016.11.01 William Lockhart.pdf 11/1/2016 William Lockhart 6 Mallards Lndg S Waterford, NY 12188
136 A to D 2016.11.02 Dorothy J Lavigne.pdf 11/1/2016 Dorothy Lavigne 46 Church Hill Rd Waterford, NY 12188
137 A to D 2016.11.02 Francis Galarneau.pdf 10/29/2016 Francis Galarneau Waterford, NY 12188
138 A 2016.11.02 Magicviewr.pdf 11/2/2016 Magicviewr@aol.com
139 A 2016.11.02. Warren and Annette Hopson.pdf 11/2/2016 Warren & Annette Hopson 13 Harrowgate Way Latham, NY 12110
140 A to E 2016.10.28 Kevin and Jennifer Halek.pdf 10/28/2016 Kevin Halek 4 Heritage Ct Cohoes, NY 12047
141 A to B 2016.Kevin Bronner presentation.pdf 9/20/2016 Kevin Bronner 4 Georgian Terrace Loudonville, NY 12211
142 A to W Public Hearing 092016 transcript 9/20/2016
143 A to BA Public Hearing 102516 transcript 10/25/2016
144 A Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 06/082017 Bruce Willard
145 A to B Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 6/20/2017 Philip Lacombe
146 A Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 6/23/2017 Special Counsel for the Town of Waterford Mark Schachner
147 A to B Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 6/27/2017 Tom Ellis 43 North Pine Avenue Albany NY 12203
148 A to E Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 6/30/2017 Town of Halfmoon, Nolan & Heller, LLP Dave Engel 39 N. Pearl St. Albany, NY 12207
149 A to V Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 7/3/2017 Church Hill Historic District George Harris 66 Church Hill Road Waterford, NY 12188
150 A Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 7/3/2017 Special Counsel for the Town of Waterford Mark Schachner
151 A Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 7/3/2017 Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. Mark Millspaugh
152 A to Q Attachment B ‐ Supplemental Document Comments 6/29/2017 Gifford Engineering Gregory Gifford
Page 3 of 3
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES
Aging
STATE OF NEW YORK Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Cities
ALBANY Insurance
Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities
JOHN T. MCDONALD III Real Property Taxation
th
Assemblymember 108 District
September 19, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio
Region 4 Office -Division of Environmental Permits
NYS DEC
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I am writing in regard to the proposal to expand the Colonie Land Fill, Area 7 Development, of which there is a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 20th at Shaker High School. This references the notice published by the NYSDEC on
August 24, 2016.
As is often the case with projects such as this, there are concerns that members of the community have brought to light at
this early stage of the project and I felt it important to bring to the NYSDEC the following concerns that have been recently
expressed:
• Size of the expansion - there is great concern about the height increase proposed (116 ft. from current plateau) as
well as the height that will increase off a 30 degree slope from the new max. There is concern of the visual impact which
may require additional sharing of information and even visuals to address resident’s concerns.
• Hazardous Waste History – my understanding is that at one time this was a former Hazardous Waste site, albeit it a
minor component. I am concerned firstly to see if this in true and what is being taken into account to ensure that there is no
disturbance of this site which is long established
• Landfill Liner – my understanding is that this long established landfill does not have a modern day designed liner at
its base. As we know today versus generations ago there is a strong history of landfills in general having leakage as it relates
to groundwater. What calculations are being taken into consideration and what will the impacts be to the aquatic life as well
as the downstream communities, including the City of Cohoes where the public water system intake is in place? Secondary
to that point is what measures are being taken to help communities like Cohoes to better monitor any potential impacts from
the proposed effort? I mention this only in the wake of recent contamination efforts in other counties I represent such as
Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh which have struggled with increased levels of PFOA of which the source is not completely
known.
• Traffic Access – What is the proposed access to the new landfill and has there been a review of the impact of the
communities that will be impacted or any offsets to address any concerns? My understanding is that the access is proposed
to be off of Fonda Road in Colonie and this therefore will lead to increased access along Route 9 in Colonie and up North
Mohawk Street in Cohoes. I am concerned about the impacts to those routes and hope that this is taken into consideration as
this project is reviewed.
• Mitigation during construction – The project is proposed to be an expansion into 2040. This is therefore a 20-22
construction period. During this time there is bound to be concerns with odor of which I am curious to the measures being
taken to avoid at all costs the impact to the surrounding communities.
Room 417, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • 518-455-4474, FAX: 518-455-4727
EMAIL: mcdonaldj@assembly.state.ny.us
www.assembly.state.ny.us
These are some of the earliest concerns I have heard from residents. I am well aware that more information will be
forthcoming and I look forward to that sharing of critical information. It is my hope that those thoughts reflected above will
be included in the dialogue.
I appreciate the extension of the public comment period until November 1st which I requested recently. Due to the large
volume of documents it is only right to extend the public appropriate time to review. To that point I am asking that a second
public hearing also be scheduled as well to allow for the public to have additional opportunities to review the proposed plan.
It is clear we require a proper way to dispose of waste and as a former Mayor I am concerned about the costs associated with
that disposal. At the same time, I am very familiar with the history of the landfill both in good times and bad. It is my hope
that having a full conversation about the facts of this proposal will lead to better education and understanding of the project.
Sincerely,
Member of Assembly
John T. McDonald III
ECC: Jack Lawler, Supervisor Town of Waterford

Shawn Morse, Mayor City of Cohoes
Room 417, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • 518-455-4474, FAX: 518-455-4727
EMAIL: mcdonaldj@assembly.state.ny.us
www.assembly.state.ny.us
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)
From: Michelle Parvana <rocrmom67@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:39 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or
unexpected emails.
My husband and I just purchased a home in Halfmoon. I am totally opposed to the landfill
expansion. I can only imagine the damage thats already been done with seepage into the Mohawk
River. What is the reason for the expansion? There are more people and communities recycling.
There has to be another viable option.
Thank you for your time Michelle Parvana
1
From: Susan Miron <SMiron@cdbegin.com>

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:35 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Fw:
unexpected emails.

From: Susan Miron
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Susan Miron
Subject:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to request the landfill be shutdown as originally planned.

My husband and I built a home in Waterford on Riverbend Island with the understanding that the landfill
would be complete within a few years and our neighborhood would not be affected by sight or smell from the
area.

We have encouraged others to invest in our neighborhood only to be disappointed by the ever growing
mountain across the river from us as well as the uncontrolled odors that we have to deal with on an occasional
basis.

Enough is enough! We want this to end and honor the promise of a landfill that would not exceed the
landscape and certainly not continue to present with foul odors that sometimes force us to go inside instead
of enjoying our beautiful view of the river and our neighbors.

Yours Truly,

Sue Miron
74 Mallards Landing South
Waterford, NY 12188

1
From: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)
Subject: FW: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Objections - October 21, 2016
Attachments: Landfill Expension Objections October 2016.docx
From: sleden@aol.com [mailto:sleden@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 12:09 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4 <R4DEP@dec.ny.gov>
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Objections ‐ October 21, 2016

unexpected emails.

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

I have attached a letter for your review regarding our comments, questions and objections to the Town of Colonie
Landfill Expansion. Please acknowledge receipt of the attached letter.

Sincerely,

Stephen Ellrott
Donna Ellrott
96A Fonda Rd.
Cohoes, NY 12047
Email: sleden@aol.com
Phone: 518 235‐8479

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1
Stephen and Donna Ellrott
96A Fonda Rd
Cohoes NY 12047
Phone (518) 235-8479
Email – sleden@aol.com
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC Region 4 Office
Schenectady NY 12306
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Objections – October 21, 2016
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I, Stephen Ellrott, have been a resident in the Town of Colonie for over 60 years. My wife and I have resided at our
current address listed above, for over 40 years. Our address is in very close proximity to the Colonie Landfill. We are
providing comments, questions and observations on the Landfill expansion in a visual bulleted list.
• Visual Impact – Was the visual view from Fonda Road considered?
• Sound Impact – Every morning, come 6:00 a.m., we can hear trucks and equipment rumbling at the Landfill. I am
assuming that this may be the time the employees start moving around the garbage and dirt. We can hear the
noise inside of our home. After 40 plus years, we are tired of it.
• In the 2011 contract with Waste Connection there was information included that mentioned the site becoming a
transfer station. If that option was available then, why isn’t it available now?
• Was there a recent traffic study done? The last one that I noted, was done in June of 2012. We are opposed to
changing of the Landfill entrance to a residential road.
• I have observed multiple MBI trucks on the thruway south of here, as far south as Kingston, and on the
Northway north of here, as far north as Scroon Lake, all heading straight to the Landfill. How can 92% of the
trash be coming from local counties? How is the source of trash going to the Landfill determined or monitored?
• On Labor Day of this year, I was going past the Landfill in the morning and saw an MBI truck entering the
Landfill, even though it was closed for the holiday.
• Many times I have observed MBI trucks going into the MBI location on Arrowhead Drive, which is connected to
the Landfill, when the Landfill is closed. How do we know that they are not going into the Landfill from their site.
• How do we know hazardous waste is not being dumped in the Landfill? Are all of the loads inspected each time?
• There are large open gravel pits on Pollock Road in the Town of Colonie, not too far from the current Landfill.
Why couldn’t they be considered as an alternative site for the Landfill?
• Odor impact - We live on Fonda Road, south of the Landfill. On the mornings of October 5, 6 and 7, 2016, we
had fog on each of these three days and on each of these days, there was a strong methane smell in our yard.
Also, on October 9, around mid-morning, there was an actual garbage smell in our yard. I did not report these
incidents to the Landfill because I wanted to notify your office directly, in order for you to review their
assessment of the air monitors on these days to see if they identified these occurrences. Were they
documented?
• Have Engineers and hydrogeologists reviewed the slope stability of the proposed expansion and the impact on
our water and air regarding this new proposal? If so, by whom and when? We are very opposed and
uncomfortable about both of these issues. Also, landfills are the biggest contributors to global warming. In
reviewing information on these topics, I came across the following informative websites:
o www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/slopestability.htm
www.epa.gov - Overview of Greenhouse Gases/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/US EPA – US

Environmental Protection Agency
www.beyondlandfilling.org – this site states:

“In brief – Landfills bear a major responsibility for climate change because –
*Methane, which is generated in landfills in massive quantities, is a greenhouse gas on

steroids, and that means even small leaks are consequential
*Landfills’ gas collection systems are inherently dysfunctional, only working during the limited
time when the site is sealed but, when little gas is generated.
Together, landfills constitute the 4th largest source of man-made greenhouse gases,
But, diverting our food scraps and yard trimmings from landfills will prevent methane generation from
our discards at the source. More than 100 cities are doing this and you can help by encouraging your
city to join the growing movement.”
Why are we not moving forward to prevent global warming? What is the Town of Colonie doing to address this very
important issue?
Sincerely,
Stephen and Donna Ellrott

From: mary bolognino <mary.bolognino@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 10:27 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie's application to expand landfill
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr Marcuccio,
I'm a home owner that built a home on the Mohawk River in Halfmoon Saratoga and am thankful
that someone left a notice in my mailbox yesterday regarding this evenings meeting which gave
me the opportunity to learn more about this huge expansion that will clearly effect the quality
of my family's life and home value.
Before building my home , 6 years ago, I was told by the town of Colonie that the landfill would
be closed in 2018. Had I known that there were plans to exceed beyond 2018, I would never
have even considered building anywhere near the Colonie landfill.
Please take a closer look at this proposal as there are many reasons to pause here and consider
the impact of 20 more years in an area that never would have been approved of today knowing
what we now know and understand regarding the hazards presented in doubling the amount of
garbage at the same site.
NY state is pouring money into preserving our historic canal system and this landfill expansion
poses health and environmental risks for generations to come.
After tonight's meeting it is so obvious that there has not been enough research and any reason
, other than financial gain. I was shocked to learn that other options for a different location
were never pursued by the town of Colonie.
Please help us !
Sincerely,
Mary Bolognino
--
Mary Bolognino
Associate Broker
Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate/Tech Valley
(O) 518-435-9944
(C) 518-423-8944
1
VISIT MY WEBSITE
2
From: Thomas Romano <tromano4@nycap.rr.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 4:34 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Area 7 Landfill Expansion
Attachments: 2016 TOC DEC Landfill X.docx
unexpected emails.
Att: Angelo Marcuccio

Attached are my comments regarding the Town of Colonie’s request to expand the town’s landfill once again.
I hope you will give consideration to alternatives that are available in lieu of expanding by 132 acres the towns
landfill.
As a 43 + year Colonie resident I am very concerned by the rapid filling of our town landfill by Capitol Regions
Inc. a subsidiary of Waste Connections.
I urge NYDEC to reject the town’s request to permit this 132 acre (Area 7) expansion.
Thank you.

Thomas A. Romano
979 Kings Rd.
(518) 370‐4517
1
Thomas A. Romano
979 Kings Rd.
Colonie, NY 12303
Home: 518-370-4517
Cell: 518-242-6272
October 25, 2016
To NYSDEC,
As a Town of Colonie resident I am submitting the following comments to you regarding the Town of
Colonie’s application to expand their landfill by an additional 132 acres (Area 7).
Capitol Regions Inc.; a subsidiary of Waste Connections, operates the Colonie landfill under a lease
agreement with the Town of Colonie.
It is my opinion that the operation of the landfill should address conserving existing landfill space vs
expanding the landfill acreage.
Since the implementation of single stream recycling the tonnage being brought into the landfill should
be going down and not up. Apparently, additional tonnage must be coming from sources outside of the
Town of Colonie. It would then seem to me that Colonie’s landfill is now being used as a regional landfill.
I don’t believe DEC has given approval for that nor should it.
According to Colonie’s web site a committee known as SWAP (Solid Waste Alternative Planning) exists
and has studied ways of extending the life of the landfill without expanding it.
Various technologies were presented by companies that specialize in landfill technology.
Some of these technologies involve environmentally clean methods of treating MSW to produce
ethanol. Proven technologies are available that involve biological, thermal, chemical and mechanical
processes to treat MSW.
The existing gas collection system at the landfill could be expanded and the installation of cogeneration
units that run off of the diesel exhaust stacks could provide additional electric power.
In conclusion I urge you to reject the Town of Colonie’s application to expand the landfill once again and
perhaps recommend they convene their SWAP Committee and restudy the landfill alternatives to
expanding the landfill.
The Town of Colonie is treating the landfill as a cash cow and is not exhibiting sensitivity to
environmental concerns to reduce MSW being brought into the landfill thereby extending the life of the
existing landfill.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important environmental issue within the Town
of Colonie.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Romano Sr.
From: brbr0073@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:14 AM
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov.
unexpected emails.
against Landfill SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE PEOPLE
1
From: Brian Garland <bg@nycap.rr.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:37 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Mr. Marcuccio,

I am writing in regards to the potential expansion and continued operation of the Colonie Landfill. As a Colonie resident
living on Heritage ct. my family's home is just a few miles from the landfill. I have always had a level of concern regarding
the landfill due to potential poor air quality, contaminated ground water and high levels of traffic of large vehicles. My
concerns were in check as I was confident the landfill would be closing in 2018. The expansion of the landfill is only going
to increase the levels of air quality in this residential community. Even a few miles away my family and I can smell the
dump and this will continue to get worse potentially increasing health effects to my children and certainly decreasing my
homes value. I and my neighbors greatly oppose this expansion and I hope you take this into consideration when
reviewing the expansion project.

Brian Garland
518‐469‐1145
1
From: Cole Zapp <colezapp@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Mr Marcuccio,
I was very fortunate to have a neighbor put a flyer in my mailbox, informing me of last nights meeting regarding the absurd thought of
extending the closing date of the landfill...for 20 years. This is the only way I could have known, other than that, there was a brief
mention in the Times Union, and the highly read DEC Bulletin. ..(handled pretty much like Cuomo's safe act bill as far as I'm
concerned). At first I thought "how can they even be considering extending the closing date of the landfill" , when the "obvious" quickly
caught up with me . With the Mohawk River so close to it, the City of Cohoes' drinking water source as close, I don't know how the hell
that sight was ever approved in the first place, which as impossible as it sounds, is over shadowed by the complete mismanagement of
it over the past few years alone. The Texas based company which manages it, the town board, and our great town supervisors conduct,
should have, at it's least ,either forced the DEC to shut it down, taken steps to reassign control over it, and surely should have removed
any consideration for an extension based on it. The town only received a half million dollar fine, (a drop in the bucket for what they've
taken in, paid for by the Texas based company) for allowing more than twice its recommended weight of trash, it's top layer covering
issue- composed of petroleum laced material, metal auto shavings, etc. The town buys it's way out of debt by selling to this waste
company, and "selling out" of it's residents, while our town supervisor and board, line their pockets...large cash donation from the
waste company that runs the landfill for our town supervisor...naturally all "above board" at a fundraiser...plus whatever backroom -off
the books kick backs we'll never really know about...but just the standard quo for New York politics. This is both an environmental
nightmare for the the entire surrounding area, and a blatant display of government misconduct. You can bet I'll have plenty to say and
write about it... " Put an End to it".
Thank you for your time,
Cole R. Zapp
Colonie resident.
1
From: David Buckley <dbuckley4@icloud.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Expansion of Colonie Landfill
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Good evening,
I moved to Halfmoon four years ago after a decade of living in several regions of the United States
as well as international locations. I immediately felt confident in the purchase of our home. My wife
and I were humbled by the opportunity to raise our children in a beautiful development. We looked
forward to years of entertaining our friends and family with poolside backyard barbecues.
Unfortunately, these ideas were corrected by the reality of an oppressive stench that forced many of
my guests to scamper into our house during our initial family barbecue. I'm sure you can imagine the
embarrassment and rage that I felt. And I live about 3 miles from the dump. I attend church at St.
Mary's, Crescent, so I can say with confidence that the stench intensifies as you approach the
Mohawk. I remember asking my neighbors where the stench originated and they pursed their lips and
informed me of the Colonie dump. I thought, "Colonie? How the hell can we smell something that
intense...and it's not even in our county?"
I don't understand how a landfill of its size can be situated so closely to residential communities in
Saratoga County. Did Colonie officials not consider how this facility would negatively affect
homeowners in Halfmoon? And now Colonie officials are considering increasing its size. Shameful.
Any grown adult can recognize that there is no valid reason to increase its size other than a revenue
increase for Colonie. Saratoga County residents bear the brunt of this ridiculous stench and we
receive absolutely no financial benefit. We can't vote Colonie leaders out of office. We can only hope
that DEC leaders will examine the landfill, recognize our hardship and exercise common sense as a
result. This expansion should not be granted.
Thank you,
Dave Buckley
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Jim Murdico <jmurdico@randq.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: RE: Colonie Landfill Permit Application
To: NYS DEC - Region 4 Office

Attn: Angelo Marcuccio, Division of Environmental Permits
From: James Murdico & Joanne Tedesco

Waterford, NY 12078
Jim@murdico.com / 518-326-0239
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
After attending last nights public hearing at Shaker High School I am compelled to add my voice in
opposition to the expansion of the Colonie landfill.
While contracting to build our home on the banks of the Mohawk River in Waterford, NY, I was
concerned with the look and smell emulating of the landfill across the River. I was told at the time
that the plan was to cap the landfill in 2012. I believe this was extended to the current deadline in
2018. This is our dream home, and looked forward to the end of sight, smell and water pollution, now
we are looking at another 20 years, and an additional 100 feet.
I listened in amazement to the speakers talk about the health hazards associated with the gases the
have no smell, and think about my children and grandchildren that have Asthma.
As I look across the River this morning, I can't help by dread the awful view and additional health
hazards that we will subjected to, if this permit is approved. What a view that the visitors going west
on the Erie Canal will be welcomed to as they enter the River. Welcome to New York State, a state
that puts a DUMP on the banks of a pristine and historic river. What a shame!
One last thing, what I am really afraid of is this is just a ploy to negotiate a smaller expansion by
asking for one that is so enormous. Please deny this application in its entirety.
Sincerely,
James Murdico
Joanne Tedesco
1
Sent from my iPad
2
From: Jamie Knightes <jamieknightes@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
October 26th, 2016
Dear. Ms. Marcuccio:
My name is Jamie Sullivan and I am a resident of Waterford, NY. I am writing to you to express my opposition
to the expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
I went to the meeting on Tuesday and I heard both points of view. I understand people who do not live and see
the landfill daily are not impacted by this on a daily basis. Everyday when I look out the window I see the
landfill getting higher and higher, above the tree line. When family come to visit me at first they think they are
view a mountain and realize it is a mountain of garbage.
I have called on multiple occasions about the smell from the landfill. The impact on the environment both the
water and air quality is devastating and will impact not only our generation but future generations.
Alternatives for the placement of the Town of Colonie garbage should be explored as this would also impact
wetlands. The landfill in Saratoga is an option.
I would like to request an adjudicatory hearing to review the application as it seems like money is the main
factor for the Twon of Colonie asking for this expansion.
Sincerely,
Jamie Sullivan
Gadwall Drive
Waterford, NY 12188
1
From: Christina Jason Treffiletti <cjtreffiletti@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: CLOSE THE LANDFILL
unexpected emails.
As a resident on the Cohoes/Latham border and in close proximity to the landfill, i am %100 against the
proposed action to use the landfill for an additional 20 years. It should be closed in 2018 as planned

thank you
Jason Treffiletti
1
From: Gmail <jszemansco@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill expansion
My name is John Szemansco and I operate The Oakcliff bed-and-breakfast in Halfmoon.
I have tolerated this landfill for too many years. The stench at times has been excessive and has
been virtually ignored by the operators of the landfill. It seems to me from the documents that I have
seen and read that the protocol and recommendations by different departments overseeing this
landfill have been ignored. Water tests have also been ignored by the landfill.
The visual impact from the Town of Halfmoon is going to be incredible. A 10 story elevation of
garbage in the landfill and that's not visual impact? The leaching of the trash into the Mohawk River
now being ignored in this day and age is beyond my belief. Why are these reports being ignored? It is
obvious that this is all about the money and not about the environment, not about the visual impact
and not about what the people want. Concerns buried in the numerous reports and recommendations
by different departments including the DEC are being swept under the table. The impact of this landfill
expansion will effect property values, historic areas along the Mohawk River, water quality, Visual
impact. The smell is going to be great and devastating. I am confident on that because their past
actions regarding this matter predict their future actions if and when they were approved. If this
project moves forward I will not only have to close my business but my property value will decrease
significantly since I will be in direct view of this massive expansion. Let's take money out of this and
start using some common sense and triangulate the data that has been presented through numerous
reports over the years. All has been ignored in the process. I find it very strange that other options
have not been explored and that the Town of Colonie is banking on ramming this through the system
without consideration for neighbors health and the environment. I can assure you if this landfill is
allowed to expand, future consequences will raise their ugly heads regarding the issues I have made
including the Mohawk River pollution and air-quality. These problems could have a larger cost then
the millions of dollars that the town is banking on.
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: lisa lisa <easterlylisa@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lisa lisa
Subject: Proposed Expansion of Town of Colonie Landfill
Dear Angelo Marcuccio:
I am writing against the expansion of the Town of Colonie landfill permits 4-0126-00033/00001, 4-
0126-00033-00009, 4-0126-00033-00019.
I am a resident of the Town of Colonie living near the Colonie Landfill. I do not support the expansion
of the landfill into existing wetlands. Too much of the wetlands in Colonie have been destroyed by
housing development in the North Colonie Boght Road area and along Route 9. This has forced wild
life into decreasing habitat. The deer, coyotes, fox, nesting birds, and other spiecies have to compete
for the few remaining areas to live and eat. This has forces the wildlife closer to residents.
Subsequently the wildlife has damaged/destroyed residents pets and property. Several small cats
living near the remaining wood lands have disappeared-most likely hunted by coyote or fox. Many
properties have had their landscaping eaten because there isn't sufficient habitat to feed the
population. The closer proximity of the wildlife to residents increases the risk of transmission of
diseases (such as rabies or tick borne Lyme disease) from wildlife to people and pets.
Further, I do not support expanding the landfill because it is unknown how the landfill will impact the
Mohawk River near by. There has been a tremendous amount of new construction in the region
where the landfill sits and in adjacent areas. The Mohawk is typically prone to flooding. With all the
new development there will be additional runoff water drainage into the Mohawk. Flooding could
reach the landfill causing waste to seep into the river. The "one hundred years flood" standards do
not apply in this area. The tremendous amount of development has drastically reduced the amount of
woodlands, wetlands and green space. Those areas used to absorb heavy rains. The removal of
these natural flood barriers has increased the risk for flooding to an unknown level. The new
development has replaced woodlands, wetlands and green space with roofs, driveways, parking lots,
and roads- none of which absorbs water. Thus the new developments have increased the risk of
flooding of the Mohawk River by an unknown amount. Therefore there is no reliable way to predict
how the expanded landfill will impact the Mohawk River during heavy rain.
Please present these comments at the upcoming public meeting.

I can be reached at:
Lisa Easterly-Klaas
19 New Holland Drive
Cohoes NY 12047
(518)783-1325
Thank you,
1
Lisa Easterly-Klaas
2
From: Rick Feiden <rickfeiden@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Angelo Marcuccio dec
I'm writing in regards to the proposed expansion of the Colonie Landfill. The
environmental impact in that area is obvious. More studies are just a waste of time and money. This
is a case of political influence for financial gain. We all have to look at these decisions and live without
guilt of what and why we made certain choices. If everyone was honest about their decisions this
wouldn't even be up for discussion. I also feel that this is just smoke and mirrors. I'm obviously
opposed to the expansion.
Thank You,
Rick Feiden
1
From: tagreen@nycap.rr.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us;
marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov
Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition & Adjudicatory Hearing
Request
Attachments: CLE Opposition Letter to DEC 161026_TAG.pdf
Angelo Marcuccio,
Please see attached document expressing my opposition, and to request an adjudicatory hearing
regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion - Area 7 Development application.
Regards,
Thomas A. Green
1
October 26, 2016
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office Thomas A. Green

Division of Environmental Permits 72 Mallards Landing South
1130 North Westcott Road Waterford, NY 12188
Schenectady, NY 12306 H: 518-237-7668
E: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov E: TAGreen@nycap.rr.com
Attn: Angelo Marcuccio
Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition

& Adjudicatory Hearing Request
Dear Angelo,
I am writing to express my opposition, and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016
Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7 Development application.
I am opposed to this subject application, for the many reasons already stated & documented in the recent
public hearings. This Landfill Expansion request is purely based on the short term financial gains of a
few, with no regard to previous signed landfill closure agreements or the long term environmental impact
on the local area, especially the bordering Mohawk River water refuge and encompassed protected
wetlands. This application is not based on the best interest or needs of the local community, but is a
request to cash in on an opportunity by exploiting the local resources for use by other outside regions.
The Expansion Study Report is incomplete, has unsupported/biased statements and recommendations, and
in some cases, has even omitted detailed information by design, including but not limited to other landfill
alternatives & cost comparisons, revenue benefits (financial motives), Area-7 underlayment details,
landscape and visual assessments (River excluded), entrance relocation, odor control plan, other…
This application is another wish-list item submitted by those who can’t even keep this facility running
within the legal or environmental rules that they are governed by now (Continued multiple infractions &
fines). Who in their right minds would provide them authorization to expand!! I have personally placed
complaint calls to DEC and Waste Connections regarding unpleasant odors in the area, and other times
have just grinned and bared it. My actions were a follow-up only with regards to a personally apparent
issue, it’s frightening to think of how many other unknown or hidden issues also exist and have not been
brought to anyone’s attention.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Green
Thomas A. Green
cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor

Town of Waterford
65 Broad Street
Waterford, NY 12188
E: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York
Executive Chamber, Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
518-474-8390
gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us
www.governor.ny.gov
New York State Senate District 43

Kathleen A. Marchione
Legislative Office Building
Room 918
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2381
marchione@nysenate.gov
www.nysenate.gov/senators/kathleen-marchione
New York State Assembly District 108

Room 417
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-4474
McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov
assembly.state.ny.us/mem/John-T-McDonald-III
United States Congressional District 20

Congressman Paul Tonko
The United States House of Representatives
2463 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-5076 or 518-465-0700
tonko.house.gov
United States Senate

Senator Charles E. Schumer
The United States Senate
322 Senate Hart Building
202-224-6542 or 518-431-4070
www.schumer.senate.gov/
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

478 Russell Senate Office Building
202-224-4451 or 518-431-0120
www.gillibrand.senate.gov
From: Tim D <timmiked@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie landfill
unexpected emails.
I would like to add my name to opponents of expansion of the Town of Colonie landfill along the Mohawk
River.
I was born and have lived in the area all my life, my grandparents used to own a gas station where the landfill is
now located. Currently living n Cohoes.
I agree with what I have read of other opponents reasons. It is a visual eyesore, the odor it emits reaches to
Cohoes on warm summer nights and it instills fear of further contamination of the Mohawk River (landfill is
practically in the river). I know about the topography, the liners, etc. People still have legitimate concerns
about toxic waste seepage.
The landfill attracts large flocks of herring gulls which I'm comfortable your department appreciates the impact
of on local waterfowl and songbird populations.
It is a death trap for small animals trying to cross either Rt 9 or the Cohoes-Crescent Road to reach it. In
particular, the Cohoes-Crescent Road is problematic due to it's being narrowly squeezed between the landfill
and the Mohawk.
Finally, the issue of plastic bags filling our oceans is in the news. The trees along the Cohoes-Crescent road are
decorated with plastic bags from the dump.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Tim Donnelly
Cohoes, NY 12047
1
From: Tony <notopt@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill expansion proposal
unexpected emails.
To Whom It May Concern,

We would like to express our opposition to the propose Colonie Landfill Expansion. This is not the first time the landfill
has expanded it’s territory nor it’s height and it looks as though they don’t intend on stopping any time soon.

When we built our house on Mallards Landing South in 2007 we were told of the landfill and it’s “limited” lifespan. After
which it would be capped, vegetation would grow over it and our view of the river would be pleasant without the eye
sore of the “ever growing mountain.”

Since that time we are constantly seeing this garbage pile grow ever higher and wider with no end in site. The odors
coming from the landfill are foul and at times and keep my family inside their homes versus playing outside with the
other neighborhood children. The Landfill operators state that they do their best to minimize the odor, but frankly,
that’s not good enough. We and our neighbors should not have to endure these odors when it can be preventable by
stopping the expansion. Once the odor is in the air, there is nothing they can do about! What can the Landfill owners
do when we plan an outdoor birthday party for our 6 year old, or a scavenger hunt, or family bike/run only to be
bombarded by noxious odors??? Nothing, just ask for our patience while they look into the problem. We’re sick of
it! It’s unacceptable and now is the time that we can do something about it!

We are not an expert on water pollution, but it seems to us that putting a large pile of garbage in the ground to
decompose will taint the underground water. We are sure there are safeguards in place, but they have those for the off
gassing as well and we know how ineffective those are. Oh by the way…AND there’s a river next to the landfill to move
and toxins downstream to other communities.

Again we strongly urge you to deny expansion of this landfill and close it up for good. At a minimum have an
adjudicatory hearing to review the Colonie Landfill Expansion Application.

We’ve dealt with 9 years of it here and 6 years of it at our prior residence (24 Cooks Court, Waterford‐‐‐much closer) we
do not want another 20 years of this.

Regards,

Tony & Michelle Noto
Waterford NY 12188
1
From: Aaron Heyman <ahh7131@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:48 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: Megan Murad
Subject: Opposition to Landfill expansion in Colonie
unexpected emails.
Hello,
My name is Aaron Heyman, residing at 43 Towpath Ln in Waterford, NY. I oppose the expansion of the
Colonie Landfill.
I request an adjudicatory hearing on the manner based on the lack of information of substantive alternative to
expansion of the landfill. The town of Colonie has not done enough work in their application to expand to
demonstrate that the cost of sending waste to other locations will in fact result in higher costs. The town of
Colonie is counting on the financial windfall they would receive in this doubling of the landfill space.
My fiancee and I bought a house in the Riverbend development in Waterford, 1 mile away from the landfill,
with the understanding that the cap and closure would occur in 2018. This request would undermine that
commitment from the town and ensure home values would decrease drastically. What would then stop them
from requesting additional expansion beyond the additional 20 years they are asking for?
The height of the landfill will rise and become a greater eyesore to the surrounding neighbors. If this were a
new application, the town would never think to even consider the river's edge as a possibility. The Mohawk and
Hudson rivers are vital to our economy and environmental conservation that it is paramount to deny the
application altogether.
Waste Connections has agreed to pay Colonie for the use of the landfill and they will bring in outside waste.
The town is trying to serve those outside of the community at the expense of the surrounding neighbors and
neighborhoods.
Finally, the application submitted lacks much information including but not limited to a missing odor plan. The
odor wafts into my community and nothing has been done. We expect it to only get worse and that, on top of
the new large mound of trash that I will see, will cause noxious fumes to continue for as long as the landfill
operates.
I implore you, commissioner, to deny the request for expansion or at the very least, hold an adjudicatory hearing
on the matter so we can fully and truthfully understand why the Town of Colonie is so in favor of this plan to
double the size of the landfill. They are only looking out for their finances.
Regards,
Aaron Heyman
1
From: Patricia Jenne <trescat@aol.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:51 PM
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov.
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill Expansion Application
On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Patricia Jenne <trescat@aol.com> wrote:
>
> October 27, 2016
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
> After attending the second meeting on the Colonie Landfill”s application to develop 132 acres
of land (referred to as Area 7) within its 212 acre land site, I am appalled!
> As a resident of Waterford, who only receives, "The Daily Gazette,” I knew nothing about the
initial meeting. I only recently learned of the second meeting by word of mouth by other upset
residents. Many others attending the meeting had a similar experience and we can only guess there
were many not just in this development but even the other surrounding towns who had not heard until
the nightly news aired.
> Our development, Riverbend Island is directly across from the Colonie Landfill. My home’s
backyard is totally visible from the landfill and vice versa.
> In the 8 years that we have lived here, I have spent many days and evenings calling the
landfill to notify them of gas smells and odors blowing across the river. It was especially upsetting
after the truckloads from Hurricane Sandy were deposited in our landfill. We were told there was
more debris than expected and it was all very wet which created a horrible stench. Even before the
hurricane, if it rains or if it is wet, the odors increase. The odors last until enough time elapses to dry it
out. Just an example, of what happens when the landfill takes on more than it is equipped to handle.
To bring in more solid waste etc. will only add to the odors and possibly to the health hazards we
cannot smell, let alone possible contamination to the water supply and the Mohawk river. Before
moving here, we talked to those at the landfill and to neighbors already living in the area who assured
us that there was only an occasional troublesome odor and that was basically the case prior to the
hurricane debris which was accepted without a true plan of how to handle it.
> We were told the landfill would be closed in 2018 because the landfill would have reached capacity
at that point. Now we have all seen what happens when we open our landfill to more debris beyond
its capacity and beyond their ability to dispose of it properly. Let ’s not repeat that mistake which cost
the landfill more money to correct and it cost the residents much upset and inconvenience to the
point where children could not play outside in their yards even in the summer months due to the
horrible stench. Please stick to the closure date of 2018. At least explore other alternatives.
1
> We the residents of Waterford, Cohoes, Halfmoon and Colonie have endured our fair share of
the negative effects of living near a landfill. Please do not change the rules to line the pockets of a
few at the the expense of the majority.
> Please consider the following four points:
> 1. 87 feet above the current site which just two years ago was raised an additional 40 feet would
cause significant and horrendous visual impact both to residents and tourism.
> 2. The absence of alternative measures in this application, should be presented and possibly
supply alternative landfill sites, for example, to avoid expansion.
> 3. Location and proximity to the Mohawk River, wetlands and ground water may increase the
chance for contamination to our water supply and/or the river itself.
> 4. Thickness amounts that appear to be inadequate beneath and between the current waste and
new waste that would be deposited.
> Above all, please give us the opportunity to hear the "real
> truth”! Please, please consider an adjudicatory hearing to review this Colonie Landfill Expansion
application. Originally this application was not given enough press and only limited public
awareness.Please give ALL of the residents the chance to hear the truth and be heard.
>
>
> Very truly yours,
>
>
>
> Patricia Jenne
>
>
>
>
>
2
From: Anne Miller <annemlmiller@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 6:55 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
I would like to see all users of the landfill sort compostable kitchen garbage to extend the life of the space.
It may take some time to get people on board but it would significantly reduce the amount of smelly trash and
could provide compost to those who want it.
1
From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:50 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Permit
In regard to the permit request for the expansion of the Colonie Landfill, I would like to say that I am
against the granting of the permit. I also would like to request an Adjudicatory Hearing with sworn
statements by all parties so we can once and for all get all the facts, and the true facts, in regard to
this permit request. It has been felt by many that the Town of Colonie and Waste Connections have
been hiding information with surrounding neighborhoods as well as their own residents.
I also would like to know, if this is to be a Regional Landfill, does that mean that both residents of
Colonie and the surrounding neighborhoods will all pay the same rates? If you read the contract
between Waste Connections and the Town of Colonie, the residents of Colonie are protected from a
rate hike. The commercial businesses of Colonie and any other parties outside of the Town of
Colonie are subject to potential rate hikes as dictated by Waste Connections.
I am also very concerned that no alternatives were explored as part of the DEIS as they were
assumed to be cost prohibitive. With the magnitude of this project, I feel that alternatives must be
explored, included in the DEIS, and explained at the Adjudicatory Hearing to include pricing on the
alternatives.
Thank you.
Betty Hartley
48 Church Hill Road
Halfmoon
Sent from my iPad
1
From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: 9 County coalition study summary on landfill situation in Capital District.
Attachments: AlbanY_SWMA_FinalReport.pdf
unexpected emails.
Good morning,
At the first public hearing on the DEC permit request by the Town Of Colonie to do a 20 plus year expansion of the Colonie Landfill,
I submitted a speech I gave on the financial reasons that Colonie has used to make their request on this massive project. I spoke about
the 9 County Coalition from 2011 that had studied the landfill situation in the Capital District and beyond and questioned why this was
not a basis for looking at alternatives for the Colonie Landfill permit request.
I have attached the Summary of the 2011 Study for your review as I had not attached it with my speech.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Betty Hartley
48 Church Hill Road
Halfmoon
https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/LGEProjectReports/2009/AlbanY_SWMA_FinalReport.pdf
Sent from my iPad
1
From: Don Porter <dondporter@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marcuecio,
I am writing to comment on the proposed expansion of the Colonie town landfill. I am opposed to any
expansion or extension of operation.
I am a resident of the town of Colonie. I do use the current landfill. And I do pay Colonie taxes. I recognize that
the Town of Colonie has made arrangements that accrue financial benefits to taxpayers as a result of continued
heavy use of the landfill. Even with that in mind, I strongly oppose any expansion. In fact I would support
closing the landfill, as originally planned, in 2018. The environmental impact of the current landfill and
especially any expansion is unsustainable. If the result is increased Town taxes, so be it.
I do hope that DEC will deny any permit for expansion of the landfill, or for extension of its permit to continue
operating.
Thanks for receiving my input.
Don Porter
18 Ashford Lane
Schenectady, NY 12309 (mailing address; my home is actually in the town of Colonie)
1
From: sleden@aol.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: citizensconcernedaboutlandfill@gmail.com; lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Request for an adjudicatory hearing regarding Town of Colonie Landfill - Area 7
unexpected emails.

I am hereby requesting an adjudicatory hearing be held in regard to the proposed Town of Colonie Landfill – Area 7
Development.

I have attached a partial list of interview questions and answers that were given by Joe Stockbridge, former Director of
the Department of Environmental Services in regard to the Town of Colonie Landfill.
The first question I noted deals with cell size and how long the cell is to be open. I have highlighted the answer portion
pertaining to cell size and “if there is too much capacity, there are environmental concerns.” In the area 7 development
they are proposing to develop approximately 132 acres of land. That is a stark contrast to 8 to 12 acres that is quoted
below. Also, the length of time that a cell should be open is 5 years, as quoted below. And the Area 7 Development is
requesting that this cell be open for another 20 years.
The second question was in regard to landfills and the distance from rivers and residences. I am of the opinion that this
landfill location, situated alongside of the Mohawk River, is a disaster waiting to happen. God forbid we have an
earthquake.
The third question, I noted, was in regard to public input when designating an area for a landfill. In particular, I have
highlighted the portion that states, “Also, our town is taking the tact that we’re neighbors. We want to be good
neighbors. There are inherent negatives when it comes to running a landfill. You have odors, birds, dust. Our landfill
tries to be as good a neighbor as we can, given the materials that we deal with.” If the Town of Colonie is truly
neighbors with the residents to their north, they would adhere to the agreement that cell 6, which is to close in 2018,
would be the final development of the site. The Town has also had ample time to look at other options, they knew this
landfill was scheduled to close in 2018.
When we moved to our first home on Fonda Road in May of 1976, someone in the town told us that the landfill would
only be open for about ten years. Obviously, we were very much misinformed. However, we loved our location and our
land, so we proceeded to build a new home in 1987. We did expect that eventually, this landfill would be closed. Then
we were told 2018. We figured that had to be it. How much higher can they possibly go? Now, this new proposal is
looming in front of us. It is all sad and unbelievable that the northern part of the town is expected to endure the odors,
noise, and the growing mound of trash that is not just from our community but from counties as far away as Washington
and Ulster Counties.
Sincerely,
Donna Ellrott
96A Fonda Rd.
Cohoes NY 12047
518 235‐8479
Email: sleden@aol.com
1
List of Interview questions. Answers by Joe Stockbridge, former Director of Environmental Services
Q: How big a space is a “cell”?
“Cells are usually between eight and twelve acres and that’s premised upon filling it in five years. You don’t want
them to be open too long because then you’ve got too much capacity open and that has some environmental
concerns with it. You generate gas, you generate leachate—the liquid that comes out of the wastes—If you keep your
size to approximately a five to eight year period or window, you can minimize the amount of material you generate
and thereby minimize what we call your ‘environmental footprint’.
Q: How far are landfills kept away from rivers and residences?
“It depends on the type of water source. Our facility is proximate to the Mohawk River. Ideally you have a minimum
separation, by state regulation, of 100 feet. The premise on that is zero discharge from the facility.”
Q: Is public input requested when designating a new area for a landfill?
“During the planning process we have public meetings. There is a public comment period usually between fifteen and
thirty days on the permit action. With any new facility, there are extended legislative hearings, and they can go on for
months. Also, our town is taking the tact that we’re neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. There are inherent
negatives when it comes to running a landfill. You have odors, birds, dust. Our landfill tries to be as good a neighbor
as we can, given the materials that we deal with.”
Q: Does Town of Colonie get revenue from that?
“The way that the contract is structured, we share it with IES. They get half the profit, we get half the profit. We have
basically zero risk. As long as we continue to supply them gas, and they can sell the electricity, we’ll get fifty‐percent of
the revenues.”
Q: Could taking care of our environment be good for business, lucrative, and pro‐industry?
“We recently had—we were lucky—a company called CRM, a tire‐recycling group, move into town. They’re a major user
of recycled tires. I mean millions and millions of pounds of recycled tires to produce products that you are not going to
even realize are recycled products. The more places I have that can use those products, means my markets that process
those tires are going to have markets they can supply tire chip to. You generate it, give it to me, I process it and take it to
the guy who does the chip, he makes it into chip, the chip goes to this company, this company makes it into a product
that you’re going to buy back. That’s a great loop. In solid waste, a stable marketplace is good.”
Drop off location:
Div. of Environmental Services
1319 Loudon Road
Cohoes, NY 12047
www.colonie.org/envsvc

Right-click
download
help protec
Outlo ok pr
auto matic d
this pictu re
In ternet.
A v ast logo
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
2
From: Linda Milligan <jklmill26@aol.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Plan to Expand Colonie Town Landfill
unexpected emails.
We have lived in the Town of Waterford, off of Middletown Rd, for approximately 30 years. We fortunately can not smell
the stink from the Colonie Town Landfill from our residence. However, there have been plenty of times when we were
assaulted by the stench emanating from the landfill as we traveled the roads near the Mohawk River. And we have
wondered how people who resided in those areas could live with the smell. At one point we were looking at purchasing a
home in Steamboat Landing in Waterford. We changed our minds due to its proximity to the landfill.
It is unfathomable to us that having the landfill so close to the Mohawk would not be causing contamination to the
river. This should be a concern not just for the people living close to the landfill, but for all who live near or use the
waterways into which the Mohawk flows.
The Town of Colonie had situated this landfill, who knows how long ago, at the edge of their town line. The problems and
unfavorable conditions caused by it have had more effect on people living outside their town than on the residents of
Colonie. Expansion of the landfill benefits Colonie at the expense of its neighbors. No wonder they want to expand it.
But it's time they looked for another place to dump their garbage. Somewhere that's not near a vital waterway and
somewhere that's not going to make their garbage someone else's problem.
Linda & John Milligan
1
From: Lisa Campo <ljcampo@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Town Landfill
unexpected emails.
I am writing to oppose the expansion of the Colonie Town Landfill. I have been a resident of the Town of
Halfmoon for approximately 20 years, and have, on several occasions, been "greeted" by the odors created by
the landfill. I am also amazed when I think back to how different the area looked ‐ when it seemed the area
near the intersection of Route 9 and Crescent Road was almost flat. Finally, I can't believe that there isn't
runoff into the Mohawk River!

Please take the comments of residents to heart and don't allow the expansion.

Thank you.

Lisa Campo
33 Commons Blvd.
Halfmoon, NY
1
From: Lois Porter <lois.s.porter@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Land Fill
unexpected emails.
Dear Folks,
I am a resident of the Town of Colonie, and I am strongly opposed to

enlarging the land fill. Doing so would put greed ahead of the valid
concerns of people who live close to the site, as well as further polluting
our environment.
Like many other Americans I am sick of politicians, both local and

Federal, putting the desires of contractors and corporations (as well as the
town coffers, in this case) ahead of the valid needs of citizens.
Lois Porter
18 Ashford Lane
Schenectady, NY 12309 (in the Town of Colonie)
lois.s.porter@gmail.com
1
From: Pat Quinn-Pickett <patqp@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov;
Tonko@house.gov
Subject: Opposition to Colonie Landfill Expansion
Attachments: LandfillLetter.docx
unexpected emails.

Attached is a letter to the DEC in opposition to the Colonie Landfill Expansion.

Pat Quinn‐Pickett
Waterford, NY 12188

Waterford, New York 12188
October 28, 2016

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
NYSDEC, Region 4 Office
Division of Environmental Permits
Schenectady, New York 12306

R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

Subject: Expansion of Colonie Landfill

The purpose of this letter is to document comments in opposition to the proposed Colonie Landfill Expansion. Since
purchasing our home on 1988 the odor has been offensive throughout the years and any calls to the landfill offered that
the odors were only temporary. But, so many years later the odors continue to be an offensive nuisance. It was
expected that the landfill would close. But, there seems that an expansion is always underway. And, now another
expansion is proposed. The landfill offers an unsightly view from our front yard and continues to grow. The proposed
expansion would increase the height of the mountain visible from our yard by almost another 100 feet also making
landfill operations more visible to other surrounding areas.

The proponents of the landfill cite enhancements that will be made upon expansion to prevent groundwater
contamination and contamination of the adjacent Mohawk River. These enhancements haven’t been identified relative
1
to the existing landfill, only upon expansion. It should be a requirement that the environment be protected regardless
of whether or not there is an expansion.

It appears the expansion is for the financial benefit of the Town of Colonie and Waste Connections. No alternatives to
the expansion of this landfill have been offered by the Town of Colonie or Waste Connections. Before the Town of
Waterford and Town of Halfmoon residents are subjected to the nuisances of further expansion of the Colonie Landfill
alternative options should be pursued.

For the above reasons expansion of the Colonie Landfill is strongly opposed.

Patricia A. Quinn‐Pickett
patqp@nycap.rr.com
Cc
Jack Lawler, Town of Waterford
Kathy Marchione, 43rd NYS Senate District
John McDonald III, 108th NYS Assembly District
Paul Tonko, 20th Congressional District

2
Albany County
Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

Final Report
October 2011
This report was prepared with funds provided by the New York State Department of
State under the Local Government Efficiency Grant Program
Prepared By: Barton & Loguidice, P.C. and Gerhardt, LLC

Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Study Area Definition ......................................................................................... 7
2.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Impending “Milestones” ...................................................................................... 8
2.4 Other Local Plans............................................................................................. 11
2.5 The New York State Solid Waste Management Plan ....................................... 12
2.6 Steering Committee and Meetings ................................................................... 14
3. Current Conditions and Practices .......................................................................... 15
3.1 Waste Quantities and Characteristics 15
4. Waste Processing Technologies ........................................................................... 20
4.1 Summary of Technology Options ..................................................................... 20
4.2 Costs Summary................................................................................................ 23
4.3 Comparison of Current and Future Disposal Costs .......................................... 24
4.4 Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Impacts ........................................................ 26
4.5 Comparison of Energy Impacts ........................................................................ 28
5. Track Record of NYS Solid Waste Management Authorities................................. 30
6. Benefits and Drawbacks To Creating An Authority ............................................... 32
7. Key Ingredients For Success, Steps For Creating An Authority ............................ 36
8. Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 40
9. Potential Hurdles ................................................................................................... 42
10. Recommendations ................................................................................................ 44
11. Public Comments On Draft Report ........................................................................ 46
B&L/Gerhardt -i- October 2011

Table of Contents
- Continued -
Tables
Table 1 - Estimated Annual Waste Generation by County (Tons/Year) ........................ 17
Table 2 - Estimated Annual Organics Waste Generation by County (Tons/Year) ......... 18
Table 3 - Regional Recycling Percentage by Planning Unit .......................................... 19
Table 4 - Disposal Fee Comparison .............................................................................. 25
Table 5 - Potential Annual Savings………………………………………………………….26
Table 6 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Waste Processing
Technologies .................................................................................................. 28
Table 7 - Energy Consumption Associated with Waste Processing Technologies ........ 29
Table 8 - Benefits and Drawbacks of a Solid Waste Management Authority................. 35
Table 9 - Examples of Options for Authority Board Member Appointments .................. 38
Figures
Figure 1 - Map of 9 County Study Area
Appendices
Appendix A - Profiles of Solid Waste Management Authorities in NYS
Appendix B - Larger Solid Waste Management and Recycling Facilities in the Study
Area
Appendix C - Solid Waste Management Facility Development Process
Appendix D - NYSDEC Region 4 Comments on Preliminary Draft of Report
Appendix E - Comments on Public Review Draft
B&L/Gerhardt - ii - October 2011

1. Executive Summary
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Communities in the nine county study area are facing significant changes to the
way solid waste is managed. These changes pose significant challenges to the
communities, but they also are an opportunity to bring significant improvements in
recycling, organics recovery, efficiency and cost savings. We project that a
coordinated regional recycling program could triple the volume of materials
currently recovered in the study area.
During the period of time it takes to develop new facilities, all the existing local
public disposal facilities that are currently operating will either close or be privatized. A
failure to act soon will mean that communities in the study area will drift into a “default”
situation where recycling initiatives are limited and disjointed, and the types and
locations of any new facilities will be left predominantly to the private market decisions
based on the cheapest means of waste disposal. In their review of the preliminary draft
of this report [see Appendix D], the State Department of Environmental Conservation
[DEC] noted:
“Privatization of existing facilities will likely compromise existing recyclables

collection programs by driving solid waste management to the least expensive
alternative, leaving less profitable aspects of solid waste management to
whither.”
The City of Albany landfill is under a State order to close. Although the 2010
Capital Region Solid Waste Management Plan estimated that the facility would reach its
final capacity in 2016, updated estimates by the City’s engineer currently project that
with the eastern expansion its useful life will go through 2020. In any case, the DEC
has been very clear that it will not permit continued operation beyond the eastern
expansion. Currently, the Albany landfill accepts significant volumes of waste from
communities outside the City. The impending closure of that landfill will have
implications throughout the nine county study area and beyond.
The Town of Colonie landfill, also a regional facility, will be undergoing significant
changes in the near future. On July 28, 2011 the Town Board approved an agreement
to privatize operation and management of the Town-owned landfill. Although initial
information from the Town for this report indicated that the landfill would reach capacity
in 14-16years, the 25 year agreement with the private company Waste Connections
anticipates that applications will be made to DEC to develop new disposal capacity at
the site and possibly increase the daily volume of incoming waste. When the details of
these future expansion plans are determined, a revised estimate of the useful life of the
facility can be made. That will also make it possible to evaluate the impact of the
Colonie landfill as a merchant facility on the City of Albany landfill.
Later this year, the waste-to-energy facility in Hudson Falls will go from public
ownership and control to private ownership and control. This facility ownership
transition will also result in changes to solid waste management in the study area.
B&L/Gerhardt -1- October 2011
Although all the details of their future operations are not currently available, both
the Colonie landfill and the Hudson Falls waste-to -energy facility will operate at some
level as merchant facilities. That means that, except for the disposal price control
mechanisms included in Colonie’s contract with Waste Connections relative to waste
generated in the town, market conditions for waste disposal will largely influence the
prices charged and therefore the locations from which waste is delivered to those
facilities. It is possible that one or both of these facilities could take part or all of the
volume of waste currently going to the Albany landfill. However, it is also possible that
any available capacity at those two facilities [beyond the capacity used for contractually
committed waste such as that generated in the Town of Colonie] will be used by
communities outside the study area if the facilities could obtain a higher tip fee for that
waste. In that case, communities in the study area would be faced with the cost and
risk of transporting waste outside the region. In any case, there are likely to be
significant implications for communities in the region.
Saratoga County has recently been notified by the DEC that they must prepare a
new local solid waste management plan [LSWMP] and comprehensive recycling
analysis [CRA] aimed at improving recycling, advancing sustainability, and becoming
consistent with the State plan “Beyond Waste”. In the notice DEC pointed out that the
LSWMP and CRA are prerequisites for solid waste management facility permits and
that, without a LSWMP in place certain grant funding may be adversely affected. DEC
also notified the county that disposal facilities that receive waste from Saratoga County
may be required to stop accepting waste from Saratoga County until an acceptable
CRA is approved.
The DEC’s requirements to maintain updated LSWMP’s and/or CRA’s can

have far reaching consequences for any community that receives such a notice,
which would effectively force a locality to come into compliance or risk a
complete shutdown of their solid waste management system. The short and long
term impacts throughout the region may be significant. This was underscored by the
DEC in their review of the preliminary draft of this report:
“The Department is moving to a higher level of enforcement of Local Solid Waste

Management Plans (LSWMP). Therefore, adherence to the terms and conditions
within those plans will force smaller communities to expend greater resources to
upgrade plans as well as develop their solid waste programs to maintain strict
compliance with the local plans. The statewide plan has laid the groundwork for
this path. The possible loss of grant funding and inability to permit solid waste
management facilities may result if these communities are unable to update their
plans or develop their programs in compliance with the statewide plan.”
FINDINGS
Unless steps are taken to create a regional solid waste authority, the basic forces
of supply and demand will continue to greatly influence what communities in the nine
county study area pay for solid waste disposal in the future. Today, some communities
are benefiting from the very low prices currently available at private landfills in New York
as well as outside the State. However, one cannot depend on that condition remaining
the same for the future. The depletion and/or privatization of existing disposal
facilities in the nine county study area, plus the rising price of fuel, will make long
distance transport of waste significantly more expensive in the future.
The privatization of both the Hudson Falls and Colonie facilities brings into
sharper focus the potential for monopolistic pricing by dominant haulers. The formation
of a regional authority could be an important step to insure stable prices and progress
on recycling, reduction and organics recovery.
A number of solid waste management authorities in other areas have established

a track record of financially independent, cost effective and successful operations.
Structural problems at other authorities have resulted in situations that can and should
be avoided or overcome by statutory and contractual provisions that can be established
at the outset by a consensus of local communities. Notably, well run solid waste
authorities:
· Are achieving the highest recycling rates in the State;

· Six have developed materials recovery facilities;
· Six have developed long-term local disposal facilities;
· Eight of the twelve active solid waste authorities operate as financially
independent entities receiving no subsidy payments from the sponsoring
municipalities; and
· Provide predictable and stable solid waste management costs.
In the nine county study area there is a population of over one million people
generating over 2 million tons of waste each year which is managed by a combination of
private interests, 10 public planning units, and three solid waste management
authorities. Currently, based on tonnage data reported to the DEC, 74% of the waste
generated in the study area is taken to local public facilities. There is an adequate
volume of waste generated in the study area to support the development of
facilities as part of a comprehensive, coordinated system.

KEY FINDINGS
The creation of a new regional authority is feasible from a cost and

operational perspective.
There can be significant benefits to creating a new regional solid waste

management authority to serve the communities in the study area including:
· Cost savings from combining services, eliminating overlap and duplication,

and developing facilities that can capture an economy of scale:
o Potential savings from economies of scale could be in the range of
$10.8 to $15.84 million per year.
· Significantly increasing recycling through a consistent region wide
information and management program.
· Consolidation of services, pooling of resources, streamlining governance.
· Consolidation of up to 10 LSWMP’s saving time, staff and money.
· Protection against market risks for disposal and transportation.
· Protection against environmental liability.
· Establishment of predictable and reliable long term disposal.
Despite these benefits, there have been concerns raised that can present
hurdles to advancing a regional waste authority including:
· The perception of a “bail out” for the City of Albany.

· The fear that an authority will build a waste-to-energy facility.
· The general fear that a regional waste management facility will be proposed
in their community.
· The general distrust of public authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the significant benefits, it is recommended that the communities

comprising the study area join now to create a new regional solid waste
management authority, and that actions to satisfy their concerns be taken at the
outset.
One mechanism to accomplish this could be to develop an inter-municipal

agreement to allow communities to opt in as part of an authority formation team and to
continue building a consensus on key issues.
In their review of the preliminary draft of this report, the DEC stated:
“Provided adequate assurances are included to assuage concerns

regarding general mistrust of the motives behind an authority, the establishment
and implementation of an authority is feasible. We support the recommendation
that an inter-municipal agreement be established amongst Capital District
municipalities to help build consensus prior to the establishment of the Authority.”

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The local communities can go a long way to address concerns and to insure the
success of the authority by:
· building a strong region-wide consensus;

· promoting transparency;
· prioritizing projects;
· involving local governments; and
· carefully structuring the authority to meet local needs.
The local communities maintain great flexibility in how an authority can be set up,
including:
· representation and structure of the governing board;

· methods of oversight and reporting; and
· the nature and extent of the authority’s powers, duties and responsibilities.
NEXT STEPS
In the short term, four steps can be taken to further foster the development of a
new regional authority.
· The actions delineated below can be undertaken within the framework of an

inter-municipal agreement developed by and for communities interested in
working together to cost effectively improve their solid waste management
and recycling programs.
· The study area communities could seek a grant to complete an in depth
analysis of the specific cost savings on an individual planning unit basis
achieved by the creation of an authority. Such a study could also include a
model of future disposal capacity needs based on information from Waste
Connections regarding their expansion plans, if possible, or based on a range
of possibilities for future expansion at the Colonie landfill. It could also be
helpful to include a legal analysis of how a franchise system for collection
services might be authorized under state and local laws.
· Programs such as a coordinated regional household hazardous waste
program, and possibly a facility, will establish and enhance communication
and cooperation and should demonstrate costs savings for those who
participate.
· A similar but much more extensive sharing of services could be achieved by
evaluating the consolidation of waste and recyclables collection services.
More efficient collection routes could be explored and the environmental
benefits and savings could be documented for bringing oversight and
administration under a single entity. Private hauling companies could
continue to provide curbside collection services, but they would compete for
publicly awarded contracts that would be granted to whichever companies
provide the most cost effective collection services in designated collection

zones. In their review of the preliminary draft of this report, the DEC noted:
“Under “Next Steps” the proposal to contractually control private company

collection routes/practices is particularly attractive. Cost savings could be
realized but more importantly environmental benefits such as reduction of
carbon emissions could be significant. We strongly support this idea.”
Finally, if an agreement among all or some of the counties in the study area to
create a new regional solid waste management authority cannot be reached, it would
still be feasible and advantageous for Albany County to pursue a new one county
authority. Most of the benefits described herein would remain, albeit on a somewhat
reduced scale.

2. Introduction
2.1 Study Area Definition
For the purpose of this study, the Albany region [the study area] is defined
as Albany County plus up to eight surrounding counties as listed below and as
shown on the map in Figure 1.
Albany County
Columbia County
Greene County
Montgomery County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Schoharie County
Washington County
2.2 Background
The study area is a region of 5,442 square miles with a population of over
1 million and characterized by a mix of urban centers, suburban communities and
rural residential/agricultural areas. Over 2 million tons of all categories of waste
are generated each year. Based on tonnage data submitted to the DEC, three
local public facilities currently function as the primary disposal facilities:
o The City of Albany Landfill

o The Town of Colonie Landfill
o Warren & Washington Counties Resource Recovery Facility
Albany County and a number of its neighboring communities regularly

explore the potential for sharing services as a means to eliminate duplication and
save money. A number of regional initiatives have resulted from these efforts
including the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, the Capital District
Transportation Authority, the Capital District Transportation Committee, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Urban Area Working Group, the Albany Airport
Authority, and the Capital District Youth Center, Inc.
The idea for this study came from Albany County Executive Michael
Breslin’s advocacy for shared services and exploration of how regional initiatives
can improve public services. Conversations with neighboring communities led to
letters of support for the Department of State Shared Services grant proposal
from:
o Capital District Regional Planning Commission

o County of Rensselaer
o County of Schoharie

o Eastern Rensselaer County Solid Waste Management Authority

o City of Albany
o City of Cohoes
o City of Watervliet
o Town of Berne
o Town of Bethlehem
o Town of Clifton Park
o Town of Schodack
o Town of Grafton
o Town of New Scotland
o Town of Poestenkill
o Town of Rensselaerville
o Town of Rotterdam
o Town of Schaghticoke
o Village of Altamont
o Village of Green Island
o Village of Menands
o Village of Ravena
o Village of Voorheesville
Barton & Loguidice and Gerhardt were retained to identify waste volumes
being generated in the region, evaluate current solid waste management
practices, identify technologies that may be available to process the region’s
waste, describe the process to develop facilities using one or more of those
technologies, identify the benefits there may be to creating an authority to
develop a solid waste management system, and describe the steps necessary to
create such an authority.
2.3 Impending “Milestones”
As the Albany County Executive and leaders in neighboring communities

considered the solid waste management issues it became apparent that several
very important milestones will be reached in the next few years in the Albany
region and that decisions will have to be made which will impact solid waste
management for the next several decades.
Although the 2010 Capital Region Solid Waste Management Plan

estimated that the Albany City Landfill Facility would reach its final capacity in
2016, an updated estimate by the City’s consulting engineer currently projects
that with the eastern expansion the useful life of the landfill will go through 2020.
In any case, the DEC has been very clear that it will not permit continued
operation beyond the eastern expansion. This facility currently provides
essential disposal service for approximately 94,000 people in the City of Albany
plus numerous communities in the region. It is estimated that 73% of the waste
accepted at the City landfill is generated outside the City, including significant
volumes from outside Albany County. The impending closure of this facility will

necessitate the City and all the other communities currently relying on the City
landfill to seek other disposal options, likely outside the area. This underscores
both the significance and the regional nature of the impacts that will be created
by the closure of the City landfill.
The Town of Colonie approved an agreement with Waste Connections to

operate and manage the Town-owned landfill. Although initial estimates
provided by the Town for this report estimated that the landfill would reach the
end of its useful life in 14 - 16 years, the privatization agreement anticipates that
applications will be made to the DEC for the development of an expansion that
will provide additional disposal capacity. It is also anticipated that Waste
Connections will seek approval to increase the daily volumes taken at the landfill.
When the details of these future expansion plans are determined, a revised
estimate of the useful life of the facility can be made. That will also make it
possible to evaluate the impact of the Colonie landfill as a merchant facility on
the City of Albany landfill.
Later this year, the waste-to-energy facility in Hudson Falls will go from
public ownership and control to private ownership and control. This facility
ownership transition will also result in changes to solid waste management in the
study area.
Although all the details of their future operations are not currently
available, both the Colonie landfill and the Hudson Falls waste-to -energy facility
will operate at some level as merchant facilities. That means that, except for the
disposal price control mechanisms included in Colonie’s contract with Waste
Connections relative to waste generated in the town, market conditions for waste
disposal will largely influence the prices charged and therefore the locations from
which waste is delivered to those facilities. It is possible that one or both of these
facilities could take part or all of the volume of waste currently going to the
Albany landfill. However, it is also possible that any available capacity at those
two facilities [beyond the capacity used for contractually committed waste such
as that generated in the Town of Colonie] will be used by communities outside
the study area if the facilities could obtain a higher tip fee for that waste. In that
case, communities in the study area would be faced with the cost and risk of
transporting waste outside the region. In any case, there are likely to be
significant implications for communities in the region.
Public accounts of the 25-year privatization agreement indicate that the

Town of Colonie will receive $23 million in an up-front payment, $2.3 million per
year for the first 5 years, $1.1 million per year for the next 20 years, $19.8 million
for closure [and $21 million in an insurance policy], and $2-$10.8 million for
backing a landfill expansion.
The waste-to-energy facility in Hudson Falls, initially sponsored by Warren

and Washington Counties, will be conveyed to the private operator later in 2011
and the counties will have to determine if they will continue to utilize that facility
or send their waste to another facility, likely outside the region.
The agreement among the Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste

Authority [MOSA] and the sponsoring counties expires in 2014. The member
Counties are actively evaluating their options and Otsego County has petitioned
the State legislature to amend the enabling statute to allow Otsego County to
withdraw from the authority. Whether or not the authority remains in place, there
are no local disposal or recycling facilities and the authority and/or counties must
regularly secure capacity through competitive bids.
In 1998 Saratoga County was granted the permits to develop a landfill to

serve the County. The landfill was constructed but has not yet been utilized. The
County is holding the facility as an “insurance policy” and will decide when and if
to use it in the future. Currently, they have no plans to open the facility.
However, in correspondence dated March 3, 2011 the DEC has notified the
County that they must prepare a new LSWMP and improve their solid waste
management and recycling strategies to help ensure that landfill facilities that
receive their waste can continue to do so in the future.
Similar to Saratoga County, all the planning units in the study area are
facing a requirement to submit updated or new LSWMP’s in the next 1-2 years.
This presents an opportunity to consolidate solid waste planning efforts.
The impending closure of the Albany landfill, the private take-over of the
Hudson Falls waste-to-energy facility and the private operation and management
of the Town of Colonie landfill will have to be considered by the study area
communities in evaluating their long-term arrangements for disposal. The
success of waste reduction and recycling efforts, the ultimate capacity of the
Colonie landfill, and Saratoga County’s decision regarding possible future use of
its landfill will all influence the timing and need for additional local disposal
capacity.
If the volume of waste currently taken to the City of Albany landfill is

taken outside the area to private facilities, that will increase the demand on
those disposal facilities, consume landfill capacity, reduce the available
supply of disposal capacity and ultimately increase the cost of disposal.
Even allowing for the development of new disposal capacity, which appears to be
on the horizon with the privatization of the Colonie landfill, without local public
facilities all the communities in the region will be subject to the volatility that goes
with the private market. There may be times, like the current condition, when
communities can benefit from an economic recession and low disposal prices.
However, there will also be times when prices increase and in that case
communities will have no option but to pay whatever the market demands.
Based on experience in other areas, the absence of any local public facilities can
lead to one or two large waste companies dominating collection and disposal to
such an extent that small haulers are driven out and prices to homeowners and
businesses increase.
B&L/Gerhardt - 10 - October 2011

If no action is taken to develop a local public system, local

communities will be particularly vulnerable to price increases driven by
increases in fuel costs and other market conditions largely outside local
public control. Transporting waste hundreds of miles in trucks that get 4-5
miles per gallon can become very expensive when fuel costs increase
rapidly as has been the case in 2011.
In light of these future developments and consistent with the desire to

look at opportunities for consolidation and improved operations, Albany County
applied for a shared services grant through the Department of State to explore
the feasibility of creating a regional solid waste authority. The County invited
neighboring counties and planning units to participate in the study without
obligation or a financial contribution at this time.
2.4 Other Local Plans
Over the past several decades there have been several initiatives calling
for the creation of a regional entity to address solid waste management issues. In
1989 a study prepared by the State Environmental Facilities Corporation, “Capital
District Integrated Solid Waste Management System” made a finding:
“In order to effectively plan and implement the counties’ long and short
term response to their solid waste problems, state legislation establishing
a solid waste management authority is recommended.”
A 1992 Local Solid Waste management Plan for the greater Albany area
anticipated that in the future the planning unit would operate as an authority.
Twice State legislation was introduced to create such an authority but it was
never enacted.
In 2010, the Capital Region Solid Waste Partnership Planning Unit

[comprised of 3 cities, 8 towns, and 3 villages within this study area] completed a
Plan which concluded that implementation of a regional solid waste management
authority would:
“…meet all of the objectives associated with the goal of continued

provision of reliable and reasonably priced solid waste management
facilities and services…. would be able to provide for new infrastructure
and programs such as expanded mandatory recycling and SSOW [source
separated organic waste] composting facility… would also provide a more
effective administrative structure than currently exists to facilitate the
implementation of new facilities and programs…would also meet all of the
objectives associated with the goal of minimizing the amount of solid
waste requiring land disposal in the future…”
As is described in Sections 5 and Appendix A, there is a substantial track

record for solid waste authorities in the State which provides a road map for
success, as well as a guideline for pitfalls to be avoided. In looking at the

experience over the past 25-30 years, it is apparent that properly

structured, well-run solid waste management authorities have reduced the
costs, streamlined operations and administration, spearheaded
controversial but necessary facilities, increased transparency, and
increased recycling. This occurs for several reasons. An authority that
represents multiple communities can capture "economies of scale"- the more
solid waste that is treated, the lower the cost per ton. Treatment facilities can be
fully and more efficiently utilized, and contractors will sometimes offer better
prices for larger amounts of waste.
This also occurs because a solid waste management authority usually

replaces several local municipalities or organizations which are managing solid
waste, and fewer staff is needed. There are currently 10 planning units within the
study area:
Capital Region Solid Waste Management Partnership

Town of Colonie
Columbia County
Eastern Rensselaer County Solid Waste Management Authority
Greene County
Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste Authority
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
City of Troy
Washington County
If the participating counties and planning units decide to move forward

with this initiative, the disposition of each planning unit and each pre-existing
authority would have to be resolved. However, if there was an agreement by the
individual counties, authorities, and planning units, then this initiative could create
one new authority which could replace three existing authorities. It could also
serve as the planning unit for the nine counties in the region, or it could
coordinate facilities and programs for any existing planning units that may be left
in place.
2.5 The New York State Solid Waste Management Plan
In December 2010 the State Department of Environmental Conservation

adopted the State Solid Waste Management Plan “Beyond Waste”. The State
Plan is self described as a vision for transforming waste management into
materials management and a series of goals which local planning units will be
required to use as a guide in developing their local plans. Although the State
Plan is neither a law nor a regulation, the State’s Part 360 Regulations require an
approved local solid waste management plan [LSWMP] as a condition for facility
permits and some State grants.

The State Plan attempts to shift the focus away from “end of pipe”
solutions to “upstream” approaches that will actually reduce the volume of waste
that is created. It relies heavily on the concept of extended producer
responsibility or product stewardship which would shift part of the burden and
cost for disposal from local governments to manufacturers. The State Plan also
advocates heavily for the separation and recovery of organics, principally food
waste, for recovery through composting or digestion. The State also calls on local
governments to achieve significant improvements in recycling. In their review of
the preliminary draft of this report DEC made a direct reference to the importance
of the State Plan and the ability of local communities to meet their goals [for full
text, see Appendix D]:
“The Department is moving to a higher level of enforcement of Local Solid

Waste Management Plans [LSWMP]. Therefore, adherence to the terms
and conditions within those plans will force smaller communities to expend
greater resources to upgrade plans as well as develop their solid waste
programs to maintain strict compliance with the local plans….. Without an
Authority, it will not be economically feasible for communities to begin to
implement the ideas put forth in the Statewide Plan, Beyond Waste…”
The creation of a new regional authority could provide a real advantage to

achieving the State’s goals by being able to aggregate large quantities of organic
waste and therefore garner the benefit from a facility that could capture an
economy of scale. Coordinated public information programs for organics and
traditional recyclables could also significantly improve recovery rates.
A regional approach would be consistent with the State’s goals as set forth
in the State Plan and the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988. The Act of 1988
established a procedure for the creation of planning units and specifically
encouraged regional cooperation as the best means to implement the solid waste
management hierarchy of reduction, recycling, energy recovery, and landfill
disposal. “Beyond Waste” reinforces the Act of 1988 noting:
“The implementation of solid waste management programs in New York

State has historically been the responsibility of local
government…municipalities may acquire land for waste management and
disposal facilities; construct solid waste management facilities;
provide…collection services; conduct facility siting studies;… operate or
contract for the operation of facilities; ensure compliance and reporting;
enact flow control ordinances; and educate the public…The Act also
encouraged local governments to join together to form solid waste
management planning units and create LSWMP’s to guide their programs
and ensure alignment with the state’s solid waste management hierarchy”.

2.6 Steering Committee and Meetings
The preparation of this study has been guided by a steering committee

comprised of representatives of the local governments and planning units in the
study area. The committee reviewed the grant proposal and the RFP for
professional services as well as the submissions by prospective consulting firms.
They reviewed all the data compiled by the consultant, identified current
practices and conditions that impact the study, and suggested options for
consideration. They reviewed a preliminary draft of this report prior to its public
release. The committee members and meeting dates are noted below.
Steering Committee
Michael Breslin – Albany County
Michael Franchini – Albany County
Willard Bruce – City of Albany
Frank Zeoli – City of Albany
Paula Mahan – Town of Colonie
Matthew McGarry – Town of Colonie
David Robinson – Columbia County
Jolene Race – Columbia County
Matthew Curley – ERCSWMA
Dan Frank – Greene County
Gary Harvey – Greene County
R.J. VanValkenburg – Greene County
Doug Greene – Montgomery County
Shayne Walters – Montgomery County
Dennis Heaton – MOSA
John Thayer – MOSA and Montgomery County
Linda von der Heide – Rensselaer County
Jeff Edwards – Schenectady County
Carl Olsen – City of Schenectady
Jeri Murray – Schoharie County
Robert Banks – Washington County
Steering Committee Meetings

August 18, 2010
September 30, 2010
March 23, 2011
The study process was also designed to offer meetings with solid waste
management officials from each county or planning unit, identified as
stakeholders. Three local communities requested such meetings which were held
with a representative of Albany County and the consultants as indicated below.
Stakeholder Meetings
December 7, 2010 City of Albany and Town of Colonie
March 30, 2011 Schenectady County

3. Current Conditions and Practices
3.1 Waste Quantities and Characteristics
The nine county study area spans approximately 5,442 square miles and
has a population of over one million and is characterized by a diverse mix of
urban centers, the State capital and all the associated government offices,
suburban residential and commercial development, and extensive rural-
agricultural lands.
In order to estimate the volume and character of waste generated in the

study area data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
DEC State Solid Waste Management Plan, and planning units in the State were
examined. In consideration of all this data, we believe that the per capita
estimate used for the March 2010 Capital Region Solid Waste Management Plan
is a sound means for this study at this stage, and it was therefore used to
develop the estimates in Table 1 below. A closer examination of waste quantities
and characteristics may be needed if the regional initiative moves forward with
the actual development of facilities.
In order to address the State’s priority on the organic components of

municipal solid waste, an estimate of the volume of organics in the waste stream
and the potential for recovery was made and is shown in Table 2.
In looking at the critical measure of how waste and recyclables are

currently handled in the study area, based on tonnage data reported to the DEC
it has been determined that 74% of the MSW generated in the region is disposed
of in the region at three facilities; The City of Albany landfill, the Town of Colonie
landfill, and the Hudson Falls waste-to-energy facility. The remaining 26% is
exported outside the region. For construction and demolition debris, the tonnage
data reported to the DEC indicates that 44% is disposed at in-region facilities,
and 56% is exported. As noted in the introduction, this dynamic will change
significantly in the future. Appendix B provides an inventory of major solid waste
and recycling facilities in the study area.
Waste destined for disposal both in and out of the region is handled
through a combination of public and private transfer stations. For MSW and
C&D, the tonnage data reported to the DEC reveals that 42% is handled at
publicly owned stations with 58% handled at private facilities.
For both MSW and recyclables, solid waste planning unit profiles compiled
by the DEC show that 32% of the study area population is served by a public
collection program, with 68% using private subscription service.
The diversion (recycling and composting) and disposal data reported to

the DEC by each planning unit involved in the study was compiled. Table 3
below summarizes the diversion and disposal quantities from each planning unit
and the resulting diversion rate calculation. The average diversion rate across
the area was calculated at approximately 17%. As many planning units do not
have access to data from the private sector, particularly the quantity of
recyclables marketed directly to markets by the generator, these numbers
typically underestimate the quantity of diverted materials. Nonetheless, this data
provides a snapshot of the current diversion of materials from the waste stream.
Also included in the table for comparative purposes, is the quantity of material
requiring diversion in order to meet the maximum overall diversion rate of 65%
percent utilized in Table 1.

Table 1 - Estimated Annual Waste Generation 1 by County (Tons/Year)
Non Hazardous Estimated Waste

Residential Non Residential
County Pop.2 C&D Waste @ Industrial Waste Total Recycled/Reduc Stream for
MSW @ MSW@
@ ed Material3 @ Disposal
3.60 lb/per./day 1.80 lbs/per./day4.00 lbs/per./day1.15 lbs/per./dayTons/Year 65% Tons/Year
Albany County 304,204 199,862 99,931 222,069 63,845 585,707 380,709 204,997
Columbia County 63,096 41,454 20,727 46,060 13,242 121,483 78,964 42,519
Greene County 49,221 32,338 16,169 35,931 10,330 94,769 61,600 33,169
Montgomery County 50,219 32,994 16,497 36,660 10,540 96,690 62,849 33,842
Rensselaer County 159,429 104,745 52,372 116,383 33,460 306,961 199,524 107,436
Saratoga County 219,607 144,282 72,141 160,313 46,090 422,826 274,837 147,989
Schenectady County 154,727 101,656 50,828 112,951 32,473 297,907 193,640 104,268
Schoharie County 32,749 21,516 10,758 23,907 6,873 63,054 40,985 22,069
Washington County 63,216 41,533 20,766 46,148 13,267 121,715 79,114 42,600
Total 1,096,468 720,379 360,190 800,422 230,121 2,111,112 1,372,223 738,889
1. Waste generation estimates based on per person generation rates as reported in the Draft Solid Waste Management Plan for the Capital Region Solid
Waste Management Partnership prepared by Clough Harbor & Associates March 2010, and verified by various sources.
2. Population based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census population data for New York State counties.
3. Recycled/Reduced Material includes source separated organic waste and recyclables at a 75-80% recovery rate for each waste stream. The estimated
recovery rate for each type of waste (food waste, yard waste, paper, plastic, metal, etc.) was multiplied by the estimated percentage of each material in the
waste stream to develop the 65% weighted average recovery rate. For the entire 9-county region, the breakdown of diverted waste is approx. 200,000 tons
per year of organic waste (see separate table) and approx. 1,171,000 tons per year of dry recyclable materials (roughly a 15/85 split).
B&L/Gerhardt - 17 - Octo 2011

Table 2 - Estimated Annual Organics Waste Generation by County (Tons/Year)
County Population1 Total MSW @

Organics @ Recovered Organics @
2 3
5.40 lbs/person/day25% 75% of Total Organics
Albany County 304,204 299,793 74,948 56,211
Columbia County 63,096 62,181 15,545 11,659
Greene County 49,221 48,507 12,127 9,095
Montgomery County 50,219 49,491 12,373 9,280
Rensselaer County 159,429 152,190 38,047 28,536
Saratoga County 219,607 216,423 54,106 40,579
Schenectady County 154,727 152,483 38,121 28,591
Schoharie County 32,749 32,274 8,069 6,051
Washington County 63,216 62,299 15,575 11,681
Total 1,096,468 1,075,642 268,910 201,683
1. Population based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census population data for New York State counties.
2. Percent organics as reported in NYSDEC draft report Beyond Waste.
3. Assumes highest achievable recovery rate of organic materials from the waste stream is 75%.

Table 3 - Regional Recycling Percentage by Planning Unit

Note: Many planning units do not have access to data from the private sector, particularly the tons of recyclable materials
marketed directly to end-use markets by the generating source, hence the tons of recyclables shown in this table for each
planning unit may underestimate the tons of materials actually recycled.
Data taken from 2009 Planning Unit Annual Reports
Recycled
Disposed Materials Percentage Tons Recycled at
Planning Unit 1,2
Materials (tons) (tons) Recycled Maximum
City of Troy 4,049.80 22,725.15 15.13% Recycling
17,403.72&
Greene County 2,273.70 18,574.46 10.91% 13,551.30
MOS SWMA3 6,955.00 95,938.00 6.76% 66,880.45
Columbia County SWD 4,928.00 10,145.00 32.69% 9,797.45
Saratoga County 5,666.00 242,075.00 2.29% 161,031.65
Town of Colonie DPW4 5,639.61 42,738.00 11.66% 31,445.45
Capital Region SWM 93,925.50 169,372.27 35.67% 171,143.55
Eastern Rensselaer 1,470.59 7,439.15 16.51% 5,791.33
Warren & Washington 3,374.95 59,049.55 5.41% 40,575.93
Schenectady County 5 80,351.00 147,322.00 35.29% 147,987.45
Total 208,634.15 815,378.58 17.23% 665,608.27
1. Recycl ed va l ues i ncl ude orga ni cs whenever they were recorded a nd di verted from the wa s te s trea m.
2. As s umed Va l ues : Computer moni tors wei gh on a vera ge 45 pounds ea ch, tel evi s i ons wei gh on a vera ge 100 pounds ea ch,
and ti res wei gh on average 25 pounds each.
3. MOS SWMA s tands for Montgomery Ots ego Schoha ri e Sol i d Wa s te Ma na gement Authori ty
4. Tons of di s pos ed ma teri a l s s hown for Col oni e repres ent onl y ma teri a l s genera ted wi thi n the Town tha t requi red
di s pos al .
5. Schenectady County-wi de Inter-muni ci pa l Pl a nni ng Uni t

4. Waste Processing Technologies
4.1 Summary of Technology Options
The following is a summary of the major technology options which could

be considered by a regional authority for use in processing the volume of waste
which remains after maximizing recycling [material recovery] and reduction.
Proven Inside the U.S. for MSW Treatment/Disposal
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

MSW landfills are considered the conventional disposal method for MSW in New
York State. Waste is disposed of in state-of-the-art landfill facilities with double
composite liner systems, which prevent liquids and contaminants from the waste
from entering the surrounding soils and groundwater. Leachate (liquid that has
come into contact with waste) is collected and typically disposed of at a
wastewater treatment plant. Landfill gas, which is generally rich in methane
(~50%) is also collected and combusted to prevent dissipation into the
atmosphere. Collected gases can also be beneficially used for energy
production. Landfilling is on the lowest rung of the state’s solid waste
management hierarchy. There are currently 27 MSW landfills operating in New
York State. One MSW landfill has been built but never operated (Saratoga
County).
Waste-to-Energy Facility (Combustion)

A Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility is a solid waste management facility that
combusts wastes to generate steam or electricity and reduces the volume of
municipal solid waste (MSW) that would otherwise need to be disposed of by
approximately 80-90 percent. These facilities are also sometimes referred to as
resource recovery facilities, Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) or solid waste
incinerators with energy recovery. Newer technology allows higher efficiency
heat recovery from the combustors, increasing energy production potential.
There are currently 10 active WTE facilities in New York State.
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Composting

Mixed MSW composting is typically an aerobic composting process that breaks
down all organic portions of the waste into compost material. Waste is typically
collected at the facility as a mixed stream. The process requires intense pre- and
post-processing, treatment and sorting to remove inert materials such as plastic
or glass, which diminish the quality of compost products. Some MSW
composting facilities also accept biosolids. Wastes are typically loaded into a
rotating bioreactor drum for two to four days. Screening processes are used to
separate unacceptable wastes, which is landfilled as process residue, from the

raw compost which is stored in a maturation area for approximately one month to
allow biological decomposition to occur. There are currently 13 mixed MSW
composting facilities in operation in the United States, including one in Delaware
County, New York.
Proven Outside the U.S. (Europe & Japan) for MSW Treatment/Disposal
Plasma Arc Gasification

Plasma arc gasification is a waste treatment technology that uses electrical
energy and the high temperatures created by an electrical arc gasifier. This arc
breaks down waste primarily into elemental gas and solid waste (slag), in a
device called a plasma converter. The process has been touted as a net
generator of electricity, although this will depend upon the composition of input
wastes. It will also reduce the volume of waste requiring land disposal.
There are currently 10 plasma arc gasification facilities in operation in Japan and
Taiwan, but only one that operates on a large scale (all others are < 50 TPD) and
uses mixed MSW as its only feedstock. A small MSW facility (85 TPD) is in
operation in Canada. In the United States, St. Lucie County in Florida has
obtained a permit to construct a large scale MSW plasma arc gasification facility,
but as of this date, has not commenced construction due to vendor and funding
issues.
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Pyrolysis systems use a vessel which is heated to temperatures of 750°F to
1,650°F, in the absence or near absence of free oxygen. The temperature,
pressure, reaction rates, and internal heat transfer rates are used to control
pyrolytic reactions in order to produce specific synthetic gas (syngas) products.
These syngas products are composed primarily of hydrogen (H2), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). The syngas can be
utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate
electricity, or alternatively can be used in the production of chemicals. Some of
the volatile components of MSW form tar and oil, and can be removed for reuse
as a fuel. The balance of the organic materials that are not volatile, or liquid that
is left as a char material, can be further processed or used for its adsorption
properties (activated carbon). Inorganic materials form a bottom ash that
requires disposal, although it is reported that some pyrolysis ash can be used for
manufacturing brick materials.
Gasification is a similar process performed at slightly higher temperatures

(1,400°F to 2,500°F) to produce primarily hydrogen and carbon dioxide as
syngases.

There are currently two pyrolysis/gasification plants in operation in Japan which

have operated with mixed MSW as a sole fuel source with mixed success.
Mechanical-Biological Treatment
Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) systems are similar to mixed MSW
composting systems in that intense sorting is required as the first step in the
waste treatment process. This is considered the mechanical phase of the
treatment, where recyclable and non-organic materials are removed from the
waste stream, prior to the biological treatment. The biological treatment phase
involves bio-drying of the remaining organic materials for production of refuse
derived fuel, or RDF. RDF can be used in place of fossil fuel products, such as a
replacement for coal in electricity production. There are currently over 70 active
MBT systems in operation across Europe, with a majority of these facilities
operating as pilot scale projects (exact numbers are not available).
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process by which microorganisms digest
organic material in the absence of oxygen, producing a solid byproduct
(digestate) and a gas (biogas). In the past, anaerobic digestion has been used
extensively to stabilize sewage sludge, but is more recently under consideration
as a method to process the organic fraction of MSW. In anaerobic digestion,
biodegradable material is converted by a series of bacterial groups into methane
and CO2. In a primary step called hydrolysis, a first bacterial group breaks down
large organic molecules into small units like sugars. In the acidification process,
another group of bacteria converts the resulting smaller molecules into volatile
fatty acids, mainly acetate, but also hydrogen (H2) and CO2. A third group of
bacteria, the methane producers or methanogens, produce a medium-Btu biogas
consisting of 50-70% methane, as well as CO2. This biogas can be collected and
used for a variety of purposes including electricity production or converted to high
BTU natural gas. There are currently over 200 MSW anaerobic digestion
facilities operating across Europe. Many of these facilities are smaller scale
projects, designed to provide treatment of wastes for small towns and villages.
There are two such facilities in operation in Canada, each in the Toronto, Ontario
area.
Unproven/Emerging
Ethanol Production
Ethanol production from a mixed MSW waste stream requires an intensive
sorting process as the first processing step. All recyclable and inert materials
must be removed to produce an organic waste stream for ethanol production.
This material is then chopped, fluffed, and fed into a hydrolysis reactor. The
effluent of this reactor is mostly a sugar solution, which is prepared for

fermentation. This solution is detoxified and introduced to a fermenter, in which

microorganisms convert the sugar to ethanol and CO2. Next, the solution is
introduced into an energy-intensive process that combines distillation and
dehydration to bring the ethanol concentration up to fuel grade (99%) ethanol. A
solid residue of unfermented solids and microbial biomass is recovered through
the anaerobic digestion process, and its marketability as a compost material
depends on the purity of feedstock as well as its visual quality. Solid residues
can be burned or gasified if alternative methods of reuse are not feasible.
Various pilot scale facilities are operating in the United States and Europe, but
many have reverted to more homogeneous feedstocks such as wastewater
treatment sludge and food processing wastes, because obtaining the
homogeneous input stream from mixed MSW has proven difficult.
4.2 Costs Summary
If a solid waste management authority is established for the Albany area,

the development of long-term solid waste management facilities would be an
integral part of its mission. Preliminary estimates of capital costs and costs per
ton are presented below, in 2011 dollars, to illustrate the magnitude of costs that
could be involved for the development of a single stream Materials Recovery
(Recycling) Facility (MRF), a source separated organic waste management
facility (such as an anaerobic digester), a waste processing facility (such as a
waste to energy facility), and a new landfill. While different types and sizes of
solid waste management/recycling facilities may ultimately be considered by a
regional solid waste authority for the Albany area, the preliminary cost
information presented below provides a representative range of comparative
facility costs.
1. New single stream MRF assumed to process 160 Tons Per Day (TPD) of
recyclable materials:
a. $12,500,000 capital cost.
b. Potential tip fee of $ 25 per ton of recyclable material.
2. For estimating purposes, an anaerobic digester system was assumed to

process approximately 160 TPD of food and paper waste, and 160 TPD of
biosolids or manure, as a stabilizing feedstock, for a combined total of
approximately 320 TPD of organic waste at 30 percent solids:
b. Potential tip fee of $108 per ton of food and paper waste.
3. A 600 TPD waste to energy facility could potentially process virtually all of the
non-recyclable waste generated by Albany County:
b. Potential tip fee of $93 per ton of processible waste.

4. A 2100 TPD waste to energy facility could potentially process virtually all of
the non-recyclable waste generated from the entire 9-county Albany Study
Area:
b. Potential tip fee of $71 per ton of processible waste.
5. A 600 TPD landfill could potentially dispose of all of the non-recyclable waste
generated by Albany County:
b. Potential tip fee of $41 per ton of waste.
6. A 2100 TPD landfill could potentially dispose of all of the non-recyclable

waste generated from the entire 9-county Albany Study Area:
b. Potential tip fee of $22 per ton of waste.
There are a number of requirements that would have to be met to

successfully develop one or more of these solid waste management and
recycling facilities. These facility development requirements are contained in
Appendix C.
4.3 Comparison of Current and Future Disposal Costs
Currently within the study area the non-contract gate fees for disposal of
waste ranges from $60 to $75 per ton, as is shown in Table 4. This range
reflects three primary means of disposal—local public landfills, a local waste-to-
energy facility, and long distance transfer to private landfills. The average non-
contract gate fee charged for disposal is $67.25. These fees do not reflect the
cost of recycling or other solid waste management services beyond the disposal
of municipal solid waste.
The ability to compare current costs to potential future costs is

straightforward for the disposal component. As shown in Table 4, the projected
future cost of the two primary, proven disposal technologies, landfill and waste-
to-energy, compares favorably to current costs if the communities in the nine
county study area were to join together in a regional authority. Future costs
would be within the range of the current disposal costs.
However, one of the primary reasons for considering the creation of a new
regional solid waste authority for the study area would be to significantly increase
recycling and advance organics recovery. So, the costs of developing recycling
and organics recovery facilities have been shown in Section 4.2, above, and in
Table 4 these costs have been added to the cost of disposal to illustrate the cost
impact for a theoretical new, integrated system. However, care should be taken

in such a comparison because the two scenarios represent systems with

significantly different facilities configurations. It will be up to the authority board
to carefully evaluate all relevant conditions and decide what facilities it will
develop and what the schedule for development should be. Only then will the
true system cost be known.
Table 4 - Disposal Fee Comparison
Existing Facilities1 Average Disposal Fee/Ton Waste

City of Albany Landfill $75.00
Town of Colonie Landfill $60.00
Warren/Washington WTE $65.00
MOSA Transfer Stations $69.00
Average Disposal Cost $67.25
Potential "Break Even" Disposal

Fee/Ton Waste
Potential Savings/Year
9-County for 9-Counties (vs. Albany
Potential Treatment Facilities/Systems2 Region Albany County County Only)3
Landfilling $22.00 to $41.00 $13,680,000
Waste to Energy $71.00 to $93.00 $15,840,000
Landfilling & Recycling $45.00 to $60.00 $10,800,000
Waste to Energy & Recycling $94.00 to $112.00 $12,960,000
Landfilling, Recycling, Digestion $75.00 to $90.00 $10,800,000
Waste to Energy, Recycling, Digestion $124.00 to $142.00 $12,960,000
Range of Treatment Facilities/Systems Costs
$22.00 to $142.00 $10.8M to $15.84M
Notes:
1 - Disposal fee range based on average published "gate rate" tipping fees for MSW/C&D waste at the facilities for 2010/2011.
Lower $/ton tip fees may be charged per contractual arrangements with large haulers and other major facility users.
2 - Average estimated cost per ton range based on facilities sized to handle all specified waste generated within either Albany
County, or the 9-County study area, respectively.
3 - Annual savings based on the disposal of 720,000 tons per year in the 9-county study area.
The potential annual savings per county that could result from
development of a new 9-county solid waste management facility is illustrated
below in Table 5.

Table 5 -- Potential Annual Savings
% of Potential Potential
Study Savings Per Annual Savings
County Population1 Area Year2 Per Capita
Albany County 304,204 27.7% $4,394,648 $14.45
Columbia County 63,096 5.8% $911,509 $14.45
Greene County 49,221 4.5% $711,066 $14.45
Montgomery County 50,219 4.6% $725,483 $14.45
Rensselaer County 159,429 14.5% $2,303,173 $14.45
Saratoga County 219,607 20.0% $3,172,527 $14.45
Schenectady County 154,727 14.1% $2,235,246 $14.45
Schoharie County 32,749 3.0% $473,105 $14.45
Washington County 63,216 5.8% $913,243 $14.45
Total 1,096,468 100.0% $15,840,000 $14.45
Notes :
1. Popul a ti on i s per the US Cens us da ta for 2010.
2. Ba s ed on potenti a l a nnua l s a vi ngs equa l to $15,840,000 for a 9-counti es project,
a s s hown i n Ta bl e 4, when compa red to a project s i zed onl y for Al ba ny County.
If these savings were passed on directly to the waste generator by local

haulers, regardless of whether the hauling services are publicly or privately
procured, then in today’s dollars the generator would save $14.45 per capita per
year. For a 4-person household in Albany County, for example, in today’s dollars
the potential savings for a regional authority project would be about $58 per year.
Additional savings, both pecuniary and environmental (e.g., there would

be less fuel consumption and reduced greenhouse gas emissions), could be
realized -- for residences that convert from individually subscribed curbside
collection services to publicly controlled curbside collection services -- as a result
of an Authority’s contracting/franchising of curbside collection services.
4.4 Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Each of the waste handling facilities described above would have

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sinks (carbon sequestration) associated
with the waste treatment process. With the exception of the anaerobic digester,
these values were calculated using the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Waste Reduction Model (WARM). A brief description of these emissions and
sinks for each facility is provided below. The analysis showed that each
treatment process results in a GHG sink due predominately to the offset of fossil
fuel energy use associated with each. Table 6 below provides a summary of the
actual GHG sinks associated with each facility.

1. Single Stream MRF – The GHG impacts associated with recycling were
calculated based on the diverted quantities given above in Table 1. GHG
sinks (reductions) associated with recycling include energy savings in the
production process due to the replacement of virgin materials with recycled
input feedstocks and carbon sequestration associated with trees that are
allowed to remain standing when they are replaced with recycled paper in the
production of new paper materials.
2. Anaerobic Digester – The GHG impacts associated with anaerobic digestion

(AD) were calculated based on the diverted organic waste quantities given
above in Table 2. GHG sinks associated with AD include emissions avoided
due to displaced electric utility generation plus carbon sequestration in the
finishing compost. GHG emissions include those associated with collection of
the material and energy use in the AD process itself.
3. Waste-to-Energy Facility – The GHG impacts associated with waste to energy

were calculated for the two facility sizes described above. GHG emissions
associated with the facilities include transportation of waste to the facility and
stack emissions from the facility. Sinks include emissions avoided due to
displaced electric utility generation and decreased energy requirements for
production processes using recycled inputs associated with the recovery of
steel from the combustion ash. GHG emissions were based on a state of the
art, high efficiency waste to energy facility.
4. Landfill – The GHG impacts associated with landfilling were calculated for the
two facility sizes described above. GHG emissions associated with landfilling
include the generation and fugitive emission of CO2 and methane gases due
to the anaerobic decomposition of waste in the landfill and emissions from
transportation of the waste to the landfill facility. GHG sinks are associated
with the storage of some carbon in organic material within the landfill, due to
incomplete decomposition, that would otherwise have been emitted to the
atmosphere. It was assumed that the landfill accepting the waste would be
equipped with a state of the art gas collection system and landfill gas to
energy facility. For this reason, the GHG sink associated with the avoided
emissions from fossil fuel energy generation was also taken into
consideration.
Overall, recycling represents the waste processing technology with the

maximum GHG reductions. The waste generation numbers utilized in this report
reflect the maximum achievable recycling diversion rates for all materials, with
the remaining portion of the waste generated still requiring an alternate means of
treatment and/or disposal. In comparing waste to energy, anaerobic digestion
and landfilling as the method of disposal for the remaining material, the results of
the analysis indicate that waste to energy would result in the greatest GHG

emission reductions over the lifetime of the materials. It should be noted that the
greenhouse gas impacts associated with temporary construction activities for the
facilities listed above were not included in the comparison.
Table 6- Greenhouse Gas Reduction Associated with Waste Processing Technologies
1
Waste Processing Technology Estimated GHG Reduction Per Year Average GHG Reduction
(in metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent) Per Ton Processed
Recycling (Regional) 2,567,429 2.54

Recycling (Albany County) 716,413 2.52
Waste to Energy (Regional) 175,129 0.38
Landfilling (Regional) 145,406 0.26
Waste to Energy (Albany County) 49,033 0.39
Landfilling (Albany County) 40,806 0.27
Anaerobic Digestion (Regional) 25,558 0.10
Anaerobic Digestion (Albany County) 7,091 0.10
1. Emissions estimates based on the processing of recyclables, organic materials, and solid waste at the waste
generation rates and diversion rates given in Tables 1 and 2 of this report.
4.5 Comparison of Energy Impacts
The energy impacts of each facility described above were calculated

based on factors reported by the EPA in Solid Waste Management and
Greenhouse Gases – A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd
Edition, September 2006. All of the waste treatment technologies analyzed
represent an energy savings with the exception of landfilling. A brief description
of the estimated energy savings (usage) for each facility is provided below in
Table 7.
1. Single Stream MRF – The energy impacts associated with recycling were
calculated based on the diverted quantities given above in Table 1. Energy
consumption/savings associated with recycling include energy associated
with the replacement of acquired virgin materials (mining of metal ore, cutting
of trees, drilling of oil, etc.) and transportation energy for recycled feedstocks
versus virgin feedstocks.
2. Anaerobic Digester – The energy impacts associated with AD include the

generation of electricity from the methane byproduct of the process.
3. Waste to Energy Facility – The energy impacts associated with waste to

energy facilities were calculated for the two sizes described above. Energy
consumption/savings associated with the facilities include avoided utility fuel
due to electricity generation, energy savings due to steel recovery (similar to

the energy savings reported for recycling above), and energy used in
transporting waste to the facility and transporting ash from the facility to a
disposal site.
4. Landfill – The energy impacts associated with landfilling were calculated for
the two facility sizes described above. Energy consumption/savings
associated with landfilling include transportation energy related to hauling the
waste to the landfill facility and avoided utility energy through the landfill gas
to energy facility at the site.
Table 7- Energy Savings Associated with Waste Processing Technologies
Waste Processing Technology Estimated Energy Savings Per Year Average Energy Savings
(in Millions of BTUs) Per Ton Processed
Recycling (Regional) 24,754,534 24.28
Recycling (Albany County) 6,895,574 24.28
Waste to Energy (Regional) 2,848,145 6.23
Anaerobic Digestion (Regional) 1,835,790 7.47
Waste to Energy (Albany County) 807,215 5.48
Anaerobic Digestion (Albany County) 509,321 7.47
Landfilling (Albany County) -122,388 -0.80
Landfilling (Regional) -488,934 -0.89
1. Energy use estimates based on the processing of recyclables, organic materials, and solid waste at the waste
generation rates and diversion rates given in Tables 1 and 2 of this report.
As can be expected, recycling and anaerobic digestion represent the

treatment options that provide the most energy savings per ton processed,
although the energy savings associated with recycling are largely on the
manufacturing side and would not be realized locally nor by the operator of a
materials recovery facility. Anaerobic digestion is the most efficient means to
extract energy from organic materials, but many nonorganic materials will still
remain in the waste stream after diversion. Waste to energy offers energy
savings associated with managing these materials when compared to landfilling.

5. Track Record of NYS Solid Waste Management Authorities
Authorities have been formed in New York State, initially at the State level and
later at the local level, over the course of several decades. The Office of the State
Comptroller [OSC] succinctly stated the purpose for creating these authorities in its
2004 report “Public Authority Reform—Reining in New York’s Secret Government”:
“The objective of public authorities is to finance, construct and operate revenue

producing facilities for the public benefit, to assist the public sector with projects
intended to spur economic development, to provide financial support for non-
profit sector projects that serve public needs and/or to coordinate the
development or management of resources that transcend traditional public
boundaries.”
As indicated by the title of the OSC report, public authorities came under fire over
the past several years for abuses, mainly at State level entities but also at some local
authorities. This led to a series of laws and regulations known as the public authorities
accountability act [and amendments] which require standards and training for board
members, ongoing monitoring of governance, financial oversight, filing of financial
information, documentation of the public availability of files, and numerous other
requirements designed to insure transparency and accountability. Ironically, public
authorities are now more tightly controlled by these new regulations than the traditional
units of local government.
In looking at the track record of solid waste management authorities the level of
success can be characterized by whether they are financially self sufficient, whether
they have developed the facilities needed to fulfill the reason they were created, and
whether they serve the public as originally envisioned.
Appendix A provides key information on each of the solid waste management

authorities created in New York, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Six developed and own materials recovery facilities [MRF’s] to process

recyclable materials for marketing (Dutchess, Islip, Oneida-Herkimer,
Rockland, Ulster, and Western Finger Lakes);
2. Onondaga and Oneida Herkimer have achieved two of the best recycling
rates in the State;
3. Three developed new waste-to-energy facilities (Dutchess, Islip, current

Onondaga);
4. Three developed new landfill facilities (DANC, Franklin, Oneida-Herkimer);

5. Seven export waste to disposal facilities located outside of their service area
(Dutchess (partial), Eastern Rensselaer, MOSA, North Hempstead, Rockland,
Ulster, and Western Finger Lakes);
6. Four have not achieved long-term financial independence (Dutchess, MOSA,

Ulster, Western Finger Lakes); and
7. Four multi-county solid waste authorities have been formed (DANC, MOSA,
Oneida-Herkimer, and Western Finger Lakes).

6. Benefits and Drawbacks To Creating An Authority
Ultimately the decision whether or not to create an authority is a local decision

which will be based on whether the benefits are seen to outweigh the potential
drawbacks. In examining the track record of the other New York solid waste
management authorities and considering what provisions can be built in to the enabling
statute, there are numerous benefits, and a few drawbacks, which are listed in Table 8
and discussed below.
We believe one of the most significant benefits to a new regional authority would
be in recycling—a projected four-fold increase over current levels. This would be
achieved in a number of ways starting with a plan to unify both the list of eligible
recyclables and the instructions on how to separate the material. The fact that the
Capital region is a discreet media market as well as an identified socio-economic center
lends itself perfectly to a unified recycling message, thereby eliminating the significant
confusion that currently results from a myriad of different recycling programs.
We also believe that a new regional authority has the best chance of actually
implementing a successful organics recovery program. By coordinating among the wide
array of significant food waste generators across the study area, an authority can
develop a program with ample volume to be sustainable and more cost effective than
many uncoordinated small programs.
A new authority would be able to efficiently pull together all the information
necessary to do a regional solid waste management plan, either eliminating or reducing
the burden on the existing planning units. This is one example of what may be the most
obvious benefits created by consolidation. One comprehensive and coordinated system
would make the maximum use of staff resources, allowing technical, operating, and
professional staff to perform the necessary duties at multiple facilities and for multiple
jurisdictions. There will be new expenses to comply with the State’s recently adopted
mandates in the Authority Accountability Laws; however, the most efficient way to meet
those requirements would be with a single, regional authority.
In their review of the preliminary draft of this report, the DEC noted:
“While there is some collaboration amongst communities within the Capital

Region Solid Waste Management Planning Unit, the establishment of a formal
Solid waste management Authority would strengthen their ability to enhance
recovery and collection programs and realize economies of scale with much
greater ability to take advantage of marketing opportunities.”
Ultimately, the development of a publicly sponsored solid waste management

system is integrally involved with the private sector and private markets. For example,
any public materials recovery facility sends 100% of the recyclables it processes to
private mills for remanufacture into new products. The price those mills pay for the

recyclable materials are controlled by global markets. As those markets are strong, the
mills will pay higher prices to the public materials recovery facility. Another component
of a solid waste management system, collection, is often done by private companies
whether by private arrangement or public bidding.
A community must also be cognizant of the private market for disposal as it

considers how to manage its non-recyclable waste. This brings to light how a new
regional authority could create a significant benefit for the region. If a new regional
processing and disposal facility were developed it would largely insulate the area from
the potential for significant future increases in the cost of disposal in the private market.
Like any other commodity, the cost of waste disposal in the private market place is
determined by supply and demand. Over the past 25 years there has been significant
volatility in the disposal market [the availability and price of disposal service]. For nearly
a decade starting in the mid 1980s disposal prices rose sharply. This spurred the
development of new disposal capacity in neighboring states and that increase in supply
leveled prices for the ensuing decade. In the last several years the economic recession
and associated reduction in waste volumes has caused owners who built disposal
capacity to reduce their prices to the lowest level in nearly 30 years. At this time very
good rates can be obtained at disposal facilities.
However, no one can depend on that condition for the long term. Conditions
throughout the Northeast and beyond will impact the availability and price of disposal
capacity.
In looking just at the study area, if the volume of waste currently taken to the City
of Albany landfill is taken outside the area to private disposal facilities, that will increase
the demand for disposal capacity, consume landfill capacity, reduce the available supply
and ultimately increase the cost of disposal.
Even allowing for the development of new disposal capacity as is anticipated for
the Town of Colonie landfill, as local publicly controlled disposal capacity diminishes all
the communities in the region will be subject to the volatility that goes with the private
market. There may be times, like the current condition, when communities can benefit
from an economic recession and low disposal prices. However, there will also be times
when prices increase and in that case the local communities will have no option but to
pay whatever the market demands.
Development of a new local public disposal facility may be more expensive than
the current market and for the near-term future, but having that facility will guard against
the inevitable price increases in the long term. The existing but unused Saratoga
County Landfill might be able to serve this purpose, but Saratoga County’s decision
making would determine the extent to which this could help anyone outside of its
borders.

In addition to the cost of disposal, the cost of transportation can be significant. If

a community relies on long haul for disposal they will be vulnerable to the sharp
increase in fuel evident again in 2011. High volume tractor trailers that haul waste only
get 4-5 miles per gallon so the travel distance to the disposal facility is a significant
factor. Developing a local disposal facility will minimize and stabilize transportation
costs. It should also be noted that the development of a coordinated regional solid
waste management system will create a framework for more efficient and less costly
collection of waste and recyclables. At the same time, new initiatives such as the
separate collection of source separated organics may be implemented on a more cost
effective basis due to economies of scale associated with a regional authority.
The issue of environmental liability is also important in evaluating the

development of a public system. If there is no public role, the private sector will typically
seek the lowest cost disposal facility and provide additional services like recycling only
when markets are positive or they are being paid a premium. In the past, that has
sometimes meant that waste went to marginal disposal facilities, almost always without
the knowledge or consent of the waste generator. When environmental problems later
arise, under state and federal laws the liability and cost to clean up the problems is
directed to any and all of the waste generators regardless of the quantity or character of
the waste sent to the disposal facility. Literally, the owner of a bakery, for example, that
produces low volume low impact waste can be forced to pay for a cleanup caused by a
large volume industrial waste generator. The development of a local public disposal
facility allows the community to incorporate the best environmental protection systems
and to control the origin and character of waste that is accepted thereby minimizing the
long term risk for all local waste generators.
Past experience for communities where the disposal facilities are privately
controlled illustrate another benefit to a public system. The natural course of private
competition usually means that the company that controls pricing at the disposal facility
can use that to gain a controlling market share of the collection business. This private
control allows for unchecked increases in prices and often the elimination of smaller
hauling companies. Public control of pricing at the disposal facility creates an even
playing field for all waste haulers and generators that stimulates competition and helps
keep prices in check.
In their review of the preliminary draft of this report DEC noted:
“ While there is some collaboration amongst communities within the Capital

Region Solid Waste Management Planning Unit, the establishment of a formal
Solid waste management Authority would strengthen their ability to enhance
recovery and collection programs and realize economies of scale with much
greater ability to take advantage of marketing opportunities….. Provided
adequate assurances are included to assuage concerns regarding general
mistrust of the motives behind an authority, the establishment and
implementation of an authority is feasible. Consensus is a key element. “

Table 8 – Benefits and Drawbacks of a Solid Waste Management Authority
Benefits Drawbacks
1. Eliminate Overlap and Duplication 1. Perception of financial
waste, abuse of power,
unethical activities
2. Consolidate Services 2. One step removed
from political [ballot
box] accountability
3. Pool Resources 3. Involves changes to
current local public
administration of solid
waste management and
recycling facilities/
programs (i.e., it’s not
the status quo)
4. Streamline Governance
5. Replace up to 3 authorities and 10 planning units
with 1 new regional authority.
6. Save Money
7. Development of an in-region public system:
- Guard communities against disposal market
risks
- Reduce vulnerability to fuel cost spikes
- Effectively eliminate environmental liability
- Avoid negative consequences of control by
one large private company.
8. Create advantage and efficiency of dealing with large
volumes, economies of scale.
9. Provide an essential and sometimes controversial
service in a business-like fashion with public
accountability.
10. Provide the best chance of aggregating the volumes
of organics necessary to develop an organics
processing facility.
11. Allow for the creation of a service fee system that
encourages reduction and recycling and is based on
the level of service actually used or made available
[as compared to a fee set by property value].
12. Remove facility siting from the “white hot” political
climate.
13. Facilitate planning and implementation of facilities
and programs for the long-term benefit of the
community.
14. Regional public information initiatives to promote
additional waste reduction and recycling.

7. Key Ingredients For Success, Steps For Creating An Authority
The procedure for the actual creation of a new solid waste management authority
will first involve the preparation of a draft State enabling statute, based on local
decisions on elements of the statute and based on previous similar statutes. Each
participating county will then pass a home rule request to the State legislature. The
enabling statute will then be approved by the State legislature and signed by the
governor. The authority will then be activated when the counties [and/or other local
appointing entities] file the appointments to the board of directors with the State.
Drawing on the extensive base of over 25 years of experience with other New
York solid waste management authorities combined with the unique conditions in the
study area, there are several keys to creating a successful entity that can serve this
region.
Build Consensus
First, it is essential to build a strong consensus among the communities as a basis for
agreeing to move forward with a regional initiative. This will involve a recognition that
there are problems on the horizon and even though they are several years away, action
must be taken now to have any chance of having a system in place by the time those
problems are at hand. The consensus should reflect each community’s clear and
complete understanding not only of the potential problems ahead but also what will be
expected of them, how they will interact with a new authority, and what changes will
result for the homeowners and businesses they represent. The participating
communities must “buy in “ to the overarching benefits of creating an authority –
consolidation of services, elimination of duplication, improved efficiency in the delivery
of services, and costs savings – they must also accept that the authority is being
created to take concrete actions to resolve or avoid large complex problems. Each
community should recognize that they may not always agree with the decisions of the
authority.
Establish Public – Private Relationship
We also believe that there should be a conscious recognition at the outset of this
process that the creation of a regional authority is a major public policy commitment. It
entails a commitment to a measure of public control over the kind of solid waste
management system that will be built to serve the region. That is not to say that the
authority or the components of its system will be hostile to the private sector. In fact,
quite the contrary is true. Most notably, the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and in
the future source separated organics is likely to continue to be the province of private
haulers through subscription or by municipal bids and contracts. Also, the procurement
of a waste processing facility or facilities by the authority is very likely to seek
substantial private involvement. However, the nature and extent of private involvement
will be decided at a future date when the authority decides the configuration of a system

that best meets the needs of the region. In the final analysis, the authority would be
created to build a public system that provides the facilities and services needed and
wanted by the residents, businesses and industries of the region – so there has to be at
least some measure of public control in any public-private partnership arrangement.
Promote Transparency
From the outset, it is critical to maintain transparency. Albany County has made this a
top priority even as discussions of the concept of an authority are just getting started.
The highly publicized problems at some authorities now means that all authorities must
insure that all their business is conducted openly, that their records are easily accessed
by the public, that information is provided to the counties on an ongoing basis, that all
budget matters are fully disclosed and documented, that the basis for decisions is well
documented and explained, and that misperceptions are quickly and completely
corrected. The enabling statute for a new regional authority can include provisions that
reinforce the State Public Authority Accountability Act by requiring that the authority
submit its annual operating budget to the participating communities prior to adoption
and its annual independent audit immediately upon receipt by the authority.
Involve Local Governments
The municipalities within the participating Counties should be kept well informed and
current. Some are involved in the delivery of solid waste management services and
may need to adjust to new methods for waste handling, collection, and delivery.
Whether or not they are directly involved, local governments are on the front line-they
are the ones who get the first calls about a change or a new proposal. It will serve the
authority well to keep the local governments involved and informed. For all the same
reasons, private waste haulers and service providers should be involved in the
authority’s public involvement program. The public information and education process
should be started early, long before possible construction of a new facility starts or a
new program is offered.
Prioritize Initiatives
At the very outset of the process to create an authority its initiatives should be
prioritized. Based on what we know about the region and based on the priorities of the
State [who will ultimately have to approve many of the facilities and programs that are
developed], we recommend that the first priority be initiatives that are aimed at waste
reduction, improved recycling, recovery of organics, and cost savings.
Carefully Structure Authority To Meet Local Needs
In considering how to best structure the authority it cannot be emphasized enough that
this can be controlled by the participating communities. One of the most important
things that must be decided at the local level is the representation from the participating

Counties and the corresponding configuration of the board of directors. There are many
different ways a governing board could be structured, and for illustrative purposes three
options for the board of directors are shown below in Table 9.
Table 9 – Examples of Options for Authority Board Member Appointments
County Population Percent Option A Option B Option C

Albany 304,204 27.7 5 1 2
Columbia 63,096 5.8 1 1 1
Greene 49,221 4.5 1 1 1
Montgomery 50,219 4.6 1 1 1
Rensselaer 159,429 14.5 3 1 2
Saratoga 219,607 20.0 4 1 2
Schenectady 154,727 14.1 3 1 2
Schoharie 32,749 3.0 1 1 1
Washington 63,216 5.8 1 1 1
Total 1,096,468 100.0 20 9 13
It should also be noted that the appointments to the authority board of directors can be
structured to reflect unique local conditions. For example, if the size of a particular local
municipality warrants an appointment to the authority board, specifically by or from that
municipality, that can be designated in the enabling statute. If the counties, for
example, want appointments to be initiated by the county executive [if that form of
government is in place] and confirmed by the county legislature, that can be established
in the enabling statute.
The enabling statute [and the service agreement discussed below] should be structured
for the authority to be financially independent. This means that the enabling statute
must authorize the authority to establish and collect fees for its facilities as well as a
“service availability fee” that can be assessed on all waste generators in the authority
service area. The authority may be well advised to name the service availability fee
something like the “green fee” and earmark the revenue from it to pay for reduction,
reuse, recycling, composting, HHW, education, and other environmental benefit
programs and facilities. That would theoretically reduce the sting of a new fee and allow
the tip fee charged for disposal to be “at market”, thereby minimizing the impact on local
governments and haulers and actually reducing the reliance on flow control.
Even if the participating communities don’t expect to use it, they should make sure that
the enabling statute provides the sponsoring counties the ability to enact a local flow
control law. Similarly, the enabling statute should designate to the authority the power
to exercise eminent domain to acquire property essential for needed facilities.
Authorization to establish franchises for collection of solid waste and recyclable
materials should also be sought for inclusion in the enabling statute.

Another important factor which can be controlled locally through the statute and/or the
service agreement is the disposition of the pre-existing solid waste management
authorities and planning units within the study area, including the possible purchase by
the Authority of some of their assets.
Carefully Craft Service Agreement
In addition to the state enabling statute, a service agreement will be needed to establish
the relationship among the participating communities, to establish the business
relationship between the counties and the authority, and to provide a foundation for the
authority to issue bonds for the solid waste management system. If properly structured,
the agreement can insure that the authority will be financially independent [that is, there
will be no subsidy payments by the counties] while also providing the assurance that the
annual debt service obligations will be met.
The agreement will need to establish that if the authority is unable to meet its operating
and debt service obligations, the counties will make those payments. However, if the
following provisions are incorporated, the chance of that happening can be virtually
eliminated by 1) the counties pledging to deliver or cause to be delivered all waste
generated in their county [flow control], 2) the counties requiring the authority to enforce
flow control, and 3) the authority committing to always setting its fees to cover 100% of
its operating and debt service expenses.
Devise Start-Up Plan
A means for providing initial funding for a new authority would need to be established.
For the first several years, the Authority would need to i) hire key staff (e.g., executive
director, engineer/planner, accountant), ii) develop and implement a regional waste
reduction and recycling public information program, iii) coordinate the network of
transfer stations with an RFP/contract for disposal of waste that can’t be managed
within the region , iv) complete the evaluations necessary to decide the nature,
configuration, and priority of the programs for recycling, HHW, composting and organics
recovery, and v) establish a means of funding such facilities and programs, such as:
1. State grant.
2. Authority service availability fee (i.e., green fee) collected from waste generators
in its service area.
3. Seed money from member Counties/municipalities.
4. Authority bond issue to purchase facilities from member Counties/municipalities.
5. Combination of above.

8. Findings and Conclusions
1. Recycling levels, as reported by the existing planning units in the region and
considering the under-reporting that exists, are very low for many of the
planning units. The 2009 data indicates a range of 2.29% - 35.67% with an
average of all the planning units in the region of 17.23%. Through a regional
initiative coordinated by a new authority it is projected that annual waste
reduction and recycling levels in these planning units could achieve a goal of
65% and increase annual volumes from 208,634 tons to 665,608 tons.
2. Creation of a new regional solid waste management authority provides the
best opportunity to develop a cost effective and sustainable organics recovery
program.
3. The impending closure of the Albany landfill, the private take-over of the
Hudson Falls waste-to-energy facility and the private operation and
management of the Town of Colonie landfill will have to be considered by the
study area communities in evaluating their long-term arrangements for
disposal. The success of waste reduction and recycling efforts, the ultimate
capacity of the Colonie landfill, and Saratoga County’s decision regarding
possible future use of its landfill will all influence the timing and need for
additional local disposal capacity. The DEC has recently notified Saratoga
County that they must update their LSWMP and the DEC noted that an
approved LSWMP is a requirement for facility permits and certain State
grants.
4. The creation of a new regional authority is feasible from a cost and
operational perspective.
5. There would be significant benefits to the creation of a regional authority
including cost savings, consolidation of government services, elimination of
duplication, realization of an economy of scale in the development of facilities
and operation of programs, protection against sharp price increases due to
fuel price hikes and other factors, protection against monopolization by one
private company. The recent sale of the private hauling company with the
largest market share of collection service in the area highlights the need to
carefully consider the potential long term implications for the region.
6. There is a substantial base of experience with solid waste management
authorities in the State and the track record of the successful authorities has
resulted in financially independent operations, the development of well run
and cost effective facilities, and programs for recycling that are the best in the
State. Problems at some authorities are well documented and can be
avoided through the structure of the authority and proper oversight by the
participating counties.

7. On an annual basis, there is 1,080,569 tons of MSW, 800,422 tons of C&D,

230,121 tons of non-hazardous industrial waste for a total of 2,111,112 tons
of waste generated in the study area. Through an integrated system
developed by a regional authority recycling could be increased over current
levels an organics recovery facility could be developed, and a facility for the
safe handling of non-recoverable materials could be developed within the
region.
8. Proven technology is available to process, recover, and dispose of the
volume and character of waste generated in the study area. If all the
communities in the study area elected to join a new regional authority the
number of options available and the costs savings would be the greatest.
However, if only Albany County moved forward with the creation of an
authority it would still be feasible from a cost and technology perspective.
The cost for development of a range of technologies has been provided; the
actual cost will depend on the facilities selected by the authority.
9. There is great flexibility in the set up and structure of a solid waste
management authority to serve the region. The local participating
communities will be able to a) specify the size and representation of the
governing board, b) require oversight and reporting to reach the highest level
of transparency, and c) control the powers and duties to be established by the
State enabling legislation for the authority.
10. Funding will be needed for the establishment and initial start-up of an
authority.

9. Potential Hurdles
1. If the City of Albany landfill closes as is currently projected, there will at that
point still be approximately $44 million in unpaid bonds associated with the
facility. Other communities in the study area are concerned that if they join a
new authority they should not be saddled with satisfying these bonds. From
discussions with the steering committee, there seems to be a consensus that
the creation of the authority would have to include a binding provision, likely in
the service agreement, that the Albany landfill debt would not become an
authority obligation.
2. There is a vocal local contingent which is strongly opposed to the
development of a waste-to-energy facility and some perceive this feasibility
study as a precursor to such a facility. This perception is not consistent with
the discussions among the steering committee. In fact there is a strong
consensus that if the regional initiative moves forward the top priority should
be on facilities and programs to increase recycling, recover organics, and
detoxify the waste stream through programs like household hazardous waste
collections. Ultimately, the types of waste processing facilities would be
decided by the authority. However, the participating communities can require
that the authority only employ proven technology that, at a minimum, meets
all DEC and EPA standards.
3. There is concern from some of the smaller population counties that if they join
a regional authority their interests will be overwhelmed by those of the larger
counties. While this is a difficult issue to overcome, if care is taken in how the
authority is structured, particularly the board of directors, and steps are taken
to expand the current working relationships among the study area
communities, then it would be possible to create a successful multi-county
authority.
4. There may be opposition to the creation of a regional authority from large
private haulers serving the region. While the creation of an authority will
initiate changes, one of the most important benefits is that it will create an
even playing field for all waste generators and haulers. This will enhance
competition among haulers big and small, which can lower pricing and
improve overall collection services. This becomes even more important in
light of the sale of the area’s largest local private hauler to a national
company.
5. There is concern by several communities that they may be the location for a
future facility. The study area communities can help insure that any siting
process will be open and fair and that a commensurate compensation
package will be provided to host communities.

6. Some are focusing on the short term and the fact that there are no pressing
problems, rather than focusing on future conditions and the need to begin
now to address those conditions to avoid significant problems in the long run.
7. The implementation of an authority and any resulting waste treatment
infrastructure could take many years to implement; possibly beyond the useful
life of the existing disposal facility options.
8. The current uncertainty about the scope of future expansions at the Colonie
landfill, and therefore the extent to which it is likely to be able to accept
additional waste from within the study area in future years, limits the ability to
develop projections about the timing and sizing of new facilities which may be
needed.

10. Recommendations
1. Start planning before it’s too late:

a. Be ready before local disposal capacity expires.
b. Be ready when the economy improves.
c. Be ready when state and federal grants are available.
2. Take steps now to create a new, regional solid waste management authority.
a. Seek a Department of State Shared Services Grant to:
* Develop a model of future disposal capacity needs based on a

definitive plan from Waste Connections regarding their expansion
plans, if possible, or based on a range of possibilities for future
expansion at the Colonie landfill.
* Complete a detailed analysis of savings from creating an authority
by quantifying savings on a per county or per planning unit basis.
This will provide information to the authority formation team
necessary to answer specific questions from communities.
* Develop an inter-municipal agreement to allow communities to opt
in as part of an authority formation team and to continue building a
consensus on key elements such as board representation, priority
initiatives, method for initial funding, and budget oversight. Once an
inter-municipal agreement is in place for all those communities
electing to participate, the potential for forming a new consolidated
planning unit can be evaluated.
* Develop a draft state enabling statute for the regional solid waste
management authority [public benefit corporation].
* Develop a draft service agreement which specifies the relationship
and responsibilities of the member counties as well as the regional
authority.
* Develop an authority start-up plan and model as a means to foster
a consensus among the counties and illustrate how the authority
would operate.
b. Evaluate the feasibility of a state funded consolidation incentive for
communities electing to join the authority, such as purchase of existing
facilities that would have future utility for authority operations.
c. Take incremental steps to enhance the working relationship among the

study area communities, such as:

* Develop and implement a regional waste reduction and recycling

public information program.
* Evaluate regional HHW service.
* Evaluate consolidation of collection services.
3. Meet with NYS officials [DOS, DEC, ABO] to review this study, explore future
grant potential, and advocate for:
a. Funding for solid waste management facilities patterned on the Clean
Water Act funding for waste water treatment facilities.
b. Support for approaches that advance consolidation.
c. Reward initiatives that reduce GHG.

11. Public Comments On Draft Report
On June 27, 2011 the draft report was posted on the Albany County website,
announced through a press release by Albany County, and made available for public
comment through July 11, 2011. The comments received are attached as Appendix E.
All comments were reviewed and evaluated and any changes deemed appropriate were
made. It was then circulated to the Steering Committee before release as a final report.

Figure 1
Map of 9 County Study Area

Essex County
9
28
Lewis County
28 87
4
4
Hamilton County
Warren County
Herkimer County
New York
Vermont
Washington County
Oneida County
30
Fulton County Saratoga County 7
87
Montgomery County
90
7
20 Schenectady County 890
2
Rensselaer County
787
Otsego County
87 York
.
88 Albany County Mass
Ne w
schoharie County
90
20 7
90 20
23
Greene County
9 7
Delaware County Columbia County
K:\Projects\900\923004\Projects\location map - JMB2.mxd
Legend
87
Municipal Boundary 9 44
New York
Ulster County
Conn.
Counties 587
7
Dutchess County
StudySullivan
Area County
Data Sources: Basemap data - US Census, USDOT
nn.
Albany County Regional Solid Waste Feasibility Study Figure
9 County Study Area Map 1
0 5 10 Project No.
Miles April 2011 923.004
Appendix A
Profiles of Solid Waste Management Authorities in New York

Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study
Note: The enabling legislation for these solid waste authorities can be obtained on-line
at: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS or refer
to the Titles of the NYS Public Authorities Law (Article 8, Miscellaneous Authorities)
listed below.
1. Dissolved or Inactive Solid Waste Authorities
Title
13-D* Broome County Resource Recovery Agency

(§§ 2047-a*--2047-x*).
13-K. County of Essex Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2051-a--2051-x).
13-L. Greater Troy Area Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2052-a--2052-y).
13-A. Multi-Town Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2040-a--2040-u).
13. Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority

(§§ 2015-2037). Expiration Date: 04/01/1982 DISSOLVED
13-J. Town of Brookhaven Resource Recovery Agency

(§§ 2051-a*--2051-y*).
2. Active Solid Waste Authorities
Title
13-I. County of Franklin Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2051-a**--2051-x**).
29. Development Authority of the North Country Act

(§§ 2700-2724).
13-D. Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency
(§§ 2047-a--2047-x).
13-H. Eastern Rensselaer County Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2050-aa--2050-yy).
B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-1 October 2011

13-AA.Montgomery, Otsego, Schoharie Solid Waste Management

Authority (§§ 2041--2041-x).
13-FF. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2049-aa--2049-yy).
13-B. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

(§§ 2045-a--2045-x).
13-M. Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2053-a--2053-z).
13-C. Town of Islip Resource Recovery Agency

(§§ 2046-a--2046-u).
13-F. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2049-a--2049-x).
13-G. Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency

(§§ 2050-a--2050-z).
30. Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Authority

(§§ 2725-2749).

Authority Profile
1. County of Franklin Solid Waste Management Authority (CFSWMA).
2. Created in 1988.
3. Serves Franklin County population of 50,274.
4. 7 member board of directors appointed to 3 year terms by the county

legislature.
5. Annual operating budget of $6,000,000.
6. County makes debt payments with reimbursement from Authority; this resulted
in annual county subsidy every year until 2010 when additional revenue from a
2006 landfill permit tonnage increase eventually balanced the books.
7. No “service availability” fee.
8. Flow control authorized and enacted in 2009.
9. Eminent domain authorized.
10. CFSWMA owns a regional landfill and 4 transfer stations, with recycling and
yard waste composting provided at its transfer stations.

Authority Profile
1. Development Authority of the North Country (DANC).
2. Created in 1985 as a multi-purpose public authority to develop infrastructure

(e.g., water, sewer, solid waste, fiber optics, housing) and to provide services to
support growth of the Fort Drum military installation.
3. Serves Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties with a combined

population of 254,591.
4. 13 member board of directors appointed to 4 year terms. Each county

legislature appoints 2 board members, 2 are appointed by the Watertown City
Council, and 5 non-voting members are appointed by the governor.
5. Annual solid waste operating budget of approx. $10,200,000.
6. No subsidy payments from counties.
8. Flow control authorized by DANC’s enabling statute and enacted in Lewis and
St. Lawrence Counties in 2009/2010. No flow control has been enacted in
Jefferson County.
9. Eminent domain authorized, subject to approval by county legislature where the

property is located.
10. DANC owns and operates a regional landfill. Each county is responsible for its
own transfer station and recycling facilities. In 2010, DANC has started to help
its member counties with solid waste planning and recycling education.

Authority Profile
1. Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency (DCRRA).
2. Created in 1982.
3. Serves Dutchess County population of 292,878.
4. 7 member board of directors appointed to 3 year terms by the county executive

[3], the county legislature [3], and jointly by the executive and legislature [1].
6. County subsidy of $3-$6 million per year.
8. Flow control enabling authorization, but not enacted by county.
10. DCRRA owns a waste-to-energy facility and a materials recovery facility and
contracts the operation of both to private vendors; they hold special events for
HHW. [Note—the WTE facility was sized to handle approximately 60% of the
waste generated in the county.]

Authority Profile
1. Eastern Rensselaer County Solid Waste Management Authority (ERCSWMA).
2. Created in 1989.
3. Serves 3 towns and 4 villages with a combined population of 22,663.
4. 7 (1 per municipality) appointed by each town/village board to 5 year terms.
5. Annual operating budget of approximately $750,000 for disposal and hauling

contracts plus general administrative expenses.
6. The ERCSWMA budget is paid for by its member municipalities, who pay per
capita shares of the ERCSWMA budget per an agreement.
7. No “service availability” fee but unpaid solid waste fees become a lien on
property that can be collected as if they were unpaid property taxes.
8. Flow control authorized but not enacted.
10. ERCSWMA established ERC Community Warehouse in 1995 as an outlet for

reusable goods; spun-off in 1997 as a separate non-profit corporation. Has a
20-year disposal contract that is available to its member town and villages, and
an 8-year hauling contract that services a member town’s transfer station; both
contracts expire in 2012. ERCSWMA also prepares bid documents for its
members’ procurement of curbside collection services.

Authority Profile
1. Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste Authority (MOSA).
2. Created in 1988.
3. Serves the Montgomery, Schoharie, Otsego population of 134,751.
4. 8 member board of directors appointed to 4 year terms by the Montgomery

County Board of Supervisors [3], the Otsego County Board of Representatives
[3], and the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors [2].
6. Counties must meet minimum guaranteed annual tonnages [GAT] set by the
authority and pay penalties for failure to meet the GAT; Counties also subsidize
hauler tip fees.
8. Flow control enabling authorization.
10. MOSA owns and operates 3 transfer stations and leases and operates 2
transfer stations for the receipt and transport of non-recyclable waste to out-of-
county contract landfills; under contract with the counties, MOSA does the post
closure monitoring and maintenance for 3 closed county landfills.

Authority Profile
1. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority (OHSWA).
2. Created in 1988.
3. Serves the Oneida and Herkimer counties population of 277,984.
4. 10 member board of directors appointed to 5 year terms by the Oneida County

executive [3], the Oneida County legislature [4], and the Herkimer County
legislature [proportion based on population].
5. Annual operating budget $26,140,000.
6. No county subsidy payments.
8. Flow control laws at county level, backed by hauler/generator contracts.
9. Eminent domain authorized and used.
10. OHSWA owns and operates a new full-service landfill, materials recovery
facility, green waste compost facility, permanent HHW facility, 3 transfer
stations. [WTE facility 1985-1995].

Authority Profile
1. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA).
2. Created in 1990.
3. Serves population of 438,856 [less Village of Skaneateles].
4. 15 member board of directors appointed to 3 year terms by mayor of Syracuse

[6], the county executive [4], the county legislature [3], and the Town of
Camillus [1], Town of Van Buren [1].
5. Annual operating budget $33,193,000.
6. No county subsidy payments.
8. Flow control through municipal laws, county law, municipal contracts, hauler
contracts.
9. No power of eminent domain.
10. OCRRA has a public – private partnership for a waste-to-energy facility, [a local
ash/bypass waste landfill site was secured but never developed - ash is trucked
to a landfill in Western NY]; they own and operate 2 transfer stations; they own
and operate a compost facility; they contract for recycling services [material
recovery facilities]; they hold special events for HHW; they have an expansive
public relations and education program.

Authority Profile
1. Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority (RCSWMA).
2. Created in 1993.
3. Serves Rockland County population of 300,173.
4. 17 member board of directors appointed to 2 year terms. 10 appointed by

county legislature [8 must be county legislators, 2 must be village mayors], 2
appointed by the county executive, and the supervisor of each of the 5 towns in
the county is also on the Authority Board.
5. Annual operating budget of approx. $29,000,000.
6. No subsidy payment.
7. A “service availability” fee is authorized and in place. Facility debt service is

paid for by an Area Benefit Charge collected on an ad valorem basis.
RCSWMA also collects fees to cover its facility/program operating costs from a
Green Waste Unit Charge per parcel and from unit charges per dwelling unit for
HHW, Transfer Station, MRF and Sludge Composting [the latter also includes a
water usage unit charge for non-residential properties].
8. Flow control authorized and enacted in 2008 with implementation in 2009.
9. Eminent domain authorized but can be vetoed by county legislature within 45

days.
10. RCSWMA owns a MRF, 3 transfer stations, a sludge composting facility, a

household hazardous waste collection facility, a yard waste composting facility,
and a concrete crushing facility.

Authority Profile
1. Town of Islip Resource Recovery Agency (IRRA).
2. Created in 1982.
3. Serves the Town of Islip population of 322,612.
4. 5 member board of directors is the Town Board.
5. Annual operating budget of approximately $40,000,000.
6. No subsidy payment.
7. District fee charged to every residential property; $0 tip fee.
8. Flow control enabling authorization, but “economic” flow control is the actual
practice.
9. Eminent domain authorized but unused.
10. IRRA has a public-private partnership for a waste-to-energy facility; ash is sent
to Brookhaven landfill; they own and operate a materials recovery facility, green
waste compost facility, HHW storage facility, C*D processing and disposal
facility, and transfer stations; IRRA also provides collection service to
approximately 8,500 homes [10% of total].

Authority Profile
1. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority.
2. Created in 1984.
3. Serves town population of 227,058.
4. All 7 town board members also serve as the Authority Board.
6. No subsidy.
8. Flow control authorized and enacted.
9. Eminent domain authorized with consent of Town Board and Town Supervisor.
10. The Authority exports its waste off Long Island through its own transfer station,
which is operated by a contractor. It holds 4 HHW collection days per year and
provides weekly e-waste collection at a drop-off site. It contracts for
recyclables processing and there are multiple contracts for curbside collection
services in the town.

Authority Profile
1. Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency.
2. Created in 1986.
3. Serves the Ulster County population of 182,742.
4. 5 member board appointed to 3 year terms by the county legislature.
6. County subsidy of $ 1,400,000 for 2010.
8. Flow control enabling authorization.
10. UCRRA owns and operates a materials recovery facility and a transfer station
for receipt and transport of non-recyclable waste to out-of-county contract
landfill; they hold special events for HHW.

Authority Profile
1. Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Authority.
2. Created in 1986.
3. Originally formed to serve counties of Ontario, Seneca, Wayne and Yates.

Currently only serves Wayne and Yates with a combined population of 115,773.
4. Wayne County appoints 6 board members and Yates appoints 2.
5. Annual operating budget of $1,656,000 in 2009.
6. Wayne County paid subsidy of $1,632,000 and Yates paid $37,000 in 2009.
8. Flow control authorized but not enacted.
9. Eminent domain authorized with consent of county where property is located.
10. The Authority provides no disposal or transfer services. It owns and operates a
MRF in Wayne County.

Appendix B
Larger Solid Waste Management and

Recycling Facilities in the Study Area
All facility capacity data based on quantities listed in the NYSDEC-provided

facility permit or registration. All received quantities based on those reported in the
facility annual reports to the NYSDEC for 2008.
Active MSW Disposal Facilities

Est. Life
TPY TPY
Name Owner Location (Years)
Rec’d Capacity
Remaining
Rapp Rd City of Albany Albany 232,330 275,000 9
Landfill
Colonie Town of Colonie Colonie 164,083 170,500 14-16
Landfill
Wheelabrator Warren & Hudson Falls 170,317 219,000 20+
RRF Washington
Counties (until
2011)
TPY Totals => 566,730 664,500
Larger (Permitted) PRIVATELY Owned Transfer Stations

Name Location TPY Rec’d
EACO B-3 Canaan – Columbia County 23,424
Hiram Hollow Wilton – Saratoga County 69,259
WMNY – Port of Albany Albany (C) – Albany County 54,692
Fort Edward Fort Edward – Washington County 9,845
County Waste – Clifton Park Half Moon – Saratoga County 112,924
TPY Totals => 270,144
Larger (Permitted) PUBLICLY Owned Transfer Stations

Name Location TPY Rec’d
Schenectady* Schenectady – Schenectady County 71,454
MOSA - Amsterdam Amsterdam – Montgomery County 21,975
MOSA – Western Root – Montgomery County 15,548
MOSA – Schoharie Schoharie- Schoharie County 13,850
Greene County Catskill – Greene County 18,574
Greenport Greenport – Columbia County 10,428
* Privately operated.
B&L/Gerhardt Appendix B-1 October 2011

Larger (Permitted) PRIVATELY Owned Composting Facilities

Name Location CY/Y Capacity
Hiram Hollow Wilton – Saratoga Co. 15,000
CTI Agri-Cycle Cambridge – Wash. Co. 64,000
CY/Y Totals => 79,000
Larger (Permitted) PUBLICLY Owned Composting Facilities

Owner Location CY/Y Capacity
City of Albany Albany 38,000
Town of Bethlehem Bethlehem 86,000
Town of Guilderland Guilderland 26,000
Town of Clifton Park Clifton Park 60,000
Town of Colonie Colonie 28,000
City of Saratoga Springs Saratoga Springs 49,000
Schenectady County Glenville 86,000
Town of Rotterdam Rotterdam 15,000
CY/Y Totals => 388,000
Larger PRIVATELY Owned Materials Recovery (Recycling) Facilities

TPY
Name Owner Location
Rec’d
FCR MRF Casella Waste Claverack 14,086
Waste Connections Inc [Sierra Marketable Materials Albany 51,090
Fibers] LLC
Metro Waste Paper Recovery Metro Waste Paper Albany 21,280
(Cascades Recovery U.S., Inc.) Recovery, Inc.
WM Biers/BBC Aggregate WM. Biers, Inc. Albany Unk.
Recycling
Kara Fibers RHRF Kara Fibers Inc. Fort Edward 1,797
Fort Edward MRF Waste Management of Fort Edward 3,590
New York
Waste Connections Inc [County County Waste Albany Unk.
Waste]

Larger PUBLICLY Owned Materials Recovery (Recycling) Facilities

Name Owner Location TPY Rec’d
Town of Colonie Town of Colonie Colonie Unknown
Schenectady MRF* Schenectady County Rotterdam Unknown
TPY Totals => Unknown
* Privately operated, and currently functions as a transfer station for recyclable materials.

Appendix C
Solid Waste Management Facility Development Process

If the development of a regional waste authority is deemed feasible and if

part or all of the Counties in the study area elect to empower a new authority to
develop an integrated system, among the first tasks of the authority will be to
determine a) which, if any, existing public facilities will continue to be utilized, b)
what role will the private sector play [e.g., a publicly owned facility can be
privately operated], and c) what are the target waste components and tonnages
to be managed? Based on what we know at this time, the facility development
would fall into 3 categories:
RECYCLING – DRY RECYCLABLES; ORGANICS [2-3 years to new facility

opening]
1. Issue 120(w) RFP to procure a long term contract with an existing facility,
and/or
2. Establish siting criteria [e.g., based on acceptable travel times from local
collection routes; compatibility with nearby land uses] and designate a site
for new facility development:
a. Complete SEQRA and permitting requirements.
b. Issue 120(w) RFP for development of a new facility through a public
– private partnership, or
c. Proceed with design-build-operation of new public facility.
TRANSFER & DISPOSAL [interim] [2 years to start – operate for 10-12 years
until long-term facility opens]
1. Determine optimum transfer station configuration to serve the region

based on acceptable travel times from local collection routes through
consideration of potential use of existing public transfer stations,
construction of a new transfer station or stations, or some combination.
[Keeping the number of transfer stations to a minimum is critical, from a
cost effectiveness perspective].
2. Complete SEQRA and permitting requirements.
3. Proceed with design-build-operation of new public facility or facilities:

a. Facility construction, operation and/or hauling can be done by a
private contractor.
B&L/Gerhardt Appendix C-2 October 2011

PROCESSING & DISPOSAL FACILITY [long term] [12-14 years to facility

opening]
1. Establish target capacity.
2. Define waste components to be handled.
3. Review potentially feasible technologies.

a. Track record
b. Environmental impacts
c. Cost
4. Document statutory and regulatory siting standards.
5. Develop facility siting criteria/policies/preferences, such as;

a. Remoteness.
b. Proximity to waste centroid.
c. Proximity to other existing land uses.
d. Preferred primary highway classification.
6. Prepare draft siting methodology.
7. Initiate first phase of SEQRA process for technology and siting

methodology:
a. Establish lead agency.
b. Make positive declaration of environmental significance.
c. Issue draft GEIS.
d. Coordinate public comment period.
e. Hold public hearing.
f. Develop response to comments.
g. Issue final GEIS.
h. Prepare findings statement.
8. Prepare and submit a request for Conceptual Review by DEC based on

the GEIS with a preferred technology and siting methodology determined
to be the best fit for the community and the waste stream.
9. Following DEC conceptual approval of technology and siting methodology,

select the technology and the site – May consider the issuance at this
stage of a 120(w) RFP to shift the responsibility for most development
costs to a private entity who would then prepare documents and provide
technical assistance to complete 10-14 below.
a. The 120(w) RFP process involves issuance of a Draft RFP,
followed by a Final RFP, then an evaluation of proposals and
negotiation of a contract with the selected company.

10. Initiate second phase of SEQRA process for designated technology on

selected site
a. Establish or reaffirm SEQRA lead agency.
b. Hold EIS public scoping meetings.
c. Complete all necessary evaluations of potential and projected
impacts, such as:
i. Hydrogeology
ii. Unique and sensitive environmental areas
iii. Regulated wetlands
iv. Rare, endangered, threatened species
v. Traffic
vi. Air emissions
vii. Odors and other nuisance factors
viii. Environmental justice issues
d. Issue draft site specific EIS.
e. Establish public comment period.
f. Hold public hearing.
g. Develop responses to comments.
h. Issue final site specific EIS.
i. Issue findings statement.
11. Submit all required permit applications (this can be initiated once the draft
site specific EIS is complete).
12. Commence DEC adjudicatory hearing process:

a. Issues conference.
b. Determination of issues by DEC ALJ.
c. Adjudicate issues [adjudicatory hearing is conducted like a trial with
expert witnesses, cross examination, etc].
13. Receive adjudicatory hearing process results; receive permits; update

processing/disposal market analysis; respond to litigation.
14. If not previously completed, proceed with issuance of a 120(w) RFP for
development of a new facility through a public-private partnership, or
proceed with the design – build – operation of a new public facility.
15. Execute facility construction/operation contracts.
16. Facility construction.
Start facility operations.

Appendix D
NYSDEC Region 4 Comments on Preliminary Draft of Report

Appendix E
Comments on Public Review Draft

From: terry morgante <terrymorgante@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill
unexpected emails.
I am a homeowner in Halfmoon and am fully and absolutely opposed to
expansion of the expansion of Colonie landfill. The residents of our
community have tolerated this blight for long enough. We have been told
that it would be closed in 2018 and it is unconscionable for our
political leaders to allow expansion for another 20 years. The smell from
this landfill makes our life unbearable at times. This has an adverse
affect on daily life as well as our future because property values are
affected. This is the very thing we have worked our whole life for.
Please, please think of the people affected by this expansion and let's
work on a different solution.
Theresa Peace
31 Captains Blvd
Waterford, NY
1
From: Carol Sheffer <shefferelli@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 2:27 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Opposition to Landfill Expansion
Attachments: Opposition to Landfill Letter.docx
unexpected emails.
Attached is my letter in opposition to the Colonie Landfill Expansion - Area 7 Development
Application.
1
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office 60 Mallards Landing
Division of Environmental Permits Waterford, NY 12188
1130 North Westcott Road October 29, 2016
Email: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I attended the October 25, 2016 public hearing and would like to add my voice to the opposition to this
application and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending Area 7 Development application.
As pointed out in that hearing, the increased height of approximately 100 feet would have a major impact
on my property value, my quality of life and potentially the health of my family.
Although I am not an expert, a gentleman who spoke at that meeting pointed out that an increase of this
magnitude would require the application to be treated as a new application; not an expansion of the current
permit. Also pointed out was the lack of examination of any alternatives to the expansion, and the
presence/effect of any carcinogens, or airborne toxins. For those reasons, I believe the application is
incomplete. As it does not meet the requirements set forth in the law it must be denied for that fact alone.
The statement that the landfill only received a handful of phone calls last year regarding the odor, is false. I
know for a fact that the calls from my neighbors in Riverbend Island alone (69 homes) were at least 50 calls.
Other so called “facts” contained in the application are also questionable, and for that reason I strongly
believe that an adjudicatory hearing is required.
I purchased my home in 2007, fully aware of the presence of the landfill. At that time I was told that it was
going to be closed in a few years. Then that closure date was moved up to 2018. Since 2007 I’ve watched
the “hill” grow into a mountain. Now they want to increase that! That is unacceptable. The largest
investment I have in my future is my home. I have heard negative comments regarding living within sight
and smell of the “mountain”. The value of my home has already been affected and any expansion will only
continue on that downslide.
I sympathize with the Town of Colonie’s financial dependence on the landfill, however that hardship should
not be at the expense of their neighbors in Waterford and Halfmoon.
Very truly yours,
Carol Sheffer
(518)235-2624
Email: Shefferelli@yahoo.com
Cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor

Email: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
From: daria wolf <dwolf1001@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 10:50 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
I am a resident of 24 Heritage Court, Cohoes, NY and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the expansion of the
Colonie landfill.
Daria Wolf
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Don Allard <don.c.allard@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPOSAL - COMMENTS
unexpected emails.
Good day.
From the perspective of an engaged Town of Colonie resident, I would like to make the following observations
regarding the proposed expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
- While Cornerstone Environmental is to be commended for the thorough presentation that it has produced, it
paints the proposed expansion in a very favorable light and best case scenario. The replacement of current
leachate ponds with covered tanks would be a sensible action. However the overall scope of the project
expanding the facility from 212 acres to 344 acres, (Area 7) an increase of 132 acres, providing an 20 additional
years of landfill usage, is too large, in my opinion, and should be modified to expand more vertically if possible,
in current areas that are still in use. The perimeter of the proposed area 7 expansion should be shrunk and
especially moved as far away as possible from the Cohoes Crescent Road and Mohawk River. For all the
progress that has been made over the last 3 decades to clean up the Hudson River, I do not believe that this
proposed expansion can be done without an increase in pollution discharge into the Mohawk River and thus the
Hudson River downstream.
-I do not believe that enough study and effort has been made by the Town of Colonie to provide for alternatives
to the current landfill such as 1) residential and commercial waste reduction 2) reducing the amount of waste
accepted from other municipalities outside of the the Town of Colonie, 3) transferring waste to less
environmentally sensitive landfill locations, out to the area.
-The neighboring communities of Halfmoon, Cohoes and Waterford should not have to suffer the additional
daily orders and wind-carried litter from a landfill expansion and at the very least these issues should be more
thoroughly addressed to the satisfaction of those neighboring towns and city before moving forward.
DON ALLARD
DON.C.ALLARD@GMAIL.COM
518-577-7741
1
From: Frank Murray <fmurray10@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill
unexpected emails.
To public comment.
I have been a resident of the Town of Colonie for 56 years. The current landfill site is in need of expanding to
accommodate the future disposal of our solid waste. This is an absolute necessity as a way of continuing our quality of
life we (Colonie residents) have earned as taxpaying residents. People against the proposed expansion are simply
wrong. They have lived a NIMBY life thinking nothing should come to them at a cost. The factual reasons the landfill
should be approved to expand are as follows: It is already there and is approved to be there. The Town (our residents)
own the land and it will be the best use of this property. Other landfills will not have the capacity to take on the waste
of an outside Town – Our Town. Waste is a fact of life, disposing of it is a fact of life. This is where the solid waste will
need to remain. (it is there folks). Politically , taking the waste currently ‘dumped’ there is not going to be ‘accepted’
anywhere else without even more public controversy.

I fully endorse the approval of the expansion of the Town of Colonie landfill.

Thank You,
Francis Murray
1
From: dec.sm.ENB
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4; Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)
Subject: FW: 4-0126-00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application
From: Frank Murray [mailto:fmurray10@nycap.rr.com]
To: dec.sm.ENB <ENB@dec.ny.gov>
Subject: 4‐0126‐00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application

unexpected emails.
ENB Region 4 Notice:


Thank You,
Francis Murray

1
From: Gail Monast <gmonast@realtyusa.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Land fill Colonie ny
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and I'm writing to express my opposition and to request an
adjudicator hearing regarding the pending 2016 town of colonie landfill expansion area 7
development application.
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Wolf, George D - ALBANY NY <g_wolf@ml.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
My name is George Wolf. I reside at 29 Heritage court in the town of colonie. I live approximately 1.5 miles
from the landfill and I AM OPPOSSED to the expansion of the landfill.
George
Sent with Good Work (www.good.com)
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
message.
1
From: Joe Edmund <jedmund17@outlook.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Opposition to the Colonie landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
To Whom it may concern:
"I am in opposition to the Town of Colonie landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition,
and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
– Area 7 Development application
Sincerely,
Joe Edmund
Cohoes, NY
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1
From: Laurie Morse <realist8cp@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill
unexpected emails.
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition, and to request an
adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7
Development application.
Laurie "L.B." Morse

Licensed Associate RE Broker
RealtyUSA.com
1547 Route 9, Clifton Park, NY 12065
518-421-7564 (Mobile)
www.realtyusa.com/lbmorse
1
From: Dawn - Dominic <jtf00@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application
Attachments: Landfill.JPG
unexpected emails.
Good Evening,
With this email we are writing to request that an adjudicatory hearing be held to review the Colonie Landfill
Expansion Application.
The impact this expansion would have to our environment, as well the detrimental effect to the quality of our air
and our water would be devastating.
I have attached a photo of what the landfill looks like from just across the river in our community, Mallards
Landing South. I don’t think it’s understood how close this is to where we live and breathe and how much of a
stench, obstruction and eyesore it imparts to the thousands of us that live here.
This landfill mountain is already outrageously high and hideous to look at; to add even more height to what is
already a monstrosity for us to have to see every day is contemptable.
As fellow human beings, we respectfully ask you to consider what is more important to you, Colonie's budget
or the quality of life for all of its residents, as well as the surrounding community’s residents? Just
place yourselves in our shoes and I'm sure you will come to the honorable conclusion of not expand the
landfill.
Sincerely,
Dawn Harrington and Dominic Montello
17 Gadwall Drive
1
From: Doris and Warren Stout <dwstout1@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Permit Application
Attachments: DEC letter re Colonie Landfill 10-30-16.docx
Attached please find our comments in opposition to the Colonie Landfill Permit Application.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doris and Warren Stout
1
32 Oregon Trail
Waterford, NY 12188
October 30, 2016
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office

Attn: Angelo Marcuccio, Division of Environmental Conservation
Re: Colonie Landfill Permit Application
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
We attended the September 20 Public Hearing and are writing to express our strong opposition to
the Colonie Landfill Permit Application. The current proposed size and impact of the expansion
is untenable. We ask that the Landfill be shut down in 2018 as planned and not extended for
another 20 years.
We have been residents of Halfmoon for 18 years and we are extremely concerned about the
environmental impact on the river, surrounding wetlands and air quality. We regularly suffer the
noxious fumes when driving past the landfill. While we live about 2 miles from the Landfill as
the crow flies, we often are able to smell the odor in our yard. Given the prevailing winds, we
believe the proposed additional height of almost 100 feet will undoubtedly cause the garbage
odor to reach our home more frequently and impact hundreds of additional homes on the
Halfmoon side of the river. How that would affect our quality of life, property values and
potentially our health, cannot be underestimated.
We have been avid kayakers for the past 30 years. When we choose a location to kayak, the
Mohawk River is often excluded from our consideration because of the water and air quality,
despite its proximity. Expanding the Landfill will negatively impact the Mohawk River even
further. The proposed expansion destroys state and federally designated wetlands that are an
important part of the ecosystem to filter toxins and protect our water supply. Also, the
engineering report shows a proposed incline of 32%. This is creating a mountain. No amount of
native grasses or berms created will mitigate that. Besides the awful visual impact the expansion
creates for our community, the volume of garbage and steep slope will significantly increase the
potential for contaminated water runoff into the river. The proposed "state of the art”
containment procedures “lessen” the chance of contamination, but in no way can prevent it.
We drive that section of Route 9 almost daily and we can see the garbage that escapes from
ingoing trucks and the landfill ending up along the roadside every week. Any increase in height,
incline or breadth of the landfill will only cause more trash to escape and pollute more local
resident and business properties. The park on Crescent road will likely become a de facto part of
the landfill if this expansion is approved. We recently volunteered to help clean up that park and
the amount of garbage on the banks of the river was frightening. The sights, sounds, smells and
increased contamination of the water and riverbank will make the park useless for anyone to
enjoy.
We ask that you closely review the SEQRA and FEIS and recognize the negative impact that will
be caused by the continued operation and expansion of the landfill. In addition, if the proposed
expansion is to be considered further we request additional judicial hearings to explore other
alternatives.
Sincerely,
Doris and Warren Stout

32 Oregon Trail
Halfmoon, NY 12188
Dwtout1@nycap.rr.com
518-371-3696
From: John Kenney <edwinajohn70@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Application for the Colonie Landfill expansion.
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marcuccio: My name is John Kenney and I am a resident of Halfmoon, NY. I am writing to you to
express my adamant opposition to the application for expansion of the Colonie Landfill. I attended a public
hearing on October 25 at Shaker High School concerning this issue. Of those present an overwhelming
percentage opposed the expansion. The main reasons were the current landfill,s effect on the
environment. Currently this landfill emanates insidious odors and gases. This affects the residents who are
within close proximity of the landfill. Many of those residents are young children who have to breathe these
odors and gases. Obviously this is not healthy. I empathize with these residents because I work on Green
Mountain Drive which is directly adjacent to the south side of the current landfill. I cannot tell you how many
times I left work with a headache and a nauseous stomach due to breathing the odors and gasses emanating
from the landfill. Also the animal life that the current landfill attracts is alarming. The birds who are filthy and
large dangerous rodents. I have seen these rodents many times. As I mentioned I attended a public hearing on
this issue. I listened to several engineers who described the proposed plan for the new construction. In my
opinion their plans were shoddy at best. They want to re route the truck traffic that brings this waste to the
landfill on to Green Mountain Drive. I like to know where these engineers think this added traffic is going to go
based on the size and current traffic on Green Mountain Drive. Green Mountain Drive is located in an
industrial park with many businesses and poor roads. This is just one example of the poor planning of proposed
project. The town of Colonie and Waste Connections have not even considered other sites in upstate New
york. With the many residents, recreation areas, homes and rivers that would be affected if the expansion is
approved I feel that this would be an atrocity. If the town Colonie needs more space for their waste needs then
find an area with less population. Mr. Marcuccio please take into consideration the amount of people that will
be adversely affected if this landfill expansion is allowed to proceed. Please see it your heart to deny any
permits to allow expansion. Sincerely, John Kenney A concerned resident for the preservation of the
environmnet and quality of life.
1
From: louise.golub@gmail.com on behalf of Louise Golub <louise@golubcpa.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Department of Environmental Conservation:

I am writing to request that a proper hearing is held with regard to the proposal to expand the
landfill in Colonie.
A proper hearing is an adjudicatory hearing in which witnesses are sworn in and cross
examination is allowed, thus assuring the greatest chance for an appropriate decision.

Louise Golub
League of Women Voters of Saratoga County
1
From: Nancy Mallory <nancywhitefeather@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition and Adjudicatory Hearing
Request
Attachments: 100_0566.jpg; 100_0691.jpg; IMG_1122.JPG
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I attended the Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 25. I agree with the majority of the speakers who oppose the
2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion and Request an Adjudicatory Hearing.
I live directly across the Mohawk River from the Colonie Landfill in Riverbend Island in the Town of
Waterford. In 2008, when I had my house built, I was told that the Landfill would be closed in a few
years. Subsequently, that closure was extended until 2018. In 2008, I was not concerned about the Landfill as
it had been operating for years, there was only the occasional smell, and it looked like a hill with green grass
and trees across the entire back from my view.(see first attachment) I could even see the old Denny's Barn on
Route 9 from my property.
Fast forward to Hurricane Sandy (October 22-November 2, 2012). From the Waterford Town Meetings with
Waste Connections that I attended (Fall, 2013), the landfill was receiving tons of waste from downstate from
the Hurricane. This waste was wet and partially decomposed. Waste Connections was not equipped to take
care of it. The stench from the Colonie Landfill was horrendous throughout that Winter and the following
Spring, Summer, and Fall. I remember at that time that they also increased the daily amount of garbage that they
could accept. (NOTE: These meetings were predicated in part from all the phone calls that were placed to Don
Hallock at Waste Connections... I know personally at least 10 families that repeatedly called throughout the fall
of 2013)
As you can see from my current picture(last attachment), the Landfill has grown exponentially in just a few
years. Even though Waste Connections improved their operations and procedures in 2013 to mostly correct the
horrendous stench at that time, they have been subject to fines for multiple infractions. They are not running
the Landfill within the legal or environmental rules they are governed by... AND...the Landfill still stinks,
especially when it is wet.
Mount Garbage, as I call it, is a huge detriment to the value of my home. Say nothing of my exposure to who
knows what in the air and the damage to the Mohawk River from the leachates. It must be closed by 2018 in
accordance with the signed landfill closure agreement.
As you can see from the second picture I included, the Mohawk River is used not only locally for entertainment
and sport, but is an important waterway. One that we have a duty to protect and preserve for future generations.
I wholeheartedly support the Town of Waterford in their efforts to oppose the 2016 Colonie Landfill
Expansions and to demand an Adjudicatory Hearing.
1
Sincerely,
Nancy E. Mallory

Waterford, NY 12188
518-237-5951
2
From: Stephen Q. Shafer <sqs1@columbia.edu>

Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:52 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Need for adjudicatory hearing re Colonie landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
The plan to build up the Colonie landfill in its present location has not received due scrutiny and fact-finding.
The site is too close to water supply intake for the City of Cohoes. There must be an adjudicatory hearing.
Sincerely,
Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH
8 Mynderse St. Saugerties NY 12477
917 453 7371
1
From: Tina Lieberman <allgreencalendar@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing requested for expansion of Colonie Landfill
unexpected emails.
The proposal to expand the current Colonie landfill will about triple the size of the current landfill from 5.5
million tons to 15 million tons of waste. This is of grave concern to area residents and a full investigation of
health and environmental impacts needs to be done. This is especially true as a portion of the expanded landfill
will be sited on top of an unlined hazardous waste disposal site. This landfill also sits right on the Mohawk
River and above the Cohoes municipal water intakes. Is allowing this huge expansion to take place really the
right move? Is it even the best move?
Although figuring out how to deal with growing consumer waste is an important issue, I would suggest that
research shows when people have to pay for their waste, they tend to throw away less and recycle or reuse
more. Furthermore Bethlehem is about to begin a pilot curbside composting program that will remove about
1/3 of the waste stream and use it to create sell-able soil and fill. I suggest that it is time to seriously look at
waste reduction, not just landfill expansion.
To avoid issues of misinformation or half truths about the dangers of expanding the existing landfill, it is urgent
that an adjudicatory hearing take place, one where witnesses are sworn in and cross examination is allowed.
This will ensure us the greatest chance for an appropriate decision.
Thank you,
Tina Lieberman
30 Aspen Circle
Albany, NY 12208
Education Chair, Sierra Club Hudson-Mohawk Group
Chair, People's Climate Movement-Capital Region
1
From: atmckane1@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 5:54 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Proposed Colonie Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Latham, NY in the Town of Colonie.
I feel strongly that the proposed expansion to the Colonie landfill should be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing where

evidence is presented under oath and considered by an administrative law judge. This proposed substantial expansion
has long term impacts and possible environmental ramifications for the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers and for communities
taking water from these rivers.
Sincerely,
Aimee McKane
10 Homestead Dr., Latham, NY 12110

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1
From: Anne Sage <anne.sage@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Application
unexpected emails.
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC Region 4
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
This proposal requires an adjudicatory hearing to avoid issues of misinformation.

In an adjudicatory hearing, witnesses are sworn in and cross examination is allowed, thus
assuring the greatest chance for an appropriate decision. There are many other questionable
issues related to this proposal.
The Town of Colonie (located on the north side of Albany) has applied to the Department of
Environmental Conservation to greatly expand the size of its landfill, which is located literally
within feet of the Mohawk River, approximately one-half mile upstream from the City of Cohoes
municipal water intakes (obviously, this is a bad arrangement).
The expansion will perhaps triple the landfill's size from 5.5 million tons to 15 million tons, and
will be accomplished by expanding upwards, rather than outwards, and reaching a height of
approximately 100 feet.
In addition, a portion of the expanded landfill will be sited on top of an un-lined hazardous waste
disposal site.
The first public hearing on the proposal hosted by DEC was held on Sept 20 at Shaker High
School in the Town of Colonie. A second hearing was held on Oct 27.
Landfill proposals seem to have a penchant for attracting half-truths and misinformation into the
public record. Decisions affecting public health and the environment are then based on an
abundance of misinformation.
This proposal requires an adjudicatory hearing to avoid issues of misinformation in order to

protect the health of the Town of Colonie residents.
1
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Sage
4 Abedar Lane
Latham, NY 12110
Sent from my iPhone
2
From: BERNARD DESROCHES <bernyd@verizon.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: hearing
unexpected emails.
Pease let us have an adjudicatory hearing before any decisions are

made.
Bernard Desroches
1
From: Daniel Sheffer <dsheffer46@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application - Resident Opposition Opinion
Attachments: Opposition Letter to DEC copy.pdf
unexpected emails.
Good evening,
Attached you will find a letter of opposition to the proposed Colonie Landfill expansion project. I thank you for
your consideration in this matter.
With regards,
Daniel E. Sheffer Jr.

Chief
Northside Fire District
F.B. Peck Hose Co.
85 Saratoga Ave.
Waterford, N.Y. 12188
(518) 235-4609 STATION
(518) 857-5858 CELL
(518) 235-5830 FAX
1
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office 21 Gadwall Drive
Division of Environmental Permits Waterford, NY 12188
1130 North Westcott Road October 31, 2016
Email: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I would like to add my voice to the opposition to the above application and to request
an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending Area 7 Development. As pointed out in
the October 25, 2016 hearing, the increased height of almost 100 feet would have a
major impact on my property value, my quality of life and potentially the health of my
family.
A gentleman who spoke at that hearing pointed out that an increase of this magnitude
would require the application to be treated as a new application; not an expansion of
the current permit. Also pointed out at that hearing was the lack of examination of any
alternatives to the expansion, and the presence/effect of any carcinogens, or airborne
toxins. For those reasons, I believe the application is incomplete. As it does not meet
the requirements set forth in the law it must be denied for that fact alone.
The statement that the landfill only received a handful of phone calls last year
regarding the odor, is false. I know for a fact that the calls from my neighbors in
Riverbend Island alone (69 homes) far exceeded a handful. Other so called “facts”
contained in the application are also questionable, and for that reason I strongly
believe that an adjudicatory hearing is required.
As a lifelong resident of Waterford, and Chief of the F.B. Peck Hose Co. for ten years
and member for 17 years, I am fully aware of the presence of the landfill. I have seen
it grow from a “hill” into a mountain and now they want to make it even larger! I
understand that the Town of Colonie depends on the revenue generated by the landfill,
however that dependence should not be at the expense of their neighbors in Waterford
and Halfmoon.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Sheffer Courtney Sheffer

Email: Dsheffer46@gmail.com

Email: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
From: David Galdun <dgaldun@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Expansion
Please require an adjudicatory hearing for any potential expansion of the Town of Colonie Landfill.
Thanks
Dave Galdun
Colonie NY
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Deborah A Hartman-Symanski <dsymanski@realtyusa.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and request an I am writing to express my opposition, and
to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion –
Area 7 Development application.
Deborah A. Hartman-Symanski
Licensed Associate Real Estate Broker
Senior Sales Associate
RealtyUSA.com
DSymanski@realtyusa.com
518-339-9771 Cell
518-489-1000 Office
518-489-3507 Fax
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Baker, Diane M (OGS)

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition, and to

request an adjudicatory hearing regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill
Expansion – Area 7 Development application.

Diane Baker
Contract Management Specialist, Consultant Procurement
Office of General Services │Design & Construction │Contract Management

35th Floor, Corning Tower, ESP, Albany, NY 12242
p. (518) 474-2460 │ diane.baker@ogs.ny.gov │
www.ogs.ny.gov

1
From: Don <dbaker6@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
To whom it may concern,

I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition, and to request an
adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7 Development
application.

Donald Baker
133 Fonda Rd.
Waterford, NY 12188
1
From: Howe, Don (ITS)

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Request an adjudicatory hearing to review this Colonie Landfill Expansion Application
Attachments: DSC00083.JPG; Opposition Letter to DEC.doc; DSC00080.JPG

Please find attached letter regarding my families opposition to the Town of Colonie Landfill expansion application. I have
also attached 2 photograph’s taken from my back deck facing the Mohawk River as well as the Colonie landfill. Thank
you.

Sincerely,

Donald Howe
Manager Wide Area Network
Office of Information Technology Services

50 Wolf Road 3rd Floor
Albany, N.Y. 12205
(518) 473-1102 | don.howe@its.ny.gov
www.its.ny.gov

1
10/31/2016
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office Donald and Renee Howe

Division of Environmental Permits 8 Widgeon Way
1130 North Westcott Road Waterford, NY 12188
Schenectady, NY 12306 H: (518)225-8382
E: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov E: donaldhowe05@gmail.com

Dear Angelo,
I am writing to express my opposition, and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016
Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7 Development application.
I am opposed to this subject application, for the many reasons already stated & documented in the recent
public hearings.
I purchased and moved into my residence in December of 2009. At that time it was my understanding that
the Town of Colonie landfill would be closing in 2018. My wife and I, along with our two daughters have
endured the odor and the devastating appearance of the landfill for almost 7 years. Often times the odor is
so awful that we need to close our windows and stay inside. Or we have to explain to our visiting family
and friends what the foul odor is. We have a house across from us that is for sale and the first thing people
ask us is how bad is the smell from the dump? The house has not sold, I fear the dump may have
something to do with that. We are extremely concerned that our property values will decline if this
landfill expansion is approved. I have attached a couple of pictures taken from my back deck that faces
the Mohawk River and the landfill. The landfill activity and heavy machinery has grown exponentially
over the last 12 months. I don’t understand how anyone could consider expanding this landfill with its
close proximity to natural waterways and residential communities. Thank you.
Regards,
Donald and Renee Howe
cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor

Town of Waterford
65 Broad Street
Waterford, NY 12188
E: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Governor of New York
Executive Chamber, Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
518-474-8390
gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us
www.state.ny.us
New York State Senate District 43

Kathleen A. Marchione
Room 918
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2381
marchione@nysenate.gov
www.nysenate.gov/senator/kathleen-marchione
New York State Assembly District 108

Room 417
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-4474
McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov
assembly.state.ny.us/mem/John-T-McDonald-III
United States Congressional District 20

The United States House of Representatives
2463 Rayburn HOB
202-225-5076 or 518-465-0700
tonko.house.gov
United States Senate

313 Senate Hart Building
202-224-6542 or 518-431-4070
www.schumer.senate.gov/

531 Russell Senate Office Building
202-224-4451 or 518-431-0120
www.gillibrand.senate.gov
From: Edith Tull <etull_219@verizon.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Extension of Colonie town landfill

The extension of the Colonie Town Landfill needs an adjudicator hearing. The town supervisor and its
members have gotten away with way too much without the approval of the public. Also they say there
are public hearings, much is approved in secrecy and double talk.
Thank you,
Edith Tull
Sent from my iPad
1
From: dec.sm.ENB
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4; Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)
Subject: FW: 4-0126-00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application
From: Frank Murray [mailto:fmurray10@nycap.rr.com]
To: dec.sm.ENB <ENB@dec.ny.gov>
Subject: 4‐0126‐00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application

unexpected emails.
ENB Region 4 Notice:


Thank You,
Francis Murray

1
From: fhartley@nycap.rr.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; george harris;
hogrady@nycap.rr.com; John Szemansco; broswald@nycap.rr.com; Betty Hartley;
lynmurphy13@yahoo.com; mschachner@MMSHLAW.com; Mark Millspaugh; David
Engel
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (DEIS) - COMMENTS
Attachments: DEIS Comments - Letter to DEC R-5.pdf
unexpected emails.
Andy.......

Attached are our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the Citizens
Concerned About Landfill Expansion (CCALE). I will also submit a hard copy of the comments by mail.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns.

Frank Hartley
Citizens Concerned About Landfill Expansion
48 Church Hill Road
Waterford, NY 12188
fhartley@nycap.rr.com
1
October 28, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio,
Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
1130 North Westcott Rd.
Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) - COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
We have reviewed in detail the June 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Statement along with
the supporting documentation for the proposed Area 7 Expansion of the Colonie Landfill. We
are very concerned with the inaccurate generalizations, inconsistencies, and missing
information in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Many of the conclusions presented
appear to be either inaccurate or have not considered all relevant information. Our comments
are summarized below, and are documented in more detail in the attached Appendix for each
comment.
Due to the significant nature of each of the comments, and the inaccurate and incomplete
information presented in the DEIS, we are requesting each comment be addressed, the DEIS
revised, the revised DEIS be presented to the public for review and comment, and a follow up
Public Hearing scheduled to allow for public comment on the revised document.
Additionally, we are requesting that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

make a decision on the application for the Development of Area 7 only after an
Adjudicatory Hearing is held ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the Application
for Area 7
Expansion, the discussion of alternates, the expected impacts to the environment and
area residents, and the concerns raised bythe community.
Our comments and concerns are as follows (Please refer to the attached appendixes for
additional detail on each comment):
1. Alternate Analysis
• No Alternates were presented or studied – Since the project is being touted as
regional resource, Regional Alternates exist that may be less expensive and will have
significantly less environmental impact.
2. Project Duration
• Over 20 years of the construction duration is not a “Temporary Construction
Impact”, but a “Permanent Impact” and requires analysis and mitigation. No analysis
or reasonable mitigation of impacts during the construction are presented for an
area that is currently capped and closed.
3. Visual Impact - DEIS Visual Impact Deficiencies
• Refused to place balloons to demonstrate the extent of the fill as requested by the
local officials and community.
• The Visual Impact Study only shows proposed finished fill, no description or
visualization of the over 20 year construction of the permanent “Temporary
Construction”.
4. Property Value Impacts
• No discussion of the impacts to property values if the Landfill is expanded and kept
open for another 20 years
5. Groundwater Issues
• Hazardous Waste Site Phase 2 Vol 1&2 April 1992 (Prepared by URS Consultants)
needs to be reviewed in detail and questions asked as to why the Town has not
followed up with the recommendations. There HAS NOT BEEN PFOA TESTING of the
contaminated groundwater. (Concern that once Hoosick Falls Landfill was closed,
these materials went to the Colonie Landfill).
6. Traffic
• Analysis of the turning movements onto and exiting from Fonda Road – Is there
sufficient room for the truck turning movements?
• Traffic Studies are inaccurate as they state there will be no increase over current
levels as there will not be an increase in daily tipping.
7. Volume Increase
• No additional daily capacity
• No provision to address additional waste generation in the Region
• Segmentation of Approvals
8. Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP)

APPENDIX 1. – Alternate Analysis
APPENDIX 1- Alternate Analysis
Issue:
Inadequate Study and Presentation of Alternates to the Proposed Expansion of the Landfill
Reason to Deny the Application:

The DEIS does not provide a reasonable presentation and analysis of alternates for public comment
as required in Section 617.9 of the Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York. The only
alternate presented is continued operation of the landfill and more than tripling its current size.
The study and evaluation of alternate sites was dismissed in the DEIS as “the Town found it was not
economically feasible to consider other sites…. the Town would lose all income from landfill
operations, including payments from CRL and from the sale of electricity generated by the landfill
gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility. The adverse fiscal consequences of the no-action alternative are too
significant to consider it a viable option”
The DEIS also states “transferring and long distance hauling of waste to another permitted
disposal site would cause increased fuel consumption and air contaminant emissions by waste
transporters and increase waste disposal costs" without any supporting documentation.
The DEIS further states that “No alternative sites were evaluated in connection with the Area 7
Development because the existing site can accommodate the proposed development in part
through the re-use of certain portions of the existing landfill. Given the large footprint required
to site a new landfill and the stringent siting criteria, the Town found it was not economically
feasible to consider other sites.”Again, this is not a reasonable statement as there was no
documentation presented to support it.
It is understandable that it would be difficult to develop a new landfill site consistent with
today’s rules and regulations. But, it also appears that the Town of Colonie has several
significant reasons not to develop any alternates other than to extend the life of the landfill,
and to minimize the reporting of impacts and issues related to the landfill, no matter the
environmental and community impacts of its continued operation. These reasons seem to be
related to the contract with, and payments received from Waste Connection. The DEIS
mentions the yearly payment to the Town but fails to mention the $12 million bonus upon the
approval of Area 7. A copy of the Waste Connection / Town Contract and a full disclosure of all
payments to date and future proposed payments needs to be provided along with a listing of
past payments and placed volumes in the landfill.
Based on the agreement between Waste Connection and the Town, there may be a conflict
with the Town preparing an unbiased Environmental Impact Assessment and providing an
objective and complete evaluation of potential alternates.
There are possible alternates to the development of Area 7 at the Colonie Landfill that would
allow the landfill to close in 2018 as is currently planned at the end of its approved DEC Permit.
These alternates range from using other approved and permitted landfills in the Region to
shipping waste by rail to central New York. The implementation of these alternates are
anticipated to be significantly less expensive than the continued operation of the current
landfill, but at worst, no more expensive. As there has been inadequate study of the possible
alternates, it is impossible to determine the exact cost savings.
As a significant portion of the waste placed at the landfill is shipped from out of the
immediate area to the Colonie Landfill, an origin study needs to conducted to determine if
there are other options available that would provide acceptable service within the region.
Colonie Landfill pricing is only controlled / guaranteed for Colonie residents, not even for
Colonie Businesses. The rest of the Region is subject to whatever cost Waste Connections feels
it can get away with charging, so the cost should be expected to raise sharply in the near future.
As several comments at the Public Hearings indicated significant cost increases if the Landfill is
closed, a detailed cost analysis of all alternatives needs to be provided. Also, an analysis of
Cost/Future Cost Increase projections should be included in the DEIS based on an economic
analysis of available regional landfill capacity.
The projections for landfill use / tipping volumes for Area 7 allowing for the 20 year life do not
allow for any increase in generated volumes in the Region. This does not appear to be a
reasonable assumption based on sound engineering judgment due to the significant regional
growth we are experiencing and the closing of the Rapp Road Landfill. It appears that this
assumption is based more on the convenience of the impact analysis, and therefore the analysis
could be based on there being no increase, and then there would not be additional impacts or
changes over the existing impacts. All of the Environmental Studies need to be redone
recognizing a reasonable growth in daily volume. Therefore, the proposed 20 year life appears
optimistic. If daily volumes increase, Waste Connections will fill the approved volume in a
significantly shorter timeframe, still making their anticipated millions of profit and then be out
of the area. We would be left shipping waste to other sites, but would have a huge pile of waste
along the Mohawk River along with its significant visual and environmental impacts and no
benefits to the Region. It seems silly to operate a local landfill for a short time, create all the
associated impacts, and then ship to other approved landfills with approved reserve capacity
that could have been in use all along.
APPENDIX 2. – Project Duration
Appendix 2 - 20 YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
ISSUE: The DEIS has not provided a sufficient analysis of over 20 years of Construction Impacts
related to the development of Area 7.
REASON TO DENY THE APPLICATION: A typical Environmental Impact Statement deals with the
impacts of the completed project and provides the analysis to disclose the potential impacts of
the project. Lesser consideration is usually given to the construction impacts as they are
temporary and will be mitigated once the project is complete. As noted below, the construction
of Area 7 will be a “Permanent Impact” of over 20 years duration, and as such has not been
disclosed in the DEIS, analyzed, or mitigated.
The development of Area 7 is different in that it is not a “Temporary Construction Impact”, but
a “Permanent Construction Impact” of over 20 years duration. The construction activities will
be in full view, especially to points from the north, east and west including the Mohawk River as
the project is an overfilling of the currently closed and capped Areas 1 – 5 of the Landfill. Once
the construction of Area 7 begins, the placement of solid waste, compaction and cover
operations will be visible for the entire period. Currently these Areas are closed and capped.
Vegetation has been planted and the slopes are not showing any signs of construction. The DEIS
indicated that once construction of Area 7 begins, they will remove the existing vegetation, the
permanent cap, place a new bottom liner and begin over filling the currently closed cells. This
will change the view of the closed and capped areas from planted to bare dirt and garbage.
Figure 1 Typical Fill Activities - Oct 2016

The DEIS does not address impacts during construction and the only mitigation offered is:
“To minimize the duration and magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling within
each successive vertical lift would be phased in a manner that would screen much of the day to-
day operations from off-site receptors through the use of berms to be placed along the perimeter
of the lift area. As landfilling is completed, closed areas would be revegetated with a mix of
native grasses and herbaceous vegetation. The intent of this mitigation is to create the visual
appearance of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the visual character of the
surrounding region. In addition, mowing of the completed landfill would be limited to maintain
this desired visual character.”
The placement of a 10 foot high berm constructed of solid waste around the cell they are
working in with another berm constructed once the fill behind it reached the top is the
construction mitigation offered. So the only protection from the landfill operations is a short
wall of garbage that will not provide reasonable mitigation for the significant impacts of the
construction over 20 years, especially as the height of the fill increases.
Figure 2 Berm Construction
The DEIS states that as vertical lifts are completed, closed areas would be re-vegetated with a
mix of native grasses and herbaceous vegetation and that the intent of this mitigation is to
create the visual appearance “of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the visual
character of the surrounding region.” We do not have confidence that this is a sincere or
practical offer as our experience over the past has not indicated any efforts along these lines.
First, some areas will not be closed until the landfill is completed, and therefore not re-
vegetated until landfill closure over 20 years in the future. Also, based on the past history of the
landfill operation, the entire north face of Area 5 was constructed prior to closing and capping,
so it was years before any final grading or planting was conducted.
There has been a similar experience with the construction of Area 6 along the east face of the
Landfill. The filling has been ongoing for over 5 years with only garbage and dirt fill visible along
the area.
Figure 3 Typical Construction Fill - East Face
There has not been any effort at a planting or the creation of the appearance “of a natural
meadow or old-field consistent with the visual character of the surrounding region.” In fact, it is
not reasonable to assume a 270 foot high mountain of trash with 30% side slopes can ever be
considered to have the appearance of a natural meadow or old field. It must be recognized that
the fill will start within 120 feet of the Mohawk River, rise at a 30% slope to an elevation of 517
feet creating the highest point in the landscape from Utica to Saratoga, to the Berkshires, which
will be very noticeable.
CONCLUSIONS:
Over 20 years of construction duration on an open slope is not a temporary impact as stated in
the DEIS but a permanent impact. The following needs to be provided:
• Analysis of Construction Impacts
• Accurate visual graphics of the construction
• Proposals for the realistic mitigation of impacts during construction
• A more realistic description of the Landfill than “Natural Meadow” or “Old Field”
Previous experience has shown that the removal of any cover materials creates significant odor
issues. There has not been any proposed discussion of the issue or of proposed mitigations as
the permanent cap is removed from Area 1 - 4. The following needs to be provided:
• A discussion of the impacts of the cap removal
• Proposed mitigations of impacts from the cap removal
APPENDIX 3. – Visual Impact
APPENDIX 3 – VISUAL IMPACTS
ISSUE 1: The Town of Colonie has indicated that they were not interested
in working with the local elected officials and residents to assist them in
gaining a better understanding of the project by placing large weather
balloons along the finished elevations of the Landfill.
REASON TO DENY THE APPLICATION: Based on the limited information presented at the
Community Information Meetings 2015 and the information contained in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), it is extremely difficult to visualize the limits of the
build out of the proposed expansion. The information provided in the DEIS does not appear
to be completely accurate, nor does it provide an easily understandable depiction of the
magnitude and impact to the surrounding community of the final build out of the Landfill.
Additionally, the provided graphics appear to be in conflict with the graphics of the landfill
that have been independently developed. One significant discrepancy is the Visual Impact
Study does not depict the fill side slopes at 30 % as stated in the DEIS, creating a significantly
understated fill volume (Attachment 1).
In an effort to assist in the understanding of the proposed limits, large balloons (possibly red
or orange weather balloons) should be placed around the site with their elevations matching
the elevations of the final build contours prior to any decisions regarding the application to
expand the Colonie Landfill. This would provide a visual reference of the finished project, and
provide a method to be able to accurately evaluate the visual impacts of the proposal.
Please note that Kevin Tollison, Halfmoon Town Supervisor, John Lawler, Waterford Town
Supervisor, as well as Senator Kathy Marchione, Assemblymen Ted Tedisco and John
McDonald, and many community residents have requested the placement of the balloons in an
effort to gain a better understanding of the final build out of the landfill (Attachment 2). Waste
Connections responded on December 15, 2015 that they would place the requested balloons
(Attachment 3). It was surprising and extremely disappointing to learn in a May 26, 2016 letter
from the Town of Colonie (Attachment 4) that they were not interested in working with the
local elected officials and residents by assisting them in gaining a better understanding of the
project.
ISSUE 2: The Visual Impact Study misrepresents the Visual Impacts in Section 2.9.2 Potential
Impacts and Section 3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
REASON TO DENY THE APPLICATION:
Page 57 – Section 2.9.2 Potential Impacts, the DEIS indicates:
“Viewshed maps were prepared to determine whether or not the proposed Project would likely
be visible from a given location. For comparative purposes, individual viewshed overlays
illustrate the potential viewshed areas of the existing facility (at completion) and the proposed
Area 7 Development (at completion). One viewshed map was prepared defining the area
within which there would be no visibility of both the existing landfill and the proposed Area 7
Development because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (see VRA
Appendix – Figure 1). A second map was prepared illustrating the probable screening effect of
existing mature vegetation (see VRA Appendix – Figure 2).”
Table 1 of the VRA indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed
maps within the 3-mile radius study area. Some portion of the existing facility is already
visible, or would be theoretically visible upon completion of currently permitted operations,
from a maximum of 2.2% of the 3-mile radius study area. From these areas the proposed Area
7 Development represents a continuation of existing visibility of Colonie landfill operations.
Upon completion of the proposed development, the landfill would be visible from a maximum
of 4.4% of the study area. This is an increase of 2.2% (approximately 400 acres) over what is
currently visible (permitted condition) in the 3-mile radius study area. These areas are
generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already impacted by views of
the existing facility. Where the proposed development would be visible, views would be limited
to the upper portions of the Area 7 Development appearing above the foreground tree line.”
Additionally, Page 83 3.4 Visual Resources the DEIS Indicates:

“The proposed Area 7 Development represents a continuation of existing visibility of Colonie
landfill operations with limited areas of new visibility. Upon completion of the proposed
development, the landfill would be visible from a maximum of 4.4% of the 3-mile radius study
area. This is an increase of 2.2% (approximately 400 acres) over what is currently visible
(permitted condition) in the study area. These areas are generally small geographic extensions
of adjacent lands that are already impacted by views of the existing facility. Where the
proposed development would be visible, views would be limited the upper portions of the Area
7 Development appearing above the foreground tree line.”
The above highlighted sections indicate that the landfill will be visible from the current
permitted elevations of 2.2% of the study area, increasing to 4.4% upon completion of Area 7,
referenced as a “generally small geographic extensions “. The % view is incorrect as the
percentages do not include the Mohawk River, which is a significant resource for boating,
canoeing, kayaking, all activities which provide views of the landfill.
While the above sections do mention “ One viewshed map was prepared defining the area
within which there would be no visibility of both the existing landfill and the proposed Area 7
Development because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (see VRA
Appendix – Figure 1).” The results of that map are not discussed until page 13 of the Visual
Assessment Appendix (page 553 of the DEIS). Once again the text only discusses that 2.2% and
4.4% of the viewshed will have a view of the landfill with the conclusion that ” At a minimum,
95.6 percent of the study area will have no visibility of the Existing Landfill or proposed Project.”
The issue is the results identified Appendix Figure 1 are not discussed. To find this figure,
one would have to scroll 500 pages as it is not linked to its reference in the text. Figure 1
and Table 1 indicate the landfill will be visible from 10,548 acres, an increase of 1700 acres
(compared to the 400acre increase reports in the above text) over the existing landfill. This
is a significant increase in the visibility within the study area when the leaves have fallen,
which is over 6 months of the year in the northeast.
Figure 1 is in conflict with the conclusion that ” At a minimum, 95.6 percent of the study area
will have no visibility of the Existing Landfill or proposed Project.” as almost 70% of the
viewshed will have views of the landfill for over 6 months of the year. (see attachment 5)
As noted, this has not been noted in any of the Visual Assessment text, but only briefly in
Table 1 buried in the Appendices of the document. The DEIS needs to be revised to indicate
a significantly greater view of the landfill.
Attachment 1 – Graphics of Fill
Proposed Final Elevation
517.0 ft amsl
Plateau Elev 401.0 amsl

Plateau Elev 327.0 amsl
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor

View from North Bank of Barge Canal
Photo taken 2014 Simulation by George Harris

Attachment 2 – Balloon Request Letters
Appendix 3 - Waste Connections Agreement to Balloon Placement
Appendix 4 – Town of Colonie Rejection of Balloon Placement
Attachment 5 – Landfill Viewshed
Visual Resource Key Legend
Currently Permitted Landi,ll Visible
01 NYS Rte. 9 South of Bridge - High point 430 ft above sea level
02 Public Fishing Access
03 Terminal Road Fishing Access
04 Noxon Bank Building Currently Permitted and Proposed
05 Oakcliff
06 Crescent Methodist Episcopal Church
Area 7 Development Visible
07 - High point 517 ft above sea level
NYS Rte. 9 South of North of Bridge
08 Crescent Trail
09 Halfmoon Baseball Fields
10 Godfrey Farmhouse
Bike/Hike Trail
11 NYS Rte. 9 Near Arrowhead La.
12 Colonie Town Park Scenic Byway
13 Mohawk-Hudson Rail Trail
14 Cohoes Company Head Gatehouse
15 Crecent Hydro Waterfront Access
s 16 Lock 6 State Canal Park
17 Mallards Landing South Neighborhood
m ei 18 Mallards Landing Park
Note: Viewshed areas are not dei,nitive. Viewshed
3l 19 Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway mapping provides a general understanding of
s 20 CATAWISSA (tugboat) where the proposed project is theoretically visible
le 21 URGER (canal tugboat) based on regional topographic and forest cover
22 Waterford Town Park data sources.
2 23 Waterford Village Historic District
m e il 24 Waterford Harbor Visitor Center
m 25 Lock 2 Canal Park
1 26 Champlain Canal Park
27 Ormsby--Laughlin Textile Co. Mill
28 Ricky Cramer Ball Fields
29 Peebles Island State Park
30 Champlain Canal
31 Sugarloaf Pond Park
32 Northside Historic District
33 Peebles (Peobles) Island
34 Harmony Mill Historic District
35 Falls View Park
36 Cohoes Falls Overlook Park
37 Enlarged Erie Canal Historic District
38 Lock 18 of Enlarged Erie Canal
39 Col. Robert Cramer Veterans Park
40 Sunset Park
41 Harmony Mill No. 3
42 Cohoes Riverspark Visitor Center
43 Music Hall
44 Silliman Memorial Presb. Church
45 Delaware and Hudson RR Freight House
46 Downtown Cohoes Historic District
47 Olmsted Street Historic District
48 Lackman, J. Leonard House
49 Dickey, William J. House
50 Twilight Park
51 Lansing Park
52 Fonda House
53 Berkley Park
54 Van Denbergh-Simmons House
55 North Colonie Sports Complex
56 Simmons Stone House
57 Dunsbach, Martin House
58 Vischer Ferry Historic District
APPENDIX 4. – Property Value Impacts
APPENDIX 4. - Property Value
Issue:
The DEIS states the Area 7 Development would not have significant adverse impacts on land
use, zoning, development or property values, and therefore, no mitigation measures are
proposed.

The statement is unreasonable and inaccurate. The current view of the landfill is of a closed
Landfill that has been graded, capped and planted. The current filling operations are taking
place in the southwest quadrant creating minimal visual impact. The Landfill is scheduled to
close by 2018. Current local property values are based on the view of the closed Landfill.
The DEIS indicated that once construction of Area 7 begins, they will remove the existing
vegetation, the permanent cap, place a new bottom liner and begin over filling the currently
closed cells. This will change the view of the closed and capped areas from planted to bare dirt
and garbage. There have been no construction mitigations proposed with the exception of
constructing a 10 foot high berm of garbage around the current activities to “shield them”. The
DEIS states that capping or planting on the face will be performed once the section of fill
construction is complete , which would be assumed to be once Area 7 is completed to an
elevation 517 feet, fully visible for the entire construction period. The sequence of cover and
closure once the final elevation is reached is consistent with the previous construction and
closing of Area 5 and the east exposure of Area 6. Area 5 was not capped and planted until the
final elevation was reached and Area 6 has not seen any final grading or planting over the last 3
or more years of construction. As the construction progresses, the fill will become the highest
feature within over 28 square miles of the landfill.
The DEIS statement that there will be no impact to nearby property values lacks a reasonable
engineering basis.
As a result of the inadequate study of the impacts of the proposed project on property values,
we are requesting an appraisal of the adjacent and nearby properties, both in Northern Albany
and Southern Saratoga Counties by a qualified professional real estate appraiser. The appraisals
should reflect current values with the landfill capped, no visible construction, and the landfill
closing by 2018. It should also present the estimated property values once Area 7 fill starts and
is ongoing for the next 20 plus years – creating a permanent construction impact for the
neighborhood.
No actions should be taken on the Project Application until the impact on local property values
is identified and disclosed to the public for comment.
APPENDIX 5. – Groundwater Issues
APPENDIX 5 – Groundwater Issues
ISSUE:
Inadequate study and reporting of known issues related to site’s Groundwater Issues
In April 1992 a Hazardous Waste Site Phase 2 Study - Volumes 1&2 for the Landfill Site was
prepared by URS Consultants. As a result of this study, the Landfill Site was listed as a
Hazardous Waste Site and follow up actions were identified.
This study has not been referenced in the DEIS. A significant amount of the information
presented in the URS Study appears to be in conflict with the information presented in the
DEIS. Examples range from the type of waste dumped at the site to the dimensions of the
Hazardous Waste Footprint. This document needs to be disclosed in the DEIS, reviewed in detail
and all discrepancies between it and the DEIS resolved.
The URS Study also recommends follow up actions which we have not been able to verify as
having been completed. All recommended follow up actions must be identified and
documented as to whether they have been completed or not, and if not, why not.
The towns of Hoosick Falls, Petersburg, and other local areas have recently experienced a
groundwater crisis related to PFOA that was dumped into their landfills and leached into the
groundwater. Concerns have been raised that PFOA’s may have also ended up in the Colonie
Landfill. There is no indication of sampling the groundwater from the site for PFOA
contamination. Testing needs to be conducted to assure the public that they are not at risk
from contamination, especially since the water intake for Cohoes is located 1.5 miles downriver
from the Landfill.
APPENDIX 6. - Traffic
APPENDIX 6 - Traffic Issues
ISSUE: Due Care was not exhibited in the preparation of the Traffic Study for the proposed
project.
The Traffic Study consisted of “An extensive analysis of the existing roadway and traffic
conditions in the study area was undertaken to forecast future traffic conditions” and to study
traffic volumes and traffic flows through the surrounding intersections. It does not appear that the
safety of the turning movements from Rt. 9 onto Fonda Road, Fonda Road onto Green Mountain
Road, Green Mountain Road onto Arrowhead Lane, and Arrowhead Lane onto the Proposed
Entrance Driveway have been analyzed. Based on the information provided, it does not appear
that sufficient roadway width exists to allow for safe turning movements allowing for the large
over the road transport trucks to safely stay in their correct lane, especially if there is opposing
traffic stopped at the adjoining leg of the intersection. (see Attachment 1. Proposed Driveway and
Traffic Plan)
The Application should not be approved as it appears to be proposing an access route to the project
which consists of turning movements that appear to be unsafe. There does not appear to be
enough roadway width to allow for turning vehicles to remain in their own lane throughout the
turn, especially in light of the significantly increased traffic volumes being added to these roads.
ISSUE: Traffic Studies are inaccurate as they state there will be no increase over current levels
because there will not be an increase in daily tipping volumes.
It is unreasonable to state there will be no increase in daily traffic, especially in light of the
Albany Landfill closing and the explosive growth the Capital Region is currently undergoing.
Traffic volumes and environmental impact studies need to be revised to reflect reasonable
regional growth.
Existing Driveway
Colonie Landfill
Proposed Driveway
Town of Colonie Landfill Proposed Driveway

Cohoes, NY and Traffic Pattern
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
N Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC Figure 5
SIMCO Engineering, P.C.

Page 18
APPENDIX 7. – Waste Volume Increases
APPENDIX 7 – Volume Increase
Issue:
The DEIS appears to lack a reasonable engineering basis for the assumption “The Proposed Area 7
Development does not include a change to the existing landfill permitted daily capacity, and
therefore, operational traffic (i.e., trip generation) is not expected to change. The only additional
traffic incurred from the proposed Project would be from construction traffic…..”. This statement is
contained in the Traffic and Transportation section of the DEIS, but is consistent with statements in
other Sections of the DEIS analysis.
The Application should not be approved:
The Application does not address growth in Regional and Statewide waste. It does not appear to be
reasonable to assume that there will be no changes to the permitted daily or yearly capacity over
the next 20 plus years. The Capital Region is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and
Nation, so it is reasonable that there will be a significant growth in the waste produced in the
Region.
Additionally, the DEIS states "The primary service area of a landfill operated by a private entity is
not limited by municipal boundaries in the same way that such boundaries may limit
municipally-owned and operated disposal sites. The primary service area for the Town’s landfill
is New York State. Service area boundaries for the proposed Area 7 Development are not
intended to be permanent or exclusive." This appears to indicate that the Landfill is anticipating
accepting waste from an area significantly larger that the local counties it is currently accepting
waste from as indicated in the Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
As it appears that the Landfill is anticipating a larger service area, then the Impact Studies
related to Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, and Odor Studies would need to be reevaluated taking into
account reasonable increases of solid waste generated over the next 20 plus years.
Issue:
This request and DEIS is the first public review for an expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
Reason to Deny the Application: The Colonie Landfill has a history of Segmentation of its
Operation Increases. All capacity increases to date have been approved as Minor Permit
Modifications that received minimal public scrutiny. The history of the Expansion Approvals to
date needs to be provided to the public with an accurate history of the development of the
existing landfill, commitments or restrictions required from each approval, and the success or
failure of the Town of Colonie in meeting these commitments or restrictions.
APPENDIX 8. – Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP)
APPENDIX 8 - Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP)
Issue: Lacking of a reasonable basis to state in the DEIS that “the proposed Area 7
Development is included in the NYSDEC-approved LSWMP.”
Page 2 of the DEIS, Summary of Alternates; Alternate Sites states “No alternative sites were
evaluated in connection with the Area 7 Development because the existing site can
accommodate the proposed development in part through the re-use of certain portions of
the existing landfill. Given the large footprint required to site a new landfill and the
stringent siting criteria, the Town found it was not economically feasible to consider other
sites. Also, the proposed Area 7 Development is included in the NYSDEC-approved
LSWMP.” (Local Solid Waste Management Plan)
It is also stated in several other locations in the DEIS that the Area 7 Development is
included in Appendix 7 of the LSWMP, which appears to imply that the Area 7
Development has been reviewed and approved by the NYSDEC. This is not a reasonable
assumption as the LSWMP only briefly mentions the development of Area 7 on 4 lines of the
spread sheet which is Appendix 7, but no details are provided. (see Attachment 1. LSWMP
Appendix 7). Area 7 Development is listed with the same level of detail as the 2007 task of
“Office Building Upgrades”. The spread sheet is a summary task list tracking current and future
tasks and their status. Based on the lack of detail provided, it is unreasonable to infer that
there has been any review or approval of an Area 7 Development of the magnitude being
proposed by the NYSDEC. Additionally, this plan is scheduled for regularly scheduled updates
which have not happened since 2007 – 2008, and as such this plan is out of date.
Issue:
The Area 7 Development Application Engineering Report states “Funding for the Area 4 closure
was provided by New York State and a condition of the funding was no future landfill development on
the capped area.”

The DEIS does not mention the agreement with NYS to not overfill Area 4 nor does it present a
solution to the conflict of the proposal for Area 7 to overfill Area 4. Additionally this agreement
tends to imply that at the time of the closure and final capping of Area 4, the Town stated that
they were done filling in Areas 1 – 4 and at that time agreed to no overfilling of the capped
areas.
Attachment 1 – Local Solid Waste Management Plan – Appendix 7
APPENDIX 9. – Conclusions
APPENDIX 9 – Conclusions
Issues:
Unreasonable or Erroneous Impacts and Conclusions Provided.

Based on the inaccurate generalizations, inconsistencies, missing information and
unsubstantiated statements in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the summaries of
Impacts and the Conclusions on page 93 of the DEIS need to be reviewed and revised to
reflect the resolution of the comments have been received.
From: gmonast@realtyusa.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: opposition of landfill
unexpected emails.
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and request an adjudicatory hearing regarding the pending 2016 Town of
Colonie Landfill Expansion Area 7 Development application. Sinceerely Gail Monast
1
From: George Bigaouette <geojbig@gmail.com>

To: smiron@nycap.rr.com; pgswota@verizon.net; mcannist@nycap.rr.com;
NotoPT@hotmail.com; csheffer27@gmail.com; KDeviddio@aol.com;
THOMAS.A.GREEN@ge.com; marciaf720@gmail.com; trescat@aol.com;
kfarrar@nycap.rr.com; nanmallory@hotmail.com; jim@murdico.com; NOTLOC123
@aol.com; kkirby@nycap.rr.com; kmmelia@gmail.com; LopezL@mail.smc.edu;
sarakkingston@gmail.com; Jeepfogarty@yahoo.com; doubttom@aol.com;
RDIAS@nycap.rr.com; svanwie@hotmail.com; Hockeych1c@aol.com;
reneehowe@nycap.rr.com; kfigiel@nycap.rr.com; nseguin@prudentialmanor.com;
barbeaubp@nycap.rr.com; lisa050987@aol.com; Howe, Don (ITS);
joystallmer@yahoo.com; mrobbins17@gmail.com; piekar1@nycap.rr.com;
RachelleBrilliant@yahoo.com; Beverly.Betts@libertymutual.com; BREILLY211
@nycap.rr.com; LWilliams80@hotmail.com; kimmy2mamma@gmail.com;
firebirdquilt@live.com; girlzracing@yahoo.com; nolaking39@yahoo.com; frazr58
@aol.com; mnoto75@hotmail.com; amayo0795@gmail.com; syncodestiny@gmail.com;
tgriner@care-anthem.com; amyweb1@aol.com; critter2929@yahoo.com; lbateman02
@hotmail.com; jennashline@yahoo.com; mogden1@nycap.rr.com; pepino1985
@nycap.rr.com; readnwrite53@yahoo.com; dawn@vvisions.com;
jmalavasic@albany.edu; mquackenbush@kw.com; als12065@aol.com;
amandacbanner@gmail.com; cconnor26@gmail.com; Ruth.Ormsby@sphp.com;
a.rubino06@gmail.com; jtf00@hotmail.com; Chevyusa46@yahoo.com; mjcatallo29
@nycap.rr.com; cindydeviddio@yahoo.com; robertsonbills@hotmail.com;
CataJenn@shenet.org; George Bigaouette; Lou Anne Bigaouette; edkinum@gmail.com;
dsheffer46@gmail.com; Stexbower@yahoo.com; courtneyiler@yahoo.com;
joandblanchard@gmail.com; dan4212@yahoo.com; pmarra1047@aol.com;
rormsby@live.com; luciasciccarelli@gmail.com; chris1sullivan@gmail.com;
melissa.hauenstein@gmail.com; shauenstein@gmail.com; sherandal@hotmail.com;
jamieknightes@gmail.com; gquacken@nycap.rr.com; jwatson@albany.edu;
mgold12196@yahoo.com; nerot75@aol.com; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing Request - Colonie Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
October 31, 2016

RE: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application – Resident Opposition

Opinion
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
1
I am writing to express my opposition to the expansion of the Colonie Landfill, Area 7
Development, and request that an adjudicatory hearing, be required.
I have been both a resident of the Town of Colonie and the Town of Waterford and believe
that I have a clearer understanding of the situation, than most. I am a NYS Licensed Real
Estate Broker, with 30 years of service and experience, which serves me both in my
personal and professional experience with regard to environmental sensitive sites, and
home values.
I feel that on some level, the Town of Colonie tried to do right by its homeowners and
neighboring communities. It was only after the Town of Colonie leased/privatized to an
Out-of- State conglomerate, did the real problems arise. Numerous times DEC has severely
fined the Colonie Landfill/Waste Connections, Inc. for dumping beyond the scope of its
permits. Waste Connections, gladly pays the fines, due to the amount of money they have
received for this excessive dumping. They have no regard for the quality of the Mohawk
River, the surrounding wetlands/groundwater nor the quality of the air.
In attending the previous hearings, I was saddened to learn that the Expansion Study was
incomplete and inaccurate. Many bias or untruths were uncovered. There is a need for
fairness and correctness on the part of Waste Connections and the Town of Colonie, so at
the very least … an adjudicatory hearing should be ordered.
The request for a permit to triple the size is completely unacceptable for the following
reasons:
 The proximity of the open waste water pits, to the river’s edge, endanger
wildlife, especially during any unforeseen natural event such as floods or
hurricanes, where these pits will spill into the river.
 The Hazardous waste pit, closed by DEC in 1986, would be allowed to be
re opened and additional garbage be added on top of the existing
hazardous material, this will cause the hazardous material to be driven
directly into the bedrock and ground water.
 The Erie Canal Corridor would no longer be a safe waterway for boaters
and water enthusiasts.
 The air quality which now affects approximately a 7 mile radius, if
tripled could stretch to 30 miles with the right wind conditions.
 Not only would the home values of Colonie, but also the residents of
Halfmoon, Waterford, Cohoes, and Clifton Park, could be devalued due
to the unsalability of these properties with a condition such as this.
In the end …let’s call put the real question out there... will the money generated from the
landfill for the Town of Colonie, outweigh the health and safety of the Town of Colonie
Homeowners, and the Homeowners in Waterford, Cohoes, Clifton Park and Halfmoon, and
the environment.
I feel that it is incumbent upon the Department of Environmental Conservation, to protect

our waterways, air space, human and wildlife residents, from the greed which is clearly
2
driving this application to triple the size of the landfill. The question we all face is… will it
be the people or the money that is protected.
Again, I am in opposition to the landfill expansion, request that the original proposal to
close the landfill by 2018 still stand, but at the very least, and adjudicatory hearing result
from the many testimonies written and verbal at the various hearings.
With my deepest regard,
George J Bigaouette
7 Widgeon Way
Waterford, NY 12188
geojbig@gmail.com

Kathleen A. Marchiione
John T. McDonald
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand.
3
From: Jeffrey Wilson <jeffreywlsn@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
I am writing to you today to express my concern regarding the proposal to expand the Town of Colonie landfill.
I believe that this project should be subject to an adjudicatory hearing so that everyone has an opportunity to
hear the facts before a decision is rendered.
Thank you,
Jeff Wilson
1
From: Jhdrake40 <jhdrake40@aol.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: TPC landfill expansion concern
I demand that the Town hold a adjudicatory hearing ASAP!
Enough is enough!
1
From: joehetko@aol.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: comment on Colonie Landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Angelo Marcuccio,
I’m writing to express my objections to the proposed expansion of the Colonie Landfill. I live in Boght Corners just a few
miles south of the landfill.
When the wind is blowing in our direction we sometimes smell the stink wafting off of the garbage. I find it hard to believe
that expanding the landfill will do anything but make this worse. I am also concerned about the health of the Mohawk
River. Why should we be increasing the size of a dump that is so close to a major waterway? I also understand that part
of the expansion would be on designated wet lands. It looks like we’re going in the wrong direction. It seems to me that
the town and the waste management company are more interested in the financial bottom line than in the quality of our
environment.
Joseph Hetko
14 Lawrence St.
Boght Corners NY
12047
1
From: John Lawler <lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us>

To: fhartley@nycap.rr.com; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; 'george harris'; hogrady@nycap.rr.com; 'John
Szemansco'; broswald@nycap.rr.com; 'Betty Hartley'; lynmurphy13@yahoo.com;
mschachner@MMSHLAW.com; 'Mark Millspaugh'; 'David Engel'
Subject: RE: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (DEIS) - COMMENTS
unexpected emails.
Thanks Frank

From: fhartley@nycap.rr.com [mailto:fhartley@nycap.rr.com]
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov
Cc: Kevin Tollisen <ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org>; John Lawler <lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us>; george harris
<geowhjr@gmail.com>; Henrietta O'Grady <hogrady@nycap.rr.com>; John Szemansco <jszemansco@gmail.com>;
broswald@nycap.rr.com; Betty Hartley <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>; Lyn Murphy <lynmurphy13@yahoo.com>; M
Schachner <mschachner@mmshlaw.com>; Mark Millspaugh <mark.millspaugh@sterlingenvironmental.com>; David
Engel <dengel@nolanandheller.com>
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill ‐ Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) ‐ COMMENTS
Andy.......

Attached are our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the Citizens
Concerned About Landfill Expansion (CCALE). I will also submit a hard copy of the comments by mail.



Frank Hartley
Citizens Concerned About Landfill Expansion
48 Church Hill Road
Waterford, NY 12188
fhartley@nycap.rr.com
1
From: Marcia Fazio <marciaf720@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; marchione@nysenate.gov; mcdonaldj@nysassembly.gov
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application--Resident Opposition Opinion

1130 North Westcott Rd
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
I am a lifelong resident of the Capital District. I was born and raised in Latham, NY and have lived in
the Town of Colonie practically my whole life. While I certainly understand the Town of Colonie's
needs to both produce revenue and their need to find a suitable solution for their garbage, I must
oppose the expansion of the landfill, Area 7 and request that an adjudicatory hearing be conducted.
7 years ago I moved to a beautiful sub-division directly across from the landfill, called Riverbend
Island. I was assured when I purchased the property, that the landfill would be closed in 2018. Two
years ago, the Town leased the property to Waste Connections, Inc. and what had been a well
operated landfill, soon began evidencing problems.
Excess waste was brought in and we spent a full summer suffering the after effects with significant
odor issues. After weeks of complaining, the problem was finally addressed. We still periodically
experience these odors--which were never evident when the Town was operating the landfill. Any nite
you drive by the landfill on Rt 9, you experience an extreme odor. Even the thought of what will
happen to our environment, our neighborhood, by allowing this dump to triple in size and not be
properly managed is frightening. If the odors are not managed, I can only imagine what is happening
to the ground water and the river.
Like most others at the public hearing last week, I am requesting an adjudicatory hearing be
conducted so that all the facts may be brought to light. However, even with a hearing, it's clear that
the Town sold out the citizens of all the neighboring communities, we are suffering the consequences
and this dump should not be allowed to expand or continue beyond 2018, the original proposed date
of closure.
Sincerely,
Marcia Fazio
12 Widgeon Way
Waterford, NY 12188
1
Sent from my iPad
2
From: mariejohnson@realtyusa.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion Opposition
unexpected emails.
"I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition, and to
request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill
____________________
1
From: Mark Quandt <MarkQ@regionalfoodbank.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Comments
Attachments: SCAN005.PDF
unexpected emails.
Please accept the attached statement from the Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York regarding the Town of
Colonie Landfill. Thank you.

Mark Quandt
Executive Director
Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York
965 Albany‐Shaker Road
Latham, New York 12110
Ph: 518‐786‐3691 x222
Fax: 518‐786‐3004
www.regionalfoodbank.net

1
Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York 965 Albany-Shaker Road • Latham, New York 12110
A Member of Feeding America Tel: (518) 786-3691 • Fax: (518) 786-3004
www.regionalfocdbank.net
October 31, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC, Region 4 Office
1130 North Westcott Rd.
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
My name is Mark Quandt and I am the Executive Director of the Regional Food Bank of
Northeastern New York. The Regional Food Bank has been helping feed the poor and hungry in
our communities since 1982. It is the only organization of its kind in northeastern New
York. The Food Bank collects large donations of food from the food industry and distributes it
to charitable agencies serving hungry and disadvantaged people in 23 counties. The Food Bank
provided over 35 million pounds of food to its 1,000 member agencies last year.
Unfortunately, not all the food we receive is in a condition to distribute in accordance with
regulatory standards. In 2015, the Northeast Regional Food Bank had to dispose of 1,800 tons of
food and waste material. There was a significant cost to the Food Bank to dispose of that waste
and without the support and partnership of the Town of Colonie and their landfill operator,
Waste Connections, that cost would have been significantly higher.
The Town of Colonie Landfill is an important asset to our community, to our businesses, to our
not-for-profit organizations, and to our residents. With the pending closure of the City of
Albany’s Rapp Road Landfill, the ability to extend the life of the Colonie Landfill is of utmost
importance. A possible closure of our second area landfill will undoubtedly result in higher
taxes and higher costs to do business in the Capital Region, as the costs to manage our solid
waste will significantly increase.
This region needs to develop a long-range solid waste management plan. But until that plan is in
place, we cannot afford to close both of our regional solid waste landfills.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
Mark Quandt
Executive Director
From: patrick quinn <profquinn13@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
The Town of Colonie (located on the north side of Albany) has applied to the Department of Environmental
Conservation to greatly expand the size of its landfill, which is located literally within feet of the Mohawk River,
approximately one-half mile upstream from the City of Cohoes municipal water intakes (obviously, this is a bad
arrangement).
The landfill is operated for Colonie under contract by a Texas firm, Waste Connections.
The expansion will perhaps triple the landfill's size from 5.5 million tons to 15 million tons, and will be
accomplished by expanding upwards, rather than outwards, and reaching a height of approximately 100 feet.
In addition, a portion of the expanded landfill will be sited on top of an un-lined hazardous waste disposal site.
There are many other questionable issues related to this proposal.
I strongly feel that an adjudicatory hearing be held ASAP on this issue.
It is critical to the health safety and welfare of a section of the Colonie Town community that lives close to the
Mohawk River and to the site of proposed land fill expansion.
I should emphasize also that because the landfill is operated by an out of state firm it is vitally important that
the rights and concerns of the local community are addressed in an adjudicatory hearing.
Yours,
Professor Patrick J. Quinn FAIA, FAAR,FRSA

Thistledown Ct., Loudonville, NY 12211
1
From: Paula Weiss <paulabweiss@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comment on Colonie Landfill proposed expansion
Attachments: comment to DEC on Colonie Landfill Expansion.docx
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marchuccio,
My comments are below, and in the attached Word document.
I’m writing to voice my strong opposition to the Town of Colonie’s proposal to develop Area 7 of the Colonie
Town Landfill. The proposal has been put forward quietly by the Town without proper notification or
education of, or consultation with, the residents who will be most affected by it.
I found my way to the first hearing by way of a small notice in the back of the Times Union newspaper. My
husband and I read the paper daily and we saw no discussion of the issues. We received no email or mail
notification from the Town. Our neighbors were all equally in the dark. As a result, the first hearing was very
sparsely attended, but what I found out was alarming.
After that, I kept my ears open for news of a second hearing in case one was allowed to happen, but I only
found out that there was going to be one the afternoon before it was scheduled. My neighbor had gotten a notice
stuffed in the mailbox at work, and she scanned in a copy to me. We brought it to Staples and made copies to
give out in our neighborhood. We’re a couple of miles from the landfill- you would have thought we’d all know
what was happening.
I attempted to read up on the issues on colonie.org but all that can be read there are notices for the past hearings.
Clicking on “Landfill Area 7 Development project” you’re brought to colonietownlandfill.com which appears to
be set up by Waste Connections. What you’re able to easily read there is a lot of “propaganda” from Waste
Connections, in favor of the proposal. The DEIS reports are all listed but are impossible to read.
1
If you try to download the files you’re prompted to sign in through Facebook or sign up for a Kindle-type
service, Scribd.com. If you try to read them right on the Scribd.com site you keep getting blocked by ads. I’ve
tried numerous times.
I contacted the website dept. at town hall for help, and was at first emailed this link. They were trying to be
helpful. See if you can actually read the document there. I wasn’t able to:
https://www.scribd.com/document/321998828/DEIS-Town-of-Colonie-LF-Area-7#from_embed
Between the nice woman at the Management Information Services and the Public Works Engineer- after at least
a day of trying- I was finally emailed a pdf of the original proposal submitted by the TOC in March 2014. I was
also able to read more on the DEC website. Though I was pretty daunted by then, and there was so much to
wade through. I was intimidated by thinking I had to frame a substantive argument against the proposal in order
to be heard. If I, a person with 2 advanced degrees, felt like that it’s likely that many other residents felt that
way and stopped short of submitting a comment.
Then, I realized that that in itself is a sufficiently substantive objection. Why should it be so difficult to find out
what our town is planning to do, right under our noses? Why should we be intimidated into silence while Waste
Connections lines its pockets with incredible income from stuffing the Landfill- the Colonie Town Landfill-
with refuse from all over NYS, and plans to continue doing so for at least twenty more years? And while the
Administrator of the Town of Colonie goes out of office “smelling like a rose” because she’s managed to
balance the books and wants to look like a hero…at the expense and to the detriment of those who live, work
and play in and around Colonie.
The proposal will further ruin the landscape, continue to poison the water and the air, and threaten further the
environmental, recreational and historical value of the area. The site is the very Gateway to the much-touted
Erie Canal-way. The Colonie Mohawk River Park is a mile and a half away. How can we allow the area to be
(literally) further trashed and turn into a ghastly mountain of refuse over 100 feet high? Why would we want to
threaten the wetlands, and the water of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers?
Our families live here, breathe the air and drink the water. In the more than 20 years that we’ve lived in Boght
Corners, we’ve seen farmland turn into expensive housing developments like Dutch Meadows and Canterbury
Crossings. The population is booming, and housing concentration is getting closer and closer to the Landfill.
Our local elementary school, Boght Hills School, is bursting at the seams and planning a substantial
enlargement.
The hamlet we live in gets its name ‘Boght Corners’ from the remarkable bend in the Mohawk River. ‘Boght’ is
Dutch for ‘bend’. If you look at a map, you see that the Landfill is located right in the center of that bend,
surrounded on most sides by water. This may have been a reasonable site for a town landfill 60 years ago,
2
when it was planned, but with what we know about wetlands, about river health, and soil and air quality, about
the historical and recreational value of riverfront land, that’s no longer the case, especially now that it’s been
turned over to private enterprise to become a convenient dumping ground for the entire state, if not beyond.
Expanding the landfill is not in the long term interests of the Town of Colonie or of its residents.
Thank you for holding the public hearings and for your consideration of comments from the public.
Sincerely,
Paula Weiss
14 Lawrence St.
Boght Corners
Cohoes, NY
12047
Paula B. Weiss
(518) 859-6076, cell
3
Dear Mr. Marchuccio,
I’m writing to voice my strong opposition to the Town of Colonie’s proposal to develop Area 7
of the Colonie Town Landfill. The proposal has been put forward quietly by the Town without
proper notification, education or consultation with the residents who will be most affected by
it. I found my way to the first hearing by way of a small notice in the back of the Times Union
newspaper. My husband and I read the paper daily and we saw no discussion of the issues. We
received no email or mail notification from the Town. Our neighbors were all equally in the
dark. As a result, the first hearing was very sparsely attended, but what I found out was
alarming.
After that, I kept my ears open for news of a second hearing in case one was allowed to
happen, but I only found out that there was going to be one the afternoon before it was
scheduled. My neighbor had gotten a notice stuffed in the mailbox at work, and she scanned in
a copy to me. We brought it to Staples and made copies to give out in our neighborhood. We’re
a couple of miles from the landfill- you would have thought we’d all know what was happening.
I attempted to read up on the issues on colonie.org but all that can be read there are notices
for the past hearings. Clicking on “Landfill Area 7 Development project” you’re brought to
colonietownlandfill.com which appears to be set up by Waste Connections. What you’re able to
easily read there is a lot of “propaganda” from Waste Connections, in favor of the proposal. The
DEIS reports are all listed but are impossible to read. If you try to download the files you’re
prompted to sign in through Facebook or sign up for a Kindle-type service, Scribd.com. If you try
to read them right on the Scribd.com site you keep getting blocked by ads. I’ve tried numerous
times.
I contacted the website dept. at town hall for help, and was at first emailed this link. They were
trying to be helpful. See if you can actually read the document there. I wasn’t able to:
https://www.scribd.com/document/321998828/DEIS-Town-of-Colonie-LF-Area-7#from_embed
Between the nice woman at the Management Information Services and the Public Works
Engineer- after at least a day of trying- I was finally emailed a pdf of the original proposal
submitted by the TOC in March 2014. I was also able to read more on the DEC website. Though
I was pretty daunted by then, and there was so much to wade through. I was intimidated by
thinking I had to frame a substantive argument against the proposal in order to be heard. If I, a
person with 2 advanced degrees, felt like that it’s likely that many other residents felt that way
and stopped short of submitting a comment.
Then, I realized that that in itself is a sufficiently substantive objection. Why should it be so
difficult to find out what our town is planning to do, right under our noses? Why should we be
intimidated into silence while Waste Connections lines its pockets with incredible income from
stuffing the Landfill- the Colonie Town Landfill- with refuse from all over NYS, and plans to
continue doing so for at least twenty more years? And while the Administrator of the Town of
Colonie goes out of office “smelling like a rose” because she’s managed to balance the books
and wants to look like a hero…at the expense and to the detriment of those who live, work and
play in and around Colonie.
The proposal will further ruin the landscape, continue to poison the water and the air, and
threaten further the environmental, recreational and historical value of the area. The site is the
very Gateway to the much-touted Erie Canal-way. The Colonie Mohawk River Park is a mile and
a half away. How can we allow the area to be (literally) further trashed and turn into a ghastly
mountain of refuse over 100 feet high? Why would we want to threaten the wetlands, and the
water of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers?
Our families live here, breathe the air and drink the water. In the more than 20 years that we’ve
lived in Boght Corners, we’ve seen farmland turn into expensive housing developments like
Dutch Meadows and Canterbury Crossings. The population is booming, and housing
concentration is getting closer and closer to the Landfill. Our local elementary school, Boght
Hills School, is bursting at the seams and planning a substantial enlargement.
The hamlet we live in gets its name ‘Boght Corners’ from the remarkable bend in the Mohawk
River. ‘Boght’ is Dutch for ‘bend’. If you look at a map, you see that the Landfill is located right
in the center of that bend, surrounded on most sides by water. This may have been a
reasonable site for a town landfill 60 years ago, when it was planned, but with what we know
about wetlands, about river health, and soil and air quality, about the historical and
recreational value of riverfront land, that’s no longer the case, especially now that it’s been
turned over to private enterprise to become a convenient dumping ground for the entire state,
if not beyond. Expanding the landfill is not in the long term interests of the Town of Colonie or
its residents.
Thank you for holding the public hearings and for your consideration of comments from the
public.
Sincerely,
Paula Weiss
14 Lawrence St.
Boght Corners
NY 12047
518-859-6076
paulabweiss@gmail.com
From: Phil Silverman <psilverman7801@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: OPPOSED TO COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION
unexpected emails.
As a resident of Halfmoon, I am strongly opposed to any expansion or extension of the Town of Colonie Landfill.

We have been tolerating the strong odors and unappealing scenery for many years with the understanding that it would
be closed in 2018. Strictly for monetary reasons the Town of Colonie is working to keep this open for the benefit and
PROFIT of a few, including the landfill operator, Waste Connections.

I am hoping to sell my house in a few years, and any indication that the landfill will become more of a nuisance, will
definitely hurt values in the Town of Halfmoon.
Please register my concerns in the official record as part of the hearing process.

Regards,

Phil Silverman
518.441.9903
psilverman7801@gmail.com

1
From: robert.schlieman <robert.schlieman@verizon.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: Robert Schlieman
Subject: Colonie Landfill Enlargement
unexpected emails.
This landfill already has significant environmental issues to adjacent areas. It should get the serious evaluation
of an adjudicator hearing to put all the environmental issues on the record.
Robert F. Schlieman
4 Tamarack Lane
Schenectady, NY 12309-1804
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
1
From: Ronnie Senez <readnwrite53@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov; schumer@senate.gov;
wwwgillibrand.senate.gov@realtyusa.com
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application – Resident Opposition Opinion
unexpected emails.
October 30, 2016

Dear Mr. Marcuccio,

Development, and request that an adjudicatory hearing be required.
I am a resident of the Town of Waterford. I have lived on 11 Gadwall Dr for 3 years. When
we first purchased our house we were told that the landfill was slated to close by 2018.
I walk almost every day and on many of my walks I can smell the fumes from the landfill.
Not only is it unsightly but the odors mean that I have to keep my windows closed.
I have attended the meetings and feel that the town of Colonie has only one agenda and
that is to get money for operating the landfill. The residents that are most impacted do not
live in Colonie or benefit in any way from this money maker for them. Most of the
opposition is from Halfmoon, Cohoes, Waterford and Clifton Park where the odor is most
noticeable.
At the open meetings I learned that the Town of Colonie has not pursued alternatives but
that
they are only interested in keeping their "cash cow" in operation regardless of the impact on
the environment and nearby residents.
Waste Connections has been fined numerous times because the fines are a small
inconvenience compared to the the money they are making.
1
Again, I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and request that the original proposal to
close the landfill by 2018 still stand. The adjudicatory hearing results from the many
testimonies that were both written and verbal at the various hearings cannot be ignored.
Sincerely,
Rhonda and Robert Senez

11 Gadwall Drive
Waterford, NY 12188
2
From: rosanne van heertum <romovan1@verizon.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Proposal
unexpected emails.
Dear Sir or Madam,

The Town of Colonie landfill expansion proposal should be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing.

Thank you,
Rosanne Van Heertum
Latham, NY
1
From: susan@islandbeachhouserental.com on behalf of Susan Weber <sweber2

@nycap.rr.com>
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie/Waste Connections Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
I am writing to comment on the proposed expansion of the Town of Colonie/Waste Connections
Landfill. I strongly request that this proposed vast expansion be considered at an ADJUDICATORY
HEARING. The possible environmental impacts of this proposed major expansion clearly warrant an
adjudicatory hearing.
As a concerned resident of the Town of Colonie, I submit this comment for consideration.
Susan Weber
14 Pepper Lane
Loudonville, NY 12211
518-462-3247
1
From: Susanna Crump <suecrump@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Town Dump Expansion
unexpected emails.
I am a Colonie resident opposed to the expansion of the dump - it is unsightly, odorous - we live 2 miles from it
and regularly have to endure its odors.
It is also very close to the Mohawk and we would do better shoring up the present balustrades than adding to
the weight and amount of possible pollutants were there an earthquake or failure to secure the barriers we have
now.
The original placement on the edge of a water way was bizarre and unfortunate, but adding to its volume is
frightening.
Also, it would be better to be used only by the town of Colonie residents. It will be useful for us a bit longer
without putting a huge strain on the present site. Who knows what kind of pollutants are being illegally slipped
in from other localities - it is very hard to keep a good handle on what is coming in if it is loaded somewhere
else. I am uncomfortable having pollutants brought in from far away that some other neighborhood does not
want to take care of - and they are sending it to our neighborhood hoping we don't notice what noxious stuff is
coming in.
I am fairly certain there is a good bit of stuff coming in that is just accepted without being carefully vetted..
Please remember - the dump was to have been closed very soon and some folks bought property thinking in just
a few years they would not have the eyesore and nose assault any longer. Instead it will be larger!
Susanna Crump - 1104 Loudon Rd - Boght Corners
785-0455
1
From: Tamara Baker <TamaraBaker85@aol.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
I am writing to state my opposition for the expansion of the colonie landfill.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: tlittle@realtyusa.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov;
tonko.house.govk@realtyusa.com; www.schumer.senate.gov@realtyusa.com;
wwwgillibrand.senate.gov@realtyusa.com
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing Request - Colonie Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
October 31, 2016

E: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov
RE: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application – Resident Opposition Opinion
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

I have been both a resident of the Town of Colonie and the Town of Waterford and believe
that I have a clearer understanding of the situation, than most. I am a NYS Licensed Real
Estate Broker, with 30 years of service and experience, which serves me both in my
personal and professional experience with regard to environmental sensitive sites, and
home values.
In attending the previous hearings, I was saddened to learn that the Expansion Study was
incomplete and inaccurate. Many bias or untruths were uncovered. There is a need for
fairness and correctness on the part of Waste Connections and the Town of Colonie, so at
the very least … an adjudicatory hearing should be ordered.
1
reasons:
 The proximity of the open waste water pits, to the river’s edge, endanger wildlife,
especially during any unforeseen natural event such as floods or hurricanes,
where these pits will spill into the river.
 The Hazardous waste pit, closed by DEC in 1986, would be allowed to be re
opened and additional garbage be added on top of the existing hazardous
material, this will cause the hazardous material to be driven directly into the
bedrock and ground water.
 The Erie Canal Corridor would no longer be a safe waterway for boaters and water
enthusiasts.
 The air quality which now affects approximately a 7 mile radius, if tripled could
stretch to 30 miles with the right wind conditions.
 Not only would the home values of Colonie, but also the residents of Halfmoon,
Waterford, Cohoes, and Clifton Park, could be devalued due to the unsalability of
these properties with a condition such as this.
the environment.

Terry Jean Little

23 Gadwall Drive
Waterford, NY 12188
tlittle@realtyusa.com

John T. McDonald
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand.
2
From: Anthony & Mary Benjamin <benmd@verizon.net>

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:34 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Written Statement
Attachments: Landfill.docx
unexpected emails.
1
Dr. & Mrs. Anthony P. Benjamin, M.D.
47 Dutch Meadows Drive
Cohoes, NY 12047
(518) 785-5215
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC, Region 4 Office
November 1, 2016
Dear Sir:
This letter is in firm opposition to the proposed size increase of the Colonie landfill.
We live ½ a mile from the landfill. There is a distinct odor from the dump approximately 5 out of 7 days
a week.
We bought a very expensive home near the landfill 2 years ago with the expectation it would close in
2018.
Expanding the landfill would have big environmental effects to the area- this is undeniable. If this dump
was located in a rural area, fine, expand it. But this is located in a busy, growing area. There is a
neighborhood being built across the street. There is housing all around the landfill and a major
waterway – in no way are they benefited by this expansion.
The Town of Colonie has mismanaged this waste site with the help of the contracted garbage men in
recent years. Please do not expand this landfill – the potential for fraud and misuse are huge.
There are plenty of landfills across the state. The Town of Colonie will figure it out. Having relocated
from Central New York, our trash ended up in Western New York for the same amount we pay in Albany.
Again, please do not approve this landfill expansion.
Respectfully,
Anthony P. Benjamin, M.D.
Mary E. Benjamin, R. N.
From: Brad <bradanthony7@aol.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:32 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and am writing to express my opposition, and

to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of Colonie Landfill
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: Carl Murray <carlsolarguy@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: landfill
unexpected emails.
To Whom it May Concern.
To try to Expand the land fill in Latham with out notifying the public is very irresponsible. You seem to of
forgotten you work for us,
not out of town business. For the employees involved in expanding the land fill, you have over stepped the
boundaries of a government employees & I don't think any of you can be trusted.
PISSED OFF RESIDENT
1
From: Cathy Knightes <cathyknightes@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Dear Angelo Marcuccio: I am writing to express my opposition for the Colonie Landfill draft Permit application. I currently reside in
Guilderland, NY. When I drive on route 9, the landfill is an eye sore and should not be expanded on. It should be closed like it was
suppose to be in 2018. In addition, if it was to be expanded it would be devastating to the air quality and environment. Sincerely, Cathy
Knightes
1
From: Marcia Kees <mkees20@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: OPPOSED TO COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION
unexpected emails.
To Whom it May Concern,
We are writing in opposition to the expansion of the Colonie landfill. We live at 34

Plank Rd in the Town of Halfmoon and we can smell the landfill on at least half of the
days of the year. On many days of the year we cannot even open our windows. Further
expansion would exacerbate this already unhealthy situation and would devalue our
property.
The landfill property borders the Mohawk River and Erie Canal. These are phenomenal
natural and historic resources that bring great benefit to the recreation and tourism
industry of the region. Additional expansion of the landfill will harm the potential of
these resources for years to come. Closure and capping of the landfill can begin the
process to heal this currently unsightly waterfront property in hopes that we can
reclaim the beauty of the SCENIC “Crescent” region of the Mohawk River.
The need for landfills is a regional issue and one town should not be able to profit from
a landfill expansion, while residents of the surrounding towns suffer the consequences.
State and local officials should listen to the preponderance of pubic opinion on this
matter and close the landfill by 2018.
Charles and Marcia Kees

34 Plank Road
Waterford, NY 12188
(Town of Halfmoon)
mkees@nycap.rr.com
1
From: Rick & Crystal Bruno <rickncrystal@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
I'm writing to comment that it is my opinion that this proposal should require an adjudicatory hearing.
Thank you,
Crystal Bruno
47 Forts Ferry Rd, Latham
1
From: 5185732555@vzwpix.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
My name is Cynthia DeViddio, 64 Mallards Landing So., Waterford, NY 12188. I totally oppose the expansion
of the Colonie Town Landfill!!!!!!! My house views this monster of a landfill. I own a $365,000 home with a
view of the river it's contaminating. I pay $6,600 in taxes! I'm very worried about the value of my home and
our health. It smells, we call, even as of this past Sunday morning. We were told it was going to close in 2017!
This dump was already fined a half million dollars for not complying with DEC regulations. It's unacceptable
to expand it. The dump was fined in 2014 for leaks. Wake up people! Also was told by the dump it was not
prepared for the hurricane sandy crap that was put there and smelled for months. Wouldn't governor cuomo
want to avoid another Hoosick Falls mishap? One would hope so! We OPPOSE!!!!!!!!
1
From: Linda Knightes <knightes.linda@yahoo.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
We are requesting an adjudicatory hearing and we oppose the expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
Dan & Linda Knightes

Rotterdam, NY
1
From: David Engel <DEngel@nolanandheller.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; lmurphy@townofhalfmoon.org
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Proposed Area 7 Development
Attachments: Marcuccio Ltr_001.pdf
unexpected emails.
Attached please find a letter setting forth the Comments on behalf of the Town of Halfmoon with respect to the
proposed expansion of the Town of Colonie Landfill.
Dave Engel
David A. Engel, Esq.

Nolan & Heller, LLP
39 N. Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-432-3168
********************************
IRS Circular 230 Notice:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. Federal tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Confidentiality Notice:
This message (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the
named recipient. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise
legally exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, or are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone at (518) 449-3300, and delete
the original message (including any attachments) without making any copies. Receipt by anyone other than the
intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product or other applicable privilege.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator
in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data.
Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
1
From: Erin Doran <edoran@riverkeeper.org>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development Comments
Attachments: 2016_11_01 Colonie Landfill Expansion Comments.pdf
unexpected emails.
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
Attached please find Riverkeeper's comments on the Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development Comments.
Please confirm receipt of these comments, and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Best,
Erin
--
Erin E. Doran
Staff Attorney
Riverkeeper, Inc.
E-House, 78 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
914.422.4228
edoran@riverkeeper.org
www.riverkeeper.org
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
This message contains information that may be confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above. No one else may disclose, copy, distribute, or use
the contents of this message. Unauthorized use, dissemination, or duplication is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. All personal messages are the express views solely of the sender,
which are not attributed to Riverkeeper, Inc. and may not be copied or distributed without this disclaimer. If you received this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify
the sender and Riverkeeper at info@riverkeeper.org or 914-478-4501.
1
Via Electronic Mail
November 1, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC – Region 4 Office
Re: Colonie Landfill – Area 7 Development, Notice of Completion of Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), Notice of Complete Applications
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
Riverkeeper, Inc. submits these comments regarding the Colonie Landfill – Area 7
Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“Draft EIS”) and Completed
Applications. The Colonie Landfill is located adjacent to the banks of the Mohawk
River. Runoff from the facility discharges into the Mohawk upstream of the public
water supply intake for the City of Cohoes, New York. It is critical for the Department
of Environmental Conservation to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of the
proposed expansion, and all reasonable alternatives, given of the proximity of the
landfill to the River and a water supply intake.
I. The Alternatives Analysis in the Draft EIS is Inadequate.
The Draft EIS, prepared by Cornerstone Environmental, fails to provide a sufficiently

detailed analysis of alternatives to the significant expansion of the landfill in the Area 7
Development proposal. SEQRA requires that a Draft EIS include “a description and
evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible,
considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. The description and
evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative
1
assessment of the alternatives discussed.”1 The analysis here—which consists primarily of
broad statements and little support over a mere five-page span—simply does not rise to
that level of detail and fails to meet the clear legal requirement.2
A Draft EIS must also include a no action alternative.3 Specifically,
The no action alternative discussion should evaluate the adverse or

beneficial site changes that are likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable
future, in the absence of the proposed action.4
In this application, the analysis of the no action alternative focuses solely on potential
adverse economic impacts of maintaining the status quo. It does not provide any real data
about the extent of those potential consequences or the likelihood that those
consequences will actually occur. For example, the Draft EIS suggests that after the
landfill reaches capacity, without the expansion, it would be more expensive for the
Town of Colonie and surrounding communities to dispose of their waste elsewhere.5
However, the Draft EIS provides no information about the actual costs of using other
landfills in the region.6 Additionally, the Draft EIS indicates that diverting waste to
other landfills would have adverse environmental impacts,7 but it fails to discuss
alternatives to truck transport, such as the use of rail technology, to transport waste to
alternative disposal sites.
The Draft EIS also fails to identify, discuss, or analyze the quality of life and
environmental benefits that the no action alternative could provide to nearby residents.
Should the landfill reach capacity, it would signal an end point for the unpleasant odor
and visual impacts associated with its current operations. Likewise, the Draft EIS fails to
analyze potential environmental benefits of the no-action alternative, such as
remediation of the site.

1 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.9(B)(5)(v) (emphasis added).
2 Cornerstone Environmental, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Town of Colonie Landfill

Proposed Area 7 Development 85–89 (June 2016, rev’d July 2016), available at
http://www.townofcolonielandfill.com/?p=144 [hereinafter “Draft EIS”].
3 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.9(B)(5)(v).
4 Id.
5 Draft EIS at 85–86.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 85.
2
Beyond the no action alternative, the Draft EIS should include other considerations as
appropriate, including, inter alia: alternative sites, technologies, scales or magnitudes,
and designs.8 Additionally, the options available to reduce the amount of waste, such as
robust recycling incentive, and organics management programs, should be part of the
alternatives analysis addressing the need for increased landfill capacity. With a single-
stream recycling program in effect in the Albany County, outreach around materials
that are acceptable could boost the current recycling rate.9 For example, Dutchess
County has a goal of increasing its diversion rate to sixty percent by 2022.10 Similarly,
developing cost-effective organics management programs could reduce the volume of
waste being sent to the landfill.11 Incentive-based programs, where generators pay for
waste pick-up, but not for recycling or composting, can also contribute to successfully
reducing waste, and thus reducing the need for additional landfill capacity.12
Here, the Draft EIS plainly states that no alternative sites were considered because it
“was not practicable or economically feasible” to do so.13 Moreover, while the Draft EIS
does mention several alternative technologies, it largely dismisses them based on cost
and/or the prevalence of the technology.14
Finally, the Draft EIS fails to mention, in any significant detail, the remaining
considerations that may be relevant to an alternatives analysis. Instead, it summarizes
previous on-site alternatives that were considered as part of the Town of Colonie Solid
Waste Management Plan. Those three alternatives are presented and dismissed, again
with without the required analysis.
The SEQR Handbook explains why an analysis of alternatives is important:
A project sponsor generally develops its project proposal based solely on

its own goals and objectives. These goals and objectives may not include
maximum protection of environmental factors, and are not always shared

8 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.9(B)(5)(v).
9 See Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study 19 (Oct. 2011), available at
https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/LGEProjectReports/2009/AlbanY_SWMA_FinalReport.pdf.
10 Rethinking Waste: Dutchess County Final Local Solid Waste Management Plan 109, available at
http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/SolidWasteMgmt/swrw.pdf.
11 See e.g., ReFED, A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent (2016), available at
https://www.refed.com/resources.
12 See Rethinking Waste, supra note 9, at 47.
13 Draft EIS at 86.
14 Id. at 86–88.
3
by the reviewing agencies or the public. Requiring that reasonable
alternatives be discussed allows a reviewer to independently determine if
the proposed action is, in fact, the best alternative for that project when all
environmental factors have been considered.15
The Draft EIS analysis for the Area 7 Development is clearly skewed toward the
applicant’s preferred option, as it lacks the required consideration of reasonable
alternatives. The Draft EIS fails to recognize any benefits associated with the no-action
alternative, fails to present any alternative sites, and fails to independently evaluate on-
site alternatives that were previously considered in an entirely different proceeding. In
short, the Draft EIS does not contain “the level of detail sufficient to permit a
comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed,” as required by New York State
regulations.16
II. Riverkeeper Supports the Requests for an Adjudicatory Hearing on the Permit
Applications.
Through our network of members, citizen watchdogs, and municipal partners,

Riverkeeper has been made aware of a number of substantive and significant issues
associated with the Area 7 Development. Those issues include:
• Proximity of the site and the expansion to the Mohawk River and potential
groundwater, surface water, and drinking water contamination;
• Visual impacts associated with the vertical accumulation of new landfill waste;
• Odor and air emissions associated with the landfill expansion;
• Increased noise and traffic associated with the landfill expansion;
• Need to fully analyze the historical and background conditions of the site,
including the inactive hazardous waste site relevant to the expansion;
• Poor engineering design;
• Need to further explain and analyze economic factors;
• Potential negative impacts on the use and enjoyment of nearby parks, recreation
areas, and scenic byways;
• Potential negative impacts on recreation and tourism; and
• Potential negative impacts on bird habitats and flyovers.
Each of these issues are critical considerations in the environmental review for the
project. They are also critical considerations in the pending permit applications. For
these reasons, and the reasons raised by concerned citizens, groups, and local

15 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The SEQR Handbook 123–24 (3rd
ed., 2010), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf.
16 See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.9(B)(5)(v).
4
governments, Riverkeeper urges the Department of Environmental Conservation to
grant the public’s request for adjudicatory hearings. Landfill expansions are complex
and technical undertakings and this proposal is no different. For these reasons, the
adjudicatory hearing process will provide the public with an open and transparent
forum to further examine this proposal.17
Riverkeeper is a member-supported watchdog organization dedicated to defending the

Hudson River and its tributaries, including the Mohawk River. Riverkeeper also
monitors and protects the drinking water supply of nine million Hudson Valley and
New York City residents.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
John Parker
Director of Legal Programs

17 See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 621.8(b).
5
From: george harris <geowhjr@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: <fhartley@nycap.rr.com>; hogrady@nycap.rr.com; John Szemansco; Bradford Oswald;
Betty Hartley; rlindbe2@nycap.rr.com; Michelle Mercurio; splotnick@albany.edu;
Deborah Newman; Mark Millspaugh; mschachner@MMSHLAW.com;
dengel@nolanandheller.com; ADMIN@MOHAWKTOWPATH.ORG; Dangler, Andrew C
NAN02; lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; lynmurphy13@yahoo.com;
ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; Cynthia Linder; JAMES BOLD; Citizens Concerned
About Landfill Expansion; thomas.johnson@sterlingenvironmental.com;
edoran@riverkeeper.0rg; jlipscomb@riverkeeper.org
STATEMENT (DEIS) - Comments
Attachments: FinalDEIS Comments CHHD.pdf
unexpected emails.
Andrew.

Attached is the cover letter and our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by
the Church Hill Historic District. I will also submit a hard copy of the comments by mail.



George W. Harris
Church Hill Historic District
66 Church Hill Road
1
November 1,2016
Angelo Marcuccio, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
I130 North Westcott Rd. Schenectady, NY 12306
Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) - Comments
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
I represent a grcup of homeowners in the Church Hill Historic District. We have

reviewed in detail the June 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Statement along with the
supporting documentation for the proposed AreaT Expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
We are very concerned with the inaccurate generalnations, inconsistencies, and missing
information in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Many ofthe conclusions
presented appear to be either inaccurate, unfounded or have not considered all relevant
information.
The Church Hill Historic District is in the Town of Halfrnoon and has been determined to
be eligible by State Historic Preservation Office for listing on the National Historic
Register. It includes 17 architecturally and historically significant structures three of
which are already on the National Register. The historical sense of the area is based on its
architecture, history and historic setting viewing the Mohawk River Valley vist4 the Erie
Canalway National Heritage Corridor and the former Erie Canal. It's very disturbing to
Church Hill residents that our resource, and most other resources identified in the Visual
Assessment, is dismissed as already viewing or partially viewing the existing landfill and
therefore drawing the conclusion that this is just more of the same with no significant
adverse impact.
This simplistic approach is fundamental to the theory underlying the DEIS and
Engineering Report assertion that there is no significant visual impact from this proposal.
There are at least two flaws with this thinking. One is the understated and massive
magnitude and scope of the proposal which is discussed at great detail in the attached
review. The other is that from the perspective of Church Historic District Are4 the
existing landfill as viewed from the north and northeast is already closed with no
construction activity in accordance with the current permit. Construction activity for a
few years has been heading south primarily out of view. From our perspective the
proposal is equivalent to opening a new landfill, over twice the size ofthe original one
with open construction waste filling for more than twenty years. Berms constructed of
dumped waste will not mitigate the view. This will be glaringly apparent for homes at a
higher elevation on the hill. We find the assertion there is no significant visual impact to
be disturbing and unfounded.
Our technical comments on a wider range of subjects are summarized in Section I as
Issues and associated Reasons to deny the Permit. Backup documentation and
substantiation in detail is provided in Section II. The Appendix, Section IlI, contains
attachments referenced in Section II.
Due to the significant nature of each ofthe comments, and the inaccurate and incomplete
information presented in the DEIS, we are requesting that the application be denied, or
each comment be addressed and made public, the DEIS revised, the revised DEIS be
presented to the public for review and comment, and a follow up Hearing scheduled to
allow for public comment on the revised document.
Additionally, we are requesting that the Department of Environmental Conservation as

lead agency deny the application or make a decision on the application for the
Development of Area 7 only after an Adjudicatory Hearing is held based on the issues
contained herein.
If you should have any questions, please call me at (518) 5424906.
ilkaT
; P.E.
Chu
66(
SECTION I
SUMMARY DEIS Issues/Comments
Backup documentation/substantiation is provided in Section II
ISSUE 1; The landfill expansion depends on overfilling wastes and placing additional liners
onto a patch work of unsuitable areas in an unsuitable environmental setting with varied
histories of expansions which were never the subject of Public Hearings or critical Public
Review. The unsuitable areas includes; a twenty five acre portion of an un-remediated
hazardous waste site, areas with waste in groundwater, areas with liners placed in
groundwater, areas with no lining, areas with potentially leaking clay bottom liners and
former waste areas with no underlying clay.
Reasons to deny the Application;
1a. Environmental Setting; The Mohawk River is a Class A Water Source and the site is also over the
Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer. The 2016 Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment
2 to the Engineering Report, documents extensively that the site groundwater is contaminated above
standards and that “all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the Mohawk River”.
1b. The expansion proposal includes overfilling a large portion (Area 1) of a listed inactive hazardous
waste site posing unacceptable environmental risks.
1c. The expansion proposal includes overfilling Area 4 which was capped and funded by the NYSDEC
with the condition that further overfilling was prohibited.
1d. The clay bottom liner in Areas 4 and 5 containing waste would not meet current standards for double
composite liners at landfills and should not be designed into or considered as the defacto base or
foundation of a landfill expansion of this scale and magnitude.
1e. The landfill expansion will be placing additional wastes and liners on areas where the area being
capped over has a bottom liner placed in groundwater making the expanded landfill potentially unstable
and raising questions regarding leakage into site groundwater.
1f. The 1992 URS Report indicates that for large portions of Area 1 which is to be overfilled, lacustrine
silts and clays do not extend all the way up the drumlin, and are also missing in northern portions of the
site.
Page 1 of 26
SECTION I
ISSUE 2; The existing landfill conditions have not been adequately evaluated with respect
to the potential environmental impacts to the bordering Class A Mohawk River and the City
of Cohoes drinking water intake 1.5 miles downstream.. Given the lack of critical
assessment and environmental monitoring of the existing landfill, it’s impossible to properly
quantify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed massive expansion and
inappropriate for the Department to issue a Water Quality Certification.
2a. Additional studies recommended in the 1992 URS Phase II Inactive Hazardous Waste Site
Investigation to determine potential impacts to the Mohawk River were never conducted.
2b. The existing as well as the proposed Environmental Monitoring Program has no associated surface
water or sediment sampling to critically assess and monitor impacts to the Mohawk River.
2c. The NYSDEC has issued Notice of Violations regarding contamination in areas that drain into the
Mohawk River and/or adjacent wetlands. Recent FOIL results of all environmental analytical data
related to the Colonie Landfill indicate that there is no related surface water or sediment sampling in the
River to critically access potential impacts of those violations to the River or wetlands.
2d. The 2016 Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment 2 to the Engineering Report, indicates that
the groundwater is contaminated and that all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the
Mohawk River.
2e. Groundwater samples were not collected from Bedrock Wells for evaluation in the Environmental
Assessment Report due to the reason stated on Page 4-10 that “these locations are identified in the
currently approved EMSAP as contingency sampling locations”,
2f. Based upon the contour map figures in the DEIS for top of bedrock, upper and intermediate
groundwater zone contour maps that a large portion of the groundwater flow would be directed through
Area1 and the Unnamed Area constituting the Inactive hazardous waste site.
Page 2 of 26
SECTION I
ISSUE 3; The Visual Assessment Report has numerous technical flaws and does not
accurately reflect the magnitude and scope of the final build out being proposed. The
projects visual impact significantly degrades the quality of life and potential recreational use
as well as the historic and the scenic character of the Mohawk River and Mohawk River
Valley View shed. These impacts are not, and cannot be, sufficiently mitigated considering
the magnitude and scope of the expansion.
3a. The Visual Assessment Report and the landfill simulations are inaccurate and misrepresentative of
potential impacts and scope of the project,
3b. NYDSDEC Policy for preparing Visual Assessment Reports require a 5 mile viewing radius, the
Visual Assessment Report off the DEISW only evaluates 3 miles viewing area skewing the results,
3c. The Visual Assessment Report and DEIS do not identify numerous recreational, cultural and
historical resources that will be visually impacted in the area,
3d. The Visual Assessment Report and DEIS do not identify as viewing or vantage points important
recreational, cultural and historical resources that will be visually impacted in the area,
3e. In approving the expansion for the Albany landfill the decision noted the small drive by time of 25
sec was noted, here the drive by time for a typical recreational user on the river is 15 minutes at 6 mph
and the expansion will extend it to 30 minutes.
3f. While we don’t agree as stated in the DEIS that the current landfill fits into the character of the local
rolling hills, at least it’s debatable. The expansions massive height increase of 113 feet above the current
landfill height clearly doesn’t fit with the scenic River Valley and will be an eyesore,
3g. The Town of Colonie refused to place weather balloons to demonstrate the extent of the fill as
requested by the local officials and community stating the Visual Resource Impact Study was state of
the art,
3h. The Visual Impact Study simulations do not show the 20 plus year construction period and only
show proposed completed landfill under full foliage conditions,
3i. The DEIS statement on page 58 that the proposed development would not result in significant
adverse impact on resources of statewide significance is unfounded.
Page 3 of 26
SECTION I
ISSUE 4; Contrary to NYSDEC SEQR regulations requiring clear and concise

presentation, the DEIS and Engineering Report are unclear and appear to obscure and
misrepresent facts to the extent that the magnitude and scale of the proposal cannot be
clearly understood by the decision makers or the public.
4a. The description of the magnitude of the expansion being proposed is unclear,
4b. The DEIS or Engineering Report do not identify that the 25 acre Area 1 to be overfilled is a
hazardous waste site and the area is misrepresented as to the wastes landfilled there,
4c. The DEIS or Engineering Report do not identify that the expansion will be placing additional wastes
and liners on areas where the area being capped over has a bottom liner placed in groundwater,
4d. The Visual Assessment Report has numerous technical flaws and does not accurately reflect the
magnitude and scope of the build out being proposed,
4e. It is never identified or acknowledged in the DEIS or Engineering Report that additional height
increase from existing landfill is approximately 117 feet. The increase is described in the Reports only in
terms of as eighty seven (87) feet over the currently permitted landfill.
Page 4 of 26
SECTION I
ISSUE 5; The public is alarmed that the NYSDEC would propose the overcapacity
apparent in the applications proposed volume, duration of operation and daily tonnage
rates given the current operator’s history of noncompliance with regulatory tonnage rate
issues. Such defacto approval of overcapacity represents a doubling of the daily allowable
tonnage rates without an appropriate review of environmental issues such as air, noise,
traffic, and visual impacts.
Reasons to deny the application;
5a. The actual additional tonnage being requested in the proposal is obscured and needs to be calculated
independently by the reviewer from the volume approval requested,
5b. Section 5.2 of the Engineering report overstates the required disposal volume by using a low in place
waste density (1200 lb/ cy) and 25% by volume of MSW to calculate the operational cover needs.
5c The geotechnical engineering section of the Engineering Report states in place density of 80lb/cf
(approx 2.1 ton/ cy) and the last 3 years of Annual Reports state 1 ton/cy. This is consistent with other
modern landfill operations.
5d. Simple math indicates that given the proposed volume, duration and tonnage rates that the required
volume would about half of that required,
5e The current operator has received a significant Notice of Violation and fines related to exceeding
daily tonnage rates,
5f. Statements that the daily tonnage rates won’t change raise questions regarding the possibility of
ulterior motives or loopholes such as the introduction of excessive tonnage of daily cover substitutes that
actually constitute waste stream income to the operator,
5g. If the application were approved with the stated volume, daily rate and duration of operation it
would be a defacto approval of a project without the appropriate SEQR environmental reviews such as
air, noise, traffic and visual impacts related to the increased tonnage disposal rate.
Page 5 of 26
SECTION II
Backup Documentation/Substantiation
Page 6 of 26
SECTION II
Issue 1 Backup Documentation/Substantiation
ISSUE 1.; The landfill expansion depends on overfilling wastes and placing additional liners onto a
patch work of unsuitable areas in an unsuitable environmental setting with varied histories of
expansions which were never the subject of Public Hearings or critical Public Review. The
unsuitable areas includes; a twenty five acre portion of an un-remediated hazardous waste site,
areas with waste in groundwater, areas with liners placed in groundwater, areas with no lining,
areas with potentially leaking clay bottom liners.
1a. Environmental Setting; The Mohawk River is a Class A Water Source and the site is also over the
Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer. The 2016 Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment 2 to the
Engineering Report, documents extensively that the site groundwater is contaminated above standards and that
“all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the Mohawk River”.
Pages 4-10 thru 4-16 (attachment1a-1) of the Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment 2, to the
Engineering Report documents in detail 7 over seven pages that the site groundwater in the Upper and
Intermediate Water Bearing Zones are contaminated above standards. The contamination includes Metals and
General Chemistry analytical Categories. Page 4-7 (attachment 1a-2) states that “all three landfill site water
bearing zones flow into the Mohawk River”. Groundwater samples were not collected from Bedrock Wells for
evaluation in the Environmental Assessment Report due to the reason stated on Page 4-10 that “these locations
are identified in the currently approved EMSAP as contingency sampling locations”.
1b. The expansion proposal includes overfilling a large portion (Area 1) of a listed inactive hazardous waste site
posing unacceptable environmental risks.
Area 1 is never identified in the Engineering Report or DEIS as part of the Town of Colonie Inactive Hazardous
Waste Site No. 401004.
The Engineering Report (ER) on page 14 describes the Unnamed Area and Area 1 as follows;
“The Unnamed Area reportedly accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s
until it ceased accepting waste in 1972. The Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated
soil cover (installed in 1983) incorporating a low-permeability soil component and
comprises approximately 12 acres. The Unnamed Area is a listed Class 3 Inactive
Hazardous Waste site (NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004).”
“Area 1 accepted waste from 1972 through 1980. Area 1 is approximately 24 acres in size.
Although this area does not include an engineered baseliner it is underlain by natural clay
deposits and at one time reportedly had a rudimentary provisions for leachate collection
and a vegetated low-permeability soil cover.”
The above description indicates that the Unnamed area is part of the Class 3 Inactive Hazardous waste site but
clearly infers that Area 1 is not. The 2016 Environmental Assessment Report in in Section 1.1 discussing
Page 7 of 26
individually the history of site investigations does not even acknowledge the fact the Investigation was an
Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Investigation or the contamination documented. It describes the study as;
“ 1.1.1 URS Consultants Phase II Investigation

URS Consultants, Inc. (URS) of Buffalo, New York performed a Phase II
investigation of the closed extreme northern portion (Unnamed Area) of the Town of
Colonie Landfill in April, 1992.The URS Phase II field investigation included the installation of seven (7)
monitoring wells and one (1) soil boring. The monitoring wells were installed with the purpose
of monitoring different geologic units beneath the site.”
According to the April 1992 URS Report the combined Unnamed Area and Area 1 included far more than ER
description of “MSW and incinerator ash” and Area 1 contained far more than just “waste”. The Report
indicates on Page 4-37;
“The site operated from 1968 to 1983. It accepted at least 85,000 tons of industrial wastes, much
of it hazardous, until ordered to stop in 1980 by NYSDEC. It also accepted annually
approximately 170,000 cubic yards of municipal waste (as of 1980) from the Town and
Village of Colonie, the Village of Menands, and numerous industrial/commercial sources.”
Attachment 1b-1 which is Table 4-1 from the URS Report summarizes wastes accepted at the landfill with some
dates. It should be noted that Area 1 is identified on the URS Figure 1-2 as accepting wastes from 170s through
1983.
Comparing Figure 1-2 (attachment 1b-2) from the April 1992 URS Engineering Investigations at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites, Town of Colonie Landfill, Phase II Report to Figures 1-2 and 1-3 (attachments 1b-3 &
1b-4) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement it can be clearly seen the proposed new landfill expansion
footprint area clearly encompasses the areas entitled “Closed Landfill Area”, Area Filled 1970’s-1983 and
Lined Landfill (closed) which constitute part of the Study Area and the Inactive Hazardous waste site. Those
areas are combined into “Area 1” on the Attachment 1b-3. It should also be noted “Area 1” borders and/or
includes portions on the southwest and west of the Areas of Proposed Limits of Emergent Wetland and Forested
Wetland Disturbance Areas.
1c. The expansion proposal includes overfilling Area 4 which was capped and funded by the NYSDEC with the
condition that further overfilling was prohibited.
The June 2016 Engineering Report indicates on Page 14;
“Area 4 accepted waste from 1989 through 1996. Area 4 is 15-acres, lined with clay and had
a leachate collection system installed at the time of original development. Area 4 was
capped with a geomembrane cap and currently has an active LFG collection system.
Funding for the Area 4 closure was provided by New York State and a condition of the
funding was no future landfill development on the capped area.”
There is no explanation for why it was a condition of the funding that there was to be no future development on
the capped area. The DEIS indicates on Page 9;
“In November 1993, an engineering and design report prepared in accordance with Part 360
was submitted to NYSDEC for approval to modify the then existing landfill to incorporate a
vertical development in Area 4 and the development of Area 5. The work was collectively
Page 8 of 26
called the "Area 5 Landfill Expansion" and a modification permit was issued.”
Essentially, the Area 7 plan will be the second time Area 4 is to have future landfill development on top of it,
this time on a massive scale. A critical review of this “engineering and design report” was never presented for
the public review. There was no Public Comment Period or Public opportunity for review. It is entirely unclear
how the entire massive “Area 5 Landfill Expansion” and permit modification was undertaken without
undergoing an appropriate Public Review Process under SEQR. Since this information and analysis has never
been subject to public scrutiny or review, it should have been provided in the Engineering Report or the
Environmental Assessment part of the Engineering Report.
1d. The clay bottom liner in Areas 4 and 5 containing waste would not meet current standards for double
composite liners at landfills and should not be designed into or considered as the defacto base or foundation of a
landfill expansion of this scale and magnitude in this environmental setting.
“Area 4 accepted waste from 1989 through 1996. Area 4 is 15-acres, lined with clay and had
a leachate collection system installed at the time of original development. Area 4 was
capped with a geomembrane cap and currently has an active LFG collection system.
Funding for the Area 4 closure was provided by New York State and a condition of the
funding was no future landfill development on the capped area.”
Area 4 had landfill development on top of the capped area as part of the AREA 5 Landfill Expansion and now is
proposed to have an additional massive development. As stated in 1b above, there is no explanation for why it
was a condition of the funding that there was to be no future development on the capped area and any additional
studies were not presented. The most likely reason is that the clay bottom liner would not be reliable and
potentially compromised by overhead development. Natural clay is often fractured and cracked. In addition
some chemicals often found in unregulated household waste can degrade clay. A mechanism called diffusion
will move organic chemicals like benzene through a thick clay landfill liner over a period of years. Clay bottom
liners with an uncertain area of coverage, history or condition would not meet current required standards for
double composite liners at landfills and should not be designed into or considered as a defacto base of a landfill
expansion of this scale and magnitude in this environmental setting. It should also be noted that in reason 1f.
below, that a natural clay subsurface layer which could have acted as an aquitard was documented to be missing
in portions of the “new landfill” which is Area 4.
1e The landfill expansion will be placing additional wastes and liners on areas where the area being capped
over has a bottom liner placed in groundwater making the expanded landfill potentially unstable and raising
concerns regarding leakage into site groundwater.
Another potentially unsuitable base for a landfill design of this scale and magnitude in this environmental
setting is a landfill with the bottom liner in groundwater. In the Paper “Landfilling Facing Challenges in the 21st
Century” presented by Malcolm Pirnie in 1997 discussing the Colonie Landfill it is stated;
“To increase landfill capacity, a portion of the double composite liner system was constructed below
the water table. A pore pressure relief layer relieves the hydrostatic forces associated with the
groundwater during both construction and operation. The double composite liner system consists
of (from bottom to top): a pore pressure relief layer, a 24-inch low-permeability soil layer, a 60-mil
textured HDPE geomembrane, a double-sided geocomposite drainage net, a 12-inch structural soil
layer, a 6-inch low-permeability soil layer, a 60-mil textured HDPE geomembrane, a double-sided
Page 9 of 26
geocomposite drainage net, and a 24-inch soil layer.”
And the following diagram;
The placement or piggy backing the proposed massive landfill expansion on top of a waste cell in the
groundwater would seem to present obvious problems and concerns. The additional piggybacking would
obviously seem to threaten the pore pressure relief system a critical component of the system. As the diagram
indicates the groundwater underneath the waste cell discharges to the surface and to the Mohawk River. It
should be noted the groundwater is also shown to be in direct communication with the Mohawk River.
Again, this whole questionable system and major expansion was never subject to SEQR review. Perhaps most
disturbing and frustrating from the Public’s perspective, Malcolm Pirnie goes on to state how simply filing out a
form and deeming the expansion a minor additional environmental impact allowed the Town to avoid
permitting and compliance with SEQR requirements;
“In 1994 the Town of Colonie was faced with dwindling permitted landfill disposal capacity, and a
landfill permit that was to expire in April of that year. The Town's Solid Waste Management Plan
(SWMP) called for the long-term development of a sanitary landfill on an adjacent parcel of land
owned by the Town. The proposed development was going to require a permit from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and compliance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The expected delays associated with the SEQRA
process and the permit from NYSDEC would leave the Town of Colonie without disposal capabilities
Page 10 of 26
for two or more years.”
“Because the expansion was proposed for the existing site, a full EIS was not required under
SEQRA and the action was deemed a minor additional environmental impact based on completion
of an environmental assessment form. This distinction was the key to the timely permitting and
construction of the facility, and the reason why the Town was able to maintain uninterrupted
disposal capacity on-site.”
The relevant pages from the Paper “Landfilling Facing Challenges in the 21st Century” are included as
attachment 1e-1.
1f. The 1992 URS Report indicates that for large portions of Area 1, and portions of Area 4 (“new landfill”) and
possibly Area 5 which are all to be overfilled, the lacustrine silts and clays do not extend all the way up the
drumlin, and are also missing in northern portions of the site.
The lacustrine silts and clays where present in sufficient thickness they may act as an effective aquitard
preventing contamination from vertical migration. The URS Report starting on page 4-38 (attachment 1f-1)
that;
“Borings done at the site (Phase II and earlier work for new landfill) showed that lacustrine silts and
clays do not extend all the way up the drumlin, and are also missing beneath CW-30and CW-40 in the
northern portion of the site. Presumably, excavation of the old Erie Canal, and possibly erosion by the
Mohawk River, removed this lacustrine deposit beneath portions of the northern half of the site. Where
present in sufficient thickness they will act as an effective aquitard.
Page 11 of 26
SECTION II
ISSUE 2; The existing landfill conditions have not been adequately evaluated with respect to the
potential environmental impacts to the bordering Class A Mohawk River and the City of Cohoes
drinking water intake 1.5 miles downstream.. Given the lack of critical assessment and
environmental monitoring of the existing landfill it’s impossible to properly quantify the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed massive expansion and inappropriate for the Department
to issue a Water Quality Certification.
2a. Additional studies recommended in the 1992 URS Phase II Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Investigation to
determine potential impacts to the Mohawk River were never conducted.
Based upon the results of two FOIL requests to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
in March 2016 and September 2016 requesting groundwater and surface water monitoring and analytical results
related to the Town of Colonie landfill permit, there is no indication an analysis as described in the URS
Consultants, Inc. April 1992 Phase II Investigation, Volume I, Engineering Investigations at Inactive Hazardous
Waste Sites was ever conducted. This is a critical issue as it indicates adequate evaluation to the impacts to the
Mohawk River itself has not been evaluated. It should also be noted the Cohoes Drinking water intake is located
1.5 mile downstream.
The attached figure 3-1 (Attachment 2a-1) from the URS Consultants, Inc. April 1992 Phase II
Investigation, Volume I, indicates the areal extent of the area under investigation at that time as an inactive
hazardous waste site. Those areas are identified and noted as;
Area Filled 1968-1970,

Area Filled 1970’s,
Area Filled 1970’s-1983,
Closed Landfill Area.
It should be noted that these areas are specifically outlined with a black line into two separate areas separated by
Cohoes Crescent Road. They are bordered on the south by the area indicated as Lined Landfill (closed) and
Active Landfill Area. They are bordered on the east by the Mohawk River, on the north by the Mohawk River
and on the west by US Route 9. The southernmost extent of the URS investigation area, the closed landfill area
is about 500 feet north of the landfill entrance road, scale and office area.
Attachment 2a-2 is Figure 4-4 from the URS Report which is a delineation of the Field Investigation proposed
in 1992 for further study including monitoring wells into the kame deposit and shale formation, soil borings and
water table and surface and sediment sample locations. The reason for this proposed investigation is identified
on page 4-41 of the URS Investigation under 4.7.2 Additional Studies (attachment 2a-3);
Page 12 of 26
“The Phase II investigation has revealed that the Town of Colonie (inactive) landfill has accepted
hazardous wastes, is unlined, has groundwater within the fill, has contaminants that exceed ARARs for
both groundwater and surface water (including groundwater in the Kame unit), and has fill in direct
contact with both the kame and shale aquifers underlying portions of the landfill. What is not known is
how much of an impact, quantitatively, the landfill is having on the kame and shale aquifers, and
ultimately on the Mohawk River. In addition, the groundwater flow regime is not known in sufficient
detail to positively identify all possible downgradient receptors of contaminants from the landfill (e.g.
Ballard Trailer park well). The Phase II investigation has also shown the need to access the area north of
Cohoes Crescent Road and east of Route 9, which has been filled. Additional studies for this site should
focus on the kame and shale aquifers, with particular emphasis on identification of all potential receptors
to determine health risks, and the magnitude of threat to the Mohawk River.”
Page 4-42 (attachment 2a-4) goes on to identify the proposed 18 monitoring wells and 7 surface water/sediment
sampling locations as shown on Figure 4-4 (attachment 2a-2).
The DEIS plan which includes and relies upon approval for filling and/or disturbing this area results in a
massively expanded landfill with significant new footprint and structure build. The amount of waste to be
accepted in the future has essentially been more doubled from that received in the past. The effect of adding
hundreds of feet of additional waste and cover compressing the lower strata including unlined contaminated fill
in groundwater will undoubtedly increase threats to the environment and health risks including the River,
wetland and forested areas, the quantification of which and pathways for which have not been adequately
characterized.
2b. The existing and proposed Environmental Monitoring Program has no associated surface water or River
sediment sampling to critically assess and monitor impacts to the Mohawk River.
The attached (2b-1) Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical location plan from Page 984 of the
Engineering Report unbelievably includes no monitoring of the Mohawk River for existing or potential impacts.
While it is established in the Engineering report that the groundwater is contaminated, what is also not known
on a larger scale is how much of an impact, quantitatively, the landfill is having on the kame and shale aquifers,
and ultimately on the Mohawk River. In addition, the groundwater flow regime is not known in sufficient detail
to positively identify all possible downgradient receptors of contaminants from the landfill.
Attached (2b-2) is Figure 4-4 from the 1994 URS Phase II Report. The Figure identifies proposed
locations for surface water and sediment sample locations none of which were implemented in any monitoring
events of the landfill.
2c. The NYSDEC has issued Notice of Violations regarding contamination in areas that drain into the Mohawk
River and/or adjacent wetlands. Recent FOIL results of all environmental analytical data related to the Colonie
Landfill indicate that there is no associated surface water sampling to critically access past or current potential
impacts of those violations to the Mohawk River or wetlands,
Stormwater from the Landfill discharges to the Mohawk River east of the site via six (6) outfall pipes. On
September 4, 2013 the USEPA conducted an inspection to determine compliance with the NYPDES Multi-
Sector General Permit for storm water discharges associated with industrial Facilities. That inspection identified
Page 13 of 26
four (4) noncompliance items and two (2) areas of concern (Attachment 2c-1). On December 10, 2015 the
NYSDEC issued a Notice of Violation (Attachment 2c-2) to the Landfill operators indicating several outfalls
had exceedances for monitoring parameters and failure to action to correct exceedances (Attachment2c-3).
In spite of these items clearly identifying the need to evaluate impacts to the Mohawk River or associated
wetlands there has apparently been no sampling of the sediment or surface water in the Mohawk River based
upon the results of FOIL requests of analytical data made by the Church Hill Historic District.
2d. The Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment 2 to the Engineering Report, indicates that the
groundwater is contaminated and that all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the Mohawk River.
Pages 4-10 thru 4-16 (attachment1a-1) of the Environmental Assessment Report, Attachment 2, to the
Engineering Report documents in detail 7 over seven pages that the site groundwater in the Upper and
Intermediate Water Bearing Zones are contaminated above standards. The contamination includes Metals and
General Chemistry analytical Categories. Page 4-7 (attachment 1a-2) states that
“all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the Mohawk River”.
2e. Groundwater samples were not collected from Bedrock Wells for evaluation in the Environmental
Assessment Report,
Groundwater samples were not collected from Bedrock Wells for evaluation in the Environmental Assessment
Report due to the reason stated on Page 4-10 that;
“these locations are identified in the currently approved EMSAP as contingency sampling locations”.
2f. Based upon the contour map figures in the DEIS for top of bedrock, upper and intermediate groundwater
zone contour maps that a large portion of the preferential groundwater flow would be directed through Area 1
and the Unnamed Area constituting the Inactive hazardous waste site.
The DEIS figure 2-1 indicates the Top of Rock Contour Map. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 are of the Upper and
Intermediate Groundwater Contour Maps. All these figures seem to indicate preferential groundwater flow for a
major portion of the landfill would be to the northeast through Area 1, the Unnamed Area and the area north of
the Route 9, Cohoes Crescent Road intersection. These areas constitute the entire Inactive Hazardous Waste
Site. It would appear all these areas would also be in communication with the bordering Mohawk River.
Attachment 2f-1 is a blown up portion of Figure Existing Monitoring Well Location Map along these areas. The
distance from MW-3 to the MW 2013 monitoring well group is about 1800 feet. Based upon the figure this
1800 foot, one third a mile span of what would appear to be a very important monitoring area only has three
well locations. It’s possible there are additional wells here because 600 feet along the River in this area is
entirely blocked out by the large Legend Key Block placed there on the Map. It should also be noted that
although groundwater potentially flows in a northeast direction east of the MW 2013 well group, there is no
indication there are any wells to the east or northeast to monitor water quality before it enters the Mohawk
River.
Page 14 of 26
SECTION II
ISSUE 3; The Visual Recourse Assessment Report has numerous technical flaws and does not
accurately reflect or evaluate the impact or the magnitude and scope of the final build out being
proposed. The projects visual impact significantly degrades the quality of life and potential
recreational use as well as the historic and the scenic character of the Mohawk River and Mohawk
River Valley Viewshed. These impacts are not, and cannot be, sufficiently mitigated considering the
magnitude and scope of the expansion.
3a. The Visual Resource Assessment Report and the landfill simulations are inaccurate and misrepresentative of
potential impacts and scope of the project,
Implementation of the DEIS proposal results in a massively expanded landfill with significant new footprint and
structure build. The amount of waste to proposed to be accepted in the future has more been doubled from that
received in the past. The Mohawk River which borders the site to the east and north is maintained at a non-
flooding elevation for navigation at 197.5 feet amsl. This will result in the landfill profile rising some 320 feet
above the River elevation. The resulting increase in height of the landfill to 517 feet above mean sea level will
have a significant adverse visual impact to numerous valuable recreational, cultural and historical resources in
the area.
The Visual Resource Assessment Report dated June 2016 states The Proposed Area 7 Development (the
“Project”) would increase the elevation of the landfill by approximately 87 feet to 517 feet above MSL.
This is misleading because the Engineering Drawing, Sheet 4 and dated June 2016, in the Engineering Report
indicates that the highest existing elevation is 401 ft amsl. Attachment 3a-1 is a cropped section of Sheet 4
indicating the elevation. Based upon the proposed final build out height at approximately 517 amsl, the
additional height increase from existing landfill is 116 feet. This is an apparent visual impact increase of more
than 33%, or 1/3, from what is implied as stated.
The simulations are presented in full foliage which is an unacceptably biased presentation in a northern climate
where for a significant portion of the year there is no vegetative foliage.
3b. NYDSDEC Policy for preparing Visual Assessment Reports require a 5 mile viewing radius, the Visual
Assessment Report off the DEISW only evaluates 3 miles viewing area skewing the results,
The NYSDEC Policy System DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impact states
“With respect to determining the radius of the impact area to be analyzed, there has been a general
guideline for large actions that it is usually “safe” to use 5 miles. The 5 mile distance probably owes its
origins to the U.S. Forest Service “distance zones” set forth in their landscape management journal
written in 19732 (5 miles is still largely considered “background,” i.e. distances at which most activities
are not a point of interest to the casual observer). However, for very large activities, such as power
plants (particularly those that generate wet cooling tower plumes), and large landscape alterations,
greater distances have been shown to be important in some landscape settings, and must be considered.
Page 15 of 26
In those instances, applicants must document to the satisfaction of staff that impacts beyond five miles
to listed resources have been considered. They must also provide a clear demonstration that impact to
any resource of statewide concern is insignificant”
The Visual Assessment Report and the DEIS are not representative or compliant as they don’t cover a 5 mile
range as specified in the guidance and did not consider or evaluate the need for a longer range as appropriate for
this instance of such a large scope and magnitude landscape alteration.
3c. The Visual Assessment Report and DEIS do not identify numerous recreational, cultural and historical
resources that will be visually impacted in the area,
Table 2 of the Visual Assessment Report on pages 18 thru 20 lists 67 visual resources within the three mile area
to evaluate if the resources would have a direct line-of-sight in the direction of the proposed Project. As noted
in point 3b. above, the Policy Guidance for Visual Assessments specifies a 5 mile, or larger radius
consideration.
There is a preponderance of recreational, cultural and historical resources in the area of the landfill. In addition
to the 67 visual resources within even just the three mile radius, the following significant resources, national,
state and local are not included in the list of resources in the Visual Assessment Report;
-Church Hill Historic District, National Register of Historic Places eligible, including 17 principal
structures with principal view directed to Mohawk River Viewshed,
-Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (ECNHC), on National Register of Historic Places and National
Historic Site designation pending final approval in Washington, D.C.,
-Crescent Terminal Dock, contributing structure to National Register of Historic Places ECNHC listing
and Church Hill Historic District eligibility
-Crescent Dam, contributing structure; National Register of Historic Places ECNHC listing,
-Crescent Power Station, contributing structure to National Register of Historic Places Corridor listing,
-Union Cemetery, Halfmoon
-Lock 6 State Canal Park, (Lock 2 Park is listed)
-Canal Bikeway Trail,
-Crescent Kayak Park, Town of Halfmoon,
-Crescent Park, Town of Halfmoon.
In addition the following Waterfront, Recreationway and Revitalization Programs are not recognized or
evaluated.
-Canal Recreationway Plan and Canal Revitalization Program,
-Waterford Waterfront Revitalization Program,
The Church Hill Historic Group has met with the ECNH and they shared at least in part our concerns as
evidenced by their letter of September 16, 2016 (attachment 3c-1).
As an example of the resources that are potentially being impacted the Canal Recreationway Plan states the
following;
Page 16 of 26
‘“The Canal Recreationway is defined as, “a linear park to be developed for boating and other
recreational use, taking advantage of the canal’s historic heritage, conserving it’s beauty and
natural character, and utilizing recreationway improvements to enhance the economic
development of the Canal.””
Approving the expansion would obviously not be considered conserving it’s beauty and natural character. The
the portion of the Mohawk River that the landfill borders is the widest of its entire length. At this point it is just
across from the top of the Waterford Flight of Locks, the site of several Parks in view of the landfill. The
Waterford flight of five in 1.5 miles raises boats the greatest vertical distance in the from 15.2 feet to 180 feet,
basically to navigate around Cohoes Falls. Boaters routinely use the waterways in our areas to connect to; the
Hudson River to New York Harbor and the Atlantic; The Champlain Canal to lake Champlain and Canada; and
the Mohawk River and Barge Canal westward to the Greatt Lakes. Boats departing the Waterford locks are
entering the ECNHC, the Canal Recreationway, the Mohawk River and the Barge Canal. Just after leaving the
locks they have the view as presented in attachment 3f-1 and 3f-2 which would be visually impacted by the
extreme magnitude and scope of the expansion.
The Visual Assessment Report and the DEIS are not representative as they don’t sufficiently evaluate or
accurately acknowledge the above resources and do not cover a 5 mile range or a longer range for such a large
scope and magnitude landscape alteration was not evaluated. Although SHPO has issued several approvals they
specifically only address; buried remains in the old Erie Canal, impacts of a proposed upriver wetlands
mitigation area and impacts to historical resources specifically with respect to impact regarding actual eligibility
for listing on National Historic Register.
3d. The Visual Assessment Report and DEIS do not identify as viewing or vantage points on the Viewshed
Maps important recreational, cultural and historical resources that will be visually impacted in the area,
As indicated in 3c. above, the following resources were not identified. Consequently, they are not evaluated for
visual impacts on the Viewshed Maps and the Viewshed Interpretation (attachment 3d-1) on page 13 of the
Assessment Report.
Church Hill Historic District, National Register of Historic Places eligible, including 17 structures with
direct view,
-Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (ECNHC), on National Register of Historic Places and National
Historic Site designation pending final approval in Washington, D.C.,
-Crescent Terminal Dock, contributing structure to National Register of Historic Places ECNHC listing
and Church Hill Historic District eligibility
-Crescent Dam, contributing structure; National Register of Historic Places ECNHC listing,
-Crescent Power Station, contributing structure to National Register of Historic Places Corridor listing,
-Union Cemetery, Halfmoon
-Lock 6 State Canal Park, (Lock 2 Park is listed)
-Canal Bikeway Trail,
-Crescent Kayak Park, Town of Halfmoon,
-Crescent Park, Town of Halfmoon.
As an example of how this is a critical defect can be seen on the Viewshed Map example attachment 3d-2. Not
only is the interpretation defective because it doesn’t reflect the 5 mile radius guideline for Visual Assessments,
it doesn’t include as a viewing point the Mohawk River, or as a specific resource the ECNHC. The magnitude
Page 17 of 26
of this oversight is clearly apparent if you look at the map and consider that everything that is Blue (the River)
actually should be Red. Of course, this significantly impacts the calculations presented in the Viewshed
Interpretation analysis.
3e. In approving the expansion for the Albany landfill the small drive by time of 1 to 39 sec was noted. Here
the increased drive by view time as a result of the expansion for a typical recreational user boating on the river
at 6 mph will be approximately 30 minutes travel time.
Table 2, referenced above, includes the following evaluation of view times for one of the identified impacted
resources, the Route 9 Mohawk Scenic Byway from Crescent Road to the current landfill entrance.
“US Route 9 between Church Hill Road and Crescent Road is part of the
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway. The Existing Landfill and proposed Project
are directly visible to southbound motorists for a distance of approximately
1.25 miles between Church Hill Road on the north side of the river and the
current Colonie Landfill Entrance. At the posted speed limit of 55mph
southbound views will be experienced for approximately 90 seconds
(excluding wait time at traffic lights). The Existing Landfill is presently visible
for much of this duration.”
First of all, the current landfill is readily visible from the top of the hill before proceeding downhill to the go
past Church Hill Rd. Most importantly, this is an example of how important it is to include in the assessment,
and the Viewshed Maps, a resource such as the Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (ECNHC). The ECNH is
the Mohawk River in this area. On September 15, 2016 I conducted my own view times of the existing landfill
from the perspective of a recreational user on the Mohawk River in the navigable River Channel. This view
time analysis started between the two islands in the navigable channel to the east of the Crescent Yacht Club
and proceeded downriver to the entrance to Lock 6 at the Flight of locks. The travel speed was a constant 6
mph based on gps readings. The conditions were full foliage, representing a conservative approach. Attachment
3e-1 is the log of that cruise. As indicated in the log, the existing landfill is viewable for the recreational user for
a period of 16.07 minutes. It was obvious that proposed expansion due to its elevated profile and height will be
viewable for the entire cruise time of 27.34 minutes. This was readily apparent due to the fact the existing
landfill could be seen briefly off and on just below the existing tree lines in breaks of foliage when out of view.
The 90 second time example on Route 9 cited by the Visual Assessment Report is obviously inferred to be
minimal impact. It is far exceeded by a recreational user on the River viewing the proposed expansion. It should
be noted, a recreational user has an entirely different expectation than someone driving to or from work on
Route 9. Not only that, if the landfill were to close in accordance with existing permit, it would be seen from
the River as a green landscape for 16.07 minutes and not viewable for 11.2 minutes. A landfill being expanded
will be seen for the full 27.34 minutes as an open construction with temporary waste piles as supposed
mitigations for the next twenty plus years.
3f. While we don’t agree that the current landfill fits into the local character of rolling hills, at least it’s
debatable. The expansions massive height increase of 113 feet above the current existing landfill clearly doesn’t
fit with the scenic River Valley and will result in a significant Visual Impact,
Page 18 of 26
The expansion will have significant aesthetic impacts that will cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment
and appreciation of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor and Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway as well
as numerous other resources. It will impair the character or quality of the Mohawk River Valley containing the
Corridor and the Scenic Byway. This expansion by virtue of its expanded magnitude of scale and build out and
its siting in visual proximity to all the nearby resources in the Mohawk River Valley will result in a significant
impact.
The Visual Assessment Report on Page 33 states;
The “Project will be consistent with what is already seen. In most areas, the effect of the proposed action
on the surrounding landscape is a change in the degree of exposure rather than a new or visually
different impact.”
The DEIS indicates on page 6;
“In most areas, the effect of the proposed Area 7 Development on the surrounding landscape is a change
in the degree of exposure rather than a new or visually different impact.”
We disagree with these statements. Due to the magnitude and scope of the Proposal the character and quality of
the Mohawk River will be impaired. The following simulation, drawn to scale, shows the existing and proposed
final elevations as viewed from a recreational user of the River. The impact is clearly significant;
A full size copy is included as Attachment 3f-1.
Additionally, a wider angle view gives an additional perspective of the potential significance of the visual
impacts;
Page 19 of 26
A full size copy of this simulation is provided in Attachment 3f-2.
Both these photos were taken from the Erie Canalway National Corridor or Mohawk River looking west from
the navigable channel. The Corridor is now going through the final approval stages in Washington DC to be
declared National Landmark Status in addition to its current status on the National Historic Register. These are
the views a recreational user would first see after exiting the flight of locks at Waterford, just after entering the
Corridor if traveling to the west. Closer up, the impact will be even greater as the proposed expansion will
tower some 330 feet over the River. This is roughly comparable to the second tallest building in Albany,
the Alfred E. Smith State Office Building, which stands at 387 feet; or higher than the four buildings of the
Empire State Plaza which stand at 310 feet. The final proposed elevation of the landfill will be at 517 feet above
mean sea level (amsl). That actually will be almost 50 feet higher than the elevation of the four agency
buildings of the Empire State Plaza given their base elevation of 160 feet and topping out at about 470 feet
amsl.
Although it is debatable that the existing landfill profile fits into the local character of rolling hills, an expansion
this magnitude as proposed removes all doubt and impairs the character and quality of the viewshed and will
result in a permanent and significant impact.
3g. The Town of Colonie refused to place weather balloons to demonstrate the extent of the fill as requested by
the local officials and community stating the Visual Resource Impact Study was state of the art,
The Town of Halfmoon, by letter of October 28, 2015 (attachment 3g-1), has requested Waste Connections and
the NYSDEC to assist the community to understand the visual impacts of the proposed expansion by placement
of large balloons around the site with their elevations matching the elevations of the final build contours. This
demonstration would have assisted in evaluating the landfill’s impact and should have been included in visual
impact analyses. This proposal was supported by the Supervisors of the Towns of Waterford and Halfmoon as
well as numerous elected public officials. It was also agreed to by Waste Connections (attachment 3g-2).
However the Town of Colonie blocked this proposal in their letter of May 26, 2016 (attachment 3g-3) stating
that it was not necessary due to the state of the art Visual Assessment Study. As argued extensively in the points
above, the Visual Assessment Report does not adequately reflect the magnitude, scope or impact of the
Page 20 of 26
proposed project build. By blocking the initiative the Town of Colonie deprived both agency reviewers and the
public a physical demonstration of the potential impact of the Landfill Expansion.
3h. The Visual Impact Study simulations do not reflect site conditions for the 20 plus year construction period
and only show proposed completed landfill under full foliage conditions.
All the simulations in the Visual Assessment report are in full foliage. In addition, all the simulations show only
green areas and do not reflect the more than twenty (20) year plus construction program will include piles of
trash as a mitigation to lessen visual impacts. Even the simulations showing Phase 5 intended to visual impact
during construction conditions only portrays grassy hills with some construction equipment on it.
3i. The DEIS statement on page 58 that the proposed development would not result in significant adverse
impact on resources of statewide significance is unfounded.
Oakcliff is a successful operating bed and breakfast bringing tourists to the Church Hill Historic District and
surrounding area. Oakcliif is on the National Register of Historic Places and also part of the National Register
Eligible Church Hill Historic District. The attraction at Oakcliff is its architecture, history and historic setting
viewing the Mohawk River Valley Vista and the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor. This is also
generally true for the other 16 significant structures in the District. This resource, and most other resources
identified in the Visual Assessment, is dismissed as already viewing or partially viewing the existing landfill
and therefore drawing the conclusion this is just more of the same with no significant adverse impact. This
approach is fundamental to the theory underlying the DEIS assertion that there is no significant impact from the
massive proposal. There are at least two flaws with this thinking. One is the massive magnitude and scope of
the proposal discussed elsewhere at great detail in this review. The other is that from the perspective of Church
Historic District Area, the existing landfill as viewed from the north and northeast is already closed with no
construction activity in accordance with the current permit. Construction activity for a few years has been
heading south primarily out of view. From this perspective the proposal is equivalent to opening a new landfill,
over twice the size of the original one with open construction waste filling for more than twenty years. Waste
berms construct of dumped and bermed waste will not mitigate the view. This will be glaringly evident for
homes at higher elevation on the Hill and is particularly true for Oakcliff. Contrary to the assertion there is no
impact, attachment 3i-1 is the Oakcliff owner’s comments on the proposal also stating that if the expansion is
approved he will have to close his Bed and Breakfast operation.
There is an absolute preponderance of resources surrounding the landfill some of which are indicated on the
attached map, attachment 3i-2.
Page 21 of 26
SECTION II
ISSUE 4; Contrary to NYSDEC SEQR regulations requiring clear and concise presentation, the DEIS
and Engineering Report are unclear and appear to obscure and misrepresent facts to the extent
that the magnitude and scale of the proposal cannot be clearly understood by the decision makers
or the public.
4a. The description of the scope and magnitude of the expansion being proposed is unclear.
The Engineering Report on Page 3 states;
“According to records provided by the Town of Colonie, the landfill has accepted
approximately 5.3 million tons of waste since 1973”.
On Page 4 it states;
“The Area 7 development will create approximately 11,600,000 cubic yards of additional solid waste
capacity”
This is comparing tons and cubic yards and is confusing. The public and agency reviewers don’t get an
impression of the scope and magnitude of the proposal when presented in this manner. A technical reference
from the USEPA (attachment 41-1)indicates that municipal solid waste compacted and placed in typical
landfill operations weighs 1700 - 2000 pounds per cubic yard. If a cubic yard in place approximates 2000#
or a ton, it can be simply re-stated; this proposal is for an additional 11.6 million tons. This presents a
clearer picture that in fact the proposed landfill size is almost tripling, from 5.6 million tons to a total of 17.2
million tons total. The DEIS is even more unspecific with respect to the magnitude and scope of the
proposal, merely indicating the final build out elevation.
4b. The DEIS or Engineering Report do not identify that the 25 acre Area 1 to be overfilled is a hazardous
waste site and the area is misrepresented as to the wastes landfilled there.
(See documentation Issue 1a & 1b in Section II)
4c. The DEIS or Engineering Report do not identify that the expansion will be placing additional wastes
and liners on areas where the area being capped over has a bottom liner placed in groundwater
(See documentation Issue 1e in Section II),
Page 22 of 26
4d. The Visual Assessment Report has numerous technical flaws and does not accurately reflect the
magnitude and scope of the build out being proposed.
(See documentation, Issue 3. Section II)
4e. It is never identified or acknowledged in the DEIS or Engineering Report that additional height increase
from existing landfill is approximately 117 feet. The increase is described in the Reports only as eighty
seven (87) feet over the currently permitted landfill.
The DEIS states on page 15 that the “current permitted peak elevation at closure is 430 feet above mean sea
level (amsl). On page 17 it states; the maximum permitted elevation would be approximately 517 amsl. Not
until page 83 does it identify “the Area 7 development would increase the elevation of the landfill by 86
feet”. This is misleading because the Engineering Drawing, Sheet 4 and dated June 2016, in the Engineering
Report indicates that the highest existing elevation is 401 ft amsl. Attachment 3a-1 is a cropped section of
Sheet 4 indicating the elevation. Based upon the proposed final build out height at approximately 517 amsl,
the additional height increase from existing landfill is 116 feet. That is never identified or acknowledged in
the DEIS, Engineering Report or Visual Resource Assessment Report. Any references are to the “permitted”
increase not the actual increase that would reflect the resulting Visual Impact. This is an unstated and
apparent visual impact increase of more than 33%, or 1/3, from what is implied as stated.
Page 23 of 26
SECTION II
ISSUE 5; As local residents we are concerned that the NYSDEC would propose the overcapacity apparent in the
applications proposed volume, duration of operation and daily tonnage rates given the current operator’s
history of noncompliance with regulatory tonnage rate issues. Such defacto approval of overcapacity
represents a doubling of the daily allowable tonnage rates without an appropriate review of environmental
issues such as air, noise, traffic, and visual impacts.
Reasons to deny the application;
5a. The actual additional tonnage requested in the proposal is obscured and needs to be calculated
independently by the reviewer from the volume approval requested,
Engineering Report on Page 3 describes the disposal rate as 820 tons per day and no more than 255,840
tons per year. Page 4 states. “The Area 7 development will create approximately 11,600,000 cubic yards
of additional solid waste capacity” This is comparing tons and cubic yards over different time periods
which is confusing. Attachment 5a-1 is a technical reference from the USEPA that municipal solid waste
compacted and placed in typical landfill operations weighs 1700 - 2000 pounds per cubic yard. If a cubic
yard in place approximates 2000# or a ton, it can be simply stated; this proposal is for an additional 11.6
million tons.
5b. Section 5.2 of the Engineering report overstates the required disposal volume by using a low in place
waste density (1200 lb/ cy) and 25% by volume of MSW to calculate the operational cover needs.
The geotechnical engineering section of the Engineering Report states in place density of 80lb/cf
(approx 2.1 ton/ cy) and the last 3 years of Annual Reports state 1 ton/cy. This is consistent with other
modern landfill operations and the USEPA reference (attached in 5a-1) indicating approximately 1 ton
per cubic yard.
5d. Simple math indicates that given the proposed volume, duration and tonnage rates that actual
required volume would be about half of that requested,
The application states the design will provide 11.6 million cubic yards of disposal capacity to gain 20
year of operation. However 225,840 tons/ year plus another 25% by weight for operational cover
material yields total annual placement of 319,800 tons. Times 20 years operation yields 6.4 million tons
total to be disposed. Annual reports for the last few years, and the Engineering Report for this
application, report in place densities of 1 ton/cy. Therefore the total disposal volume reasonably sought
is 6.4 million cy, not the 11.6 million cy sought by the application.
5e The current operator has received a significant Notice of Violation and fines related to exceeding
daily tonnage rates,
Page 24 of 26
Attachment 5e-1 indicates that the Department alleged that the total of solid waste, and ADC material
that exceeded the permitted daily cover amount, accepted at the landfill in 2014 exceed both the daily
and annual maximum solid waste limits in Paragraph 15 of the permit.
5f. Statements that the daily tonnage rates won’t change raise questions regarding the possibility of
ulterior motives or loopholes such as the introduction of excessive tonnage of daily cover substitutes that
actually constitute waste stream income as opposed to cost to the operator,
The need for the proposed volumetric capacity at the given disposal rate and duration doesn’t appear to
be arrived at by sound engineering.
5g. If the application were approved with the stated volume, daily rate and duration of operation it
would be a defacto approval of a project without the appropriate SEQR environmental reviews such as
air, noise, traffic and visual impacts related to the increased tonnage disposal rate.
Page 25 of 26

SECTION III
APPENDIX
Page 26 of 26
data consisting of both rising and falling head values and the data are summarized
in Table 4-3.
4.4.2.4 Bedrock
The hydraulic conductivity for the bedrock geologic unit was determined utilizing
twenty nine (29) data points from the Area 6 Investigation. The hydraulic
conductivity values ranged from 1.00E-04 cm/sec to 1.00E-08 cm/sec with a
geometric mean value of 1.77E-07 cm/sec. Ranges and geometric means were
calculated utilizing all available data consisting of rising and falling head values, as
well as packer testing results, and are summarized in Table 4-4. As discussed in
Section 4.3.3, the bedrock geologic unit corresponds to the lower water-bearing zone.
4.5 Groundwater Quality

Existing groundwater quality at the site was evaluated through the use of data
collected under the current Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental Monitoring Programs
(EMP), and from the first and second rounds of groundwater samples collected as
part of the current site investigation. The first round of samples under the current
investigation were collected in December 2013 and the second set in June 2014. The
collected samples were analyzed for 6 NYCRR Part 360 expanded and baseline
parameters respectively. Groundwater samples were not collected from bedrock
wells, as these locations are identified in the currently approved EMSAP as
contingency sampling locations. Likewise, based on the existing water quality data
from Areas 5 and 6, Waste Connections Inc. received a waiver of the requirement for
analysis of dioxins and furans. Analytical data reports are provided in Appendix E.
Existing water quality can be divided into four distinct regions: up-gradient upper
water-bearing zone, up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone, down-gradient
upper water-bearing zone, and down-gradient intermediate water bearing zone.
Each of these subcategories is discussed below.
4.5.1 Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone can be derived
from three of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 EMP and one well
sampled during this investigation. These wells include CW-1, MPI-4S, PZ-3 (Area
5/6 wells), and MW-2013-1S. During the December 2013 sampling round, a sample
could not be collected from the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone well, MW-
2013-1S, installed under the current investigation due to insufficient amount of
water in the well. However, MW-2013-1S was sampled during the subsequent June
2014 sampling round. Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5
4-10
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
and Area 6 wells and are used for comparison to the water quality data obtained
from the wells recently installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.1.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells
are summarized in Table 4-5. Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards have been observed for aluminum,
antimony, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, selenium, sodium and
vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum and iron
also exceed the Part 703 standards.
The June 2014 sampling data collected from MW-2013-1S exceeded the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) for aluminum, cobalt, iron,
magnesium, manganese, and sodium. In addition, magnesium and potassium
concentrations were above the historical high concentrations observed in the Area 5
and 6 data.
4.5.1.2 General Chemistry
General chemistry parameters, along with their respective range and geometric
mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells are summarized in Table 4-6.
Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR Part 703 Ground Water Quality
Standards are observed for: sulfate, phenolics, total dissolved solids (TDS) and
cyanide. Water quality data obtained from Area 7 well MW-2013-1S (see Table 4-6)
exceeded GWQS for sulfate and TDS. In addition, TDS and hardness were observed
in the MW-2013-1S sample above the historical high concentrations observed in the
Area 5 and 6 data.
4.5.1.3 Organics
VOCs were detected within the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone well
MW-2013-1S, during the June 2014 sampling event, as summarized in Table 4-9. The
detected parameters included benzene and a “J” qualified value of carbon disulfide,
indicating that this value was laboratory estimated: below the laboratory reporting
limit (RL) but above the method detection limit (MDL). Benzene, at a reported
concentration of 1.6 ug/l, was the only constituent above its GWQS (1 ug/l).
SVOCs, PCBs and Pesticides were not analyzed for during this sampling event.
4.5.2 Up-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone can be
determined from four of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6
4-11
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
Environmental Monitoring Plan and a single well from this investigation. These
wells include CHA-2I, CHA-6I, CHA-8I, MPI-4D (Area 5/6 wells) and MW-2013-1D.
Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5 and Area 6 wells and
used for comparison to the water quality data obtained from the wells recently
installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.2.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells
are summarized in Table 4-7. Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards for metals were observed for aluminum,
antimony, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium,
sodium and vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for
aluminum, antimony, iron and sodium also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 sampling results for MW-2013-1D exceeded the GWQS for
aluminum, iron, and sodium. With the exception of potassium and sodium, the
detected metals concentrations were below the historic highs derived from
previously collected data. Exceedances of the GWQS for the June 2014 results were
observed for aluminum, copper, iron, and sodium. With the exception of copper and
sodium, detected metals concentrations in the MW-2013-1D sample are below the
historic highs derived from the previously collected data. These data are
summarized in Table 4-7.
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for general chemistry
parameters in the Area 5 and 6 wells are summarized in Table 4-8. Historical high
concentrations above the GWQS are observed for sulfate, phenolics, TDS and
cyanide. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for phenolics, TDS and
cyanide also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 and June 2014 sampling results for MW-2013-1D exceed the
GWQS for TDS. Phenolics are also reported above the GWQS during the December
2013 sampling event.
4.5.2.3 Organics
VOCs and SVOCs were detected within the up-gradient intermediate water-bearing
zone well MW-2013-1D, as summarized in Table 4-9. VOC parameters detected as
part of the December 2013 sampling event included low levels or “J” qualified
values of acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, chloroform, and toluene. VOC
parameters detected as part of the June 2014 sampling event included low levels or
4-12
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
“J” qualified values of 2-butanone, acetone, and chloroform. SVOC parameters
detected as part of the December 2013 sampling event included low levels or “J”
qualified values of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and phenol.
SVOCs were not analyzed for during the June 2014 sampling event. All of the
detected VOC and SVOC concentrations were below their respective GWQS.
As part of the December 2013 sampling event, pesticides were detected in the
sample from MW-2013-1D at concentrations less than 0.02 ug/l. All of the results
were “J” qualified. Pesticides detected include 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, delta-
BHC, gamma-BHC (Lindane), and heptachlor epoxide. All pesticide detections were
below the applicable GWQS. Pesticides and PCBs were not analyzed for during the
June 2014 sampling event.
4.5.3 Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the down-gradient upper water-bearing zone is derived
from six of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental
Monitoring plan and two wells from the current investigation. These wells include
MPI-1S, MPI-2, MPI-3, CHA-8S, CHA-3S, CW-5 (Area 5 and 6 wells), MW-2013-2S,
and MW-2013-4S. Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5 and
Area 6 wells and used for comparison to the water quality data obtained from the
wells recently installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.3.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for metals in the Area 5 and
6 wells are summarized in Table 4-10. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS for metals are observed for aluminum, antimony, boron, cadmium, cobalt,
iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium and vanadium. In
addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum, antimony, iron,
magnesium and sodium also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 sampling results for MW-2013-2S exceed the GWQS for
aluminum, boron, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and sodium. Further,
boron, copper, manganese, potassium, and sodium were observed in the sample
from MW-2013-2S at concentrations above their respective historical high values
reported in the existing wells.
The June 2014 sampling results for MW-2013-2S exceed GWQS for aluminum, boron,
cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and sodium. Further, potassium and
sodium were observed in the sample from MW-2013-2S at concentrations above
their respective historical high values reported in the existing wells.
4-13
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
Exceedances of the GWQS were observed in the June 2014 sample from MW-2013-4S
for aluminum, boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel,
sodium and vanadium. Further, aluminum, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
manganese, potassium and sodium were observed in the MW-2013-4S sample at
concentrations above their respective historical high values reported in the existing
wells. Data are summarized in Table 4-10.
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for general chemistry
parameters are summarized in Table 4-11. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS are observed for chloride, sulfate, ammonia, phenolics and TDS. In addition,
the geometric mean concentrations of phenolics and TDS are also above their
respective GWQS.
Exceedances of the GWQS are observed in the Area 7 sample taken in December
2013 at MW-2013-2S for chloride, ammonia, phenolics, and TDS. Reported
concentrations above the historical high concentrations reported in the existing wells
are present for bromide, chloride, ammonia, nitrogen, alkalinity and TDS.
Exceedances of the GWQS are observed in samples taken in June 2014 from
MW-2013-2S and MW-2013-4S for chloride, ammonia, phenolics, and TDS. Reported
concentrations exceeding the historical high values reported in the existing wells are
observed in both samples for chloride, ammonia, nitrogen, alkalinity and TDS.
The observed concentrations in samples obtained from MW-2013-2S and MW-2013-

4S are likely related to these wells being completed directly below and down
gradient of historic Municipal Solid Waste.
4.5.3.3 Organics
VOCs were not detected within down gradient upper water bearing zone well MW-
2013-2S during the December 2013 event and only acetone was detected at a “J”
qualified concentration of 39 ug/l during the June 2014 event at this location. As
summarized in Table 4-9, several SVOC parameters were detected at “J” qualified
(trace) concentrations and below their applicable GWQS. MW-2013-2S sample was
not analyzed for SVOCs during the June 2014 sampling event.
VOCs detected during the June 2014 sampling event in the sample taken from
MW-2013-4S well, included “J” qualified benzene (0.59 ug/l) and low levels of
methylene chloride (1.5 ug/l), both at concentrations below their applicable GWQS.
Several SVOCs were also reported at “J” qualified concentrations below their
applicable GWQS.
4-14
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
A single pesticide, aldrin was detected in the sample from MW-2013-2S during the
December 2013 event at a “J” qualified concentration of 0.13 ug/l. The GWQS for
aldrin is not detectable (ND).
Pesticides detected during the June 2014 sampling event in the sample taken from
MW-2013-4S included “J” qualified aldrin (0.052 ug/l), 4,4’-DDD (0.055 ug/l), 4,4’-
DDE (0.11 ug/l), 4,4’-DDT (0.17 ug/l), dieldrin (0.058 ug/l), endosulfan sulfate (0.11
ug/l) and methoxychlor (0.093 ug/l). With the exception of aldrin and dieldrin,
pesticides were detected at concentrations below their applicable GWQS. The GWQS
for dieldrin is 0.004 ug/l.
4.5.4 Down-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the down gradient intermediate water-bearing zone is
derived from four wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental
Monitoring Plan and three wells from the current investigation. These wells include
CTM-2, CHA-3I, CHA-8I, MPI-1D (Area 5 and 6 wells), MW-2013-2D, MW-2013-3,
and MW-2013-4D. Constituent concentration ranges and geometric means were
calculated for the Area 5 and Area 6 wells and used for comparison to the water
quality data obtained from the wells recently installed as part of the current
investigation.
4.5.4.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for metals in the Area 5 and
6 wells are summarized in Table 4-12. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS for metals are observed for aluminum, antimony, barium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium
and vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum,
antimony, iron, manganese, and sodium are also above their applicable GWQS.
As part of the December 2013 sampling event, exceedances of the GWQS are
observed in the sample from MW-2013-2D for aluminum, barium, boron, copper,
iron, magnesium, manganese, and sodium. Exceedances of the GWQS are also
observed in the December 2013 sample from MW-2013-3 for aluminum, cobalt, iron,
magnesium, manganese, and sodium. Finally, barium, boron, copper, potassium,
and sodium were observed in the sample taken from MW-2013-2D, and aluminum
and potassium in the sample collected from MW-2013-3, at concentrations above
historical high values reported in the existing wells.
As part of the June 2014 sampling event, exceedances of the GWQS are observed for
barium, boron, potassium, and sodium in the sample from MW-2013-2D and for
4-15
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium in the sample from MW-2013-
3. Aluminum, iron, manganese, sodium and vanadium were also found above the
GWQC in the sample from MW-2013-4D.
Reported concentrations of the following constituents were found above their

respective historical highs reported in the existing wells during the June 2014
sampling event: aluminum in the MW-2013-3 and MW-2013-4D samples, potassium
in the MW-2013-2D and MW-2013-4D samples, and sodium in the MW-2013-2D
sample.
General chemistry parameters are summarized in Table 4-13. General chemistry

constituents detected above the GWQS are observed in both the historical and
current data for phenolics (MW-2013-2D sample taken in December 2013) and TDS
(all collected samples). Chloride and ammonia were found above the GWQS in the
MW-2013-2D samples taken in December 2013 and June 2014.
The results from MW-2013-2D may reflect localized groundwater impacts associated
with historical waste disposal at the site.
4.5.4.3 Organics
VOCs detected during the December 2013 and June 2014 sampling events are
summarized in Table 4-9. Reported VOCs are present at low level (single digit) or
trace (J qualified) concentrations below applicable GWQS. Similarly, several SVOCs
are also reported at low to trace level concentrations with no exceedance of
applicable GWQS.
Several pesticides/herbicides were reported at “J” qualified concentrations. Aldrin
(0.052 J ug/l) and dieldrin (0.058 J ug/l) were reported above their respective GWQS
of not detectable (ND) and 0.004 ug/l in MW-2013-4S during the June 2014 sampling
event, and chlordane (0.094 JB ug/l) was reported in MW-2013-3 above its GWQS of
0.05 ug/l during the December 2013 sampling event.
4.6 Conceptual Model and Critical Stratigraphic Section

The data collected under the current investigation continues to support the
conclusions and critical stratigraphic section described previously as part of the Area
5 and 6 applications, and is further described below.
4-16
ATTACHMENT 1a-1
A review of the cross-sections indicates the presence of horizontal flow paths within
the intermediate water-bearing zone. Flow paths within the upper water-bearing
zone are observed to be both vertical and, to a lesser degree, horizontal, depending
on the location across the site. The relationship between horizontal flow paths in the
water-bearing zones and vertical flow paths in the lower permeability aquitards is
dictated by the contrast in hydraulic conductivity and the Tangent Law.
Groundwater flow lines prefer to use the higher permeability formations as
conduits, while traversing the lower permeability formations by the shortest
possible route. When a groundwater flow path crosses a boundary with different
values of hydraulic conductivity, it will refract in a manner similar to light rays
passing from one medium to another. The amount of refraction can be calculated
using the Tangent Law. On this basis, in aquifer-aquitard systems with hydraulic
conductivity contrasts of two orders of magnitude or more, flow lines tend to
become almost horizontal in the higher permeability materials and almost vertical in
the lower permeability materials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This relationship holds
true regardless of the measured hydraulic conductivity and is consistent with the
flow systems illustrated on the hydrostratigraphic cross-sections.
The cross-sections thus illustrate that a flow path originating within the proposed
development area will migrate vertically downward through the upper water-
bearing zone and then horizontally in an easterly direction through the intermediate
water-bearing zone. The cross-sections also illustrate upward gradients within the
intermediate water-bearing zone on the eastern edge of the site closest to the
Mohawk River and that groundwater from each of the three water-bearing zones
discharges to the Mohawk River.
The Mohawk River elevation adjacent to the site, and within the pooled water
behind Crescent Dam, is approximately 184 feet. While the surface water elevation
will vary somewhat seasonally and in response to precipitation, this elevation is
roughly equivalent to or marginally lower than the groundwater elevations
observed in wells closest to the River and clearly lower than those observed in wells
further up gradient within the interior of the site. These data demonstrate discharge
to the Mohawk River and that as groundwater approaches the River, the hydraulic
gradients decline.
As discussed further in Section 4.5, the existing water quality data demonstrates
localized impacts associated with historical waste disposal practices. Under current
conditions, these localized impacts will discharge to the River consistent with the
flow paths described above. However, these impacts are localized and therefore do
not represent the overall groundwater quality. In the future, and under the
assumption that the Area 7 Development is approved, it is anticipated that the
4-7
ATTACHMENT 1a-2
ATTACHMENT 1b-1
ATTACHMENT 1b-1
Qorq.E1l*s tqq 1AOCITo (r.*^lrf,p'e"qp L#l !il,auf f.,
,)
I
COHOES CR€SCENT ROAD
I I
s.N€8
I
MOFA''/K APPROXIMATE R.OW OF
FORMER ERIE CANAL
I n 8-3
LINED LANDFILL
I t:\ (cLosED)
I - {t\
I l::. ::\
MW-l
cw-30 40
y': ,.,:..\
ACTTVE LAN0FILL AREA
{
k \;i./
I w-4s
i<{
\o
I + MW-4
I COvrS
rc
dRs t) sEE FtGURg 3-l FOR
Pgsss s,
44"
eru
REFEREI{CES
I JnaAus
I
irrailr S,{r-> O
O
MONITORING WELL INSTALLED
EXISTING MOI\IITORING W€LL
BY URS
o 400 800 FT.
-.-
8 EXISTING BORING LOCATION
.PHASE
N STUDY
FEFE-
I ,:S:i ronuen cANAL / PoNDeD AREAs TOW}I OF COLOI{IE LA}IDFILL
{ EritY SITE PLAII
o
I ?
o FIGUFE 1-2
I
ATTACHMENT 1b-2
Nb'Ptqu+ &\ (lur"t'($si'sf,$l f

H#e.
ffid
m
Fe
r#-el
Attachment 1b-3
* i'J
L-;
Ot1 g;l* " 1tL rf-,t';: fil#lS
drqr"ntngn *crr\
fu:**4r*# AarnJ*-i
cornerstone IOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL

COLONIE, NEW YORK
environmental
CORNERSJON€ ENCIN€ERING ANO LAND SURVEYINC. PLLC
ORAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IilPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED FINAL GRADING
l,lUot ;t, L'(

Attachment1b-4
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-1
Attachment 2c-2
Attachment 2c-2
Attachment 2c-2
2013 Benchmark Monitoring Exceedances
Parameter Outfall Limit Value
Iron, total recoverable 002-A 1 mg/L 1.02 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 002-B 1 mg/L 1.02 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 03C-A 1 mg/L 8.08 mg/L
2013 Numeric Monitoring Exceedances
Solids, total suspended 03C-A 27 mg/L (30-day average) 42.5 mg/L
2014 Benchmark Monitoring Exceedances
Parameter Outfall Limit Value
Phosphorus 002-A 2 mg/L (daily max) no value reported
Zinc, total recoverable 002-C 110 ug/L (daily max) 140 ug/L
Cadmium, total recoverable 002-C 1.8 ug/L 5.0 ug/L
Copper, total recoverable 0S5-C 12 ug/L 190 ug/L
Chemical Oxygen Demand 0S5-C 120 mg/L 145 mg/L
Copper, total recoverable 03C-C 12 ug/L (daily max) 30 ug/L
Solids, total suspended 03C-C 100 mg/L (daily max) 336 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 03C-C 1 mg/L (daily max) 11.4 mg/L
Zinc, total recoverable 03C-C 110 mg/L (daily max) 189 mg/L
Aluminum, total recoverable 03C-C 750 ug/L (daily max) 5,100 ug/L
Cadmium, total recoverable 03C-C 1.8 ug/L (daily max) 5 ug/L
Solids, total suspended 03C-A 100 mg/L (daily max) 336 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 03C-A l mg/L (daily max) 11.4 mg/L
Attachment 2c-3
2014 Numeric Monitoring Exceedances
Solids, total suspended 0S5-D 27 mg/L (30-day average) 460 mg/L
88 mg/L (daily max) 460 mg/L
Zinc, total (as Zn) 0S5-D .11 mg/L (30-day average) 0.931 mg/L
.2 mg/L (daily max) 0.931 mg/L
Solids, total suspended 0S5-C 100 mg/L 460 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 0S5-C 1 mg/L 16.3 mg/L
Zinc, total recoverable 0S5-C 100 ug/L 931 ug/L
Aluminum, total recoverable 0S5-C 750 ug/L 6,020 ug/L
Cadmium, total recoverable 0S5-C 1.8 ug/L 7.0 ug/L
Chemical Oxygen Demand 0S5-B 120 mg/L 145 mg/L
Solids, total suspended 0S5-A 100 mg/L 460 mg/L
Iron, total recoverable 0S5-A 1 mg/L 16.3 mg/L
Oil & Grease 03E-A 15 mg/L 28.3 mg/L
Chemical Oxygen Demand 03E-A 120 mg/L 298 mg/L
Solids, total suspended 03C-D 27 mg/L (30-day average) 336 mg/L
Attachment 2c-3
Attachment 2f-1
Maximum
elevation area
Attachment 3a-1
Attachment 3c-1
Attachment 3c-1
3.1.2 Viewshed Interpretation
Table 1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed maps within the 3-mile
radius study area.
Table 1 – Viewshed Summary
Topography Only Topography and

Viewshed Vegetation Viewshed
(Figure 1) (Figure 2)
Acres Percent of Acres Percent of
Study Area Study Area
Existing Facility 8,848 48.9% 398 2.2%
Proposed Project 10,548 58.3% 796 4.4%
Newly Impacted Area 1,700 9.4% 398 2.2%
Note: Calculations include land areas only. Water surface is excluded. The land
area within the boundary of the Project site is also excluded.
As illustrated in Figure 2, some portion of the Existing Facility is already visible, or will be theoretically
visible upon completion of currently permitted operations, from a maximum of 2.2 percent of the three-
mile radius study area. From these areas the proposed Project represents a continuation of existing
visibility of Colonie Landfill operations.
Visibility of the Existing Facility is most common on properties adjacent to or near the Existing Landfill
and along the northern bank of the Mohawk River. Direct visibility is found along US Rte 9 and Crescent
Road adjacent to the Project site. Direct visibility is also found within in the adjacent Arrowhead
Lane/Green Mountain Drive industrial area. Smaller areas of visibility are scattered throughout the study
area where cleared lands with down slope vistas in the direction of the site exist.
While the viewshed map indicates relatively minor areas of visibility within the City of Cohoes, and
residential subdivisions, field confirmation determined the prevalence of residential and commercial
buildings and/or localized vegetation, mature street trees and site landscaping to block most views in the
direction of the project.
Upon completion of the proposed Project, a maximum of 4.4 percent of the study area will be affected.
This is an increase of 2.2 percent (approximately 400 acres) of the three-mile radius study area. These
areas are generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by views of the
Existing Facility. In newly affected areas, views will be limited the upper portions of the Area 7
Development appearing above the foreground tree line.
At a minimum, 95.6 percent of the study area will have no visibility of the Existing Landfill or proposed
Project.
Attachment 3d-1
Proposed Area 7 Development Visual Resource Assessment – June 3, 2016

#12-008.18 Page 13
Visual Resource Key Legend
Currently Permitted Landfill Visible
01 NYS Rte. 9 South of Bridge - High point 430 ft above sea level
02 Public Fishing Access
03 Terminal Road Fishing Access
04 Noxon Bank Building Currently Permitted and Proposed
05 Oakcliff
06 Crescent Methodist Episcopal Church
Area 7 Development Visible
07 NYS Rte. 9 South of North of Bridge
- High point 517 ft above sea level
08 Crescent Trail
09 Halfmoon Baseball Fields
10 Godfrey Farmhouse Bike/Hike Trail
11 NYS Rte. 9 Near Arrowhead La.
12 Colonie Town Park Scenic Byway
13 Mohawk-Hudson Rail Trail
14 Cohoes Company Head Gatehouse
15 Crecent Hydro Waterfront Access
16 Lock 6 State Canal Park
17 Mallards Landing South Neighborhood
iles
18 Mallards Landing Park
19 Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway
Note: Viewshed areas are not definitive. Viewshed
3m
20 CATAWISSA (tugboat)
mapping provides a general understanding of
21 URGER (canal tugboat)
where the proposed project is theoretically visible
iles
based on regional topographic and forest cover
22 Waterford Town Park
data sources.
23 Waterford Village Historic District
2m
24 Waterford Harbor Visitor Center
ile
25 Lock 2 Canal Park
1m
26 Champlain Canal Park
27 Ormsby--Laughlin Textile Co. Mill
28 Ricky Cramer Ball Fields
29 Peebles Island State Park
30 Champlain Canal
31 Sugarloaf Pond Park
32 Northside Historic District
33 Peebles (Peobles) Island
34 Harmony Mill Historic District
35 Falls View Park
36 Cohoes Falls Overlook Park
37 Enlarged Erie Canal Historic District
38 Lock 18 of Enlarged Erie Canal
39 Col. Robert Cramer Veterans Park
40 Sunset Park
41 Harmony Mill No. 3
1 Mile
42 Cohoes Riverspark Visitor Center
43 Music Hall
44 Silliman Memorial Presb. Church
45 Delaware and Hudson RR Freight House
46 Downtown Cohoes Historic District
47 Olmsted Street Historic District
48 Lackman, J. Leonard House
49 Dickey, William J. House
50 Twilight Park
2 Miles 51 Lansing Park
52 Fonda House
53 Berkley Park
54 Van Denbergh-Simmons House
55 North Colonie Sports Complex
56 Simmons Stone House
57 Dunsbach, Martin House
58 Vischer Ferry Historic District
3 Miles
FIGURE 2
VIEWSHED MAP - EXCLUDING EXISTING FOREST VEGETATION
Visual Resource Assessment
Attachment 3d-2
PROPOSED AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING LANDFILL LANDFILL EXPANSION
section Location Description Start time End Time Elapsed In View In View Notes In View In View
Viewing Minutes Minutes Time YES NO YES NO
1 N42 48'19.361" Between islands off 0:00 0:15 0:15 0:15 low point on island to the east 0:15
W073 44' 45.77" Crescent Yacht Club
2 island on east 0:15 1:51 1:36 1:36 blocked by trees on 1:36

island to the east
3 From north end of island 1:51 6:00 4:09 4:09 from island end to next island 4:09
to the east where blocked by foilage/ trees
4 From south end of 6:00 10:25 4:25 4:25 blocked by trees foilage 4:25
second island to the east
5 lowpoint north end 10:25 12:50 0:25 0:25 just top until blocked by bridge 0:25
of island to Cr. Bridge
6 Passing under 12:50 13.51 1:01 1:01 blocked by bridge and abutments 1:01
Crescent Bridge
7 Out from under 13:51 14:30 0:39 0:39 until low point along AMS 0:39
Crescent Bridge
8 Albany Marine 14:30 14:50 0:20 0:20 break in trees 0:20

Service property to south
9 Albany Marine 14:50 15:20 0:30 0:30 blocked by trees foilage 0:30
Service property to south
10 AMS property 15:20 16:26 1:09 1:09 low point no trees 1:09
to southwest
11 Along AMS 16:26 18:18 1:52 1:52 blocked by trees foilage 1:52
serv. property to southwest
12 along albany marine 18:18 19:25 1:07 1:07 break in trees 1:07
serv. property pennesula
13 from break in trees 19:25 20:10 0:45 0:45 blocked by trees foilage 0:45
to end of penesula
14 From end of pennusala 20:10 27:39 7:29 7:29 fully view landfill east side 7:29
to island between dams
15 from island between 27:39 28:18 0:39 0:39 blocked by trees foilage on island 0:39
dams to Lock 6 flight
16 from island 28:18 29:33 1:13 1:13 fully view landfill east side 1:13
to lock 6 flight
N 42 48' 22.890" END Lock 6 29:33

W 73 42' 54.646" Flight of Locks
TOTALs 16:07 11:27 25:54 1:40
YES NO YES NO
In View In View In View In View
EXISTING LANDFILL LANDFILL EXPANSION
Expansion Increase
Viewable
NonViewable
9:47 minutes Attachment 3e-1
Proposed Final Elev. DEIS 517 ft amsl
Existing Height 2016 DEIS 400 ft amsl
Area 4 Plateau Level DEIS 325 avg ft amsl 18 degree slope @ 33% Grade
Photo Simulation by George Harris

Proposed 517 ft amsl
Existing Elev 400

Area 4 Elev 325 ft amsl
Scaled Photo Simulation by George Harris

Attachment 3g-1
Attachment 3g-1
Attachment 3g-2
Attachment 3g-2
Attachment 3g-3
Attachment 3g-3
george harris <geowhjr@gmail.com>
Landfill expansion
Gmail <jszemansco@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM
My name is John Szemansco and I operate The Oakcliff bedandbreakfast in Halfmoon.
I have tolerated this landfill for too many years. The stench at times has been excessive and has been virtually ignored
by the operators of the landfill. It seems to me from the documents that I have seen and read that the protocol and
recommendations by different departments overseeing this landfill have been ignored. Water tests have also been
ignored by the landfill.
The visual impact from the Town of Halfmoon is going to be incredible. A 10 story elevation of garbage in the landfill and
that's not visual impact? The leaching of the trash into the Mohawk River now being ignored in this day and age is
beyond my belief. Why are these reports being ignored? It is obvious that this is all about the money and not about the
environment, not about the visual impact and not about what the people want. Concerns buried in the numerous reports
and recommendations by different departments including the DEC are being swept under the table. The impact of this
landfill expansion will effect property values, historic areas along the Mohawk River, water quality, Visual impact. The
smell is going to be great and devastating. I am confident on that because their past actions regarding this matter
predict their future actions if and when they were approved. If this project moves forward I will not only have to close my
business but my property value will decrease significantly since I will be in direct view of this massive expansion. Let's
take money out of this and start using some common sense and triangulate the data that has been presented through
numerous reports over the years. All has been ignored in the process. I find it very strange that other options have not
been explored and that the Town of Colonie is banking on ramming this through the system without consideration for
neighbors health and the environment. I can assure you if this landfill is allowed to expand, future consequences will
raise their ugly heads regarding the issues I have made including the Mohawk River pollution and airquality. These
problems could have a larger cost then the millions of dollars that the town is banking on.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 3i-1
Oakcliff NHR Crescent Park
Union Cemetery
Middletown Cemetery
Church Hill Historic District Area NHR Eligible
17 Historical Structures Public Boat Mooring
Noxon Building NHR -Erie Canalway Natl. Heritage Corridor
-Canalway Park CanalCorp
Crescent Kayak Park -Navigible Channel Barge Canal
Freddie's Park
Mohawk Towpath Historic Kiosk
Scenic Byway
NHR Contributing Structure

Crescent terminal
Boat Launch
Landfill Lock 6 State

Canal Park
Waterford Waterfront
Revitalization Program
NHR Contributing Structure

Mohawk Towpath Scenic
Crescent Damn
Byway
Canal Bikeway Trail NHR Contributing Structure

Crescent Power Station
Attachment 3i-2
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
April 2016
EPA’s 1997 report, “Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments”, was a
guide to facilitate standardization of MSW data collection at the local level, which included
volume-to-weight conversion factors for comparing recovery efforts between municipalities,
regions and states. The factors are also valuable when planners work with the national recovery
data presented in EPA’s sustainable materials management report series.
This document provides updates to the volume-to-weight conversion factors found in the 1997 report
Appendix B.
The goal of this update is to identify more current secondary data measurements of the various products.
Of particular interest are products known to have been source reduced through light weighting since the
early nineties such as plastic, glass and metal packaging. Some factors included on the original table are
excluded from the revised table due to lack of updated data. Primary data collection was not performed.
The original Appendix B table included 12 materials categories; the updated table provides factors for 15
material categories, including the following.
• Appliances • Municipal Solid Waste

• Automotive • Paper
• Carpeting • Plastic
• Commingled Recyclables • Textiles
• Electronics • Wood
• Food • Yard Trimmings
• Glass • Construction & Demolition Debris
• Metals (C&D)
All of the categories include multiple products and/or density measurements. Four product categories—
carpeting, commingled recyclable material, electronics and construction and demolition debris—are new.
Previously lead-acid batteries and scrap tires were separate categories but are combined into the single
category “Automotive” in the updated table.
Other differences include the removal/addition of products within some of the categories to better reflect
the current recycling industry. For example, eliminating “Tab Card” and adding “Mixed Paper” to the
paper category reflects the move toward commingled recyclables collection. The addition of
“Electronics” reflects the growth in these products since the original table was published.
The updated factors are shown in the table below.
Attachment 5a-1
1
See page 5 of this Document for reference
Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors
Estimated
Category Recyclable Materials Volume Weight (lbs) Source
Appliances Major Appliances
Dishwasher 1 unit 125 1
Clothes Dryer 1 unit 125 1
Stove 1 unit 150 1
Refrigerator 1 unit 250 1
Clothes Washer 1 unit 150 1
Automotive Lead-Acid Battery
Auto one 36 3
Truck one 47 3
Scrap Tire
Light Duty Tires (passenger, light truck) one 22.5 5
Commercial Tires one 120 5
Fluids
Used Motor Oil gallon 7.4 2
Antifreeze gallon 8.42 2
Other Automotive
Oil Filters not crushed drum 175 1
Oil Filters crushed drum 700 1
Oil Filters gallon 5 1
Carpeting Carpet
Carpet cubic yard 147 6
Carpet Padding cubic yard 62 6
Commingled Containers (Plastic bottles, Aluminum cans, Steel cans, Glass bottles) and Paper
Recyclable Commingled Recyclables cubic yard 262 4
Material Containers (Plastic bottles, Aluminum cans, Steel cans, Glass bottles), Corrugated
Containers and Paper
Campus Recyclables cubic yard 92 7
Commingled Recyclables cubic yard 111 4
Containers (Plastic bottles, Aluminum cans, Steel cans, Glass bottles) – No paper
Commingled Recyclables cubic yard 67 4
Commercial Recyclables cubic yard 113 8
Containers (Cans, Plastic) - No glass
Containers (Cans, Plastic) and Paper - No glass
Residential Recyclables cubic yard 260 2
Containers (Food/beverage, Glass) Corrugated Containers and Paper
Multifamily Recyclables cubic yard 96 2
Multifamily Recyclables cubic yard 51 21
Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Commingled Single family Recyclables cubic yard 126 2
Recyclable Containers (Food/beverage, Glass) Corrugated Containers and Paper- No glass
Material Campus Recyclables cubic yard 139 2
Electronics Computer Equipment
Desktop one 27 24
Laptop one 9.8 24
Monitor
CRT one 40 1
15" one 30 2
17" one 45 2
21" one 60 2
Flat Panel one 24 1
Mixed Monitors one 29.4 24
Televisions
CRT < 19 inch one 41 1
CRT > 19 inch one 73 1
Flat Panel one 29 1
Mixed TVs one 67.3 24
Peripheral Devices
Printers one 16.1 24
Mice one 0.2 9
Keyboards one 2.9 9
Mobile Devices
Cellular Phone one 0.22 9
Mixed Electronics
Brown Goods cubic yard 343 6
Computer-related Electronics cubic yard 354 6
Other Small Consumer Electronics cubic yard 438 6
Food
Fats, Oils, Grease 55-gallon 412 2
Organics - commercial cubic yard 135 21
Source Separated Organics - commercial cubic yard 1,000 15
Food Waste - restaurants cubic yard 396 21
Food Waste cubic yard 463 4
Food Waste cubic foot 22-45 4
Food waste - university gallon 3.8 22
Food Waste 64 gallon toter 150 4
2 cubic yard
Food waste full towable 2,736 4
Glass Bottles
Loose cubic yard 380 4
3
Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Metals Aluminum Cans
Uncompacted cubic yard 46 4
Uncompacted case = 24 cans 0.7 11
Baled cubic yard 250-500 10
Steel Cans
Whole cubic yard 50-175 10
Baled cubic yard 700-1,000 10
Steel Cans - Institution
Whole can 0.09 7
Whole cubic yard 136 7
Paper Newsprint
Loose cubic yard 360-800 1
Books - paperback, loose cubic yard 428 23
Old Corrugated Containers
Flattened cubic yard 106 4
Old Corrugated Containers and Chip Board
Uncompacted cubic yard 74.54 4
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Compacted/Baled cubic yard 755-925 1
Mixed
Compacted cubic yard 610-755 1
Shredded cubic yard 128 4
Mixed Baled cubic yard 1,000-1,200 10
Miscellaneous
Cartons (milk and juice) uncrushed cubic yard 50 7
Plastic PET
PET Bottles - baled 30"x42"x 48" 525-630 12
PET Thermoform - baled 30"x42"x 48" 525-595 12
HDPE
HDPE Dairy - baled 30"x42"x 48" 525-700 12
HDPE Mixed - baled 30"x42"x 48" 525-700 12
Mixed PET and HDPE
Mixed Bottles/Containers #1 - #7
Loose cubic yard 40.4 4
Mixed Bottles/Containers #3 - #7
4
Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Plastic Loose cubic yard 25.7 4
Film
LDPE, loose cubic yard 35 13
LDPE, compacted cubic yard 150 13
LDPE, baled 30" x 42" x 48" 1,100 13
Miscellaneous
Trash Bags cubic yard 35 6
Grocery/Merchandise Bags cubic yard 35 6
Expanded Polystyrene
Packaging/Insulation cubic yard 32 6
Textiles Mixed Textiles
Baled cubic yard 600-750 10
Wood Wood
Wood Chips, green cubic yard 473 1
Wood Chips, dry cubic yard 243 1
Saw Dust, wet cubic yard 530 1
Saw Dust, dry cubic yard 275 1
Pallets one 25 1
Pallets and Crates cubic yard 169 18
Christmas Trees, loose cubic yard 30 1
Yard Yard Trimmings
Trimmings Leaves cubic yard 250-500 1
Leaves (Minnesota) cubic yard 300 - 383 15
Mixed Yard Waste
Uncompacted cubic yard 250 1
Compacted cubic yard 640 1
Prunings & Trimmings cubic yard 127 6
Branches & Stumps cubic yard 127 6
Municipal MSW - Commercial
Solid Waste Commercial - dry waste cubic yard 56-73 16, 8
Commercial - all waste, uncompacted cubic yard 138 21
Mixed MSW - Residential, Institutional, Commercial
Uncompacted cubic yard 250-300 14
Compacted cubic yard 400-700 14
Mixed MSW - Multifamily uncompacted cubic yard 95 21
MSW - Landfill
Compacted - MSW Small Landfill with Best
Management Practices cubic yard 1,200-1,700 17
Compacted - MSW Large Landfill with Best
Management Practices cubic yard 1,700-2,000 17
5 Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Municipal Compacted - MSW Very Large Landfill with
Solid Waste Best Management and Cover Practices,
Combined MMSW/Industrial/and other solid
waste, or/and Leachate Recirculation cubic yard >2,000 17
C &D Concrete
Large Concrete with Re-bar cubic yard 860 18
Large Concrete without Re-bar cubic yard 860 18
Small Concrete with Re-bar cubic yard 860 18
Small Concrete without Re-bar cubic yard 860 18
Asphalt Paving
Large Asphalt Paving with Re-bar cubic yard 773 19
Large Asphalt Paving without Re-bar cubic yard 773 19
Small Asphalt Paving with Re-bar cubic yard 773 19
Small Asphalt Paving without Re-Bar cubic yard 773 19
Roofing
Composition Roofing cubic yard 731 18
Other Asphalt Roofing cubic yard 731 18
Other Aggregates cubic yard 860 18
Wood
Clean Dimensional Lumber cubic yard 169 18
Clean Engineered Wood cubic yard 268 18
Other Recyclable Wood cubic yard 169 18
Painted/Stained Wood cubic yard 169 18
Treated Wood cubic yard 169 18
Gypsum Board
Clean Gypsum Board cubic yard 467 18
Painted/Demolition Gypsum cubic yard 467 18
Aggregate
Large Rock cubic yard 999 18
Small Rock/Gravel cubic yard 999 18
Dirt and Sand cubic yard 929 18
Remainder/Composite
Construction and Demolition cubic yard 417 18
Construction & Demolition Bulk cubic yard 484 20
Metal
Major Appliances cubic yard 145 18
Other Ferrous cubic yard 225 18
Other Non-Ferrous cubic yard 225 18
Remainder/Composite Metal
(avg of metals, without used oil filters) cubic yard 143 18
HVAC Ducting cubic yard 47 18
6
Attachment 5a-1
1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2007 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report September 2008
08-LQ-092. Attachment B: Measurement Standards and Reporting Guidelines 07-LQ-134.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/MRAttachmentB.pdf
2 Department of Ecology, State of Washington. Coordinated Prevention Grant Conversion Sheet. March,2014.
www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/1107016.pdf
3 Factor developed using lead per battery data from Battery Council International. Recycling Rates 2009 to 2013. April 2014.
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/batterycouncil.org/resource/resmgr/BCI_Recycling_Rate_Study_200.pdf applied to battery composition
data from Sulllivan, JL and Gaines, L. 2010. A Review of Battery Life Cycle Analysis: State of Knowledge and Critical Needs. October
2010. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory ANL/ESD/10-7.
4 Keep America Beautiful. Volume-to-Weight Recycling and Trash Conversion Factors Report. December2013.
5 Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). 2013 U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary. November 2014.
http://www.rma.org/download/scrap-tires/market-reports/US_STMarket2013.pdf
6 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of
Construction and Demolition Waste. June 2006. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Disposal%5C34106007.pdf
Brown Goods: larger, non-portable electronic goods that have some circuitry. Examples include microwaves, stereos, VCRs, DVD
players, radios, audio/visual equipment, and non-CRT televisions (such as LCD televisions).
Computer-related Electronics: electronics with large circuitry that is computer-related. Examples include processors, mice,
keyboards, laptops, disk drives, printers, modems, and fax machines.
Other Small Consumer Electronics: portable non-computer-related electronics with large circuitry. Examples include personal
digital assistants (PDAs), cell phones, phone systems, phone answering machines, computer games and other electronic toys,
portable CD players, camcorders, and digital cameras.
7 Keep America Beautiful, Recycle-Bowl Competition. Accessed February 2015. http://recycle-bowl.org/wp-content/uploads/Recycle-
Bowl-Estimating-Data-Fact-Sheet.pdf
8 Great Forest. Volume to Weight Conversion Ratios for Commercial Office Waste in New York City. January 2013. Primary data;
Commingled; large commercial properties (500,000 sq. ft – 1m sq. ft) in the New York metropolitan area.
http://www.greatforest.com/files/FileUpload/files/Great%20Forest%20-%20Waste%20Conversion%20Paper%20-
9 US EPA Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009 . May 2011.
10 WasteCare Corporation. Some Typical Loose and Baled Weights of Various Materials. Accessed April 2015.
http://www.wastecare.com/Products-Services/Balers/aboutbalers.htm.
11 The Aluminum Association. U.S. Aluminum Beverage Can Recycling.
http://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/section_images/UBCRecyclingRate2013.pdf
12 The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR). Model Bale Specifications. http://www.plasticsrecycling.org
13 Caldwell, Maggie. Recycling Plastic Film and Shrink Wrap. May 16, 2014. http://www.federalinternational.com/blog/recy
14 Caterpillar Performance Handbook. 40th Edition. January 2010.
15 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Data provided by professional composter. 2015. Source separated organics - food scraps, non-
recyclable paper (paper plates/towels/etc) and compostable plastics.
16 Minnesota Department of Administration 2015 hauler records (excludes organics).
17 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2013 MPCA MSW Landfill Annual Report Data.
18 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of
Construction and Demolition Waste. June 2006
19 Tellus scaled down by factor from Florida C&D study -- Converting C&D Debris from Volume to Weight: A Fact Sheet for
C&D Debris Facility Operators, University of Florida, 2000.
20 Florida Dept of Environmental Protection http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/cd/canddmain.htm
21 CalRecycle. 2014 Generator-Based Characterization of Commercial Sector Disposal and Diversion in California. September 10, 2015.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1543/20151543.pdf
Organics - putrescible material hauled by a contracted third party to a permitted facility mainly engaged in producing compost or
mulch, or in anaerobic digestion of organics. Minor mechanical separation of contaminants or recyclable materials may occur at the
facility prior to composting or digestion.
22 Goldstein, Nora. "Food Scraps Composting Laboratory". BioCycle. January 2013, Vol. 54, No. 1, p. 33.
https: //www .biocycle.net/2013/01/22/food-scraps-composting-laboratory/
23 U.S. EPA. Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. Last updated: February 28, 2006. https://www.epa.gov/smm/metrics-
waste-reduction
24 National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER). http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/
Mixed monitors and TVs: total pounds collected divided by total units collected.
Attachment 5a-1
7
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Office of General Counsel. Region 4

1130 North Westcott Rond. Schenectndy. NY 12306-2014
P: (518) 357-2048 I F: (518) 357-2 087
www.dcc.ny.gov
CONFIRMATION BY EMAIL ORDER RECEIVED/REGULAR MAIL
September 18, 2015
Ms. Virginia c. Robbins, Esq.

Bond Schoeneck & King Attorneys
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
vrobbins@bsk.com
Re: Order of Consent

Town of-Colonie
R4-2015-0708-81
Dear Ms. Virginia:
Enclosed please find a copy of the fully executed Order on Consent

referenced above.
Pursuant to Paragraph I payment of $530,000 is due within 15 calendar days

of the effective date of this order.
Sincerely,
U{cz~
Richard Ostrov
Regional Attorney
Region 4
Enclosure
ec: Matthew McGarry, P.E. , Town of Colonie

McGarrv@colonie.org
W YORK Department of Attachment 5e-1

~R~~N1rv Environmental
Conservation
STATE OF NEW YORK: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of the Alleged Violations of

Environmental Conservation Law
Article 27, Title 7 by:
ORDER ON CONSENT
File No. R4-2015-0708-81
Town of Colonie
347 Old Niskayuna Road
Latham, New York 12110
Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS:
Jurisdiction
1. The Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) is

empowered to regulate the disposal of solid waste and permit the operation of landfills
pursuant to Article 27, Title 7 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL).
Respondent
2. Respondent, Town of Colonie, owns the Town of Colonie Landfill Facility

(landfill) at 1319 Loudon Road, Colonie, New York 12047 that is subject to Solid Waste
Management Permit No. 4-0126-00033-00001 that was last modified on August 31, 2013
with an expiration date of December 31, 2017 (permit modification).
3. The landfill is currently operated and has been since September 19, 2011
by Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL). CRL is a subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.
Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Unit
4. The New York Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 requires solid waste
planning units and Local Solid Waste Management Plans (SWMP). The localities are to
employ “sound principles of solid waste management, natural resources conservation,
energy production, and employment creating opportunities.” ECL Section 27-0107(1) (c).
5. The Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Planning Unit includes the
Town of Colonie, Village of Menands, Village of Colonie and City of Cohoes.
Attachment 5e-1
Beneficial Use Determinations and Alternative Daily Cover Material
6. In accordance with 6 NYCRR 360-1.15(b) (10) and 360-2.17(c), the

Department has approved Respondent’s use of alternative daily cover (ADC) for
petroleum contaminated soils, municipal incinerator ash and auto shredder fluff. The
regulatory objective as stated in 6 NYCRR 360-2.9(h) for the Department’s approval of
ADC is to conserve both natural resources and landfill airspace provided that litter and
odors and waste mass stability are not adversely affected by the use of the ADC.
Landfill Permit Limits on Receipt and Disposal of Solid Waste
7. Permit Section “Operations” Paragraph 15 (Waste Tonnage Limits) provides

that:
“a maximum of 820 tons per operating day (based on a 25 operating day rolling
average) of waste is authorized to be received and disposed of in the landfill,
providing that on an annual basis, no more than 255,840 tons per year of waste
is received and disposed of in the landfill”.
2014 Landfill Annual Report
8. The Respondent’s 2014 landfill annual report dated February 27, 2015 was
received by the Department on March 2, 2015. The Department acknowledges that
Respondent also submitted landfill annual reports in prior years.
9. In 2014, Respondent reported accepting and disposing of 254,238 tons of

solid waste at the landfill.
10. In 2014, Respondent reported accepting and using 214,521 tons of ADC
which is equal to 84% by weight of the solid waste disposed of at the landfill.
Daily and Annual Tonnage Limits
11. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(a)(1): “No person shall construct or

operate a solid waste management facility, or any phase of it, except in accordance with
a valid permit issued pursuant to this part.
12. Paragraph 14 of the permit requires Respondent to comply with all

requirements identified in 6 NYCRR 360-1.14 (Operational requirements for all Solid
Waste Management Facilities).
Attachment 5e-1
13. Paragraph 9 of the permit requires that:
“All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the
permit application, plans and materials prepared by Applicant on the dates
described in the Approved Plans Conditions”.
14. The August 22, 2013 O&M Plan at Section 8.3.2 states:
“Ash, used as a replacement for soil, will behave in a manner similar to soil.
Therefore, the use of ash as a replacement for soil as a daily cover will not
have in impact on landfill operations. Ash will be placed in a 6-inch lift the
same as soil.”
15. The August 22, 2013 O&M Plan is incorporated by reference into the permit
and made enforceable thereunder by Paragraph 10(a) “Approved Documents and
Wastes”.
16. Paragraph 15 of the permit sets an 820 ton and 255,840 ton limit on daily
and annual acceptance and disposal of solid waste at the landfill, respectively.
17. Respondent accepted 214,521 tons of ADC for its 312 days of operation in
2014 which averages to 688 tons per day.
18. The Department alleges that Respondent’s acceptance of 688 tons per day
of ADC exceeds the amount of daily cover specified in the approved permit application
and required under applicable solid waste regulation.
19. The Department alleges that any approved ADC material accepted at the
landfill that exceeds the permitted daily cover amount specified in the approved permit
application is considered a solid waste and counted against the daily and annual solid
waste limits in Paragraph 15 of the permit.
20. The Department alleges that the total of solid waste, and ADC material that
exceeded the permitted daily cover amount, accepted at the landfill in 2014 exceed both
the daily and annual maximum solid waste limits in Paragraph 15 of the permit.
21. The Department alleges that Respondent violated Paragraph 15 of the

permit and 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(a) (1) by accepting and disposing of solid waste in
excess of its daily and annual solid waste limits.
Attachment 5e-1
22. Respondent has informed the Department that it will be indemnified by
Capital Region Landfills, Inc. for the civil penalty assessed in this Order pursuant to the
Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement between the Respondent and Capital Region
Landfills, Inc., dated August 4, 2011.
Civil Penalty
23. ECL Section 71-2703 provides that: “any person who violates any of the
provisions of, or who fails to perform any duty imposed by title 3 or 7 of article 27 of this
chapter or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, or any term or condition
of any certificate or permit issued pursuant thereto, or any final determination or order of
the commissioner made pursuant to this title shall be liable for a civil penalty not to
exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars for each such violation and an additional
penalty of not more than one thousand five hundred dollars for each day during which
such violation continues.
Waiver of Hearing
24. Respondent, without admitting to any of the facts and violations in this
Order on Consent, affirmatively waived its right to notice and hearing in the manner
provided by law, and has consented to the issuing and entering of this Order on
Consent and agrees to be bound by the terms, provisions and conditions contained
herein.
NOW, having considered this matter and being duly advised, it is ORDERED
that:
I. Civil Penalty - In respect to the aforesaid alleged violations, a civil penalty in the
amount of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($530,000) is assessed
against the Respondent. Payment of the civil penalty is due within 15 calendar days of
the effective date of this Order.
II. Schedule of Compliance and Submittals - Respondent shall comply with the Order on
Consent’s Schedule of Compliance and all Department approved submittals from
Respondent which are incorporated and made part of this Order.
III. Settlement - Timely payment of the civil penalty and compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Order and Schedule of Compliance are accepted as full civil
settlement of all daily and annual solid waste tonnage permit limit violations prior to the
effective date of this Order.
IV. Effective Date - The effective date of this Order on Consent shall be the date upon
which it is signed on behalf of the Department.
Attachment 5e-1
V. Communications - All communications required herein shall be made to: Department
-- DEC Region 4, 1130 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306, and Attn:
Regional Engineer; and Respondent – Town of Colonie – Attn: Landfill Operations, 347
Old Niskayuna Road, Latham, New York 12110.
VI. Access - Respondent shall allow duly authorized representatives of the

Department and New York State access to the site without prior notice at such times as
may be desirable or necessary to inspect and determine the status of Respondent's
compliance with this Order and the ECL and regulations promulgated there under.
VII. Summary Abatement - This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative from exercising any summary
abatement powers, either at common law or as granted pursuant to statute or
regulation.
VIII. Indemnification - Respondent shall indemnify and hold Department, New York
State, and their representatives and employees harmless for all claims, suits, damages,
and costs of every name and description arising out of or resulting from the fulfillment or
attempted fulfillment of the provisions hereof by Respondent, its directors, officers,
employees, servants, agents, successors or assigns.
IX. Entire Agreement; Modification - This Order constitutes the entire agreement of
the parties, and no provision of the agreement shall be deemed waived or otherwise
modified except as is specifically set forth in a writing executed by the Commissioner or
Regional Director of Department indicating an intent to modify this Order.
X. Document Reviews
1. All documents which Respondent must submit pursuant to this Order are
subject to Department approval.
2. The Department shall review each of the submittals Respondent makes

pursuant to this Order to determine whether it was prepared, and whether the work
done to generate the data and other information in the submittal was done, in
accordance with this Order and generally accepted technical and scientific principles.
The Department shall notify Respondent in writing of its approval or disapproval of the
submittal. All Department-approved submittals shall be incorporated into and become
an enforceable part of this Order; and Respondent shall implement them in accordance
with their respective schedules and terms, as approved.
3. a. If the Department disapproves a submittal, it shall so notify Respondent in

writing and shall specify the reasons for its disapproval. Within the time frame set forth
in that written notification, Respondent shall make a revised submittal to the Department
Attachment 5e-1
that addresses and resolves all of the Department's stated reasons for disapproving the
first submittal.
b. After receipt of the revised submittal, the Department shall notify

Respondent in writing of its approval or disapproval. If the revised submission is not
approvable as submitted, the Department, at its option, may disapprove it or may
approve it on condition that Respondent accept such modifications as may be specified
by Department to make it approvable. If Respondent does not accept such
modifications, the revised submission will be disapproved. If the Department
disapproves the revised submittal, Respondent shall be in violation of this Order. If the
Department approves the revised submittal, it shall be incorporated into and become an
enforceable part of this Order.
c. Respondent shall modify and/or amplify and expand a submittal upon

the Department's direction to do so if the Department determines, as a result of
reviewing data generated by an activity required under this Order or as a result of
reviewing any other data or facts, that further work is necessary. The Department
agrees that any modifications it specifies will be reasonable and consistent with
customary engineering standards.
XI. Termination - This Order shall terminate upon the Department’s determination
that Respondent has complied with all the terms, conditions and provisions of this Order
and Schedule of Compliance.
Attachment 5e-1
I'
DATED: Rotterdam, New York ..,,

September .d/ 2015
Marc Gerstman
Acting Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
BY:
Attachment 5e-1
CONSENT BY RESPONDENT
Town of Colonie
Respondent, Town of Colonie, hereby consents to the issuing and entering of this Order on
Consent and waives his right to notice and hearing herein and agrees to be bound by the
provisions, terms and conditions contained herein.
BY: ~ t/, rJi4L_

Supervisor, Town of Colonie
DATE: t/ls-/!5"
STATE OF NEW YORK )
)ss.:
COUNTY OF )
On the itday of <;;t.P1[1'){3t.t- in the year 2015 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the State, personally appeared 1Aui...A A. MA~ il,tJ , personally known to me or proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the
within instr. ment and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by
his signat o the in trument, the individual executed the instrument.
• _f
Not ry Public ~~. . .
lied in the County of:
V ommission Expires:
JOHN A. SPATH
Notary Public, State Of New York
No.02SP6176883 AL.84v~
Qualified In ReA&&elaer County
Commission Expires ~-
1..( I.2.o I:lo11o
Attachment 5e-1
Schedule of Compliance
A. As of the effective date of this Order through December 31, 2015, Respondent’s
acceptance of ADC at the landfill in excess of 55% by weight of the daily (based on a 25
operating day rolling average) solid waste tonnage accepted shall be counted towards
the daily and/or annual solid waste tonnage limits.
B. Effective on January 1, 2016 and thereafter, Respondent’s acceptance of ADC at

the landfill in any calendar month that exceeds 25% by weight of the solid waste
tonnage accepted in the previous calendar month shall be counted towards the daily
and/or annual solid waste tonnage limits. The Department will modify the permit to
include the 25% limit on ADC consistent with this Paragraph B. Respondent waives
any and all rights to contest in any manner this permit modification only, including a
request for a hearing under 6 NYCRR Part 621, 1 but this waiver by Respondent shall
not apply to any other permit modification.
- For example, assuming the landfill receives solid waste at the permitted daily
and annual tonnage limits, if more than 205 tons per day (based on a
calendar month averaging period) and/or more than 63,960 tons per year of
ADC is accepted and applied at the landfill, the excess shall be added to the
amount of solid waste accepted and will be counted towards the landfill’s daily
and/or annual solid waste limit.
C. Respondent shall submit monthly ADC reports to the Department by the 7th
calendar day of the calendar month following the monthly reporting period. The reports
shall include the amount of ADC and solid waste accepted for each reporting period and
a running total of solid waste and ADC accepted for each monthly reporting period
during the calendar year. The first monthly reporting period under this Order shall
begin on the first day of the first full calendar month after the effective date of this Order.
D. The following sentence in Section 8.3.2 of Respondent’s August 22, 2013 O&M
Plan: “Ash will be placed in a 6-inch lift the same as soil.” is hereby deleted because
Respondent is now subject to the limits set forth in Paragraphs A and B above, and it
shall apply daily cover material, including ADC used for daily cover material, in
compliance with the requirements in 6 NYCRR Section 360-2.17(c).
1 The Respondent agrees to be bound by any new 6 NYCRR Part 360 final regulation
that sets an ADC limit by weight of the daily and/or annual solid waste accepted. The
new regulatory limit shall supersede the 25% limit in this Schedule of Compliance
attached to the Order on Consent.
Attachment 5e-1
From: Harry Kornblau <harrykornblau@hotmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: sweber2@nycap.rr.com; tnichols@nycap.rr.com
Subject: RE: Expansion of Colonie Landfill
unexpected emails.
I would like to add my voice ‐ and concerns ‐ to those of others as noted in the recent Times Union article
cited below.

As a nearby resident of Latham [Loudonville] this issue has a significant impact upon my quality of life ‐
including health and property values. I urge a much more vigorous, transparent, and inclusive review ‐ one
that includes more legally binding proceedings to insure unquestionable and impartial evaluation of the issues
under review.

To that end, I urge the DEC to utilize adjudicatory hearings so that witnesses can be sworn in and cross
examination is permitted, thus assuring the greatest chance for an appropriate decision ‐ one that in the long
run would provide the most satisfactory and litigation‐free outcome. Isn't it time for government ‐ at all levels
‐ to act as responsible as possible by acting as responsively as possible? Don't we ‐ the People [who are
also the taxpaying employers of said government employees] ‐ deserve that much? I know i felt and acted
that way when I was still an active employee of the people.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this timely issue before it becomes too late for better balanced
and more trustworthy action.
Sincerely,

Harry Kornblau
34 Campus View Drive
Loudonville, NY 12211

Neighbors oppose Colonie landfill expansion
Residents of towns upset by Colonie expansion plan

By Wendy Liberatore

Updated 11:01 pm, Thursday, October 27, 2016
1
2
From: JAMES BOLD <abold2@nycap.rr.com>

To: 'george harris'; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: hogrady@nycap.rr.com; ADMIN@MOHAWKTOWPATH.ORG;
lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; lynmurphy13@yahoo.com;
ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org
Subject: RE: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
unexpected emails.
George,
Very extensive comments.
The only piece I can add is that approx.. 1950 when I was doing farming in the area, I was frequently at both the Fonda
Farm where the present entrance is located and at the Reepmeyer farm south of there.
The deep wells at both farms contained a significant concentration of what I presume was sulfur gas.
It smelled rotten eggs and had a major bubbling when placed in a pail.
I do not know how deep either of the wells were but they sure did have a heavy ground mineral content to them.
The water ran quite blue in color.
All of this is non‐technical and probably of no value, but just sharing my recollection.
Thks for keeping me informed.
Jim Bold

From: george harris [mailto:geowhjr@gmail.com]
To: r4dep@dec.ny.gov
Cc: <fhartley@nycap.rr.com>; Henrietta O'Grady; John Szemansco; Bradford Oswald; Betty Hartley;
rlindbe2@nycap.rr.com; Michelle Mercurio; splotnick@albany.edu; Deborah Newman; Mark Millspaugh;
mschachner@mmshlaw.com; dengel@nolanandheller.com; Eric Hamilton, Exec Director; Dangler, Andrew C NAN02;
lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; Lyn Murphy; Kevin Tollisen; Cynthia Linder; JAMES BOLD; Citizens Concerned About
Landfill Expansion; thomas.johnson@sterlingenvironmental.com; edoran@riverkeeper.0rg; John Lipscomb
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) - Comments
Andrew.




George W. Harris
66 Church Hill Road
1
From: Janet Levine <syncodestiny@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov;
tonko.house.govk@realtyusa.com; albintern1_schumer@schumer.senate.gov;
www.gillibrand.senate.gov@realtyusa.com
Subject: RESIDENT OPPOSITION TO THE TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION REQUEST
& ADJUNCT HEARING REQUEST
unexpected emails.
November 1, 2016

E: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov
RE: TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION REQUEST - RESIDENT OPPOSITION &

REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING REQUEST FOR SAME
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

I reside at 58 Mallards Landing South, Town of Waterford, which is directly across the river from
the landfill site. The existing landfill has already had devastating effects on our environment,
water and air quality. Please do not intensify the situation further and consider the following:
I was saddened to learn that the Expansion Study was incomplete and inaccurate. Many
bias or untruths were uncovered. There is a need for fairness and correctness on the part
of Waste Connections and the Town of Colonie, so at the very least … an adjudicatory
hearing should be ordered.
1
reasons:
 The proximity of the open waste water pits, to the river’s edge, endanger wildlife,
especially during any unforeseen natural event such as floods or hurricanes,
where these pits will spill into the river.
 The Hazardous waste pit, closed by DEC in 1986, would be allowed to be re
opened and additional garbage be added on top of the existing hazardous
material, this will cause the hazardous material to be driven directly into the
bedrock and ground water.
 The Erie Canal Corridor would no longer be a safe waterway for boaters and water
enthusiasts.
 The air quality which now affects approximately a 7 mile radius, if tripled could
stretch to 30 miles with the right wind conditions.
 Not only would the home values of Colonie, but also the residents of Halfmoon,
Waterford, Cohoes, and Clifton Park, could be devalued due to the unsalability of
these properties with a condition such as this.
the environment.

Janet L Levine
Waterford, NY 12188

John T. McDonald
2
From: joanne mack <joannemack56@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie NY Landfill Opposition
unexpected emails.
"I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and request an I am writing to express my

opposition, and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of
Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7 Development application.
Sincerely,
Joanne Mack
1
From: joanne mack <joannemack56@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie NY Landfill Opposition
unexpected emails.
"I am in opposition to the landfill expansion and request an I am writing to express my

opposition, and to request an adjudicatory hearing, regarding the pending 2016 Town of
Colonie Landfill Expansion – Area 7 Development application.
Sincerely,
Joshua Mack
1
From: Karin Kennett White <kmkennett@aol.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comments to the Proposed Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
Attachments: doc20161101073440.pdf
unexpected emails.
Attached please find a letter signed by 32 homeowners in Brookfield Place, located in Halfmoon, NY, less than one mile
away from the Town of Colonie Landfill.
It seems that a priority is being placed on the opinions of the Town of Colonie residents, whose taxes are impacted by the
significant revenue the town receives from the landfill management company. However, it is non-residents who make up
the majority of people living within a mile of the landfill whose quality of life is most impacted by its presence, and who see
no financial benefit from the facility. Due to the placement of the landfill at the northern most peninsula of Colonie,
approximately 80 percent of the residences located within one mile of the landfill are located within the city of Cohoes, and
towns of Waterford, Haflmoon and Clifton Park, while only 20 percent of the residences within a one mile radius of the
landfill are within the Town of Colonie. The opinions of those whose quality of life and property values are impacted by the
landfill but see no financial gain, should be placed ahead of those who see a financial gain without any impact on their
property values or quality of life. I'm quite confident that if the landfill were centrally located within the Town of Colonie,
few town residents would be quick to support its expansion.
Please take time to consider the opinions of the signatories on the attached documents.
Thank you,
Karin White
14 Chester Dr.
Waterford, NY 12188
1
From: ktollisen <ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org>

To: george harris; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: <fhartley@nycap.rr.com>; hogrady@nycap.rr.com; John Szemansco; Bradford Oswald;
Betty Hartley; rlindbe2@nycap.rr.com; Michelle Mercurio; splotnick@albany.edu;
Deborah Newman; Mark Millspaugh; mschachner@MMSHLAW.com;
dengel@nolanandheller.com; ADMIN@MOHAWKTOWPATH.ORG; Dangler, Andrew C
NAN02; lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; lynmurphy13@yahoo.com; Cynthia Linder;
JAMES BOLD; Citizens Concerned About Landfill Expansion;
thomas.johnson@sterlingenvironmental.com; edoran@riverkeeper.0rg;
jlipscomb@riverkeeper.org
unexpected emails.
Mr. Harris:
This letter is very well done. Thank you for your hard work. Tomorrow I will send the Town attorneys letter
to everyone. This will certainly give NYS DEC alot to think about. Have a good night.
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+.
-------- Original message --------

From: george harris <geowhjr@gmail.com>
Date: 11/1/16 1:12 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: r4dep@dec.ny.gov
Cc: "<fhartley@nycap.rr.com>" <fhartley@nycap.rr.com>, Henrietta O'Grady <hogrady@nycap.rr.com>, John
Szemansco <jszemansco@gmail.com>, Bradford Oswald <broswald@nycap.rr.com>, Betty Hartley
<bhartley@nycap.rr.com>, rlindbe2@nycap.rr.com, Michelle Mercurio <mmercurio@sva.edu>,
splotnick@albany.edu, Deborah Newman <deborah.e.newman@gmail.com>, Mark Millspaugh
<mark.millspaugh@sterlingenvironmental.com>, mschachner@mmshlaw.com, dengel@nolanandheller.com,
"Eric Hamilton, Exec Director" <admin@mohawktowpath.org>, "Dangler, Andrew C NAN02"
<andrew.c.dangler@usace.army.mil>, lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us, Lyn Murphy
<lynmurphy13@yahoo.com>, Kevin Tollisen <ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org>, Cynthia Linder
<cylinder1396@gmail.com>, JAMES BOLD <abold2@nycap.rr.com>, Citizens Concerned About Landfill
Expansion <citizensconcernedaboutlandfill@gmail.com>, thomas.johnson@sterlingenvironmental.com,
edoran@riverkeeper.0rg, John Lipscomb <jlipscomb@riverkeeper.org>
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(DEIS) - Comments
Andrew.

1



George W. Harris
66 Church Hill Road
2
From: K Tollisen <ktollisen@cbtlawfirm.com>

To: David Engel; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; lmurphy@townofhalfmoon.org
Subject: RE: Town of Colonie Landfill Proposed Area 7 Development
unexpected emails.
Good letter!
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+.
-------- Original message --------

From: David Engel <DEngel@nolanandheller.com>
Date: 11/1/16 3:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
Cc: Kevin Tollisen <ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org>, lmurphy@townofhalfmoon.org
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Proposed Area 7 Development
Attached please find a letter setting forth the Comments on behalf of the Town of Halfmoon with respect to the
proposed expansion of the Town of Colonie Landfill.
Dave Engel
David A. Engel, Esq.

Nolan & Heller, LLP
39 N. Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-432-3168
********************************
IRS Circular 230 Notice:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. Federal tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Confidentiality Notice:
This message (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the
named recipient. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise
legally exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, or are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone at (518) 449-3300, and delete
the original message (including any attachments) without making any copies. Receipt by anyone other than the
intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product or other applicable privilege.
1
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator
in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data.
Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
2
From: Lisa Barron <lisaloudonville@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
To the NYS DEC:

I vehemently oppose expansion of teh Colonie Town Landfill. This landfill is an affront to the town and
the Mohawk River, both of which will be polluted by the odors and the toxic seepage which is already
present at the site, Furthermore this landfill was promised by the town to be closed in 2018 and now it
is propsed instead to be expanded, agains the wishes of the residents.
THis will be primarily a money making operation to benefit the waste company to whom it was sold to
increase town income. It will not benefit the town residents who will be subjected to the increased
piles of waste, view obstruction and noxious odors and likelihood of contamination of their water
supply.
Our town environment, health and safety should not be threatened by waste from other communities.
As residents we were not properly notified about this proposal and many had no idea of the plan until
it was recently announced.
This matter must be subject to adjudicaion without the influence of the town officials who do not
appear to be motivated by consideration of the benefits to Colonie town citizens or concern about the
environmental hazards.
Please deny the permit to expand the landfill and plan to CLOSE it since it is already too large.
Elizabeth Barron
1 North Lane ,Loudonville, NY 12211
1
From: Maribeth dooley <mbdooley2@msn.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonies Ladfill Proposed Expansion
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing to request an ajudicatory hearing for the proposed expansion of the Town of Colonies
Landfill. This expansion would be an eyesore for the town and could potentially adversely affect the
quality of the water in the Hudson as it is so close to the river. I believe this could then also affect the
quality of the water in Cohoes which is just below it. This expansion has many ramifications which
should be carefully examined to make sure the residents have all the information. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Maribeth Dooley
1
MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
15 WEST NOTRE DAME STREET

GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801
Mark Schachner Telephone: (518) 793-6611 John W. Miller (1908-1968)
Robert H. Hafner John C. Mannix (1931-2006)
Facsimile: (518) 793-6690
Leah Everhart
Jacquelyn P. White
Justin M. Grassi 49 BURLINGTON AVE., 2ND FLOOR Toll Free: 1-800-421-6166
PO BOX 578
ROUND LAKE, NEW YORK 12151
Michael J. Hill, Of Counsel Telephone: (518) 899-1518 Web Site: millermannix.com
Thomas W. Peterson, Of Counsel Facsimile: (518) 899-1561 E-Mail: mschachner@mmshlaw.com
November 1, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator VIA E-MAIL

Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion

Application – DEC #4-0126-00033/00001
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
We are Special Counsel for the Town of Waterford which opposes the proposed
expansion of the Colonie Landfill. These written comments augment the verbal
comments which we made at the Legislative Public Hearings on September 20th and
October 25th. In addition, our Town Supervisor John Lawler and Mark Millspaugh and
Tom Johnson of Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C., our environmental
consultant, also made comments at the Legislative Public Hearings on behalf of the
Town. Additional detailed comments prepared by Sterling Environmental and our sub-
consultants are attached to this letter. These include the Sterling Environmental
comments, geotechnical engineering review of landfill design and foundation conditions
prepared by Gifford Engineering, visual analysis prepared by Landscape Architectural
Design Associates, P.C. (LADA, P.C.), comments regarding noise prepared by Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) and comments regarding air emissions, permitting and
odor control developed by Epsilon Associates, Inc. All of these comments should be
taken together as made and submitted on behalf of the Town of Waterford.
We believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed expansion is woefully deficient and that the permit application is grossly
lacking a number of required components and fails to meet several Part 360 criteria.
For the reasons described below, we request that the Applicant be required to prepare a
revised and/or Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and submit a new
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Angelo Marcuccio
November 1, 2016
Page 2 of 6
or revised permit application. If the Department does not impose these requirements on
the Applicant, then we request convening of an adjudicatory hearing to address the
numerous issues raised about the DEIS and permit application. Our comments are as
follows:
First and perhaps foremost, the DEIS is dramatically deficient in its failure to
analyze, assess and discuss reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The
Applicant seeks to avoid any meaningful discussion of alternatives on the basis that the
proposed action is the only feasible one. The sole justification for this contention is
monetary, namely the wholly unsupported statements that the Town of Colonie must
expand the facility in order to maintain its financial viability and that customers of the
current Colonie Landfill would suffer dramatic increase in solid waste disposal costs if
the proposed expansion is not approved. These assertions are specious at best but,
regardless, they are completely lacking any factual basis within the DEIS itself.
Analysis of alternatives has often been referred to in terms such as “the most important
mandate of SEQRA”, the “backbone of SEQRA”, “the most important requirement of
SEQRA” and the like and it is simply beyond reasonable dispute that this DEIS is
completely lacking of any meaningful alternatives analysis.
Both the SEQRA Statute and Regulations require an Environmental Impact

Statement to include a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. This is not a
mere formality as the assessment of the alternatives forms the basis for the Findings
which the Lead Agency is required to make. One of the major purposes of an EIS is to
“discuss alternatives to the proposed action which will assist the public and governmental
bodies in assessing the relative costs and benefits of the proposal”. Coalition for
Responsible Planning, Inc. v. Edward I. Koch, 148 AD2d 230 (1st Dept. 1989). In fact,
review of possible alternatives (including the “no action” alternative) has been
characterized as the “heart of the SEQRA process” Matter of Shawangunk Mountain
Environmental Association et al. v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner, 157 AD2d
273 (3d Dept. 1990). The Lead Agency cannot possibly choose the alternative which
“minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects” without a thorough evaluation of
alternatives. The SEQRA Handbook recognizes that “the project sponsor generally
develops its project proposal based solely on its own goals and objectives” which “may not
include maximum protection of environmental factors, and are not always shared by the
reviewing agencies or the public.” SEQRA Handbook at page 123. A thorough analysis of
feasible alternatives is essential to enable the Lead Agency to determine if adverse
impacts could be avoided while generally meeting the applicant’s goals and to determine if
the proposed action is actually the best alternative for this purpose. An EIS “is not merely

Angelo Marcuccio
November 1, 2016
Page 3 of 6
intended to serve as a disclosure statement of the environmental impact of a project, but,

more importantly, is intended to serve as an aid in an agency's evaluation and balancing of
the competing factors and in choosing those alternatives which, consistent with the goals
of the project, minimize adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable”.
Coalition for Responsible Planning, Inc. v. Edward I. Koch, 148 AD2d 230 (1st Dept. 1989).
The discussion of alternatives in this DEIS is generally conclusory and lacks sufficient
details concerning either the economic or environmental effects of the options considered
to provide a basis for the required balancing.
Although the specific alternatives to be considered in an EIS will depend on the

type of project, evaluation of the “no action” alternative is always required because it
provides a basis for comparison of impacts. In this instance, the Applicant simply denies
the feasibility of the no-action alternative due to the alleged adverse fiscal effects on the
Town. However, no detailed financial information or fiscal impact analysis is provided on
which to base this assertion. For example, if the existing landfill were closed in the future,
the property would not simply be removed from the tax rolls as the DEIS implies. In
addition, future overall growth in the Town will likely increase tax revenues beyond their
current levels. Similarly, the conclusory statement that most landfills providing
commercially available disposal capacity in New York are already operating at or near their
design capacity is completely unsupported and is actually erroneous as discussed in
Sterling Environmental’s Comments. In addition, the no action alternative discussion
should evaluate the adverse or beneficial site changes that are likely to occur in the
reasonably foreseeable future in the absence of the proposed action. 6 NYCRR
§617.9(b)(5)(iii)(v). This requirement is particularly relevant in light of the fact that the
proposed project involves horizontal expansion of the landfill over existing landfill areas
that could potentially be closed and restored. However, there is no discussion of the
beneficial site changes that could occur in the absence of the proposed expansion. The
Lead Agency cannot make a determination of the relative benefit of the proposed project
without specific factual information about the no-action alternative.
The cursory dismissal of alternative sites in the DEIS fails to consider the numerous
factors that make the proposed expansion area unsatisfactory. As discussed in detail in
Sterling Environmental’s Comments, this site is not appropriate for a large landfill
expansion for several critical reasons. In light of this unsuitability, the Applicant should
also be required to credibly evaluate the alternative of a different site. As discussed
below, this application should be required to meet the criteria for a new application which
includes a comprehensive site selection study.

Angelo Marcuccio
November 1, 2016
Page 4 of 6
The DEIS fails to demonstrate adequate mitigation of numerous significant

adverse environment impacts. These include visual/aesthetic impacts, odor impacts,
noise impacts and others. Sterling Environmental and other commenters have provided
extensive discussion of the severity of these impacts and the shortcomings of the
proposed mitigation. In fact, it seems likely that the impacts of the proposed expansion
simply cannot be adequately mitigated. Pursuant to SEQRA, the project application
cannot be approved unless the Department is able to issue a SEQRA Findings Statement
which, among other things, certifies that, among the reasonable alternatives, the proposed
action minimizes or avoids adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable. 6 NYCRR § 617.11(d)(5). Given the gross lack of any meaningful
alternatives analysis, the numerous application deficiencies and failure to adequately
mitigate severe adverse environmental impacts, it is inconceivable that the Department
would be able to make the required Findings.
The Department itself has described the SEQRA Findings as the “teeth” in the
SEQRA process which embody the substantive aspects of the decision, including any
conditions imposed. DEC, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Including
Final Regulatory Impact Statement and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
Revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (Feb. 18, 1987) at 29. However, the Findings must be
based on a complete record which supports the determinations and conditions. Several
Courts have determined that a reasoned, fact-specific Findings Statement rather than
simply a recitation of the findings required by the SEQRA Regulations is required.
Without this factual underpinning, Findings will be considered arbitrary and capricious
and invalidated. In this situation, the DEIS does not provide sufficient information about
either the reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures to form the basis of an
acceptable determination. Without significantly expanded information, the DEIS simply
cannot provide a credible rationale for the required Findings.
Procedurally, the cover sheet of the DEIS remarkably fails to even include the
information required by 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(3). More importantly, this application has
apparently been processed as a mere modification of the Town of Colonie’s Part 360
Permit. However, pursuant to the applicable criteria set forth at 6 NYCRR § 360-
1.8(e)(1), the application meets the threshold requiring treatment as a new application
for a new solid waste management facility. This means that all of the requirements of
Section 360-2.3 are legally applicable to this application and, as it has not been
processed and reviewed in accordance with these requirements, numerous application
requirements are simply lacking. Under Section 360-2.3, the following documentation
must be provided for the initial permit to construct and operate a landfill: (a) engineering

Angelo Marcuccio
November 1, 2016
Page 5 of 6
drawings that include the proposed landfill's location, property boundaries, adjacent land
uses and detailed construction plans; (b) operation drawings; (c) landscape plan; (d)
engineering report comprehensively describing the existing site conditions and a full
engineering analysis of the landfill and its containment components, including closure and
post-closure plans and criteria; (e) construction quality assurance/construction quality
control plan; (f) operation and maintenance manual; (g) contingency plan; (h)
hydrogeologic report including an environmental monitoring plan; (i) landfill siting report; (j)
comprehensive recycling analysis; (k) leachate management plan; (l) mined land use plan;
(m) the most recent closure cost estimate for the landfill and documentation demonstrate
required financial assurance; (n) most recent post-closure care cost estimate; (o) most
recent corrective action cost estimate for the landfill; (p) engineering report demonstrating
how the landfill will meet landfill gas collection system requirements. As discussed in
Sterling’s Comments, the application for the proposed expansion fails to satisfy the
majority of these requirements. As but one example, as a permit application made on
behalf of a municipality, the application should not have been deemed complete without
a local solid waste management plan in effect for the municipality. Therefore, the
Applicant should be required to supplement the application or submit a new application
fulfilling all of these important Part 360 requirements.
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 621.8, the Department must convene an adjudicatory

hearing if the Department's review of a complete application “raises substantive and
significant issues relating to any findings or determinations the department is required to
make pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law, including the reasonable
likelihood that a permit applied for will be denied or can be granted only with major
modifications to the project” or where any comments received “raise substantive and
significant issues relating to the application, and resolution of any such issue may result in
denial of the permit application, or the imposition of significant conditions”. As noted
above, we believe that the application in its current form is not complete and must be
significantly supplemented before this determination can even be made. However, if
the Department does allow the application to proceed, it is abundantly clear that
numerous comments received by the Department thus far have revealed the many
deficiencies in the DEIS and permit application such that the Department’s decision
should be permit denial and, therefore, the threshold for an adjudicatory hearing has
clearly been met. These specific, detailed comments provided by the Town’s
environmental consultants and individuals who would be directly affected by the
proposed action clearly do not constitute mere expressions of general opposition to the
project. While we believe that permit approval cannot be lawfully achieved, at the very
least, numerous comments have clearly met the burden leading to a requirement for

Angelo Marcuccio
November 1, 2016
Page 6 of 6
project modification and/or imposition of significant permit conditions. Therefore, if the

Applicant intends to pursue this project, then we request on behalf of the Town of
Waterford that an adjudicatory hearing be convened.
Thank you for consideration of these comments on behalf of the Town of

Waterford.
Very truly yours,
Mark Schachner
MS/
Enclosures
cc: Waterford Town Board
Sterling Environmental
N:\Clients\WATERFORD\CORR\Marcuccio Public Comment Letter 11-01 Final.docx

ATTACHMENT 1
SITE #401004 DOCUMENTATION

24 Wade Road i Latham, New York 12110
ATTACHMENT 2
GIFFORD ENGINEERING COMMENTS

GIFFORD ENGINEERING
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Services
October 31, 2016
Sterling Environmental Engineering, PC

Attn: Mr. Mark Millspaugh, PE
24 Wade Rd
Latham, NY 12110
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services, Reviwe of Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion, Area 7
Development Application, Town of Colonie Landfill, Route 9, Colonie, NY, File No. 1653
Gentlemen:
At your request, this memo is issued to discuss a geotechnical engineering review of many of the
documents that were submitted to NYS DEC for permit application and review for the referenced
project. The permit application was prepared by Cornerstone Environmental for Capital Region
Landfills, Inc, the operator of the Town of Colonie Landfill. The Town of Waterford retained
Sterling Environmental Engineering, PC to review the permit application because the Town is
concerned about the project. Sterling retained Gifford Engineering, GE, to review the
geotechnical engineering aspects of the project as presented in the documents.
The permit application for Area 7 expansion will be the largest expansion of the Town of Colonie
Landfill since its beginnings as a Town Dump in 1967. The landfill has had the original dump
and 5 previous expansions which have included lateral and piggyback arrangements. The Area 7
expansion is unprecedented in that it will include lateral expansion and completely covering
much of the landfill. It will ultimately increase the top elevation by about 85 feet. To maximize
useable air space, it appears that the lateral extent will be pushed to the 100 feet set back required
from the nearby roads, NYS Route 9, and Crescent Road. Additionally, there is a major
perimeter berm planned around the west, north, and east sides of the expansion. This berm will
be a mechanically stabilized earth structure with a maximum height of about 33 feet. This berm
will allow for the landfill liner and cap to start 33 feet above the existing grade. The liner will
slope downward inboard of the berm to maximize air space. Without this berm, the air space
would be significantly decreased. The Mohawk River is situated immediately to the north and
east of Crescent Road.
The following documents were provided by you and reviewed.

1. Engineering Report for Area 7 Development Application, dated June 2016. This included
40 sheets of drawings, Appendix A Boring, Monitoring Well, and Test Pit Logs.
2. There are numerous attachments, of which GE reviewed much of Attachments 7 and 8.
Attachment 7 is Supporting Calculations and Attachment 8 is Supporting Documentation.
3. The sections of Attachment 7 that were reviewed include; Base Liner Strain, Pipe Loading,
Bearing Capacity, Settlement, Global Stability, Liner Stability, Cap Stability, Seismic
Stability, Liner-Cap Drainage, Site Drainage, and Outlet Protection.
4. The section of Attachment 8 that was reviewed includes; MSE Design Report by Tensar
International Corp.
GE did not perform any design or calculations, except occasional checks of calculations presented
in the documents. Upon completion of the review it is recommended that the following issues be
865 Pearse Road Niskayuna, NY 12309 Tel: (518) 382-2545 giffeng@nycap.rr.com

File No. 1653 Geotechnical Review of Area 7 Development Application, Colonie Landfill page 2
addressed and/or corrected. Once these are addressed, the complete set of documents should be
subjected to a peer review. The peer review should be far more in depth that the review reported
herein. It should include a review of parameter selection, and independent slope stability
analyses, bearing capacity evaluation, and settlement predictions. The impact of differential
settlement on pipe drainage and floor inclination should be evaluated. For example, the stress
history and normalized soil engineering properties, SHANSEP, is used for undrained analysis of
the lacustrine clay and silt. It is common knowledge that the SHANSEP approach is not
applicable for use with over consolidated clays. The report assumes that the clay and silt present
at this site are normally consolidated. Based on over 30 years experience in the Hudson River
Valley, there is clear evidence that the local clay and silt is over consolidated.
In general, the Engineering Report and supporting documentation are difficult to follow. The
sections are intermingled and appear to be “cut and pasted” in many areas. For example, within the
section addressing Base Liner Strain there is a Ruling from the Al Turi Landfill Expansion in 1988,
regarding differential settlement. This ruling is not introduced and its impact on the Colonie
application is not clearly presented or discussed. There is no other discussion of differential
settlement at the Colonie Landfill in the documents that were reviewed. Since a landfill is a
heterogeneous mass, differential settlement is a serious potential problem, especially for old landfills
before modern day spreading and compaction techniques were employed. Differential settlement
should be fully examined in this design because of the large additional load (85 feet vertical
expansion) over areas that were designed for only the loading to the then maximum permitted height
of the landfill.
Literature citations are not provided for many graphs and tables, which are copied into the report that
are used in important calculations. There are handwritten comments on many of these documents
that are sometimes random and illegible. There are no dividers between sections of the report and
supporting calculations and documentation.
The boring logs are incomplete and practically useless to a geotechnical engineer to design the
engineering aspects of the landfill expansion. The soil descriptions presented on the logs are
minimal and do not include moisture conditions of the samples nor do the logs include the water
table encountered during drilling. For example, the log for boring B-2013-9 shows a loose to
medium dense layer of alluvial sand at a depth of 30 to 50 feet. There is a similar layer in B-2013-10
at a depth of 34 to 37 feet. These layers may be liquefiable if saturated. The liquefaction issue was
not addressed in the documents reviewed. Liquefaction needs to be addressed.
The quantity of lab testing is marginal for a project of this magnitude. There were only 2 proctors
density, 2 triaxial shear tests, 2 triaxial permeability tests, 2 consolidation tests, 18 sieve analyses
(some with hydrometer), and 23 Atterberg limits. There were numerous moisture contents. There is
no listing of test results that were obtained in previous projects at the landfill. Some results were
used for certain calculations when the gathered data did not exhibit high enough strengths to result in
an adequate factor of safety. The report seldom references or uses test results from permitting and
engineering reports for former landfill expansions. There is no testing of the landfill materials,
instead published data is used for parameters to be used in design. There is no attempt to
characterize the engineering behavior of the materials comprising the original unlined landfill. All
previous landfill materials are grouped together and one set of parameters used for calculations.
There is no attempt to predict how much the additional load will affect the previous expansions
which were designed with a maximum height of waste at or near the current height. In the cover
sheet of the Pipe Loading section it is stated that “Area 2, 3, 4 leachate collection systems are no
longer fully functional – reportedly cannot be cleaned out”. There is no consideration given to what
the proposed additional loading will have on this partially functioning system. What happens if it
fails? How would one know where it has failed and how does one repair it?
The original dump is unlined. What effect will the additional load have on the old waste? It will
certainly settle and in doing so will develop excess pore water pressure that will be dissipated by
lateral and/or vertical drainage downward into underlying strata or weathered shale bedrock, and
ultimately into the nearby Mohawk River.
When reviewing bearing capacity, settlement, and slope stability issues, the small drawings in the
report and attachments are not legible for evaluating slopes, cuts, and fill depths. A more thorough
review of these issues can be done when these plans are available in full size.
The bearing capacity section shows Figure 3, Global Stabilization Plan. This has a handwritten note
stating Section FF was used for analysis. This section is drawn so that it is not perpendicular to the
final contour lines, so that slope is somewhat flatter (about 3.25H to 1V) than the 3H to 1V at which
the final cover will be inclined. The results of the analysis are non conservatively skewed. The
analysis should be redone through a section with the 3H to 1V slope inclination.
The calculated factor of safety for the undrained bearing capacity is 2.02 and stated to be greater than
2.0 so noted OK. Since the undrained case will actually take several years to enact the full load the
drained case will probably rule the design. What is interesting is that the factor of safety is so close
to the required minimum.
The settlement calculations show ten cross sections that are denoted critical for analysis. There is no
explanation as to why the chosen sections are critical. This should be explained. The conclusions
reached on the cover page states that the post settlement drainage pipe and cell floor will exceed 1.0
and 2.0 percent, respectively. An examination of Section 2 floor shows that the proposed subgrade
slope between S2-1 and S2-2 is reported to be -2.84% and the post settlement slope is reported to be
-2.10%, slightly above the required 2.0%. In my experience, calculated settlements can be incorrect
especially when dealing with a heterogeneous material such as landfill and the local clay and silt
soils. In my opinion, there is too little room for error and the predicted post settlement slope should
be at least 50% higher than the required 1 or 2 percent, a 1.5 factor of safety. The time frame of
secondary settlement is reported to be 30 years after closure. However, the landfill will continue to
settle for many decades after 30 years.
The Global Stability section provides nine cross sections (AA through HH and DE) through which
stratigraphic sections were developed and analyzed for stability with Slope W by GeoStudio 2014.
The sections are shown on Figure 1 which appears to be at liner level for the Area 7 expansion. The
sections are then modified to include closure conditions. The material parameters are a mix of those
obtained during the 2013 investigation at Area 7 and data from expansion projects at the landfill.
Recall as stated above, that the lab testing is marginal for a project of this magnitude. A
recognizably non conservative (and potentially risky) use of data from previous project is at Section
HH. For section HH, the undrained strength of the lacustrine clay and silt is 1100 psf for the upper
blue clay and 1500psf for the lower blue clay. In all other cases, the undrained strength used is 533
psf. At section HH, the reported factor of safety is 1.502. The applicant should be required to submit
a stability analysis for section HH using an undrained shear strength of 533 psf to demonstrate the
actual factor of safety if the clay and silt behaves as was tested by the lab for this project. They
should also be required to obtain samples and perform multiple tests to prove the increased shear
strength of the clay and silt layer at this site. The use of select test results to help meet required
factors of safety is, in my professional opinion, unwise and unfounded.
Sections DE and GG report factors of safety of 1.501 and 1.511. Since these results barely exceed
the required minimum, they should be checked by performing independent stability analyses.
Finally there are no stability analyses of the liner configuration as they may affect the adjacent
existing waste mass. An examination of existing fly over contours show some areas where it appears
that the existing waste mass will be undermined to make room for the new liner system. This should
be addressed by the applicant and again checked by independent stability analyses.
The section on liner stability refers to sections that were developed from Figure 2. This Figure was
not available in the documents that were reviewed. This review should be performed when the
figure becomes available.
The section on cap stability lists the required peak and residual angle of internal friction at the three
critical interfaces. However, the report does not indicate how this will be attained and what quality
control measures will be used to ensure that they are maintained during construction and
maintenance.
Seismic stability analyses are for the most part performed with a horizontal seismic coefficient of
0.109g. There are 3 cases DE, EE, and HH where lower coefficients, 0.062g and 0.095g were used.
The note states to see deformation analysis. It is reported on the cover sheet that the calculated
deformation is less than one foot , “which is acceptable for Subtitle D design guidance”.
There are potentially liquefiable zones of the alluvial sand. A complete review of the liquefaction
potential of these borings and any others from previous expansions should be conducted.
The design of the “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Structures Permit-Level Design Report”, MSE,
was prepared by Tensar International Corp, TIC, and is presented in Attachment 8. The perimeter
MSE berm is shown on the plans to be about 3600 feet long. There were 7 borings performed along
the alignment. Tensar is a manufacturer of geotextiles and earth reinforcement components. The
design is considered preliminary by Tensar and by GE. The soil parameters used in the design were
provided by their client, Cornerstone Environmental. The design is performed with total stress
parameters “in lieu of effective stress parameters (to be provided by Client for construction level
design)”. This effective stress design needs to be presented to allow time for critical review, not
after permit approval and construction begins.
Furthermore, the seismic design of the MSE was performed with a peak horizontal ground
acceleration (PHGA) value of 0.06g [corrected from 0.60g reported by Cornerstone] for the project
location. “The analyses are based on one-half of the PHGA for global and compound stability, as
discussed in Section 9.6 of FHWA, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 “Design Guidance:
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Volume 1, Design Principles”. It is not known
whether highway design guidance should be used for a landfill, especially one of this magnitude.
The MSE berm is located in areas with an underlying layer of lacustrine clay and silt. The design
calls for removal of the clay and silt down to till or bedrock and replacement with controlled
structural fill. The clay and silt layer remains both inboard and outboard of the berm. On Sheet 23
Perimeter Berm Details, the outboard clay and silt is shown inclined at 2H to 1V (Horizontal to
Vertical). Based on local experience the clay and silt will not stand at a 2H to 1V inclination. There
is no known slope stability analysis addressing this slope. This slope stability analysis should be
performed by the applicant and presented for review.
Finally regarding the MSE perimeter berm, there is no discussion of its design life. In the settlement
analyses of the landfill, there are calculations of decomposition settlement at 30 years after closure,
File No. 1653 GeotechnicalReview of Area 7 DevelopmentApplication, Colonie Landfill page5
and a20 year operationlife of Area 7. The designerof the MSE berm must considera 50 year life
and provide warrantee that this system will survive at least 50 years and preferably 100 years. The
impact of a failure of this berm could be catastrophic. How could a repair to the berm be
constructed?
This is a closing questionfor the NYSDEC, CornerstoneEnvironmental,TensarIntemationalCorp,

and the Town of Colonie: what is a reasonabledesignlife of the AreaT Expansion? The landfill will
needmaintenanceforever after closure,not just 30 years. In my professionalopinion, some serious
considerationmust be given to designlife of 100yearsor more.
There are several issued raised in this report that should be answered and/or corrected. The
Engineering Report of the Area 7 Development should be revised to answer the comments and
issuedraised herein. The final report should have more narrative, be more succinct,and easierto
follow.
If I can be of further assistancein this matter.oleasecontactme.

ATTACHMENT 3
LADA, P.C. COMMENTS

LADA, P.C.
Land Development Consulting, Site Planning, Landscape Architects, Planners, Corridor Studies, Visual Assessment,
Land Planners Environmental Impact Statements, Erosion Control Specialists, Streetscapes, Recreation, and Master Planning
October 31, 2016
Mr. Mark P. Millspaugh, P.E.

Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
24 Wade Road
Latham, NY 12110
RE: Proposed Expansion to the Colonie Landfill (Area 7)

Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Millspaugh,
Landscape Architectural Design Associates, P.C. (dba LADA, P.C. Land Planners) is medium sized
professional design firm consisting of landscape architects and planners. Established in 1980, the
firm does work in Connecticut, New York and western Massachusetts. Our clients include a variety
of private property owners, developers and municipalities and range from small to large throughout
the area. We regularly prepare Environmental Impact Statements for large and small projects and as
part of that process prepare the full range of visual impact assessments from simple photo-
simulations to full visual impact assessments meeting federal and regional requirements. Our office
brochure and principal resumes are attached to this letter. LADA was retained to complete a review
of the visual resources assessment (VRA) and visual resources chapters of the DEIS and did not
complete an independent visual impact assessment.
As requested, we have reviewed the DEIS prepared for the Colonie Landfill -Area 7 Development
project, visited the site and completed a review of current DEISs reviewed by DEC on other projects
in the state and DEC hearing rulings available on the DEC website. We have also completed a
literature review of the current trends in visual impact assessments as well as a review of the
traditional standards for VIA’s published prior to the current DEC policy manual (our office has
copies of most of the out of print documents due to our own VIA work over the years).
It is important to note that the project area is unique and significant in its visual character - the
Mohawk river, the falls, the riverside parks in the Town of Waterford, the view of boats entering the
flight of five locks, the scenic roads and low hills and trees all contribute to a landscape which is an
attractive place to recreate and live. The one landform which stands out because it is different from
the natural landforms is the Colonie landfill. The existing conditions are quite visually distinctive
due to its existing height and lack of trees. The Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) included as an
appendix in the DEIS, notes that, in its existing condition, the landfill differs from its surrounding
with respect to significant visual factors. This was confirmed by our site visit on October 23, 2016.
Conditions for this site visit were sunny and breezy but cool and the leaves were about 50% off the
Offices in Simsbury, CT • Brewster, NY

104 West Street, Simsbury, CT 06070
(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
E-mail: ladapc@snet.net
Colonie Landfill DEIS Review
Page 2
trees. This was an ideal condition for viewing the area from surrounding roads and land within the
Town of Waterford and in the vicinity of the project for both summer (leaf on) and winter (leaf off)
conditions.
Based on this review and site visit, we offer the following comments on the DEIS-
Typical DEIS information and language standards

1. According to NYSDEC Part 617, “EISs must be clearly and concisely written in plain language that
can be read and understood by the public” and must include “a concise description of the
environmental setting of the areas to be affected, sufficient to understand the impacts of the proposed
actions” The DEIS is unusually lacking in detail and useful graphics that can be understood by the
public, neighbors or even other professionals. It takes a significant effort to discover what exactly the
scope of “Area 7” is. The term itself would lead you to think this was a new area of disturbance and
that the other existing areas are to be left alone. In fact, “Area 7” also includes existing currently
grass covered areas of the landfill.
In addition, it is very difficult to find the basic visual aids to support the text, as the document is
missing such designations as a reference to maps and exhibits such as “ See Map XX”. Although
some of those maps are included in the appendices, SEQRA clearly presupposes that such support
which helps the reader understand the project needs to be provided within the main body of the
document and especially within the Executive Summary. The current DEIS format makes
understanding the project and reviewing the potential impacts unnecessarily complex and very
difficult for the common resident.
The DEIS executive summary should be rewritten to provide references to these support documents,
and additional maps and support exhibits should be prepared. One particularly difficult but critical
fact needed but hidden within the text is the current elevation of all parts of the property, the
permitted elevation, breadth and scope of project in context and an evaluation of the change from
existing conditions. This should be described in words, plan view and sections from multiple places
on the property and provided as part of the executive summary. The preparation of technical plans
included in the appendix is no substitute for typical support plans which walk the reader through the
project in both plan view and section/elevation.
2. The DEIS consistently downplays the intensity and expansion of the project using language such as
“only 23 acres of new waste footprint” (ES Page 3). It does not provide any quantitative evaluation
for such a value judgment – is the new waste area an increase of 10%? 50%? What proportion of
land currently grass covered will be modified? It does however provide such comparisons only when
it suits the preparers- such as - “only 2.2% of the viewshed will be affected”. Why not indicate that
the proposed photo-simulations indicate an increase in height against the sky well in excess of 100%
greater than existing? Or discuss the fact that the views in the area will be disturbed for 23 years
longer than currently permitted an increase of over 1000%. It is very unusual to see this kind of
language in a DEIS for projects of this type, scope and potential impacts.

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 3
Compliance with DEC Program Policy DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating

Visual Impacts
1. The DEC Policy specifically states- “ This policy and guidance defines what visual and aesthetic
impacts are, describes when a visual assessment is necessary and how to review a visual assessment,
differentiates State and local concerns and defines, avoidance, mitigation and offset measures that
eliminate, reduce or compensate for negative visual effects.” The important element missing from
this statement is that that although it provides a DEC reviewer with some guidance on how to review
a submitted document, it does not limit or describe the process and scope of the visual impact
assessment that should be prepared by an applicant. Over the years, preparers of Visual Impact
Assessments (VIA) have used the many resources developed by various federal and regional
agencies. These studies have included:
Assessing the Impact of Development on Scenic Resources of the Hudson River by

Scenic Hudson, Inc.
National Landscape Management Volumes 1 and 2, Forest Service, USDA
Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, USDA
Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, ASLA
2015 Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (USDOT)
Visual Resource Management, Bureau of Land Management
The most important element that each of these sources have in common is that the complexity and
depth of study should reflect the scope and visual effect of the project on identified visual resources.
The issuance of the 2000 DEC Policy did not negate the past practice of visual impact assessment.
This is specifically noted in the St Lawrence Cement Company LLC, Second Interim Decision,
September 8, 2014- in which the DEC policy is noted as guidance only and the ALJ notes “ they do
not have the force of law and does not abrogate or replace such statutory or regulatory requirements”
The applicant or DEIS preparer may chose to indicate that the DEC policy supersedes the past studies
and procedures and are no longer applicable. We would argue that is not the case. Other DEC
reviewed and permitted projects including pipelines, waste facilities, concrete plants, etc have
received a higher level of visual impact analysis than provided in this DEIS. As noted above, the
level of complexity in the visual impact assessment should reflect the potential impacts on the
communities and landscape they are proposed in. We would note that one of the seminal documents
in Visual Impact Assessment (the original ASLA VIA report for highway projects), was recently re-
released by USDOT after an extensive evaluation of all past practice and its relevance today. The
most recent issuance of federal guidance is the new 2015 Guidelines for the Visual Impact
Assessment of Highway Projects. This document reviews the past practice of Visual Impact
Assessment since the 1970’s and updates the requirements and policies for new highway projects in

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 4
the digital age. This policy requires much of the same process as those standards set up in the 1980’s
and 1990’s. According to the 2015 Guidelines, the standard steps to create a visual impact
assessment are-
a. Define the Visual Character of the area including the natural character, the
cultural character and the project character including photos, narrative and maps
to establish the existing conditions
b. Define the Area of Visual Effect (Viewshed)
c. Determine the visual quality of existing views including number of people,

nature of views, length of views, and the establishment of basic landscape units
d. Establish the location of key views to be assessed
e. Assess the impacts including evaluating the compatibility of impacts on visual

resources, evaluating the viewer sensitivity to impacts and determine the degree
of impact
f. Based on the above, identify potential mitigation
The 2015 Highway Guidance also adds an extensive program to define, review and evaluate viewer
preference within the viewshed via series of workshops to define the visual preferences of those
residents in the area. This is reflective of the current trends in consensus design and planning.
The project VRA only addresses the establishment of a viewshed and uses a few views to describe the
project. The viewshed establishment is suspect in that it glosses over the current impact to the
existing viewshed as well as bypassing the change between the existing conditions and those
permitted. The critical steps described above have not been completed so the viewshed and photo
location chosen can not be evaluated properly.
We would recommend that a detailed visual impact assessment be completed to more fully reflect the
visual impact already in place within this viewshed and the potential future impacts of the project. We
would recommend that the VIA be developed with substantially more detail and analysis such as that
defined as a “Standard VIA” or better and more appropriate given the location, an “Expanded VIA,” as
defined in the 2015 Highway Guidelines Appendix D or the other sources listed above.
2. The DEC policy clearly states that the standard viewshed review is 5 miles. As the existing viewshed
shown on Figure 2 of the VRA is, effectively, the entire 3 mile zone, the 5 mile limit would be
considered a standard limit to determine the scope of potential impacts if not even further. The intent
of the distance is to ensure that the entire viewshed is defined to the extent possible, including
isolated high points at far distances.

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 5
Visual Impact Assessment scope and process

1. In the DEIS , the views from identified resources that are noted in the VRA are downplayed in the
text and do not accurately describe the potential impacts. The resources of statewide importance are
difficult to locate and dismissed in the text. Local views including those from residential areas in
general and the Town of Waterford in particular are considered to be minimal yet the photo
simulations clearly show substantial changes to those views that are not adequately described or
analyzed in the DEIS or VRA. The visual character of the existing landfill is described but the visual
character of the surrounding landscape and the visual character of the views to the landfill to the
project are not defined or analyzed to determine what impact the existing landfill has within those
views. The use of photo-simulations in the absence of analysis does not establish the acceptance of
what exists as a positive condition which can visually accept conditions which are required to
continue much less be expanded upon. Page 27 of the VRA (located in the Appendix of the DEIS)
clearly identifies the existing landfill as incompatible with the surroundings with respect to Line,
Contrast of Scale and Spatial Dominance and on a lesser level, Form. This identification of current
visual disturbance is acknowledged to become greater as the project proceeds but it is dismissed in
the VRA because it is “substantially consistent with the visual patterns and composition of the
Existing Landform”(Page 28 of the VRA). This conclusion is faulty and has not been supported by
the information provided. In reality, the VRA fails to establish that the existing conditions are
compatible with the surrounding landscape at all and therefore, fails to provide a foundation for future
acceptance of the expansion of an existing condition.
As noted on page 58 of the DEIS, the NYSDEC Visual Policy states “ Aesthetic impact occurs when
there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure”. The DEIS has failed to
prove that the current visual impact acknowledged in the VRA does not have “a detrimental impact
on the perceived beauty of the place”. The VRA should be developed into a full visual impact
assessment as defined above.
Without a full Visual Impact Assessment as defined in the sources above, the conclusion stated on
page 58 “ the proposed Area 7 Development would not result in a significant adverse visual impact”
is invalid.
2. The potential scope of the change in visual quality and character of the proposed project is defined
only in terms of area. For example, on page ES-5 the change in visual quality is described in terms of
a percent of the overall viewshed who might be impacted, however in both the DEIS and the Visual
Resources Assessment (VRA) which is included in the Appendix - there is no attempt to describe and
quantify the extent to which the existing viewshed and existing views are visually significant, the
nature of the visual quality of the existing viewshed and the visual quality of the existing views all of
which are terms and standards typically required of a Visual Impact Assessment – elements such as
the number of views existing along roadways and from various locations, lengths of time of views,
type of views, types of uses that experiences those views, number people experiencing such views etc
(typically known as number and types of viewers and viewer sensitivity) are not provided in the DEIS
or accompanying Visual Impact Assessment. For example, the viewer traveling along the river in a

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 6
kayak experiences a much longer view than those traveling at higher speeds along a road; or the
person sitting outside on their back porch experiences a view for substantially longer than the driver
in a car but the passenger could have a much longer view. These views can be quantified by time,
placement of the project in the foreground, middleground or background, duration and focus (straight
on, oblique, passing, static, etc). The visual impact assessment should be updated to identify, quantify
and provide values for the existing visual character and the impact of the current conditions of the
landfill on those views. This is especially critical for those properties within the Town of Waterford
which face the existing and future landfill and those roads and waterways whose travelers within the
Town of Waterford would be unduly affected by the proposed expansion.
3. The DEIS and visual resource assessment (VRA) does not evaluate the differences between the
existing condition and the stated “permitted” condition (evaluation) of the land fill and its potential
impact on the surrounding uses and its viewshed. This assumption that those conditions are a given
and need not be considered creates a gap in the evaluation of the potential impacts relating to the
type, intensity, length of time and quality of the potential impacts.
4. The DEIS and visual resource assessment (VRA) does not provide an evaluation of the visual impact
of the change of views on the viewshed or specific locations. This is typical done by defining and
analyzing the visual conditions and character at existing conditions and then establishing a rating
system to value the change of the view- such as change in horizon lines, creating of landforms
different from surroundings, change in view of sky and depth of viewpoint, shape and nature of the
landform, color, etc and then rating these changes as substantial, moderate, limited, etc. The
proposed project as described in the photo simulations acknowledges a significant change in these
elements but those changes are not discussed in any quantitative or qualitative terms and conclusions
drawn without that process are premature.
5. The DEIS and VRA do not adequately describe the value of the visual impacts which have and will
occur by altering highly desirable views as described by residents, homeowners, travelers, users of
the river, and those visiting scenic and cultural resources in the area.
6. There is no discussion regarding the compatibility of the project with the surrounding uses and visual
character. This area of the Mohawk River is a high quality recreation and visual resource and has
limited ability to absorb this visual impact. When the combination of the visual impact of the
changed landscape, the smell from the landfill and the view of birds or dust from the operations
combine, the idea of a safe, pollution free and clean recreation area and viewshed is compromised. It
should be noted that the odor from the landfill was noticeable at the park at the end of Flight Path
Road which is where boats moor waiting to use the locks.

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 7
7. In the VRA- Figure 1 is missing.
8. In the VRA, the current viewshed of the existing conditions should be provided indicating where the
landfill currently is visible from properties within the Town of Waterford and other locations
(especially brief road views) which regularly consider the river a major view during the summer and
all year long. As noted above, the areas where the landfill is currently visible should be evaluated
with respect to impact on view, number of people, type of view, etc. of particular concern is impact
on the scenic byway, view of the river from homes and the river, parks etc and uses that are seasonal.
9. There is no real discussion about the potential visual impact of the ongoing operations for an
additional 23 years.
10. The images in the photo-simulations clearly show the potential impacts of the proposed project,
however, the locations chosen are not the only ones impacted. The VIA should include a series of
standard cross-sections across 360 degree to identify the relationship between the surrounding
landscape and the new landform being created by the project. This should identify the existing
conditions, permitted conditions and future conditions. Typically this is done in 15 degree increments
but should be modified to coincide with the locations of the identified resources as well as those
expanded to include neighborhoods and viewspots from the roads especially to the north and west
within the Town of Waterford.
11. When in the area, it is readily apparent that most houses in the Town of Waterford (on the north and
east side of the river) in the vicinity of the landfill are specifically oriented to take advantage of the
views to the river. This occurs where there is a view and where there may not currently be a view
(such as across the street). This would indicate that the current tree cover is recent and should not be
relied on to the limit the potential views especially so far in the future. A large storm or invasive
insect could easily remove the vegetative cover currently being relied in in the VRA. It would also
indicate that most houses pre-date the existing landfill condition.
12. The Figures provided in the VRA are very difficult to understand and should be revised to graphically
be more easily read. Specifically the resources should have their own map with labels at the location
and should be larger and easier to read at 81/2 x 11.
13. DEIS includes other reports where locations where the existing landfill have been identified by
photos. These locations should be added to the photo simulations.
14. In the VRA, Photo 5, which represents the view from the St. Mary’s Church Parish House on Church
Hill Road, indicates the loss of the distant view due to the proposed project. This represent a
significant change to the existing conditions and the acceptance of a radical change along the
horizon/skyline, creation of an intermediate horizon which did not previously exist, substantial
change in the foreground/background relation, substantial change in the sense of space from that
location, and a potential change in the shadow/sunset time of the surroundings. This view is
representative of a substantial number of homes and people who currently have a compromised view
but can at least look over the landfill. Viewers lower on the hill and on the river will be even more

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
Page 8
impacted. There is no discussion of the scenic value of these past, current and future views and their
potential impact on use of the river, roads and ultimately residential property values.
15. During our site visit, we found several additional locations where the project is currently visible and
where that view represents a change in visual character and quality of the area – this includes other
locations Fonda Road, Cohoes Crescent Road, Church Hill Road and the development along Towpath
Lane ( the photo simulation taken to represent this views is misleading and does not reflect actual
conditions). Evaluation of all the current views and how the proposed project will change the visual
character of the area should be provided.
16. It is unclear what the starting elevation of each of the existing conditions photos is and, as such is not
readily available, it is difficult to replicate the proposed conditions. Additional notations and detail
should be provided.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Terri-Ann Hahn, LA
Principal
attachments

(860) 651-4971 • (845) 278-7424 • Fax (860) 651-6153
ATTACHMENT 4
HMMH COMMENTS
HMMH
77 South Bedford Street
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
781.229.0707
www.hmmh.com
October 28, 2016 Submitted via email to: mark.millspaugh@sterlingenvironmental.com
Mr. Mark Millspaugh, P.E.

Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
24 Wade Road
Latham, NY 12110
Subject: Preliminary Comments on the Noise Assessment in the Draft EIS for the Town of Colonie Landfill,
Proposed Area 7 Development
Reference: HMMH Project No. 308550
Dear Mr. Millspaugh:
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) was retained by Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. (SEE) to review
and provide comments on the noise assessment in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Town of
Colonie Landfill Proposed Area 7 Development. As part of this undertaking, I reviewed the following documents:
 Section 2.13 “Noise.” In Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Town of Colonie Landfill, Proposed Area 7
Development, prepared by Cornerstone Environmental, June 2016.
 Appendix I “Noise Survey Data.” In Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Town of Colonie Landfill,
Proposed Area 7 Development, prepared by Cornerstone Environmental, June 2016.
 Attachment #5, 6NYCRR Part 360, Area 7 Development Application, Operations and Maintenance Plan,
Town of Colonie Landfill, prepared by Cornerstone Environmental, June 2016.
 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, DEP-
00-1, revised February 2, 2001.
 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p), Noise Levels.
(https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I4eaac834cd1711dda432a117e6e0f345?viewType=FullText&o
riginationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default))
 Chapter 135 Noise Control, Code of the Town of Colonie. (http://ecode360.com/13241651)
It is my professional opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated a finding that “no noticeable impact is
projected” in regard to future operational noise from the proposed development of Area 7. Based on my review of
the above referenced documents, I offer the following comments for your consideration.
1. In Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) states that in “non-industrial settings, the [sound pressure level] SPL should probably not exceed
ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor. An increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints.”
Following NYSDEC procedures, the SPL increase is determined by comparing the future noise level to
ambient noise levels at the receptor of interest. The future noise level is “the ambient noise level plus the
noise level from the new or proposed source.” The DEIS does not follow the procedures established by the
NYSDEC to determine the SPL increase.
2. Table 2-2 in the DEIS provides a summary of the measured ambient noise levels, as well as the projected
SPL from landfill operations. The tabulated results at Monitoring Location 6 at the Grace Bible Church
indicate that future operational noise levels from Area 7 would increase more than 6 dB(A) above ambient
noise levels; however, the DEIS does not recognize this as a potential impact. For the sake of this comment,
if we accept the projected SPL at Location 6 as shown in Table 2-2, the future noise level (ambient plus new
1
source) would range from 63.1 to 63.6 dB(A), corresponding to an expected increase of 8 to 14 dB(A)
1
An ambient noise level of 49.1 dB(A) plus a projected SPL from landfill operations of 62.9 dB(A) yields a future noise level of
63.1 dB(A). Likewise, based on an ambient noise of 55.1 dB(A), the future noise level would be 63.6 dB(A).
HMMH Project No. 308550
October 28, 2016
Page 2
above ambient noise levels. While the DEIS provides no specific calculations for the two residential
properties north of Grace Bible Church on the east side of Route 9, I expect they would experience similar
increases above ambient noise levels from the proposed landfill operations.
3. Figure 2-14 in the DEIS shows that the 65 dB(A) noise level contour interval extends beyond the property
line of the landfill onto two abutting residential properties, which are located east of Route 9, just south of
the storm water retention basin, and just north of the Grace Bible Church. For the sake of this comment, if
we accept the projected SPL contours shown in Figure 2-14, operational noise levels would exceed the
daytime limit for a suburban community at those residences. The daytime limit contained in 6 NYCRR 360-
1.14(p) is 62 dB(A).
4. In general, the narrative in Section 2.13.4 “Potential Impacts” is hard to follow and somewhat confusing.
Without additional tables or figures that show the results of calculations at additional noise-sensitive
properties (i.e. at properties that were not part of the measurement program), it is difficult to verify the
conclusions in the DEIS that noise impacts due to development of Area 7 are not expected to occur.
5. The projected noise levels from the proposed Area 7 development are based on noise measurements made
at the face of the existing landfill. The DEIS states that a compactor, a bulldozer, a trailer tipper, and waste
delivery vehicles maneuvering and tipping waste were in operation at the time of the measurement. It is
not clear whether the reference source level used in the projections (74.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet
from the working face of the landfill) is a reasonable estimate of the noise emanating from Area 7
development. How does this sound level account for future operations? Will the same types and numbers
of on-site equipment be utilized after the development of Area 7? What were the locations of the
equipment with respect to the sound level meter when the noise measurements were made at the face of
the existing landfill?
6. The noise level projections in the DEIS do not appear to account for an increased number of future truck
movements (moving to tipping location, tipping, and departing) on the site of the proposed Area 7
development. These activities should be modeled and included in the noise assessment.
7. The noise modeling conducted for the DEIS does not account for the elevations of on-site activities and
truck movements at different phases of the proposed Area 7 development.
8. It is my understanding that more than six (6) acres of trees will be removed as a result of the proposed Area
7 development. The noise assessment should address the potential adverse effects that tree removal will
have on operational noise levels at affected noise-sensitive receptors. The noise prediction modeling should
quantity the effect of tree removal on computed operational noise levels.
9. The DEIS does not address other potential sources of noise that can be causes of community annoyance
and complaints, including: the use of Jake brakes, tailgate banging, backup alarms, and bird mitigation. The
Operations and Maintenance Plan should address these issues, as well as on-going adherence to the sound
level limits in 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p).
Please note that these comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather highlight several deficiencies of the
noise assessment that had been prepared for the DEIS.
HMMH Project No. 308550
October 28, 2016
Page 3
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my comments, or would like further clarification on
any points. For your benefit, I have enclosed a copy of my resume.
Sincerely yours,
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.
Christopher J. Bajdek
Principal Consultant
Enclosures: Resume for Christopher J. Bajdek

ATTACHMENT 5
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. COMMENTS

MEMORANDUM
Date: November 1, 2016
To: Mark P. Millspaugh, PE – Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
From: Dorothy K. Buckoski, PE
Subject: Town of Colonie / Landfill Expansion Project / Permit Application Comments
INTRODUCTION
Epsilon Associates, Inc. (Epsilon) was retained by Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. (Sterling)
to undertake a review of the permit application documents and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) in connection with the Town of Colonie’s (Town) planned “Area 7” expansion of the
existing Town of Colonie Landfill. Sterling tasked Epsilon with a focus on identification of
deficiencies or inconsistencies in the permit application documents and the DEIS related to air
emissions, air permitting, and odor control.
In addition, Epsilon obtained publicly available regulatory reports and summaries of regulatory
reports from the internet, such as Title V air operating permit emission inventories and Federal 40
CFR Part 98 greenhouse gas reports, to supplement the review.
PART 360 APPLICATION FORM
No comments on the application form.
PART 360 APPLICATION – ATTACHMENT 5 – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
1. The Engineering Report addresses dust control during construction in Section 5.12.5.3 but
the Operations and Maintenance Plan does not address dust control during routine
operation.
2. Section 9.7 indicates that leachate storage tanks will be installed. Vents from leachate
storage tanks can be a source of air emissions, particularly if the storage tanks are aerated to
prevent the leachate from becoming septic and creating additional odors. There is
2
insufficient information presented in this section and these potential emission sources are
not included or discussed in the Title V permit application.
3. Section 10.1 indicates that the operation and maintenance of the landfill gas to energy
(LFGTE) engine plant is not included in the document. However, the operation and
maintenance of the LFGTE plant is related to the operation of the landfill and its emissions
have an impact on the surrounding air quality. In addition, LFGTE plant demands for
sufficient or preferred methane content of the landfill gas can have an impact on the degree
of vacuum used to extract the landfill gas, and thus can affect fugitive air emissions and
odor impacts from the landfill.
4. Section 10.2 indicates that landfill gas migration will be monitored in select portions of the
landfill and “personnel should routinely monitor for odors on a daily basis during
operations.” Landfill gas monitoring can also include periodic surface emissions monitoring
(SEM) for proactive detection of gas collection and control system (GCCS) malfunction and
potential for migration of air emissions and odors. SEM may be optional or quarterly SEM
may be required under air regulatory requirements (40 CFR 60 Subparts WWW or XXX).
The potential applicability of Subparts WWW or XXX are discussed further in conjunction
with the Title V permit application review comments.
PART 360 APPLICATION – ATTACHMENT 10 – LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT AND ODOR

CONTROL PLAN
1. Section 2.4 indicates that the operation and maintenance of the LFGTE facility is beyond the
scope of this document. See Item 3 regarding Part 360 Application – Attachment 5, above.
2. Section 2.6 does not include SEM as routine monitoring. See Item 4 regarding Part 360
Application – Attachment 5, above.
3. Section 2.6.1 does not include routine reporting of deviations and malfunctions to the
NYSDEC, which would be required if and when NSPS Subparts WWW or XXX, or NESHAP
40 CFR 63 Subpart AAAA, may become applicable. Subparts WWW and XXX are
discussed further in conjunction with the Title V permit application review comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF)
1. Section D.2.g.ii. indicates that the project will generate ~17,157 tons / year (short tons) of
carbon dioxide (CO2). The Title V permit application shows fugitive CO2 emissions of
6,244 tons per year (TPY) but does not account for landfill gas flare emissions of CO2.
There is insufficient information in the permit application documents and the DEIS to
determine if the EAF is consistent.
2. Section D.2.g.ii. indicates that the project will generate ~9.24 tons / year (short tons) of
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The Title V permit application shows fugitive HAP
emissions of 3.19 tons / year (TPY) but does not account for landfill gas flare emissions of
3
HAP. There is insufficient information in the permit application documents and the DEIS to
determine if the EAF is consistent.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
1. Page 6 addresses air quality. It states that “no change in the air quality regulatory standards
governing landfill emissions will result due to the proposed development” and that the
applicable regulatory requirements in the existing Title V permit would continue to apply
after the proposed development is in operation. This may no longer be true since new
landfill air regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2016 (81 FR
59332 and 81 FR 59276). These new rules are discussed further in conjunction with the
Title V permit application review comments.
2. Pages 6 and 7 address the new leachate tanks. See comments on these air emission sources
above as Item 2 in conjunction with the Part 360 Application – Attachment 5.
3. Page 67 indicates that the LFGTE facility holds a separate Title V permit. The landfill and
the LFGTE facility may be subject to a single source determination based on recent USEPA
precedents and initiatives. See Item 3 regarding Part 360 Application – Attachment 5,
above for reasons why this may be desirable.
4. Page 67 mentions the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Has the landfill or
the LFGTE plant conducted air dispersion modeling to demonstrate the offsite impacts are in
compliance with the NAAQS? Is a NYSDEC Policy CP-33 assessment warranted for the
landfill and/or the LFGTE plant? Has potential-to-emit of particulate matter from fugitive
dust from the operation of the landfill been estimated and what dust mitigation measures
are being taken during operations? Do the facilities fall below deminimis thresholds such
that these demonstrations are not required? The DEIS does not shed light on NAAQS
compliance methodologies.
5. Page 68 indicates that nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions are less than
50 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) and will be through the year 2018, based on a Tier 2
Sampling and Emissions Report dated January 7, 2014. However, this report is not included
with the DEIS or the Title V permit application as documentation of the lack of applicability
of the design and operational standards of 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW or 40 CFR 63 Subpart
AAAA. This is discussed further in conjunction with the Title V permit application review
comments.
6. Page 70 indicates that odor complaint trends are downward, but has this continued since
the publication of Table 2-1 (Table 2-1 shows statistics for 2012, 2013, and 2014)? Can this
table be supplemented with additional, more recent statistics? The DEIS seems dated and
additional statistics may support or refute the conclusion that there is a downward trend.
7. Page 70 contains statements that appear contradictory or factually incorrect. “Applicable
regulations (40 CFR 60.753) require that GCCS components be installed in waste that has
been in place for 5 or more years in active areas of the landfill or 2 years in areas that are
4
closed or at final grade.” Regarding the placement of debris from Hurricane Sandy, “the
waste was placed in a relatively new area of the landfill which was not yet required to have
an active GCCS in place.” According to the Title V permit application and the statements
on page 68 cited immediately above in Item 4., 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW Section 60.753
does not apply, and there are currently no apparent Federal or New York State regulatory
requirements to have an active GCCS in place anywhere at the landfill.
DEIS APPENDIX H – TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION
1. Pages 3 and 4 of 11 indicate that the design and operational requirements of 40 CFR 60
Subpart WWW and 40 CFR 63 Subpart AAAA are not applicable (similar to the DEIS
statement noted above under DEIS Item 4). However, no NMOC reports supporting the
basis for this assertion are attached. Note new Federal regulations governing landfills have
been published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59332 and 81 FR
59276). These regulations lower the threshold for regulatory applicability of the design and
operational requirements from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr. Based on our review of available
documents, it appears that, when construction starts on the expansion, the 34 Mg/yr
threshold will apply. The design requirements in question are installation of GCCS and the
operational requirements in question include implementation of quarterly SEM, mandatory
daily monitoring of gas well parameters, and recordkeeping and periodic reporting of
deviations to the regulators.
TOWN OF COLONIE
LANDFILL EXPANSION PROJECT
PERMIT APPLICATION COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. (STERLING) was retained to undertake a review of the permit
application documents and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in connection with the Town of Colonie’s
(Town) planned “Area 7” expansion of the existing Town of Colonie Landfill.
As set forth below, the permit application and DEIS are incomplete and contain inconsistencies.
The application documents have been submitted in a piecemeal fashion. Fundamental information and
descriptions of the Area 7 Development are different in the various submittals making it difficult to
understand exactly what is proposed. The design presented in the Engineering Report and Drawings is
preliminary at best and is based on minimal site and foundation investigations. Many important details
are left to be worked out during the design phase. There is known groundwater contamination at the site.
The details to provide separate monitorability for Area 7 are not presented.
The following provides a summary of our review. STERLING retained the following professional to aid
in the document review:
Consultant Area of Expertise

Gifford Engineering Geotechnical Engineering
HMMH Noise Assessment
Epsilon Associates, Inc. Air Permitting & Odor Control
LADA, P.C. Visual Assessment
Our comments are summarized below supplemented with the individual consultant comments provided
as Attachments 1 through 5.
PART 360 APPLICATION FORM
1. The permit application form was submitted as “preliminary”. It is now inconsistent with other permit
application documents and requires revision.
2. Section 1 must indicate the type of application in all applicable boxes. The Area 7 application must
indicate each of the following:
• Permit to Construct;
• Subsequent stage (new);
• Modification; and
• Renewal.
3. Section 2 must indicate both the owner and operator are applicants.
Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 1

Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
4. Section 13 provides statistics that are inconsistent with the EAF, Engineering Report and DEIS.
5. Section 14 does not indicate the need for variances. As summarized herein, variances will be needed
due to departures from minimum 6 NYCRR 360 requirements.
6. Attachment 1 of the Part 360 Application: The description of the Area 7 Development is not based
on a design. The narrative states that a design will be forthcoming. Descriptions of the facility are
inconsistent with the Plans and Engineering Report subsequently submitted (which are also
preliminary).
7. Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL) is identified as the operator of the Landfill on the 6 NYCRR
Part 360 Permit application. The Town of Colonie is identified as owner of the facility. However, the
current Operating Permit is only issued to the Town. The NYSDEC should include CRL on the
permit as a co-permitee with the Town.
Even though the facility is municipally owned, the leasing agreement between the Town and CRL
allows the facility to operate as a private merchant facility. Accordingly, direct financial guarantees
from CRL should be required in the form of a trust or bond in an amount sufficient to guarantee that
NYSDEC can retain a third party to perform the proper closure of the Landfill, and implement the
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance period if CRL fails to perform. This financial guarantee
must cover full installation of the full final cover, 30 year minimum of leachate collection and
treatment, landfill gas management, environmental monitoring and reports, and long term custodial
care of the facility.
8. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.8(e), the scope of the proposed development requires that
NYSDEC treat this matter as a new application. The Area 7 permit application seeks to substantially
increase the height, lateral dimensions, disposal capacity and operational life of the Landfill.
The Engineering Report states that the facility height will increase by 87 feet over the current
maximum permitted elevation of 430 feet. The footprint of Area 7 will be 132 acres and will include
a new lateral expansion of 23 acres.
This expansion will create a total disposal capacity of 11,600,000 cubic yards (cy) and will extend
the life of the facility for approximately 22 years. The Engineering Report states that the existing
permitted daily and annual waste placement rates will remain unchanged.
The DEIS and Engineering Report state the Landfill has operated since 1967. From 1973 to present,
the Landfill has reportedly received 5.3 million tons of waste. This Area 7 application seeks disposal
capacity for 5.6 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW), more than double the quantity of
MSW previously placed over the last five (5) decades.
9. The documents submitted in support of this application are incomplete and do not satisfy all
requirements for a new application submitted on behalf of a municipality. For example, the
application does not include:
• A Site Selection Study was performed pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12.

• A demonstration that the expansion area fully satisfies the siting prohibitions and preferred siting
criteria of 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7 and 2.12 (see “Siting Analysis” below). In fact, Landfill
documents previously prepared with respect to the existing facility indicate large areas of the
property where unlined waste fill areas are in direct contact with bedrock, areas where waste is

saturated with groundwater, insufficient separation from bedrock and lack of required thickness
of natural low permeability soils.
10. This application is made on behalf of a municipality as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2(a)(21).
Accordingly, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.8(g), a Local Solid Waste Management Plan
(LSWMP) must be in effect. According to NYSDEC’s website, the existing Town of Colonie
LSWMP expired on December 31, 2015. NYSDEC indicates the Town’s LSWMP is “under review”
however, a copy of the proposed update is not included with the application or DEIS.
Further, almost 90% of the waste to be received at the Landfill is delivered from outside the Local
Planning Unit. The application provides no meaningful analysis of the future needs of the Colonie
LSWMP Planning Unit or the status of LSWMPs for other Local Planning Units feeding waste to the
Colonie Landfill. There is no analysis as to why the Colonie Landfill must be expanded to such a
degree over the next 20 years. Except and until LSWMPs for the Colonie Landfill Wasteshed are
updated and approved by NYSDEC, the need to expand the Colonie Landfill to this degree cannot be
fully justified or understood.
11. 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9(f) requires that facilities operated on behalf of a municipality not accept
waste from communities that have not prepared a Comprehensive Recycling Analysis (CRA). The
application materials do not provide any demonstration that the waste received at the facility will be
limited only to communities that have completed a CRA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF)
1. Section B.i is incorrect. The Area 7 Development is adjacent to the Mohawk River and Erie Canal, a
Designated Inland Waterway.
2. Section C.1.b fails to list the Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan. Additionally the EAF
should acknowledge the designated Important Bird Area (IBA) and designated NYSDEC Bird
Conservation Area located within five (5) miles of the Landfill.
3. Section C.4.d must list the Town and State parks proximate to the Landfill site.
4. Section D.1.b acreages are not consistent with those stated in the Part 360 Application and
Engineering Report.
5. Section D.1.g is not completed with respect to the construction proposed. How can impacts be
assessed if no details are provided?
6. Section E.1.f.ii is incorrect. The Area 7 Development is not limited to the existing Town landfill. In
fact, it is much larger considering the 24 acre lateral expansion proposed.
7. Section E.1.g is incorrect. NYSDEC records confirm that hazardous waste site #401004 includes
both the unnamed area and Area 1.
8. Section E.1.h.iv is incorrect. NYSDEC records confirm Site #401004 includes both the unnamed area
and Area 1.

9. Section E.1.h.v is incorrect. The site is subject to a restrictive easement preventing future
development on a large portion of the property. This restricted area was permanently set aside and
protected as a wetland mitigation project in support of the development of the existing Landfill.
10. Section E.2.i and j are incorrect. A review of the design plans indicates filling within the floodplain
is necessary for the Area 7 Development.
11. Section E.2.l. The project site is within the mapped aquifer. No information is provided in the
application substantiating that the site “is not consistent with aquifer characteristics”.
12. Section E.2.o and p do not list the endangered or threatened species with known ranges that include
the project site. For example, the Bald Eagle has known nesting sites on the Mohawk River corridor
and is frequently sited in the project area. The project site is also within the range of the Northern
Long-Eared Bat and the Indiana Bat.
13. EAF Attachment 1. Information provided is not consistent with Part 360 Application, Engineering
Report and DEIS.
INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
1. The application does not satisfy the requirements of 6 NYCRR 360-1.9(g)(1). The “unnamed area”
and Area 1 totaling 40 to 50 acres are designated by NYSDEC as a Class 3 inactive hazardous waste
disposal site, ID 401004 (documentation regarding Site 401004 is provided as Attachment 1). The
NYSDEC has not made a final determination to reclassify or delist Site #401004. Pursuant to 6
NYCRR 360-1.9(g), the application must include an analysis in sufficient detail to conclude that the
proposed Landfill expansion will not interfere with potential remedial action of the inactive
hazardous waste site.
The proposed Landfill expansion places significant components of the expanded solid waste facility
over Area 1 and within several feet of the “unnamed area.” While it is known that historic operations
have caused groundwater contamination, the full nature and extent of the prior hazardous waste
disposal, and any associated impacts to the environment, have not been fully characterized. At
present, the NYSDEC has not determined if further investigations or remedial actions will be
required in the future.
It is also noted there is insufficient separation distances between the Area 7 Development and the
unnamed area, to allow for implementation of corrective measures if and when such should be
necessary in the future. Such is inconsistent with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 360-2.12(c)(5).
2. The 1992 URS Report clearly states that Area 1 is also part of the Inactive Hazardous Waste Site
designation. Until the nature and extent of hazardous waste disposal are properly investigated, Area 1
should not be buried under an expanded facility.
In fact, the NYSDEC may use this opportunity to require the applicant to conduct the appropriate
investigations and remediation of the unnamed area and Area 1. The NYSDEC could also seek an
alternative Landfill expansion design that provides for the excavation and permanent reclamation of
these areas with proper management of the identified hazardous wastes previously disposed.

ENGINEERING REPORT SECTION 5.2 SITE LIFE
The calculated life and overall size of the proposed Landfill supporting the design is based strictly on
assumed waste density. For a major permit expansion at an existing operating facility, it is preferred to
use actual waste placement rates and site survey data to calculate the in-place fill densities. The Annual
Reports filed for the Landfill, and the Engineering Report supporting the permit application, indicate in-
place waste densities of 1 ton/cy.
Section 5.2 of the Engineering Report incorrectly assumes operational cover needs are measured at 25%
of the MSW delivered volume. However, the September 21, 2015 Consent Order and the October 2015
modification to the Part 360 permit strictly limits the delivery of daily cover to 25% of MSW delivery
measured on a weight basis. The NYSDEC must verify that the total requested disposal volume
correlates to the actual annual MSW and operational cover limit stated in the permit.
At permitted fill rates a disposal volume of 6.4 million cubic yards (cy) is required for a 20 year life, not
11.6 million cy as sought by the application.
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS
Detailed comments on the Landfill design and foundation conditions prepared by Gifford Engineering
are provided as Attachment 2.
The following additional comments are also provided:
• The design of the liner and leachate collection system is based on assumed characteristics for the
underlying old Town dump. The characteristics need to be confirmed due to the significant
loading and structures to be constructed for the Area 7 Development.
• The drawings submitted contain notes indicating the design is incomplete. For example, see
Notes 1 and 2 provided on Detail 2, Sheet 23. How can NYSDEC determine if the design is
appropriate if a complete design has not been submitted?
Due to the physical site constraints, the proposed design includes perimeter earthen berms as tall as 33
feet above existing grade to enable the Area 7 Development to be constructed over previously filled
areas. Without the perimeter berms, the toe of the final 3:1 Landfill slope would be 33 feet lower in
elevation.

This condition, depicted on Detail 2 of Sheet 23 in the Drawing set, is copied below:
The sole purpose of these massive 33 foot tall perimeter berms is to cram more garbage into an existing
site that is already approaching its maximum capacity.
Significant aspects of the Area 7 Development have not been fully engineered.
Below are notes which raised questions regarding the completion of the design:
• Sheet No. 20 and 21 Gas Control System Plan – Note 1. “Existing Wells to be either abandoned,
connected to subgrade collection trench, or remote piped to location outside of new baseliner
area. Engineer will determine at time of construction”
• Sheet No. 23 Perimeter Berm Details (Details 1 and 2) – Note 1. “Detailed geogrid spacing,
long-term design strengths and lengths to be provided at the time of construction documentation
submittals. Design will be signed by a New York State Professional Engineer.”
• Note 2. “Geogrid Manufacturer to be determined at the time of construction documentation and
detailed calculations will be submitted.”

• Sheet No. 24 Liner System Details (Details 1 and 2) – Note 10. “Cushion layer between primary
leachate collection stone and primary geomembrane to be determined upon selection of stone
gradation/type.”
• Sheet No. 26 Leachate Collection System Details (Sideriser Building Detail 1) – Note 1.
“Building type to be determined at time of construction.” Note 2. “Detailed construction
drawings for sideriser building to be submitted under separate cover. Details are only intended to
show spacing configuration and construction for piping.”
• Sheet No. 38 Final Closure Landscape - Plan Note 1. “Planting areas shown are for final
conditions. Temporary planting will be required in areas during intermediate phases not shown.”
NYSDEC must not issue any Permit to Construct except and until all elements of the engineering design
are provided, certified by a New York State Professional Engineer and approved by the NYSDEC.
SITING ANALYSIS
The facility does not satisfy the siting prohibitions and restrictions set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 360-
1.7(a)(2) and 360-2.12, as follows:
360-1.7(a)(2)(v)
Is not satisfied. Historic operations and proposed new landfill components are situated less than 100 feet
from the Mohawk River.
360-2.12(a)(1)(vi)
The upper 20 feet of unconsolidated material beneath the liner system must be predominantly low
permeability. The application demonstrates this condition is not satisfied.
360-2.12(a)(2)
Required demonstrations and the supporting documentation required to allow less than 20 feet of
unconsolidated deposits beneath the facility have not been presented in the application materials.
360-2.12(b)(2)
A comprehensive Site Selection Study has not been performed as required for a new application on
behalf of a municipality (see further discussion under Site Selection Study).
360-2.12(c)(1)(iii)
The Mohawk River is a public water supply. Based upon design plans, the Landfill components will be
less than 100 feet from the Mohawk River. Known contamination exists at the site. No remedial plans
are included to prevent groundwater contamination from entering the Mohawk River.
360-2.12(c)(2)
Floodplains: The project requires the filling of an area within the 100 year floodplain.
360-2.12(c)(4)
Historic, unlined areas of the fill underlying the proposed Area 7 development are variable. Historic fill
areas may be subject to localized settlement (see related Geotechnical Comments).

360-2.12(c)(5)
The proposed horizontal expansion will place landfill components to within 100 feet of the Mohawk
River.
The area between the Mohawk River and the waste mass includes the massive perimeter berm and
Crescent Road. As a result, corrective measures and groundwater remediation will potentially be
infeasible in this area. Groundwater flow direction in the upper-most water bearing unit is to the east
toward the Mohawk River, which is only about 80 to 100 feet from the northeast side of the landfill. The
spacing of downgradient groundwater monitoring wells must be very close in this area in order to detect
contamination that could migrate directly to the river from the landfill. The proposed downgradient
monitoring well spacing is not sufficient.
Groundwater flow velocities apparently have not been calculated using the measured groundwater
gradients and hydraulic conductivities for the critical stratigraphic unit. An analysis of contaminant
travel times between the location of a potential release, the downgradient monitoring wells, and the river
is needed to evaluate the response time for corrective measures if a release of contamination is detected.
The localized impacts to groundwater quality from the existing landfill will make it very difficult to
separately monitor and detect a potential release of contamination from the proposed expansion. The
proposed approach to identify changes in groundwater quality due to a release from the expansion
involves statistical analysis and interpretation of samples collected over multiple quarterly monitoring
events before a release is confirmed. Then, a contingency water quality monitoring plan is proposed if a
significant release is statistically indicated. Contamination may reach the nearby river by the time a
contamination release is statistically confirmed and contingency monitoring has been completed.
Regulations require implementation of corrective measures if groundwater monitoring confirms a release

of contamination. Crescent Road is only about 50 feet downgradient from some of the most critical
downgradient monitoring wells where such a release would be detected, and the Mohawk River is only
another 30 to 40 feet downgradient of Crescent Road. The very limited distance between the wells and
the landfill, the road and the wells, and the road and the River creates a significant constraint on the type
and effectiveness of potential corrective measures that could be implemented in the event of a detected
release of contamination.
360-2.12(c)(7)
Historic seismic evaluation of the waste mass and liner systems were based on a maximum final
elevation of 430 feet. The proposed expansion will substantially increase the waste disposal capacity and
maximum height. Will the Town certify that the underlying liner system, designed for a much smaller
facility, will be capable of achieving the required factor of safety during seismic events? The proposed
expansion will result in the limit of waste, and critical Landfill infrastructure, being much closer to the
property boundary. NYSDEC should require a demonstration that corrective measures can be
implemented within the Town’s property at all perimeter locations.
6 NYCRR 360-2.12(c)(8)
The specific requirements allowing destruction of Federally regulated wetlands are not satisfied in the
applications (see 6 NYCRR 360-2.12(c)(8)(i)). There is no analysis of an alternative expansion plan that
preserves the wetlands provided in this application.

SITE SELECTION STUDY
No Site Selection Study was performed as mandated by Part 360. Further, the existing Landfill site does
not possess the characteristics listed under 6 NYCRR 360-2.12(a). In particular, the site does not satisfy
6 NYCRR 360-2.12(a)(1)(vi). The application also fails to indicate that the conditions under 6 NYCRR
360-2.12(a)(2) are satisfied. In fact, the application clearly demonstrates that the minimum 10 feet
thickness of unconsolidated deposits do not exist at some locations within the Area 7 Development.
The site does not provide the required separation to bedrock or seasonal high groundwater table, nor does
it provide the requisite thickness of low permeability soil below the waste. Drilling logs indicate waste in
contact with bedrock at some locations and geologic cross sections presented in the DEIS and the
Engineering Report show only two or three feet of soil separating waste material from the underlying
bedrock in the central portion of the existing landfill, contrary to Part 360 siting requirements.
360-2.12
The site does not satisfy any of the exemptions listed under 6 NYCRR 360-2.12(b). The LSWMP has
expired. There is no NYSDEC approved LSWMP in effect.
360-2.12(b)(2)
A required Site Selection Study addressing the provisions of subparagraphs (i)-(ii) is not provided with
the application. Further, in review of the DEIS it is apparent that alternative sites have not been
considered or reviewed.
SEQRA ADMINISTRATION
1. State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determinations issued by the Town of Colonie as
Lead Agency in connection with the 1994 and 2003 Permit Modifications to Construct and Operate
Areas 5 & 6 established the maximum height of the facility at an elevation of 430 feet and committed
to facility closure when the final elevations are attained.
The 2003 permit modification increased the facility daily limit from 550 tons per day (tpd) to 820
tpd, an increase of 49%. This application was the subject of a Negative Declaration by the Colonie
Town Board.
This was followed in 2013 by an Application for Permit Modification by the Town to further
increase the annual waste placement rate from 175,000 tpy to 255,840 tpy, an effective 50% increase
in the annual disposal rate.
Subsequently, in 2011 the Town determined to seek proposals to privatize Landfill operations and
following receipt of proposals, the Town selected Waste Connections (Capital Region Landfills, Inc.)
to be the operator.
In effect, between 2003 and 2013, the Town substantially increased the permitted limits for receipt of
waste without treating the permit applications as a new application as required by 6 NYCRR 360-
1.8(e) or conducting a full SEQRA review.
As a result of the Town’s decision to significantly accelerate the fill rate and failure to conduct
timely Local Solid Waste Management Planning, the Landfill is nearing its current permitted
capacity. This self-created situation results in the Town now seeking a permit modification for Area

7 which will extend the facility life by more than 20 years and more than double the quantity of
waste placed over the last 5 decades.
This piecemeal disorganized approach to permitting and analysis of associated environmental

impacts has segmented the SEQRA process (see 6 NYCRR Part 617.2(ag)) resulting in an inadequate
evaluation of individual and cumulative impacts.
2. The permits issued by the NYSDEC in 1994 and 2003 for Areas 5 & 6, as well as the Special
Conditions to the permit issued by NYSDEC established the maximum height and life of the facility.
These limits were established in part to mitigate environmental and long-term impacts.
Environmental Impact Analyses contained in the 2016 DEIS are inadequate as the analysis appears to
evaluate only the incremental action of Area 7 development and does not provide an evaluation of
impacts of the facility as a whole.
3. The March 6, 2014 Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the subsequent Scoping Document,
DEIS and Engineering Report indicate different sized facilities.
Document Size of Proposed Area 7 Expansion

113 acres
EAF (March 6, 2014)
112 acres
Scoping Document (November 3, 2014)
DEIS 2016 & Engineering Report 2016 132 acres
No explanation is provided for the discrepancy.
4. The Town acquired land parcels over time for inclusion in the Area 7 Development project. The
documentation included with the application does not indicate the Town’s compliance with SEQRA
or demonstrate that any environmental review was mindful of the Town’s intent to expand the
Landfill.
5. The application and DEIS provides no meaningful analysis of alternatives to the proposed action.
Over the span of less than five (5) full pages, the DEIS summarily dismisses:
• Alternative Locations
• Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies
• Alternative Size & Fill Rates for the expanded Landfill
• No Action Alternative
A review of DEIS documents prepared for the expansion of other landfills in NYS routinely indicates
a much more robust analysis of alternatives. At the very least, DEIS should evaluate if a facility of
this size and duration is truly needed. The NYSDEC reports there is a surplus of permitted disposal
capacity in NYS including a number of facilities within a reasonable haul distance. Further, new
permitted landfill capacity is reported to be available in Saratoga County at the former Saratoga
County Landfill now owned and operated by Finch. This landfill is approximately 30 miles north of
Colonie.

The Town of Colonie reports that 35% of the future need driving the Colonie Landfill expansion is
the nearly 300 tons/day of waste originating in Saratoga County. The Finch/Saratoga Landfill
facility is reportedly permitted to accept 275,000 tpy and reportedly is currently operating well below
that limit.
Clearly, the Town of Colonie Landfill expansion does not need to be sized to accommodate Saratoga
County waste as there is ample permitted disposal capacity available in Saratoga County for the
foreseeable future. Disposal capacity is also available at facilities located to the north and west of the
Town.
SEQRA clearly requires that alternative sized facilities be considered. The DEIS at Section 2.8.2
argues that the Landfill expansion is needed to avoid a Real Property Tax increase in the Town of
Colonie. This economic incentive is not sufficient justification to expand the Landfill to this degree.
Many Towns in New York State do not own a local landfill and are able to operate within the local
fiscal realities. The Town of Colonie can do the same and could plan accordingly.
The DEIS has not adequately demonstrated the need for the facility. Approximately 90% of the waste
received at the facility is from planning jurisdictions that do not currently have approved LSWMPs.
Given the statutory and regulatory mandate for Local Solid Waste Management Planning, the
NYSDEC should not grant a permit for Landfill expansion except and until the need is clearly
demonstrated by proper and thorough planning throughout the wasteshed.
6 NYCRR Part 617-9(b)(5)(v) requires an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action as

follows:
A description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible,
considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. The description and evaluation of
each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the
alternatives discussed. The range of alternatives must include the no action alternative. The no
action alternative discussion should evaluate the adverse or beneficial site changes that are likely to
occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, in the absence of the proposed action. The range of
alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative:
a. sites;
b. technology;
c. scale or magnitude;
d. design;
e. timing;
f. use; and
g. types of action.
Such evaluations should “be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the
alternatives discussed”.
This DEIS clearly fails to meet this stated objective and is not at all responsive to the Scoping Document
developed for this project.
Section 4.1 of the DEIS provides an inadequate analysis of the No Action alternative. If the existing
facility were to cease operations following the current permit term, as has happened at many Town

Landfills in NYS over the last 20 years, the market would adjust with waste redirected to existing
permitted facilities with capacity.
Many of the permitted Landfills in NYS do not have the numerous environmental shortcomings
presented by the Colonie Landfill including:
• Proximity to significant population centers.

• Ongoing odor, traffic and visual impacts.
• Proximity to the Mohawk River and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Inability to satisfy Part 360 siting criteria.
• Known groundwater contamination and unresolved hazardous waste disposal sites.
Under the No Action alternative, the Landfill will cease operating when existing permitted disposal
capacity is depleted. The Town would then proceed with implementation of the Closure Plan. The future
generation of waste is then shifted to other permitted facilities, which in some cases, may be at reduced
cost.
According to NYSDEC’s website, only approximately 70% of the State’s annual permitted disposal
capacity was utilized in 2013. Since that time additional capacity has been permitted. NYSDEC records
indicate there is sufficient capacity currently under permit to meet the State’s need for the next 20 years.
Current market conditions have resulted in competition and lowering of tipping fees. Some municipalities
in the Hudson Valley are managing waste to out of Town disposal facilities for a total cost in the $50-
$60/ton range for transportation and disposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Visual:
Detailed comments regarding the visual analysis prepared by LADA, P.C. are provided as Attachment 3.
Additional comments are as follows.
Section 2.9 and Appendix F of the DEIS discusses the environmental impacts of the proposed action and
analyzes the height increases as an incremental increase over the height of the existing Landfill. This
approach fails to fully evaluate the visual impact of the entire facility.
Section B.23-27 of the SEQR Handbook specifically addresses ‘Determining Significance”, and why
significance of visual impacts should be considered under SEQR. NYSDEC encourages completion of a
Visual EAF Addendum (Appendix B of 617.20) to help parties develop an objective process for
considering visual impacts. This form is meant to essentially help the lead agency know if the resource is
designated as important to the local people.
Surrounding communities have documentation voicing their repeated concerns that the project expansion
will have a negative visual impact. These correspondences have been inclusive of community planners
and leaders, clearly stating to the lead agencies their visual resources are of immense importance. No
Appendix B of 617.20 form was provided as part of the DEIS, and no balloon demonstrations were
executed as repeatedly requested by the surrounding communities.

Noise:
Detailed comments regarding noise prepared by HMMH are provided in Attachment 4. STERLING also
provides the following observations regarding noise.
6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p) establishes maximum noise levels at the facility property line at locations zoned
or authorized for residential use. Where background limits exceed the stated noise limits, the facility
must not produce Leq exceeding the documented background.
Section 2.13 of the DEIS provides an evaluation of noise. Supporting data is contained in Appendix I.
The existing operating landfill has been operated by CRL for several years. However, no operational
noise monitoring data or noise complaint log is provided in the application demonstrating that the current
operation is in accordance with 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p).
The noise data presented and evaluated in Section 2.13 clearly indicates the facility will violate the
promulgated noise limits at 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p), especially when considering the proposed limits of
landfill operations will be much closer to the property lines.
The DEIS states that noise levels will increase above current background at certain locations. This clearly
will violate the provisions of 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p) that the facility operator cannot cause an increase
over the background condition.
DEIS Figure 2-14 entitled “Projected SPL Contours” is misleading in that source area noise is not
presented at the limits of the proposed landfill for all perimeter locations. As a result, the resulting SPL
Contours are not accurate.
Working face Leq is reported at 74.5 dB measured at 50 feet from the working face. The relative location
of the working equipment is not presented. When the working face is at perimeter locations within the
proposed expansion there will be minimal separation to the property line. Residential properties along the
west side of the expansion will be much closer to the working face than is currently the case.
Accordingly, a sound level of 74.5 dB at the working face will result in increased SPL at the property
line 100 feet away. This increased level will be substantially over the 62 dB maximum limit.
Further, projecting source area noise without also adding in the existing background conditions creates
the false impression that the facility will comply with the 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p) limitations. As stated in
the DEIS, noise levels will increase above the current background condition in certain perimeter areas.
For example, a working face source noise of 74.5 dB at 50 feet from the working face is estimated to be
68.5 dB at a property line 100 feet away without including the existing ambient noise. This condition will
violate Part 360-1.14(p) noise limits.
Figure 2-14 must be revised to add projected source noise to the existing background in order to clearly
identify perimeter areas where noise levels will violate 6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p).
Lastly, the much greater height of the Landfill may place noise sources well above noise attenuating
landforms and vegetation. This will allow sound energy to follow direct line of sight to receptor areas.
While total sound pressure levels may be within background conditions at more distant offsite locations,
certain sounds such as backup alarms, bird mitigation and truck tailgates may become very noticeable at
locations previously unaffected by the Landfill operations. Such should be evaluated by the DEIS.

• Appendix I to the DEIS – no explanation is provided of the calculations and handwritten notes.
Handwritten notes are undated and unchecked. Data is simply appended with no analysis.
• Appendix I provides no map indicating the location of individual noise measurements.
• Handwritten notes and printout of electronic data do not correlate. The Appendix is thrown
together and the user is left to try to figure things out. The information needs to be provided in a
more user friendly format.
Air Emissions and Odor Control:
Detailed comments regarding air emissions, associated air emissions, permitting and odor control
developed by Epsilon Associates, Inc. are provided as Attachment 5. In addition, the application and
DEIS do not include a summary of odor complaints or a copy of the odor complaint log. Due to the level
of citizen comments at recent public hearings regarding the Area 7 Development, it is clear the facility
has a significant and persistent odor problem.
The NYSDEC must require the applicant to develop an odor control program, and proven contingency
measures, to be implemented when odor complaints are received.
Inland Waterways:
Section B.i.i of the EAF states that the project site is not within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of
a Designated Inland Waterway. However, the Mohawk River, which abuts the expansion area, is a
Designated Inland Waterway per NYS Law Executive Article 42: (910-923). The Declaration of policy
(Section § 912.) identifies sixteen (16) policies the State declares regarding inland waterways and coastal
areas. Those most pertinent to the proposed Landfill Expansion Project area include:
• Impairment of scenic beauty (§912.1)

• Protection of fish & wildlife habitats- “Such protection shall include mitigation of the
potential impact from adjacent land use or development” (§912.3)
• To ensure consistency of state actions with policies & waterfront programs (§912.9)
• To work cooperatively with local governments to implement programs to control and
abate sources of nonpoint source pollution that may affect coastal and inland waterways
(§912.10)
• To encourage local governments to enter into Intermunicipal agreements to protect their
shared environment (§912.14)
Rare/Threatened & Endangered Species:
The DEIS acknowledges that the site is in close proximity the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson
River, identified as an important habitat area for birds. Specifically, the DEIS addresses the need for an
evaluation of impacts on Bald Eagles and other threatened or endangered species. Section II.D. of the
DEIS states that a small wooded area within the development area would be eliminated as part of the
project expansion, but that the proposed project area supports a relatively low habitat value.
Appendix E of the DEIS, addressing the above mentioned concerns regarding Rare, Threatened &
Endangered Species, includes a letter from the NYSDEC National Heritage Program (NYNHP) which

specifically states that the information provided by the NYNHP was generated from databases, and that
no on-site, comprehensive surveys were performed by the Department. A single species survey, for Bald
Eagles, was performed on-site by Bagdon Environmental at the request of the NYSDEC.
The Bald Eagle is no longer a Federally listed species although the species still experience protection
under The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Bald Eagle has a New York State status of
Threatened. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was cited in the DEIS as a reason for surveying for Bald
Eagles. This Act protects not just Bald Eagles, but a variety of migratory birds which were not included
on site surveys for unknown reasons by the NYSDEC.
While the DEIS makes note of species no-longer Federally listed, it makes incorrect statements and
presents outdated information regarding the Federally listed Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) and the
Federally listed Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Both bat species roost under bark or
in tree crevices in the spring, summer and, fall; meaning tree removal could have a significant impact on
an Endangered and/or Threatened Species. As no on-site surveys were performed for Federally
Endangered or Threatened Species, the possibility that the tree species are suitable habitat cannot be
ruled out.
The Indiana Bat is recognized by both the Federal government and the State as an Endangered Species.
The DEIS states that the Indiana Bat is no longer considered extant in Albany County, yet the NYNHP
lists the Indiana Bat as ‘Recently Confirmed” for Albany County in 2010.
The Northern Long-Eared Bat is recognized by both the Federal government and the State as a
Threatened Species. Northern Long-Eared Bats specifically do not have a critical habitat designation. In
place of localized significant natural communities, Northern Long-Eared Bat populations are categorized
by the presence of White Nose Syndrome Zones within a County. Albany County is a County where
White Nose Syndrome has confirmed infected hibernacula. Albany County falls within the Final 4(d)
Rule, (effective February 16, 2016). The Northern Long-Eared Bat is listed on the NYNHP Mapper as
“Recently Confirmed” in Albany County, NY as recently as 2014. Considering the extensive tree
removal proposed, this should have been addressed within the EAF, Section E.2.o., but was not.
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) apparently was not directly contacted as part of the DEIS. A basic
online US Fish & Wildlife IPaC review of the action area of Colonie LF lists multiple endangered
species as being present. The DEIS states “No Affect” and “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect”
determinations that appear to be based on opinion, not expert evaluation of the Action Area.
SEQRA recommendations by NYSDEC state that project sponsors should not simply rely on the
NYSDEC Mapper or NYNHP letters. This appears to be exactly what the applicant has done in the
review process for the Proposed Area 7 Development. The USFWS was not included in environmental
evaluations. Such should have been undertaken in concert with NYSDEC and NYNHP environmental
reviews.
In addition, Section E.3.h of the EAF neglects to list Vischer Ferry as being within five (5) miles of the
project site. Visher Ferry is designated by the NYSDEC as a Bird Conservation Area and is also
recognized within the Atlantic Flyway as an Important Bird Area. The DEIS states that the confluence of
the Mohawk and Hudson River are important habitat areas and mentions the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
However, the DEIS neglects to connect the dots between the Act and the locality of Important Bird Areas
to the Project Area or specify beyond generalities.

Floodplains:
The DEIS provides conflicting information regarding floodplains. In the EAF (section E.2.i), the project
site is declared to not be in a designated floodway. However, the Engineering Report states that “Detailed
analysis of the flood maps, as seen in Figure 4-1, indicate the limits of the 100-year flood plain will
overlap with the project limits at the northeast corner of the Site”. Additionally, Figure 2-4B of the DEIS,
entitled “Flood Boundary Detail” show and state “0.04 acres of fill in flood zone” as well as “0.03 acres
of fill in flood zone” along the eastern boundary of the project area. Even if total acreage within the
floodplain is small (less than 1 acre) in size, the fact remains that the documentation for this project is
inconsistent and contradictory.
PROPOSED SIZE
The 2015 Annual Report prepared by the Town indicates reported sources of MSW received at the
Colonie Landfill. This information is summarized as follows:
2015 Municipal Solid Waste By Origin
Status of LSWMP as
MSW Received From Tons Percent of Total
of 20161
Town of Colonie Planning Unit 21,973.68 9.66% Under Review
Village of Colonie 2,635.82 1.16% Under Review
Town of Colonie 11,361.80 5.00% Under Review
Village of Menands 835.59 0.37% Under Review
City of Cohoes 7,140.47 3.14% Under Review
No LSWMP or draft
Rensselaer County 72,146.59 31.73%
LSWMP2 Submitted
Saratoga County 116,307.72 51.15% Under Review
No LSWMP or draft
Schenectady County 1,265.11 0.56%
LSWMP Submitted
Capital Region SWMP
Albany County3 8,188.05 3.60% Approved through
12/31/2013
Approved through
Dutchess County 5,637.15 2.48%
12/31/2021
Washington County 1,439.36 0.63% Under Review
Rutland County, VT 279.88 0.12% Out of State
Approved through
Fulton County 36.26 0.02%
12/31/2021
Approved through
Schoharie County 3.04 <0.01%
12/31/2016
Bennington County, VT 52.56 0.02% Out of State
Ulster County 31.95 0.01% Under Review
Fairfield County, Ct 21.41 0.01% Out of State

No LSWMP or draft
Greene County 1.24 <0.01%
LSWMP Submitted
Total 227,384.00 100.00% -
Notes:
1. Source: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/65541.html viewed on 10/26/16.
2. The City of Rensselaer and the Town of East Greenbush are part of the Capital Region
Planning Community.
3. Excluding the Town of Colonie Planning Unit.
4. Data obtained from the Colonie Landfill 2015 Annual Report Prepared by SCS Engineers.
Clearly, the facility is much larger than is needed to satisfy the long-term disposal needs of the Local
Planning Unit. In 2015, approximately 90% of the MSW placed in the Landfill came from sources
outside the Planning Unit.
The Town of Colonie Landfill is receiving waste from communities which do not have current LSWMPs
or that have completed CRAs. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360 municipally-owned facilities must not
accept waste from jurisdictions that do not have current approved LSWMP.
Except and until Planning is complete for all jurisdictions in the Landfill wasteshed, there is not
demonstrated need for a facility of this size or duration.
LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The applicant has not demonstrated consistency with Local Solid Waste Management Planning. No
approved LSWMP is included in the application and no draft Plan is furnished. Revising the LSWMP
after submission of the permit application puts the cart before the horse and makes a mockery of the solid
waste planning process.
We also note 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9(e)(4)(v) requires a demonstration that the project is consistent with
the applicable goals and objectives of the local solid waste management plan (LSWMP).
Both the Engineering Report and the DEIS prepared for the proposed Area 7 expansion state:
Consistent with the approved Local Solid Waste Management Plan and historical practices, the
landfill operates as a “regional, merchant solid waste management facility.”
The applicant considers the above statement to conclude and indicate that the “service area for the
Town’s landfill is New York State” (DEIS).
However, the phrase, “regional, merchant solid waste management facility” is found in the LSWMP in
the following limited context:
The Town Solid Waste facility operated as a regional, merchant solid waste management facility
over the 2007 and 2008 period. We [i.e. the Town] have also attempted to work with other
municipalities to develop mutually beneficial solid waste management agreements to minimize the
Town’s exposure to the private sector profit taking motives.

The Part 360 application fails to demonstrate how the size and scope of the proposed Area 7 expansion is
consistent with historical efforts to minimize the Town’s exposure to private sector profit taking motives,
among other goals and objectives discussed in the LSWMP. Ironically, it appears to be the opposite with
the Town now partnered with a private for-profit venture through the operating lease.
Contrary to the practices displayed by Waste Connections aimed to increase the landfilling of waste
material, the LSWMP describes goals and objectives to develop Alternative Solid Waste Treatment
Systems aimed to reduce the quantity of waste being disposed of within the Colonie landfill and to
thereby extend the life of the landfill. Although the LSWMP anticipates the design and construction of
Area 7, the application has no basis grounded in the State or Local SWMPs to justify the size and scope
of the proposed Area 7 expansion.
Further, the application does not demonstrate a rigorous exploration of alternatives to landfilling (e.g.
Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems) as anticipated by the State and Local SWMPs and
mandated by 6 NYCRR Part 617-9(b)(5)(v) and 40 CFR Part 1502.14(a).
S:\Sterling\Projects\2014 Projects\Town of Waterford - Colonie LF - 2014-38\Correspondence\Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Comments_110116.doc

From: Martine Male <mmale53@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Land fill should be stopped now!
unexpected emails.
Note: This email did not contain any comments other than what is stated in the subject
line.
Angelo Marcuccio
NYSDEC
11/3/16
1
From: Martine Male <mmale53@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
unexpected emails.
Land Fill should never have been sold and now it is going out of control!
1
From: Meg Murad <meg.murad@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Opposition to Expansion of Landfill in Colonie
unexpected emails.
Good morning,
My name is Megan Murad, residing at 43 Towpath Ln in Waterford, NY and I oppose the expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
I request an adjudicatory hearing on the manner based on the lack of information of substantive alternative to expansion of the landfill.
The town of Colonie has not done enough work in their application to expand to demonstrate that the cost of sending waste to other locations
will in fact result in higher costs. The town of Colonie is counting on the financial windfall they would receive in this doubling of the landfill
space.
My fiancee and I bought a house in the Riverbend development in Waterford, 1 mile away from the landfill, with the understanding that the
cap and closure would occur in 2018. This request would undermine that commitment from the town and ensure home values would decrease
drastically.
The height of the landfill will rise and become a greater eyesore to the surrounding neighbors. If this were a new application, I doubt the town
would even consider the river's edge as a possibility. The Mohawk and Hudson rivers are vital to our economy and environmental
conservation that it is paramount to deny the application altogether.
Waste Connections has agreed to pay Colonie for the use of the landfill and they will bring in outside waste. The town is trying to serve those
outside of the community at the expense of the surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods.
Finally, the application submitted lacks information including, but, not limited to, a missing odor plan. The odor wafts into my community
and nothing has been done. And, we can only expect it to get worse. That, on top of the new large mound of trash that I will see, will cause
noxious fumes to continue for as long as the landfill operates.
If this is allowed, what would stop them from requesting an additional expansion beyond the 20 years they are asking for?
I implore you, Commissioner, to deny the request for expansion or at the very least, hold an adjudicatory hearing on the matter so we can
fully and truthfully understand why the Town of Colonie is so in favor of this plan to double the size of the landfill.
Best regards,
Megan Murad
1
From: Raya Ioffe <raya13@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill
unexpected emails.
Please consider the environmental effect of tripling the size of the landfill. I do not agree with this expansion.
Stop and consider the long term ramifications!
No, thank you!
Raya Ioffe
Concerned Latham, NY resident
--
Raya Ioffe
Digestive Health Coach, Massage Therapist,Yoga Instructor and Soccer Mom

518-229-3033
www.rayawellness.com
1
From: Ron Moraski <ron.moraski@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Fwd: Landfill Opposition
Attachments: Landfill Opposition 11_1_2016.pdf
unexpected emails.
Mr. Angelo Marcuccio,
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Ron
--
Ron Moraski
36 Towpath Lane
Waterford, NY 12188
ron.moraski@gmail.com
518-369-9277
1
From: Sheila Kiehle <skiehle@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Expansion of landfill
Such a project of this magnitude should be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing where evidence is
presented under oath and considered by an administrative law judge.
1
From: sleden@aol.com
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; citizensconcernedaboutlandfill@gmail.com
Subject: Colonie Landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
My name is Steve Ellrott and I live on Fonda Road in the Town of Colonie. I have previously sent you
an email with comments regarding the proposed expansion of the Colonie landfill. In that email, in
one of my comments, I mentioned that we get a strong methane smell when it is foggy. This morning
(Nov.1, 2016) it was foggy again and we did have a strong methane smell in our area.
If we are only getting the smell when it is foggy that must mean that methane gas is always
evaporating into the atmosphere. That is a much larger problem then just an annoying smell.
Methane gas is a large contributor to the global warming promblem that is occuring.
If the current landfill is producing this much methane, doubling the size of it will only compound the
problem exponentially.
Thank you for your time, Steve Ellrott.( I can be reached at sleden@aol.com)
Sent from my ASUS
1
From: Susan Laurilliard <sklauril@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing Colonie Landfill Expansion
unexpected emails.
The proposed expansion of the Colonie landfill raises serious concerns and issues requiring an adjudicatory
hearing. NYSDEC should examine whether the location of the expansion area in a NYSDEC and ACOE wetlands
meets US Endangered Species, NYS and Federal freshwater wetlands permitting and water quality
certification standards. There are long standing concerns from nearby residents about the risk to their health
and quality of life for the continued operation of the landfill. An issue of fact exists concerning whether the
Town of Colonie has established a bona fide recycling program to reduce the amount of waste deposited in
the landfill. Members of the public have questioned whether the landfill operator has been illegally accepting
waste which does not originate in the Town of Colonie.
Susan Laurilliard
1
From: Suzanne Maloney <suzannemm10@verizon.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Dump
unexpected emails.
To whom it may concern, as a resident of Colonie, I completely opposed the expansion of the landfill. It is already an
eyesore at the entrance to our town in a section of our town that should be beautiful and welcoming. The smell tends be
atrocious, the height of the mound is ridiculous and as an article in the Times Union pointed out the request asks for 87
more feet, well beyond anything DEC requirements. Do not allow this expansion to go through!

Suzanne Maloney
17 Campus View Dr
Loudonville, NY

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some
difference that you have live and lived well.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

1
From: Barnard, Sylvia <sbarnard@albany.edu>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
I'm writing to request an adjudicatory hearing on the expansion of Colonie's landfill. Sylvia Barnard, Professor
Emerita, UAlbany
1
From: Tom Pickett <tpickett@nycap.rr.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov;
Tonko@house.gov
Subject: Opposition to Colonie Landfill Expansion
Attachments: Landfill.docx
unexpected emails.
Attached is a letter to the DEC documenting my opposition to the Colonie Landfill Expansion.

Tom Pickett
Waterford, NY 12188

1
November 1, 2016
NYSDEC, Region 4 Office
Schenectady, New York 12306
Dear Sir,
This letter documents my opposition to the proposed Colonie Landfill Expansion. Since purchasing my
home on 1988, an offensive odor from the Colonie landfill has been persistent throughout the years.
Calls over the years to the landfill operators repeatedly suggested that the odors were only temporary.
But years later, odors from the landfill continue in my neighborhood. It was expected that the landfill
would close in 2018. However, another expansion that would more than triple the size of the current
landfill and extend landfill operation for another 20 years has been recommended by the Town of
Colonie. The landfill offers an unsightly view from our front yard and continues to grow. The proposed
expansion would increase the height of the mountain visible from our yard by almost another 87 feet
also making landfill operations more visible to other surrounding areas. This significant increase in the
height of the landfill would result in a more unsightly view from my property, for many residents of
Waterford and Halfmoon, and the Route 9 corridor. In addition, I highly doubt that the recommended
10 foot privacy fence would be effective in totally shielding landfill operations adding to the unsightly
view from the Towns of Waterford and Halfmoon. I note that not a single Town of Colonie resident has
the view of the unsightly landfill that I have from my property.
The expansion is solely for the financial benefit of the Town of Colonie and Waste Connections. Not a
single alternative to the expansion of this landfill have been evaluated or identified by the Town of
Colonie or Waste Connections. Before the Town of Waterford and Town of Halfmoon residents are
subjected to the nuisances of further expansion of the Colonie Landfill, alternative options should be
evaluated and pursued.
Such a vast expansion so close to the Mohawk River and so close to population centers should not be
approved. If this was a proposal to create a new landfill the size of the recommended expansion at that
location, I highly doubt it would be approved, given its close proximity to the Mohawk River and
population centers. Population along the Route 9 corridor and across the Mohawk River from the
landfill has grown significantly since the site of the landfill was chosen in the early 1960’s.
For the above reasons, I strongly oppose the recommended expansion of the Colonie Landfill. The right
of tax paying citizens should outweigh the financial gains for the Town of Colonie and Waste
Connections in this matter. Remember, it’s a cash cow for the Town of Colonie and Waste Connections.
There are other viable alternatives available that should be pursued.
Thomas J. Pickett
tpickett@nycap.rr.com
Cc
Jack Lawler, Town of Waterford
Kathy Marchione, 43rd NYS Senate District
John McDonald III, 108th NYS Assembly District
Paul Tonko, 20th Congressional District
From: Tim Truscott <empirestate@att.net>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Public Comment: Colonie Landfill Proposal
The proposal to expand the Colonie landfill has not received sufficient environmental study, and is too
close to the Mohawk River.
The proposal requires an adjudicatory hearing.
Sent from my iPhone
1
From: timothy nichols <timnichols99@gmail.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comments - Colonie Landfill
Attachments: decpubcomments.pdf
unexpected emails.
Attached is a PDF of my comments related to the proposed Colonie Landfill expansion application. They are
also below. Thank you.
Tim Nichols
1
Timothy D. Nichols
6 Crystal Lane
Latham, NY 12110
November 1, 2016
Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC Region 4
1130 North Westcott Rd
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the Town of Colonie’s application for various
permits that will allow the massive expansion of the Colonie Landfill and request their
application be denied. I am also concerned that the SEQR findings are flawed and should also be
rejected until thoroughly reviewed and adequate public participation is provided and allowed.
I am also calling for an adjudicatory hearing on this matter to be held so that all of the facts and
environmental and public health effects of this proposed landfill expansion can be thoroughly
and completely determined.
Finally, while the DEC may be the wrong regulatory agency for this matter, I am requesting that
DEC review the terms of the contract to lease operations of the landfill between the Town of
Colonie and Waste Connections be reviewed to determine whether such a contract is appropriate
for municipal landfill operations. It is clear to many that this contract puts the profits of Waste
Connections ahead of the public interest that should be protected by the municipality (Colonie)
but is not because of the terms of the contract. Colonie seems to be unable to independently and
objectively serve the interest of the People of the Town of Colonie because of the contract with
Waste Connections. How such a contract can exist with all of the inherited conflicts of interest is
beyond me. If NYSDEC is not likely to make any legal determination into the legality or
appropriateness of this contract, perhaps it can refer this matter to other State or Federal
oversight agencies that have the authority and expertise to determine whether such a contract is
appropriate.
The fact is, the proposed expansion of the Colonie landfill is utterly unnecessary and needlessly
grants a massive expansion of the Colonie Landfill well beyond the need to provide landfill
services to town residents and businesses. In fact, this large scale expansion serves merely to
benefit the operator, Waste Connections which currently relies upon massive amounts of out-of-
town garbage for its profits. If Waste Connections could only accept Town of Colonie garbage it
would not be able to make enough money to stay in business at this location. Waste Connections
profits from this enterprise only because as much as 90% of all of the solid waste coming into the
landfill is out of town garbage. Waste Connections therefore stands to reap millions upon
millions of dollars if it is allowed to accept even more massive amounts of garage as a result of
this proposed expansion being granted.
The Town of Colonie is in fact in doing the bidding of Waste Connections rather than serving in
the best interests of Town residents and businesses. That is wrong, inappropriate and should be
examined as to whether or not it is lawful. If this application goes through as is, what protections
are in place to ensure Waste Connections will not simply expedite the depletion of this unique
resource for its own desire to maximize profits? Once approved, Waste Connections can exploit
this landfill until it is no longer profitable to them because as a for-profit company, they are
interested only in massive profits and not interested in preserving the life of an invaluable
resource for town taxpayers.
Our environment, public health and quality of life are also under threat of being adversely
impacted by the proposed applications for expansion of the landfill. The proposed expansion
translates into hundreds of additional dirty, diesel garbage trucks, tractor trailers and others
diesel vehicles coming into our town, our neighborhoods, day and night. It means more and more
toxins from these vehicles leaking onto the ground and running into the ground water and then
the Mohawk River which it borders. It means dirty carbon monoxide spewing into the air in
neighborhoods which includes Boght Hill Elementary School. That elementary school is slated
as a top project for expansion if the school district’s $197 million bond act is passed by voters
this December. I wonder if that was considered in the environmental impact study? The main
reason for the school district’s call for a bond act is to serve the Town’s rapidly increasing
number of new homeowners and families moving into neighborhoods in the northern part of the
Town of Colonie. That also happens to be where the landfill is located as well. I wonder how
much of that was also factored into the environmental impact study?
One of the most appalling aspects of this proposal is the utter lack of public awareness of its
existence and the Town’s continued desire to keep its own taxpayers and residents ignorant of
this expansion scheme. Neither the Town of Colonie nor SDEC did an adequate job of directly
notifying the residents in in neighborhoods closest to the landfill let alone the rest of the town.
While I appreciate a second public hearing being offered, there was little if any real discussion
leading up to this proposal until recently. It reminds me of how the Town behaved in 2011
leading up to the foolish decision to enter into an agreement to privatize operations of the landfill
and securitize future profits with Waste Connections for literally pennies on the dollar. At no
time did the Town Supervisor or Town Board hold an informational public meeting at a location
near the landfill such as the Boght Fire Department of Boght Hills Elementary School.
Additionally, the terms of the contract and information related to it were tightly controlled and
misleading.
Neighbors testified at both public hearings recently that had they not be informed by a neighbor
about the proposed expansion they never would have heard about the public hearings offered by
DEC.
When governments worry that public awareness will make it more difficult or make it impossible
to succeed at something they want to do and they keep taxpayers deliberately in the dark, that is
usually a very bad sign that whatever they are doing is not in the best interest of the public.
Because the Town is so tied up with Waste Connections due to this inappropriate contract, there
literally is no entity on the side of the people and no entity that is being objective. I would like to
think DEC is objective but it is clear that is not the case upon reviewing the Executive Summary
in which DEC fails to consider alternatives to the expansion and the frequent use of subjective
terms to describe the environmental impact of the proposed expansion.
I implore DEC to reject this proposal and seek an independent analysis of not only the needs of
expanding the landfill but whether or not it is appropriate that a municipality can enter into such
a contract and then push to ensure a billion dollar corporation is able to maximize its profits in
using this public resource even if in doing so means it will not serve the public interest, will
increase pollution and threaten the environment and public health by exploiting a public asset for
its own selfish monetary gains.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timothy D. Nichols
R4DEP@dec.ny.gov
From: William Lockhart <luckylocky@aol.com>

To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Dump Expansion
unexpected emails.
This is in respect to the proposed expansion of the trash landfill (dump) located on Route 9 in Colonie. We have lived at 6
Mallards Landing South, on the hill across from the dump, for over 35 years. When we had our home built there was no
noticeable odor from the dump but as the dump grew larger that changed significantly. Each year the odor from the dump
became stronger until on hot summer days with the wind blowing from the direction of the dump it was unbearable. The
last few years the odor has subsided where we live to the point it is rarely noticeable. That does not mean that we are not
still bothered by it. We used to take walks down our street to the Mohawk River but on most days the odor from the dump
is so strong we need to turn around. I don't know how the people that live down there stand that smell all the time. I feel
sorry for them because they were told that the dump would be closed in 2018 and now it is proposed that not only will it
not be closed but it will become much larger. That is just not right and so unfair. If you want to experience the problem first
hand just drive by the dump on Route 9 with your windows open or, better yet, take a walk along the river on Mallards
Landing South in Waterford and just imagine what it is like on a hot Summer day.
Please choose to make right and just decision and close down this health hazard and environmental nightmare. To leave
it open and/or expand it would be a crime.
Sincerely,
William Lockhart
1
From: Magicviewr@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:56 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Attachments: Gentlemen.doc
unexpected emails.
Enclosed is an attachment for your public input.
1
Gentlemen:
The news item appearing in the local paper does not reflect the issues. You need to have
more development for a sound closure of this.
A twenty year extension of the usefulness of the current landfill does little. A plan for the
next sixty years would be more concrete. The town does need to plan for cash flows and
increases in revenues over the years; it keeps the taxes in check. The above statement also
applies to the city of Albany. They have the same situation, this might be a good time to
combine efforts and combine outcomes!
An incinerator is an ideal solution. I am not speaking of an incinerator similar to the one

used or the Empire State Plaza. I am not speaking of a standard industrial incinerator. I
am asking you to look at state-of-the-art incinerator technology, modern stuff. I am
asking you to go the Europe to find 6 or 9 incinerator sites that earned a reputation as
being state-of-the-art or near that point. The ISO comes to mind, International Standards
Organization may have already designed something that would fit the needs of Colonie
and Albany. Europe could help you build it and operate it.
In Cohoes they have an aggregate manufacturer that uses industrial kilns. You might wish
to look over the kiln and its operations and then think in terms of incinerator. This show
one of the weaknesses of public input; the town would have fewer than 10 people that
know anything about incinerators in Europe.
At this point, the Sierra Club should ask for input. It is important for the Sierra Club to
alter the agenda and help design in cooperation with garbage dump operators an
incinerator approved by the Sierra Club.
Approved by the Sierra Club
This would move many aspects of life with improved quality. The DEC, the EPA, the
attorney Generals office would stop. The public would stop because the Sierra Club
approved it.
The article also suggests the garbage dump has a stink problem. The Colonie landfill is a
modern, well run, up-to-date facility; stink is actively addressed and reduced in daily
operations. A garbage stink of the 1940’s or 1950’s may have a different outcome. This is
another the Siera Club can look into; the level of stink with relationship to a reasonable
outcome of operations in the landfill. The Sierra Club could mobilize and approve the
stink based on operator techniques in the handling of incoming refuse.
From: Quilt Lady <quiltlady71@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:59 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: The Town of Colonie Landfill
unexpected emails.
The Town of Colonie (located on the north side of Albany) has applied to the Department of Environmental
Conservation to greatly expand the size of its landfill, which is located literally within feet of the Mohawk
River, approximately one-half mile upstream from the City of Cohoes municipal water intakes.
The landfill is operated for Colonie under contract by a Texas firm, Waste Connections.
The expansion will perhaps triple the landfill's size from 5.5 million tons to 15 million tons, and will be
accomplished by expanding upwards, rather than outwards, and reaching a height of approximately 100 feet.
In addition, a portion of the expanded landfill will be sited on top of an un-lined hazardous waste disposal site.
We understand there are many other questionable issues related to this proposal.
We strongly feel that this proposal requires an adjudicatory hearing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Warren & Annette Hopson

13 Harrowgate Way
Latham, NY 12110
1
Attachment B
Colonie Landfill
Area 7 Development
July 21, 2017
Comments received during the June 2017 Supplemental Notice of Complete Application Public
Notice and Comment period ending July 3, 2017.
2017.06.08 Willard Bruce email
2017.06.20 Philip Lacombe email
2017.06.23 Mark Schachner letter, received June 26, 2017
2017.06.27 Tom Ellis email
2017.06.30 David Engel letter, received July 3, 2017
2017.07.03 George Harris letter, received by mail July 6, 2017
2017.07.03 Mark Schachner letter, received by email on July 3 – hard copy received July 7
2017.07.03 Mark Millspaugh letter received by email on July 3 – hard copy received July 7
From: Willard Bruce <wbruce5190@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 10:48 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill expansion
unexpected emails.
I am writing as a resident of the Town of Colonie and Capital Region to express my support for the proposed
expansion of the Colonie town landfill. With the imminent closing of the Albany city landfill, there will be
another 900+ tons per day of MSW looking for disposal options. The capital region needs predictable,
reasonably priced, and environmentally safe disposal capacity here in the Region. I know the DEC can address,
through appropriate mitigation measures, and cooperation from the applicant, most of the concerns being raised
by residents of the Halfmoon area across the river, and these mitigation measures should be made part of the
permit. The landfill will be needed even more, and be more of an asset to the Capital Region, as part of regional
waste management strategies, with the coming closing of the Albany landfill. If the landfill also happens to be a
financial asset to the Town of Colonie, that is another plus, not a negative. Thank you for considering these
comments.
1
From: LaCombe, Philip M (HEALTH)
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:58 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Expansion
My name is Philip LaCombe living across the landfill. I have complained multiple times to DEC and
Colonie including John McDonald, John Lawler and others
About the health effects and odors we are now getting on a routine basis from this Dump. We were
told it was going to be capped and through Sterling engineering,
We now find out they want to Piggy back upward the dump which the Mohawk River cannot take as
it was clear its going into the water.
News 13 about 1 week ago and we confirmed it was a chemical dump first and PFOA dump which
Cohoes drinking water comes out of. I see another Hoosick Falls problem
Where the gov. is going to have a lot of problems. We are going to have RPI and some others do
independent test on water, odors which is Methane and CO2 which is causing health issues.
We will release in a final version to all Media using special press release on this issue. We know
DEC is short staffed, but it appears that this should not be approved until the politics and safety
get relooked at.
Our community in the town of Waterford, Cohoes have talked to some of the employees of County
Waste who are getting whistle blower status as they stated to me directly we are just a Dump but
taking
A lot in from all over but here (who are we serving). Not us. The other item is they said what they
are dumping is not what is supposed to be dumped. I am very concerned about the odors and what
we are smelling.
It’s not just windy days, it’s all the time.
Philip LaCombe, M.S., B.S.
1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
15 WEST NOTRE DAME STREET

GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801
Mark Schachner Telephone: (518) 793-6611 John W. Miller (1908-1968)
Robert H. Hafner Facsimile: (518) 793-6690 John C. Mannix (1931-2006)
Leah Everhart
Jacquelyn P. White
Thomas W. Peterson 49 BURLINGTON AVE., 2ND FLOOR Toll Free: 1-800-421-6166
Justin M. Grassi PO BOX 578
ROUND LAKE, NEW YORK 12151
Telephone: (518) 899-1518 Web Site: millermannix.com
Michael J. Hill, Of Counsel Facsimile: (518) 899-1561 E-Mail: mschachner@mmshlaw.com
June 23, 2017

Angelo Marcuccio, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator VIA E-MAIL
Application – DEC #4-0126-00033/00001
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:
This submission is made on behalf of the Town of Waterford in advance of the newly
established public comment deadline of July 3rd.
The Department has apparently sought and the applicant has provided additional
information on at least three important issues. To the Department’s credit, you have allowed an
additional public comment period on these issues. However, what the Department has
apparently not done is require that this information be incorporated into the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and schedule an additional Public Hearing to allow verbal comments on it.
As was amply demonstrated at the Public Hearings of October and November, many
members of the public are better able to participate by making verbal comments rather than
being required to submit written ones. These are important issues about which the public
should have the opportunity to comment at an additional Public Hearing and, therefore, we
respectfully request that one scheduled.
Thank you for your consideration of this important request.
Very truly yours,

Mark Schachner
MS/
Enclosure
cc: Waterford Town Board
Sterling Environmental
David Engel, Esq.
N:\Clients\WATERFORD\CORR\Marcuccio Public Comment Letter 2.docx

From: Tom Ellis <tomellis107@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:44 PM
To: Seggos, Basil (DEC)
Cc: Marcuccio, Andy (DEC); McBride, Molly (DEC)
unexpected emails.
Hello Commissioner Seggos,
I have a concern I hope you can respond to. I stand opposed to any expansion of the Colonie landfill due to its
extreme proximity to the Mohawk River. I spoke at the two public hearings DEC held last September and
October on the landfill expansion proposal.
I recall about 25 years back DEC announcing it would no longer allow any new landfills to be sited next to
rivers. To me a tripling of the size of an existing landfill is not all that different than opening a brand new
one.
I read in the June 8 Albany Times Union that DEC is considering allowing or requiring that the land beneath the
old capped hazardous waste dump co-located with the existing Colonie landfill be injected with some type of
cement as a way to stabilize the ground and prevent or reduce pollution of the river from an expanded landfill.
A June 23 letter [reprinted below] in the Times Union print edition noted that overnight campers in the
Adirondacks are required by DEC to set up camp at least 150 feet away from any body of water, probably to
prevent any human wastes from entering the water.
Why is DEC even considering an expansion of the Colonie landfill? Why is not acceptable for people to camp
next to rivers and streams but the Town of Colonie is permitted to allow the dumping of tons of wastes every
week day only a few feet from the Mohawk River? Please respond to this email and to June 23 Times Union
letter.
Thousands of people read the letter. DEC's credibility is at stake here.
Thank you.
Tom Ellis
Solidarity Committee of the Capital District
43 North Pine Avenue
Albany, NY 12203
-------
Letter: How is tons of trash by the Mohawk

OK?
1
To the editor
Published 4:42 pm, Thursday, June 22, 2017








The article on the potential eight-story-high Colonie landfill near the shoreline
of the Mohawk River made me think that we've learned nothing from the
history of polluted sites in the Capital Region (think PCBs in Fort Edward,
nuclear waste on Central Avenue, oil waste on Green Island, etc.).
Everything was great at those locations until it wasn't. And that's likely the way
the Colonie dump will progress over time. Fifty years from now, as pollutants
from the dump are discovered in the Mohawk, people will be wondering what
madness caused government bodies to approve and build this dump.
The total ridiculousness of this idea can be seen by comparing the
environmental conservation rules for camping in the Adirondack Park to this
project. In the Park, rules say one cannot overnight camp within 150 feet of
any water body (stream, pond, river, lake, whatever) unless there is a "camp
here" sign. For practical purposes, this means camping in the wild close to
water is difficult to do legally. I assume environmental conservation has that
prohibition to keep the water bodies as free as possible from human-
generated waste.
To have the same state environmental officials even consider an eight-story-
high dump near the Mohawk makes a mockery of that rule. We can't have
campers possibly polluting a stream, but tons and tons of garbage next to the
Mohawk River are fine?
2
Colonie might need the money the dump will bring, but we need a clean
Mohawk River more.
3
July 3, 2017
NYSDEC – Div. of Environmental Permits
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Permit Modification

Supplemental Notice of Complete Application
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
On behalf of the residents of the Church Hill Historic District in the Town of Halfmoon I
am providing the following comments regarding the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) Supplemental Notice of Complete
Application dated May 25, 2017 for the Town of Colonie Landfill Permit Modification.
The Supplemental Notice of Complete Application provides a comment period until July
3, 2017 regarding the three items listed in the Notice (the report concerning the
unresolved inactive hazardous waste site, the supplemental geotechnical report
addressing liquefaction, and the potential air emissions from the proposed leachate
tanks). Our comments are generally specific to the April 2017, Area 7 Development – 1.9
(g) Report regarding the Inactive Hazardous Waste Site on the proposed facility
expansion.
At a basic level the Report minimizes the potential impacts to any future remedial
program and the impacts to the groundwater and the Mohawk River of putting millions of
tons of waste covering the portions of the inactive hazardous site and upgradient areas.
Basic issues are omitted for evaluation regarding significant increased threat of harm to
the environment or public health. Even the original DEIS has firmly established at this
point that groundwater under the active landfill portion as well as the inactive hazardous
waste site portion of the landfill is contaminated above standards, all the subsurface water
bearing units below the landfill and hazardous waste site flow into the Mohawk River.
On top of this, the additional studies recommended in the 1992 URS Phase II
Investigation Report the magnitude and potential impacts to the Mohawk River were
never conducted.
The original DEIS Complete Application didn’t acknowledge that AREA 1 was part of
the inactive hazardous waste site. This 1.9 (g) Report acknowledges the northern portion,
roughly a third, of the Landfill expansion, is listed as a Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste
Site. Now, egregiously, the disposal plan as outlined in this 1.9 (g) Report clearly
provides for soil and debris mixed with documented hazardous wastes (numerous F
wastes) excavated from the hazardous waste site to be illegally disposed of into the
active portions of the Colonie Landfill. Soil and debris contaminated with listed wastes
are still considered a hazardous waste under the Contained in Rule. On top of that, the
PID screening method proposed for excavated soils would also not detect the chromium
[1]
hydroxide sludge (F006) hazardous waste documented to have been disposed of at the
site (4300 tons), thereby providing for that also to be illegally disposed of into the active
portion of the Colonie landfill. Monumental gaffes such as this highlight the potential
risks of undertaking such a massive expansion over a complex geological and
environmentally sensitive area.
As stated in the Part 360-1.9(g)(1) Report, “sufficient information must be provided to

allow the NYSDEC to determine whether the proposed activity would interfere
significantly with any potential, ongoing, or completed inactive hazardous waste
disposal site remedial program, or would expose the environment or public health to a
significantly increased threat of harm. The information presented in the draft report fails
to achieve either of the stated goals.
Specific Technical Comments;
1.1. Site History.

Paragraph one references ongoing approved Environmental Monitoring Programs. As
indicated in prior numerous formal comments to the NYSDEC, these programs past and
future include no sampling of the Mohawk River or Mohawk River sediments. This in
spite of documented onsite hazardous and non-hazardous groundwater contamination,
water bearing zones draining into the River as well as formal notice of violation to the
landfill of contaminating areas leading to draining into the Mohawk River. Our group
twice FOIL’d the NYSDEC for analytical data used for the purpose of monitoring the
potential impacts from the landfill on the Mohawk River and sediments. We received the
second FOIL results after the close of the Public Comment Period last year. The
analytical date provided was basically useless for evaluating potential impacts. The
coordinates provided indicated the samples were taken from the Cohoes Waterford
Bridge well over two miles downstream of the landfill, after the City of Cohoes water
intake and the Cohoes Falls.
2.1.1 Overburden Geology.

The Report states that both the glaciolacustrine units and the till units vary in thickness
across the site ranging from various thickness to not present. These units could
potentially provide some containment. However, areas where they are not present provide
contamination pathways to the bedrock and River. The alluvium are assumed to be
hydraulically connected to the River. URS documented that protective geologic layers
were discontinuous in the area of the hazardous waste site and the alluvial deposits also
appear to be a factor related to the hazardous site. These are issues are critically related to
potential impacts to potential remedial programs and increased risks to public health and
the environment.
The Report goes into detail that the small alluvium area does not meet the definition of a
primary or principal aquifer. However, it is not entirely clear the alluvium deposit is
small and portions of the site are documented to be included in mapped area of the
Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer.
[2]
2.1.2. Bedrock Geology.
The report indicates the bedrock surface slopes downward from the south west corner of
the landfill towards the Mohawk River to the east and north. It would appear a large
portion of this is to the inactive hazardous waste site. As a classic example of incomplete
information upon which for the NYSDEC to make a determination, groundwater samples
were not collected from Bedrock Wells for evaluation in the Environmental Assessment
Report due to the reason stated on Page 4-10 that “these locations are identified in the
currently approved EMSAP as contingency sampling locations”. This is an issue
pertinent to both potential remedial programs and increased threat.
2.1.3 Recent Fill Materials.

These sections reference the 2016 SIR with a limited investigation scope. Notably waste
was encountered in almost all the borings including MW-2013-4D and MW 2013-2D.
There is no discussion regarding Test Pits or logs of such. This study has limitations to its
usefulness due to the fact that where waste was encountered; excavations were stopped to
avoid any damage to any liners underneath. The area of most concern, Area 1, is well
documented to have no liner underneath.
2.2.4 Three Dimensional Patterns of Groundwater Flow.

The Report inappropriately claims contamination impacts indicated by the wells is
localized and doesn’t reflect the overall groundwater quality. The inference is that areas
without wells are uncontaminated for which of course non-existing data can’t
substantiate. This is compounded by the fact that the well spacing for monitoring
protection of the River does not meet the requirements of part 360 Regulations.
2.3 Critical Stratigraphic Section.

This section identifies that the upper and intermediate water bearing zones would be
adequate for monitoring purposes. However, given the clear lack of consistency in the
confining layers over the bedrock, bedrock wells should have been tested to demonstrate
that. If the intent of well placement was to demonstrate there is no contamination flow to
the River, the well spacing should have at least met the requirements of part 360
Regulations.9
3.2 Closure and Capping – Class 3 Site.

The DEIS plan which includes and relies upon approval for filling and/or disturbing this
area results in a massively expanded landfill with significant new footprint and structure
build. The effect of adding hundreds of feet of additional waste and cover compressing
the lower strata including unlined contaminated fill in groundwater will undoubtedly
increase threats to the environment and health risks including the River, wetland and
forested areas, the quantification of which and pathways for which have not been
adequately characterized.
The discussion in this section clearly indicates that a portion of Area 1, part of an unlined
inactive hazardous waste site, has already been overlain by portions of landfill Areas 2,3
& 4 in violation of 1.9 (g) regulations with undetermined environmental impacts. What
this means is that not only was that area covered in the past, vast volumes of new waste
[3]
will be overlaying this combination of the wastes over the unlined inactive hazardous
waste site portion.
This section goes on to indicate “although this area does not include and engineered
baseliner it is underlain by natural clay deposits” The 1992 URS investigation indicated
(page 4-38) that “Borings done at the site (Phase II and earlier work for new landfill)
showed that lacustrine silts and clays do not extend all the way up the drumlin, and are
also missing beneath CW-30 and CW-40 in the northern portion of the site.
This section concludes stating;
““As part of the reclassification process a Phase II investigation performed by

URS Consultants stated, “Since the site does not appear to present an immediate
threat to life or health, no Interim Remedial Measures (IRM) are needed.”” This
conclusion continues to be supported by water quality data that has not shown
evidence of the volatile organic compounds reportedly disposed of within the
Class 3 Site.”
Basically the evidence doesn’t exist in part because the investigation to determine
potential impacts to the Mohawk River as recommended by URS in 1992 was never
conducted. Although URS did not recommend an IRM, specifically they did recommend:
“This Phase II investigation has revealed that the Town of Colonie

(inactive) Landfill has accepted hazardous wastes, is unlined, has
groundwater within the fill, has contaminants that exceed ARARs for both
groundwater and surface water (including groundwater in the kame unit),
and has fill in direct contact with both the kame and shale aquifers
underlying portions of the landfill. What is not known is how much of an
impact, quantitatively, the landfill is having on the kame and shale
aquifers, and ultimately on the Mohawk River. In addition, the
groundwater flow regime is not known in sufficient detail to positively
identify all possible downgradient receptors of contaminants from the
landfill (e.g., Ballard Trailer Park well). The Phase II investigation
has also shown the need to assess the area north of Cohoes-Crescent Road
and east of Route 9, which has been filled.
Additional studies for this site should focus on the kame and shale
aquifers, with particular emphasis on identification of all potential
receptors to determine health risks, and the magnitude of the threat to
the Mohawk River. A proposed field investigation involving the
installation of 4 water table wells (in fill areas), 5 monitoring wells in
the kame unit, and 9 monitoring wells in the shale unit, plus 7 surface
water/sediment sampling locations on site and in the Mohawk River is
detailed in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. Reasons for each well and sampling point
[4]
are given in the tables. All proposed locations are shown on Figure 4-4
(Attachment 1). Monitoring wells installed for the new landfill area should be
included in the study to better clarify the groundwater flow regime.
Consideration should be given to limiting monitoring of proposed
monitoring wells to TCL volatiles and TAL Metals only, instead of the
complete TCL list. This recommendation is based on Phase II and previous
monitoring results, which showed groundwater to be contaminated largely
with VOCs and metals, while surface water problems were largely caused by
metals only. Some semi volatile compounds, such as naphthalene, were
occasionally detected, but no well was identified in this investigation as
contaminated only with semi volatiles or pesticides. All contaminated
wells had a preponderance of VOC and metals contamination.”
It is important to note that investigation of this scale was never conducted. Most of the
data referenced in this 1.9 (g) report is based on well cluster data from only two locations
2013-2 and 2013-4.
What this section does not describe or evaluate is the massive amount of waste that will
be placed on the southernmost area of the inactive hazardous waste site. The Figure 1-2
(Attachment 2) is inaccurate in that the shaded blue area indicated as the haz site does not
represent the southern boundaries of the hazardous waste site. The dashed area identified
as “Cruickshank Approximate boundary does. This can be confirmed by comparing the
Cruickshank boundaries to the 1992 URS Inactive Hazardous Waste Report for the study
Area Figure 1-2. This area is clearly labeled on the Figure 1-2 as the “Closed landfill
Area - Area Filled 19070s-1983”. That year range includes the documented hazardous
waste disposal. The Remediation Boundaries as indicated on the 1.9 (g) Report
(Attachment 3) more than conveniently terminate at areas of cap already overlain onto
the Area 1 southernmost portion. When the the 1.9 (g( figure 1-2 is compared to Figure 1-
3 of the Draft EIS titled Proposed Final grading, it is quite obvious that fill of up to
almost 500 amsl will be covering the southern portion of the inactive hazardous waste
site. Approximately two hundred and fifty (250) feet of elevation would be filled with
waste. The northern portion of the hazardous waste site is to be overlain with an
additional 100 feet of waste, as well as the North Pond. This massive weight can only
serve to squeeze out loose alluvial sols and documented contamination underground in
the direction of the Mohawk River.
3.3 Proposed Construction within the Class 3 Site.

“The 1.9 (g) Report states; It is anticipated that the waste will be predominantly MSW,
however, in the event industrial waste is encountered, the following procedures will be
followed.” There is no reason to believe the waste in excavation areas will predominately
be MSW. Furthermore, it is not just “Industrial waste” The 1992 URS Report stated
based upon documentation that “The site operated from 1968 to 1983. It accepted at least
85,000 tons of industrial wastes, much of it hazardous, until ordered to stop in 1980 by
NYSDEC. “
[5]
Unbelievably, the disposal plan calls for screening waste excavated from the hazardous
waste site using a PID and TCLP testing. If the “waste does not meet or exceed toxicity
characteristics, it will be disposed of on-site in the active Town of Colonie Landfill.”
Following this disposal plan WILL POTENTIALLY RESULT IN ILLEGAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL. This is a hazardous
waste site with DOCUMENTED disposal of hazardous waste spent solvents and
electroplating wastes including Part 373 hazardous waste codes F001, F002, F003, F005,
F006 & D001. Those wastes classified as hazardous include waste chromium hydroxide
sludge (F006), trichloroethylene (FOOl), accumulated paint in 55 gallon drums (D001),
and solvent-based phenolic and urethane sludges (D001).Based upon the Contained in
Rule, contaminated debris and media containing these contaminates may not be disposed
of based solely upon TCLP testing. Additionally, screening excavated materials for
contamination with a PID will also not detect types of wastes such as electroplating
wastes.
Excavation within the hazardous waste site will most likely result in excavation in
groundwater. Since this groundwater is in direct communication with the Mohawk River
uncontrolled excavation of this type should not be allowed. Some type of engineering
control for dewatering with appropriate sampling and disposal or other protection from
the spread of contamination must be provided.
Section 3.3 Section 3 states
“As discussed in Section 2.5.3 of the DEIS, the proposed development of Area 7
would reduce infiltration of precipitation through large portions of the historic
waste from an estimated 100 gal/acre/day to nearly zero by using a double
composite liner system. The reduction in recharge (i.e. preventing the migration
of precipitation through the existing waste) is anticipated to result in a long term
improvement in water quality. Quarterly, ongoing water quality monitoring will
serve to both document and monitor for potential groundwater impacts.”
It is disputable that the reduced infiltration benefits will outweigh the negative impacts of
placing millions of tons onto the inactive hazardous site and upgradient areas. As noted in
the comment on section 3.2, fill of up to almost 500 amsl will be covering the southern
portion of the inactive hazardous waste site. Approximately two hundred and fifty (250)
feet of elevation would be filled with waste. The northern portion of the hazardous waste
site is to be overlain with an additional 100 feet of waste, as well as the North Pond. This
massive weight can only serve to squeeze out loose alluvial sols and documented
contamination underground in the direction of the Mohawk River. This is compounded,
as commented earlier, by the fact there hasn’t been any and there aren’t any plans to
analytically monitor the Mohawk River or sediments.
4. 0 Alternative remedial Scenarios.

This section makes the argument that remedial activities are not anticipated due to the
improvement in water quality resulting from reduced infiltration into historic waste and
that 85 feet is sufficient to allow appropriate remedial actions if required. It is disputable
[6]
that the reduced infiltration benefits will outweigh the negative impacts of placing
millions of tons onto the inactive site. Liners in landfills are documented to leak, that’s
why all liners have specified leakage rates. They also can become unreliable over long
periods of time. Placing this amount of waste in over an area documented to contain
hazardous waste, with documented solid waste contamination in groundwater, in an area
documented to be discharging to the Mohawk River, 1.5 miles upstream of the City of
Cohoes, and documented to have accepted PFOA wastes is irresponsible. Taking an
inactive hazardous waste site that currently is classified a Class 3 site due to
undocumented exposure pathways and handling it in this way in this environment will
expose public health and the environment to unnecessary risks with the almost certainty
that it will become a Class 2 site as a threat to public health and the environment. Once
the threat is created, engineering controls can be expensive and cannot be counted on to
be 100% reliable when dealing with groundwater contamination next to a Class A
drinking water source and the environmental resources present.
The section concludes without any justification that “the Area 7 Development will not
impact the ability to perform these remedial actions in the future” This site is already
severely constrained by wetlands and also public roadways directly adjoining the landfill
on two sides. On the east, only the two lane Cohoes Crescent Road with marginal
shoulders is between the landfill and the Mohawk River. This will be further
compounded by a massive retaining wall located along the Cohoes Crescent Road further
impeding implementation of potential remedial actions.
5.0 Monitorability.
The focus in this section is that it’s possible to differentiate current or future impacts
from the existing site from any potential impacts from the landfill development as
required by the 1.9 (g) regulations. The focus is not protection or monitoring the impacts
of putting millions of tons on the site and upgradient areas. The proposal for monitoring
the impacts from this portion of the 24 acre haz waste site is basically only from two well
pairs and the existing well CW-5. This is an insufficient number of monitoring locations
given the drastic change in material being overlain onto this site. The additional 25 some
acres to the north of Area 1, also part of the inactive hazardous waste site is not being
monitored.
Monitoring wells by themselves are not sufficient to insure protection to the bordering
Mohawk River Class A drinking water source. The 2016 Environmental Assessment
Report, Attachment 2 to the DEIS Engineering Report, indicates that the groundwater is
contaminated and that all three landfill site water bearing zones flow into the Mohawk
River. Groundwater samples were not collected from Bedrock Wells for evaluation in the
Environmental Assessment Report due to the reason “these locations are identified in the
currently approved EMSAP as contingency sampling locations”. This is in spite of the
fact the NYSDEC has issued Notice of Violations regarding contamination in areas that
drain into the Mohawk River and/or adjacent wetlands. Additionally, the studies
recommended in the 1992 URS Phase II Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Investigation to
determine potential impacts to the Mohawk River were never conducted. The URS report
[7]
identified contaminated surface water contamination and recommend additional testing in
the River. Recent FOIL results of all environmental analytical data related to the Colonie
Landfill indicate that there is no related surface water or sediment sampling in the River
to critically access existing or future impacts to the River. Compounding this issue, the
existing as well as the proposed Environmental Monitoring Program for the landfill has
no associated surface water or sediment sampling to critically assess and monitor impacts
to the Mohawk River. Given that the direct connection to the River is well established,
and if bedrock contamination exists it too would flow through the site into the River, the
magnitude of the impacts to the River and sediments must be evaluated in the existing
state as well as in the proposed significant changes. The URS Report documented surface
water and sediment sampling contamination;
“with Class A surface water ARAR values exceeded at least once by 13 different
metals (plus once for cyanide). Cumulatively, the three surface water samples
exceeded Class A ARARs 25 times. If Class D ARARs are used (considering the
samples are obtained from a ditch tributary to a Class A river) , the number of
ARAR exceedances is much less, but all three samples still exceed at least one
Class D ARAR. Sediment samples suggested that metals may be accumulating in
the sediments. Background surface water and sediment samples were not
obtained during this investigation, however. Surface water drainage is to
the Mohawk River.”
This section goes on to state; “In the event that a detected release requires remediation,
the site hydrology is sufficiently characterized such that applicable remedial actions can
be evaluated, selected and implemented as needed.” Again, what is not sufficiently
characterized is how much of an impact, quantitatively, the landfill is having on the kame
and shale aquifers, and ultimately on the Mohawk River. In addition, the groundwater
flow regime is not known in sufficient detail to positively identify all possible
downgradient receptors of contaminants from the inactive landfill.
Section (Missing) Information Missing in the Report as required by NYCRR Part 360 1.9
The Regulations clearly require the following information for all applications under Part
360 -1.9 which we as the Reviewing Impacted Public have determined is critical,
necessary and pertinent for our review;
(h) Contingency plan.

Every application for a permit identified in this Part must include a contingency
plan.
(1) This contingency plan must include, but is not limited to:
(i) a description of arrangements between the applicant and local police
departments, fire departments, hospitals, contractors, equipment suppliers, and
State and local emergency response teams to coordinate emergency services and
familiarize them with the layout of the facility, properties of the solid waste
handled at the facility and associated hazards, places where facility personnel
normally would be working, entrances to and roads inside the facility, and
possible evacuation routes, as appropriate;
[8]
(ii) a list of names, addresses and telephone numbers (office and home) of all
individuals qualified to act as an emergency coordinator. Where more than one
individual is listed, the primary coordinator must be listed first and the others
listed in the order in which they will assume responsibility as alternates;
(iii) a list of all relevant emergency equipment maintained at the facility (such as,
but not limited to, fire extinguishing systems, spill control equipment, and internal
and external communications and alarm systems) and the location and a physical
description of each item of emergency equipment with a brief outline of its
capabilities; and
(iv) an evacuation plan for facility personnel, including a description of signals to
be used to begin evacuation and of the primary and alternate evacuation routes.
(2) Additional requirements for such a plan for specific types of solid waste
management facilities are found in the Subpart pertaining to the type of facility in
question.
(i) Signature and verification of applications.
(1) All applications for permits must be accompanied by evidence of authority to
sign the application and must be signed by the applicant as follows:
(i) in the case of corporations, by a duly authorized principal executive officer of
at least the level of vice president;
(ii) in the case of a partnership or limited partnership, by a general partner;
(iii) in the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor; or
(iv) in the case of a municipal, State, or other governmental entity, by a duly
authorized principal executive officer or elected official.
(2) Applications must be sworn to by, or on behalf of, the applicant, in respect to
the veracity of all statements therein; or must bear an executed statement by, or on
behalf of, the applicant as provided in section 210.45 of the Penal Law to the
effect that false statements made therein are made under penalty of perjury.
6 CRR-NY 360-1.9
The requirement that all applications for permits must be accompanied by evidence of
authority to sign the application, must be sworn to and must be signed by the applicant is
of particular interest due to the fact that it is entirely unclear to our group who is the
appropriate legal applicant in this particular context and instance.
Section 6.0 Conclusions.

Based upon the above arguments, the conclusions in Section 6 are not supported. The
Site Investigation Report (SIR) in the DEIS Engineering Report in Section 4 clearly
indicates and itemizes exceedances of GWQS for metals in the upper water-bearing zone
in monitoring wells MW 2013-2s and 2013-4s. The SIR also clearly indicates “The cross
sections also illustrate upward gradients within the intermediate water bearing zone on
the eastern edge of the site closest to the Mohawk River and the groundwater from each
of the three water bearing zones discharge to the Mohawk River.”
It is disputable that the reduced infiltration benefits will outweigh the negative impacts of
placing millions of tons onto the inactive hazardous site and upgradient areas. The
[9]
expansion proposal is massive in its scale and magnitude. The absolute need for such an
expansion has never been demonstrated. The potential risks outweigh the sorely lacking
demonstrated benefits which appear to only include the budget of the Town of Colonie
and the profits to a multi-billion dollar waste company. Liners in landfills are
documented to leak, that’s why all liners have specified leakage rates. They also can
become unreliable over long periods of time. Placing this amount of waste over an area
documented to contain hazardous waste, with documented contamination in groundwater,
in an area documented to be discharging to the Mohawk River, 1.5 miles upstream of the
City of Cohoes water intake, and documented to have accepted PFOA wastes is
irresponsible. Taking an inactive hazardous waste site that currently is classified a Class 3
site due to exposure pathways that were never sufficiently documented and handling it in
this way in this environment will expose public health and the environment to
unnecessary risks with the almost certainty that it will become a Class 2 site as a threat to
public health and the environment. Once the threat is created, engineering controls can be
expensive and cannot be counted on to be 100% reliable. Monumental gaffes such as the
inappropriate classification of hazardous wastes for disposal just highlight the potential
risks of undertaking such a massive expansion over a complex geological and
environmentally sensitive area. The context and risk must be taken into account of a
massive solid waste landfill and an inactive hazardous waste site, both with groundwater
contamination, bordering the Mohawk River a Class A drinking water source.
Sincerely,
--- s---
George W. Harris, P.E.

66 Church Hill Road
Cc:
Kevin J. Tollison, Halfmoon,
David Engel, Nollan & Heller,
John E. Lawler, Waterford,
Mark Millspaugh, Sterling Environmental
Mark Schachner, Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner,
Molly T. McBride, Administrative Law Judge NYSDEC,
Frank Hartley, CCALE,
Henny O’Grady, CCALE,
Brad Oswald, CHHD,
John Semansco, CHHD
[10]
Church Hill Road Comments Attachment 1
Church Hill Road Comments Attachment 2
COHOES CRESCENT ROAD
8-4
LINED L ANDFILL
151
(CLOSED)
ACTIVE L ANDF ILL AREA
CLOSED LANDFILL AREA

· AREA FILLED MW-4 M-N -10
1970' 5-1983
~ -¢-
.,.,. .- ·- ·- ·-""' B-1
~
NOTES
L) SEE FIGURE 3-1 FOR
REF EREN CES
LEGEND
S MONITOR ING WELL INSTALLED BY URS

() EX IST I N G MONITOR ING WELL 800FT.
0 400
151 EXISTING BORIN G LOCATION
-·-
G.fJJ
PHASE IT STUDY
FORMER CANAL I PONDED AREAS
~- I
TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL
'"' SITE PLAN
~I URS . FIGURE 1-2
Zl.------------------------------~--------~------------------~~--~--------~--------------~~~--~~~~~-~~-~~~~~~-~=c~-~---------------------
- - '" - - PROPOSED MEA 7 DEVELOPMENT GRADE LINES (MAJOR CONTOURS)
PROPOSED MEA 7 DEVELOPMENT GRADE LINES (MINOR CONTOURS)
NYSDEC REMEDIATION SITE BOUNDARY (S ITE 10' 401 DD4) (SOURCE NEW
YORK STATE GIS UNIT) NOTE' THIS BOUNDAAY IS NOT GEOREFERENCEO
IT WAS BEST FIT WITH THIS DRI\WING
CRUICKSHlA.NK APPROXIMlA.TE LANDFILL AREA LIMITS (SOURCE' DRAWING
ENTITLED "FINISHED GRADE WORKSHEET" BY' G. ALAN CRUICKSHlA.NK
~LANDfU
WI>STE LIMITS DATED' JUNE 25, 19B1 ) NOTE' THIS BOUNDAAY IS NOT GEOREFERENCEO
IT WAS BEST FIT WITH THIS DRAWING
~B-201)(-)( BORING LOCATION
[J rP-20 13-)( TEST PIT LOCATION' PERFORMED AS PMT OF SIR IN 2013
TEST PIT LOCATION' PERFORMED ONLY TO DETERMINE CO'v£R MATERlA.L
[J TP-20 14-X THICKNESS - ALL DATA INCLUDED ON THIS FIGURE
ELEVATION (FT) OF EXISTING WASTE AT TEST PIT / BORING
SCXl<X.IC< ELEVATION (FT) OF PROPOSED SUBGRADE AT TEST PIT / BORING
-+KK.XX~WG DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN EXISTING WASTE GRADE
(- :P::X_Xl<) EnDW WG
"" AND PROPOSED SUBGRNJE
OF PROPOSED CUT
~ >n..,., ' ' OF PRO:~::: :~:ON LANDFILLS, INC.
TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL
Road Intersection. '" '"
represented by the dashed lines to the right. The haz site also includes an area to the north of Route 9 and the Cohoes Crescent 1-2
SITE BOUNDARY (SITE ID #401004)
j~l--------------------------------------------------------------------------_j~~[l~~~r:::~:_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l_--------~c~OL~ON~I~E.~NE~w~Yo~R~K----------JI~~:J
abbreviated to avoid areas of the site already overlain with solid waste capping. The haz site actually also includes the areas as
waste site boundaries as identified in Attachment 2. In this Figure the shaded blue line to represent the haz waste site boundary is
Church Hill Rd Attachment 3 This Figure 1-2 is from the 1.9 (g) Report. It is inverted to show the comparison to the Hazardous
September 20, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript
1
1 TOWN BOARD COUNTY OF ALBANY
2 TOWN OF COLONIE
3 *******************************************************
4 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF

THE TOWN OF COLONIE
5 TO THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
6 *******************************************************
7 THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES of the above entitled

matter by NANCY L. STRANG, a Shorthand Reporter, on
8 September 20, 2016 6:00 p.m. at Shaker High School 445
Watervliet Shaker Road, Latham, New York 12110.
9
10 MOLLY T. MCBRIDE, ESQ., Administrative Law Judge
11
ALSO PRESENT:
12 Matthew McGarry, Public Works Engineer, Town of Colonie
Jack Lawler, Supervisor, Town of Waterford
13 Mark Gleason, General Manger, City of Watervliet
Mark Schachner, Esq., Miller Mannix Schachner Hafner,
14 Special Legal Counsel to the Town of Waterford
Kevin Tollisen, Supervisor, Town of Halfmoon
15 Eric Hamilton, Executive Director, Mohawk Towpath
Scenic Byway Coalition, Inc.
16 Carl Clemente, Fonda Concrete
Kurt Shaner, Waste Connections
17 Tom O'Connor, Capital Region Chamber
Kurt Shaner, Waste Connections
18 Ryan Flinton, Aria Energy
Robert Holmes, Cornerstone Environmental
19 John Szemassco, Oakcliff Bed and Breakfast
Curt Taylor, Waste Connections
20 Matt Allen
Kevin Bronner
21 Tom Ellis
Naz Garabedian
22 Frank Hartley
Betty Hartley
23 George Harris
Kevin Kelly
24 Henrietta O'Grady
Brad Oswald
25 Paul Reepmeyer
Adam Rosen
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
2
1 Cont.
2 Mark Swatling
Bruce Tansk
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
3
1 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Good evening everyone. We're
2 going to get started.
3 My name is Molly McBride and I'm the Administrative
4 Law Judge with the New York State Department of
5 Environmental Conservation and I'll be presiding over
6 this evening's public comment session.
7 Today's public comment session is regarding the
8 application of the Town of Colonie to develop
9 approximately 132 acres of land referred to as Area 7
10 within the existing 212 acre landfill site as new
11 landfill space.
12 The permits required for the landfill expansion
13 include solid waste, air and fresh water wetland as well
14 as water quality certification.
15 The landfill is located at 1319 Loudon Road in the
16 Town of Colonie. The project would impact approximately
17 1.43 acres of federal wetlands and 1.33 acres of the 100
18 foot buffer area of state wetland TN-10. The New York
19 State Department of Environmental Conservation is a SEQR
20 lead agency. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has
21 been completed by the applicant for this section and has
22 been accepted by the DEC.
23 Notice of completion of the Draft Environmental
24 Impact Statement, notice of complete applications and
25 notice of the public comment period and notice of this
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
4
1 public comment hearing were published in the
2 Environmental Notice Bulletin on August 24, 2016 as well
3 as in the Times Union on August 24, 2016.
4 The public comment period has been extended to
5 November 1, 2016 and notice of that extension has been
6 published in the Department's Environmental Notice
7 Bulletin.
8 The purpose of our hearing here this evening is to
9 provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the
10 applications that are pending. Please note that this is
11 not a question and answer session.
12 As I indicated, the department will be accepting
13 written and oral comments and the comment period will
14 now end on November 1st. Therefore, all written
15 comments must be received by the department by November
16 1st to be considered. The mailing address for comments
17 is the New York State Department of Environmental
18 Conservation, The Region 4 Office, 1130 North Westcott
19 Road in Schenectady. Address your comments to the
20 attention of Angelo Marcuccio who is the Deputy Regional
21 Permit Administrator. That address is available outside
22 the hearing room at the DEC information table here this
23 evening.
24 Anyone who would like to make a comment on the
25 record must fill out a speaker card for me. The cards
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
5
1 are available at the table outside of this hearing room
2 at the DEC information table. So far, I have
3 approximately 22 speaker cards. If you have not yet
4 completed a card or if you decide during the course of
5 the hearing that you would like to make a comment,
6 please go to the table and fill out a speaker card and
7 we will take you in the order that the card was
8 submitted.
9 First I will call upon elected officials and then
10 members of the public.
11 When it is your turn to speak, I will call your
12 name and please come forward and speak into the podium
13 microphone for me. If I mispronounce your name, I
14 apologize. Please correct me.
15 We have a court reporter here this evening who is
16 making a transcript of the hearing. It is important that
17 you speak loudly, slowly and clearly so that the court
18 reporter can make an accurate record of the proceeding
19 of this evening.
20 If you are reading comments, please provide them to
21 me at the completion of your statement so that we can
22 use as well for preparing the transcript.
23 If you are representing a group, I ask that you
24 please identify the group that you are representing and
25 please identify your name and your address before you
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
6
1 begin making your comments.
2 If you have any questions for DEC staff or the Town
3 of Colonie, I would ask that you raise them outside of
4 this hearing room this evening. We have members of DEC
5 staff who are here as well as members of the Town of
6 Colonie and I'm sure that they would be happy to speak
7 with you while you are here this evening. You may also
8 contact them outside and the contact information is
9 available, again, at the DEC information table.
10 If you do not wish to make a statement on the
11 record this evening, you may submit your statement in
12 writing. We have paper here available this evening, if
13 you would like to submit your written comment here this
14 evening.
15 Equal weight is given by department staff for
16 written and oral comments.
17 Before we begin taking comments, I'm going to have
18 Matthew McGarry who is a Public Works Engineer from the
19 Town of Colonie give a brief presentation regarding the
20 project.
21 Mr. McGarry?
22 MR. MCGARRY: Thank you, Judge McBride.
23 Just a couple of housekeeping things first: There
24 are three exits in the back and one exit on either side
25 of the stage.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
7
1 Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the
2 public officials in attendance tonight; Supervisor Mahan
3 and our Town Board Members. I also would like to thank
4 everyone who came tonight. We appreciate your
5 participation. I see a lot of familiar faces here.
6 I have been a Public Works Engineer with the Town
7 of Colonie and/or involved with the Town Landfill for
8 over 20 years. I am going to provide some brief
9 background information to you tonight that I hope will
10 answer some of your questions.
11 First, some background on the landfill.
12 The Town Landfill has been at its present location
13 since 1960. The original Town Solid Waste Management
14 Plan was submitted to the Department of Environmental
15 Conservation in 1990 and finalize in 1992. The plan
16 selected landfill operation has a long-term solid waste
17 disposal method for the plan.
18 In the early 1990's and in the early 2000's the
19 Town purchased adjacent property to allow for the
20 landfill to continue operation. When the Local Solid
21 Waste Management Plan was updated in 2007 it documented
22 that the existing areas of the landfill would reach
23 capacity in 2018. It identified the development of Area
24 7 in order to continue operation. Keeping the landfill
25 operational is important not just to the Town, but to
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
8
1 the entire region. It is a regional resource that
2 provides environmentally sound and cost effective
3 service for the community. If landfill operations were
4 to cease the trash would be forced to go elsewhere,
5 causing transportation costs to rise, making it more
6 expensive for both businesses and residence. Cost
7 increases are also association with elicit dumping.
8 The Colonie landfill, as I said, is a regional
9 facility with over 98% of the waste disposed at the
10 landfill originating from local communities. In 2006
11 the Town of Colonie partnered with Innovative Energy to
12 develop a generating facility at the landfill. This
13 facility beneficially uses landfill gas on a 24 hour
14 seven day a week basis and produces enough electricity
15 to power over 2,800 homes.
16 The Town next partnered with Waste Connections and
17 in September of 2011 Waste Connections began operating
18 the landfill. Waste Connections, since that time, has
19 improved the operation and included the expansion of the
20 landfill gas collection system two times a year, every
21 year.
22 A little background information on the Area 7
23 proposal.
24 The Town submitted the application to the New York
25 State Department of Environmental Conservation to gain
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
9
1 approval for the Area 7 development. This development
2 would allow the lifespan of the landfill to be extended
3 for an additional 20 years. The Town began public
4 outreach informational meetings at locations in Colonie,
5 Cohoes, Halfmoon and Waterford beginning back in 2014
6 and continuing into this year, all to discuss the Area 7
7 project. To date, we have had six public meetings
8 regarding the Area 7 proposal.
9 Applications were filed in 2015 and through
10 thorough regulatory review with the Department of
11 Environmental Conservation. The applications have
12 improved. The overall nature of the project, however,
13 has remained the same.
14 Project documents have been available for review by
15 interested parties on our website since early 2015.
16 The New York State Department of Environmental
17 Conservation deemed the application documents complete
18 in August of 2016 and began a public comment period. As
19 Judge McBride has stated that comment period has been
20 extended to November 1st.
21 The proposed Area 7 landfill development includes
22 state of the art systems to contain the wastes and the
23 water within the leachate -- waster within the waste
24 known as leachate. The changing of our leachate storage
25 system -- we currently use open lagoons, which will be
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
10
1 changed to enclosed; additional stormwater controls;
2 increased operational requirements and commitments that
3 have been made in the permit documents to DEC to ensure
4 department notification; participation public
5 notification and the ability to comment on our odor
6 sensitive activities and changing the site entrance from
7 its current location on Route 9 to a much safer
8 low-speed entrance and exit off the industrial park
9 located just to the south.
10 The proposed Area 7 development does not include a
11 change in the rate of waste accepted for disposal or any
12 new land for the project. The operations at the
13 landfill will stay essentially same, the way that they
14 have been since the 60's.
15 The rate at which waste is accepted at the landfill
16 will not increase. The Area 7 development simply allows
17 us to use existing landfill property more efficiently to
18 extend the life of the landfill.
19 Top priority for us is to be a good neighbor and
20 that means open lines of communication. We take all of
21 our concerns very seriously. We want to ensure that the
22 landfill is a positive resource for our region and we
23 encourage your comments.
24 Visitors are also welcome at the site and we would
25 be happy to show you the inner workings of the site
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
11
1 through a site tour.
2 Finally, our website that I have mentioned is an
3 important tool to keep the public up to date. We
4 continuously provide updates about the Area 7
5 development project and about the landfill. That
6 website is simply www.townofcolonielandfill.com.
7 Thank you, Judge McBride.
8 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Thank you.
9 Our first speaker is Jack Lawler.
10 MR. LAWLER: Good evening, everyone. My name is
11 Jack Lawler and I thank you for allowing me the
12 privilege of speaking here tonight. I am the Town
13 Supervisor for the Town of Waterford and I would like
14 to begin my remarks by thanking the Department of
15 Environmental Conservation for what I believe is the
16 correct decision and the correct way to start this
17 process off by agreeing to extend the public comment
18 period through October 31st. The original deadline had
19 been at the end of September which given the fact that
20 this Impact Statement is approximately 1,300 pages
21 long, it seems like a very difficult task for those of
22 us who have serious concerns about this project to
23 review that data, analyze it and offer constructive and
24 intelligent comments. I really appreciate the
25 department's decision to back that up another 30 days.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
12
1 Later in this presentation - our Town Attorney is
2 in attendance as well as consultant engineers who are
3 currently reviewing the draft statement and they will
4 speak later to some of the specific concerns that we
5 have.
6 I would like to state that this proposes -- and it
7 is a massive expansion to the landfill and it has
8 numerous significant and I believe impossible to
9 mitigate impacts on the surrounding communities. We
10 will detail all of these impacts in written comments
11 later.
12 I would like to state for the record that the Town
13 of Waterford vigorously opposes the proposed expansion
14 and given what is sure to be a controversial proposal, I
15 would also request that the department schedule a second
16 public hearing in late October after all the parties
17 have had an adequate time to review, as I stated
18 earlier, the 1,300 page document that is in fact the
19 Environmental Impact Statement. Not providing residents
20 and concerned parties who have serious concerns
21 regarding this proposed expansion an opportunity to
22 fully review the date provided and to hear comments from
23 other people, even though everybody will have an
24 opportunity to submit written comment I think that the
25 value of a presentation and a public hearing like this
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
13
1 is the fact that we will get to hear what other experts
2 and other concerned parties have to offer.
3 So, the first thing that I would like to do would
4 be to formally request a second public hearing be
5 scheduled in late October - not additionally extending
6 the deadline, but to have a second public hearing in
7 late October so that the many interested and concerned
8 parties can have an opportunity to adequately prepare
9 and present written comment and public comment at that
10 time.
11 I would also ask that to ensure the public that
12 this application process will be dealt with in a totally
13 transparent, fair and honest way by the department. I
14 would also ask that this application process be subject
15 to an adjudicatory review. We feel that a project this
16 massive, that affects this many people for this long a
17 period should be subject to the most rigorous review and
18 hearing process, which as I understand it is in fact an
19 adjudicatory process.
20 One of the concerns that I have and that I think is
21 important to move to an adjudicatory process is that we
22 were deeply disappointed by the decision not to use high
23 altitude balloons that would give people the visual
24 impact of what this landfill will look like if in fact
25 it's allowed to extend to the height that has been
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
14
1 proposed. It will dramatically and negatively alter the
2 landscape of as far away from the Northway and using
3 topographical graphs to demonstrate that in the
4 Environmental Impact Statement does an injustice to what
5 I believe is serious negative impacts simply from a
6 visual point of view. It will completely disrupt the
7 view from the river. It will disrupt the view from some
8 of the suburban areas that surround the landfill. So,
9 we were deeply disappointed at that and that is in fact
10 one of the reasons that we think that it's critical to
11 have an adjudicatory process where testimony is taken
12 under oath, where there is an opportunity to present
13 evidence and testimony in a more structured environment.
14 This is also especially important, giving the
15 regulatory enforcement actions that have resulted in
16 hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for violations
17 that the Town's operating permit that have been issued
18 and charged against the Town of Colonie for failing to
19 comply with the operating conditions of their permit. I
20 find it somewhat ironic that one of the largest
21 regulatory fines issued in this area -- I believe that
22 it was in excess of $500,000.00 - has now given birth to
23 an application to dramatically expand the landfill that
24 the current operators seem to have great difficulty
25 staying with the permit guidelines at its current size.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
15
1 I think that there is a little thing that we should
2 learn to walk before we run. There has not been
3 evidence that this landfill has been consistently
4 operated within the guidelines established under this
5 permit. We think that's another reason to gain
6 testimony and to cross-examine witnesses because we
7 think that there are additional operational issues that
8 have yet to be discovered at that landfill.
9 In closing, I would like to say that as I noted,
10 the Town of Waterford vigorously opposes this landfill
11 expansion. The Town of Waterford in connection with
12 other parties - we are totally committed to using all
13 available legal actions and opposition to this project.
14 I thank you for your time.
15 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Mark Gleason.
16 MR. GLEASON: My name is Mark Gleason and I'm the
17 General Manager for the City of Watervliet. I am here
18 representing the residents of Watervliet and also Mayor
19 Manning. He couldn't be here tonight. He apologizes
20 for that.
21 The City of Watervliet is 100% in favor of this
22 expansion. Although the City of Watervliet has made
23 great strides over the last five years in reducing the
24 amount of garbage that comes out of the City of
25 Watervliet, we have a leading organic waste program in
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
16
1 the city. Our recycling numbers have gone up every
2 year, but we still realize that there is going to be a
3 need for the expansion of this landfill. Every
4 municipality right now is under the tax cap. Sanitation
5 costs and removal of garbage in the City of Watervliet
6 is 5% of our budget. If our tipping fees go up, which
7 certainly could happen if the Colonie Landfill is not
8 allowed to expand.
9 As Matt had said, my guess is that garbage is going
10 to be shipped elsewhere which brings transportation
11 costs and hauling costs and manpower costs. As I said,
12 the City of Watervliet has had a very good and solid
13 relationship with Colonie. We've had a very good and
14 long, solid relationship with County Waste. We are 100%
15 for the expansion of the landfill.
16 Thank you, very much.
17 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Mark Schachner.
18 MR. SCHACHNER: Good afternoon, or good evening.
19 My name is Mark Schachner and I am an attorney with the
20 Law Firm of Miller Mannix Schachner Hafner in Glens
21 Falls and Round Lake. I am here this afternoon/evening
22 as special counsel - special legal counsel to the Town
23 of Waterford. Waterford Town Supervisor, John Lawler,
24 has just addressed this gathering and as he stated, the
25 Town of Waterford is opposed to the proposed expansion
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
17
1 of the Colonie Landfill - staunchly opposed.
2 I'm going to reiterate - and I believe that I have
3 already done this in written form - a letter to DEC and
4 request that there be a second late in the day public
5 hearing convened sometime in the latter portion of the
6 month of October. I'm not going to repeat the reasons
7 Supervisor Lawler stated, but we do think that while the
8 department may receive the comments in writing the same
9 as it receives comments verbally, in fairness to the
10 public and those who are concerned, there is a lot to be
11 gained by seeing live what those who are concerned have
12 to say about this substantial proposal.
13 We believe that there are a slew of potential
14 environmental impacts that the Draft Environmental
15 Impact Statement says will be appropriately mitigated
16 but we believe will not be or would not be appropriately
17 mitigated if this landfill expansion were allowed to
18 occur and in fairness, we don't think that they are
19 mitigatable, meaning that we don't think that they can
20 be appropriately mitigated. It's not just that the
21 applicant's efforts to demonstrate appropriate
22 mitigation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
23 fall short, we think that at least in terms of some
24 potential impacts there is no way to properly mitigate
25 them if the landfill is allowed to expand as proposed.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
18
1 We will be submitting obviously very detailed
2 written comments with the benefit of environmental
3 engineering consultants that will go into these points
4 in substantially more detail. In short fashion, we
5 believe that the visual impacts of the proposed
6 expansion would not be appropriately mitigated in terms
7 of the mitigation efforts proposed by the Draft
8 Environmental Impact Statement. We also think that the
9 proposed landfill expansion visual impacts are not
10 mitigatable in an acceptable manner.
11 Similarly in terms of odor impacts, the DEIS gives
12 substantial efforts to mitigating potential odor impact
13 increases or potentially increased odor impacts. If the
14 landfill was allowed to expand as proposed, we don't
15 believe the mitigation measures as proposed are suitable
16 or adequate and we don't believe that odor impacts can
17 be mitigatable if the landfill is allowed to expand as
18 proposed. We based that evaluation at least in part on
19 odor issues that have already previously arisen at the
20 existing landfill.
21 Similarly, we believe that the proposed landfill
22 expansion would, if allowed, cause substantial noise
23 impacts and that the proposed mitigation measures are
24 insufficient and that potential increased noise impacts
25 could not be appropriately mitigated. Ironically, there
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
19
1 are portions of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2 that seem to hint at reduced noise impact from the
3 landfill expansion. We don't think that's credible,
4 especially during construction of the expansion. The
5 other thing that people have to recognize is that
6 operation a landfill in and of itself involves
7 substantial noise making activity; heavy machinery and
8 the like. The landfill is not something that one builds
9 with heavy equipment and then all the heavy equipment
10 goes home. Operation of a landfill requires constant
11 use of heavy equipment. So, we think that the noise
12 impacts are not proposed to be properly mitigated and
13 cannot be appropriately mitigated.
14 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has some
15 discussion about economics and the need for the landfill
16 expansion. Some feel that's inappropriate in
17 environmental review, but the department knows that the
18 New York State Environmental Quality Review Act or SEQRA
19 does allow for consideration of certain economic
20 aspects. However, the Draft Environmental Impact
21 Statement is extremely misleading in this regard. There
22 are economically feasible alternatives that already
23 exist to allow for solid waste disposal in the Capital
24 District far nearer than truck transport to western New
25 York. Interestingly enough, the DEIS discloses that the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
20
1 largest contribution geographically to the Colonie
2 landfill is not from Albany County, but is actually from
3 Saratoga County. There are solid waste disposal
4 alternatives in existence already that are economical
5 feasible and there will soon be yet new additional solid
6 waste disposal alternatives in Saratoga County. So, w4e
7 think that the DEIS discussion about the economic need,
8 other than the need economically for the Town of Colonie
9 itself is very, very misleading.
10 To sum up, the department is well aware and the
11 public should be aware that solid waste management
12 facility permitting is governed by a set of New York
13 regulations. You will hear to them referred to as the
14 Part 360 regulation. We submit that this application
15 not only does not yet, but cannot meet the applicable
16 Part 360 criteria.
17 Furthermore, the New York State Environmental
18 Quality Review Act also know by it acronym, SEQRA, would
19 require the department if it were to approve the
20 application to certify that the action avoids or
21 minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum
22 extent practicable. We believe that the Draft
23 Environmental Impact Statement clearly demonstrates that
24 the department cannot and will not be able to make this
25 required finding.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
21
1 Lastly, to piggy back on what Supervisor Lawler
2 said, we are requesting -- in our written comments we'll
3 document this in more detail -- we are requesting that
4 an adjudicatory public hearing be held. The department
5 is well familiar with what that means. The applicant is
6 likely familiar with that means. The public may not be
7 familiar with what that means. DEC, regardless of how
8 compelling any of our presentations are this evening,
9 cannot go home tonight and tomorrow say we should not
10 issue the permit for the Town of Colonie landfill
11 expansion. If we have raised - and department staff
12 have raised sufficient and significant enough concerns
13 about the permitability of the applicant's proposal,
14 then the next step in the process would be what is
15 Supervisor Lawler referred to as an adjudicatory
16 hearing. That's fancy legalese for what amounts to an
17 administrative trial. The applicant and its panel of
18 experts would be sworn in and would have to testify
19 under oath. If there are entities like the Town of
20 Waterford and others that are granted what is called
21 party status at the adjudicatory hearing, then we get to
22 do two things as well. We get to swear in our own
23 witness panel of experts to discuss the issue that the
24 application presents and we would also get to
25 cross-examine the Town's experts on these very issues;
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
22
1 visual impacts, odor impacts, noise impacts and whatever
2 other issues are deemed to be adjudicatable by Judge
3 McBride, if there is an adjudicatory hearing. So we, on
4 behalf of the Town of Waterford, will certainly be
5 suggesting that we have met the threshold, which I will
6 describe in a moment for an adjudicatory hearing and we
7 would urge any of those members of the public or opposed
8 to the application - it's not a popularity contest. You
9 can write in a letter that says I'm Joe Jones or I'm
10 Harry Smith and I think that DEC should not grant the
11 permit for the Town of Colonie landfill expansion.
12 Those comments, in and of themselves, will not lead to
13 an adjudicatory hearing. The threshold standard is
14 comments have to raise substantive and significant
15 issues that might lead to permit denial or would at
16 least could at least lead to a position of significant
17 permit conditions. We clearly believe that our comments
18 have raised issues to that threshold and our written
19 comments will further raise issue to that threshold and
20 we will be requesting an adjudicatory hearing on this
21 matter.
23 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Kevin Tollisen.
24 MR. TOLLISEN: Good evening, Judge McBride and
25 good evening members of the public. My name is Kevin
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
23
1 Tollisen and I'm the Town Supervisor of the Town of
2 Halfmoon in Saratoga County. The Town of Halfmoon, in
3 my opinion, one of the most directly affected towns by
4 the Colonie Landfill. The reason why I say that it's
5 the most directly affected is because our residents
6 surround the perimeter of the Mohawk River right there
7 at the Town of Colonie Landfill.
8 There are two issues that I'd like to bring to your
9 attention this evening. One is the visual impact of the
10 landfill. The enormity of the size of the landfill is
11 already extremely large. From the information that I
12 have received the size of the landfill is going to
13 increase about 84 or 87 feet from its top capacity.
14 Since this process has begun, the Town of Halfmoon has
15 been actively involved. I've met several times with
16 Capital Region landfills and they have answered my
17 questions and we have attended different hearings that
18 there have been throughout the capital district. One of
19 the things that I have been advocating for from the
20 outset of this project is the placement of high altitude
21 balloons around the entire site that show the elevation
22 impacts to the proposed build-out. The schematics that
23 I have seen, I don't think, do the job.
24 This landfill and this capacity and size directly
25 affects the Town of Halfmoon and doesn't just affect the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
24
1 perimeter residents. It protrudes into several miles of
2 the Town of Halfmoon and into several areas. People can
3 see this now. With the high altitude balloons, I think
4 that it's going to show a much more significant relevant
5 impact to our residents.
6 To go along with that, the increase of capacity --
7 one of the biggest things that our residents experience
8 on a daily basis is air quality issues. The odor of the
9 landfill is, for some residents, a daily problem and
10 it's a significant problem. I will tell you that I've
11 had several conversations with Capital Region landfills
12 and their representatives are very good and they respond
13 when I call. It does not address the every day odor
14 impacts that our residents feel.
15 Coming across the river as you increase the
16 capacity of that, you're going to see more and more
17 residents that are affected by that, not only in the
18 Town of Halfmoon but in neighboring communities as well.
19 So, we believe that these visual impact high altitude
20 balloons are important. You have received, I believe,
21 support letters from our state representatives; Senator
22 Kathy Marchion, Assemblyman Jim Tedesco. They have
23 supported my request and supported our town residents'
24 requests for these placement of balloons. This is going
25 to show, again, direct relevant reality with this
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
25
1 extension and expansion.
2 With regard to the odor issue, I certainly
3 understand that there has been some mitigation measures
4 taken place and there is some newer technology out there
5 but garbage is garbage. Garbage produces odor and smell
6 and that is something that increasing the size of this
7 landfill and extending it for 20 more years is going to
8 have a tremendous impact on the town residents.
9 I do join Supervisor Lawler in the request for a
10 second public comment period such as this evening, at
11 the end of October. I do think that the 1,200 plus
12 pages of documentation and the 98 page summary that I
13 reviewed is way too technical to provide a real summary
14 of what is going on here. I think that we need to have
15 more time to review this. Our Town Engineers need time
16 to review this as well. I would ask for that.
17 I also join in an adjudicatory hearing request. I
18 think something of this size and of this importance to
19 this capital district, that we take every single step
20 necessary to make sure that the residents of Halfmoon
21 and the residents of other communities are protected.
24 Tom O'Connor.
25 MR. O'CONNOR: Good evening. I'm Tom O'Connor
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
26
1 with the Capital Region Chamber.
2 The Chamber represents 2,600 businesses and
3 organizations throughout the region. Our members employ
4 over 150,000 area residents.
5 Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with
6 the perspective of the Chamber on the proposed
7 development of Area 7 within the Town of Colonie.
8 The Chamber fully supports this proposal. The
9 planned development of landfill Area 7 within the
10 existing footprint of the landfill. The vast majority
11 of the waste handled by this landfill comes from within
12 the Capital Region which includes the counties of
13 Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga and Rensselaer. Extending
14 the life of the landfill is a Capital Region issue and
15 it must be addressed as a Capital Region issue. Without
16 the development of Area 7 the landfill will cease to
17 operate. Waste will need to be transported elsewhere
18 and at the end this will affect the entire Capital
19 Region.
20 By extending the ability of the landfill to live 20
21 years longer, the development of Area 7 will ensure that
22 the communities of the Capital Region - and that's all
23 of the communities within the Capital Region - will
24 continue to have waste removal services that are both
25 reliable and cost effective.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
27
1 Thank you.
3 Henrietta O'Grady.
4 MS. O'GRADY: My name is Henrietta O’Grady. I
5 live at 11 Church Hill Road in the Town of Halfmoon. I
6 am a 50-year old resident of the neighboring town to
7 the north, Halfmoon. I reside downwind from the
8 Colonie landfill and I am also a witness to the
9 region’s tremendous growth. In the late 1990's I,
10 along with former Councilman Walter Polak, was
11 appointed by the Town of Halfmoon to serve on an odor
12 control committee with the Town of Colonie. For three
13 years we listened, tried to be reasonable with our
14 complaints, worked to be cooperative and fully expected
15 the Colonie landfill to close when it reached capacity.
16 Well, here we are some 20 years later, with the
17 landfill still open and a plan to more than double the
18 size of the present site, both vertically and
19 horizontally.
20 Why are we, as residents who are mostly impacted by
21 this proposal, expected to bear another 20 to 25 year
22 growth of a local landfill turned regional? What has
23 happened to the closure plan? What happened to the
24 funds reserved for closure? Where are the alternative
25 plans to this site that SEQR requires the applicant to
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
28
1 submit? None were listed.
2 An expanded Colonie landfill will be detrimental to
3 the cultural and historic character of our lower Mohawk
4 River valley region, a scenic Mohawk Towpath Byway, a
5 New York State Barge Canal Historic District and the
6 Church Hill Historic District. Additionally, there are
7 outstanding questions about groundwater and surface
8 water runoff that still need to be addressed.
9 Furthermore, we are seriously concerned about
10 increased carbon dioxide and methane known as greenhouse
11 gasses as well as VOC emissions. Not all methane from
12 the landfill is captured in its conversion to
13 electricity. The methane which escapes into the
14 atmosphere increases our carbon footprint. We lack a
15 community air monitoring program.
16 Because of all of the above, I, and many of my
17 neighbors, seek closure as was duly expected and urge
18 denial of the permit to expand the present Colonie
19 landfill site due to incomplete data in the DEIS. This
20 changing game plan for the landfill must cease.
21 Thank you.
22 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Frank Hartley.
23 MR. HARTLEY: I am Frank Hartley and I have
24 resided at 48 Church Hill Road in the Town of Halfmoon
25 for the past 30 years. My home is located on the north
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
29
1 side of the Mohawk River in Saratoga County where I
2 have had a continuous view of the existing landfill and
3 its operation. I am a New York State Licensed
4 Professional Engineer and spent over 33 years with the
5 New York State Department of Transpiration as a Project
6 Engineer and Assistant Director of Construction. I
7 have prepared Environmental Impact Statements and
8 provided community outreach for major public works
9 projects with construction costs ranging upward to the
10 hundreds of millions.
11 I have reviewed in detail the June 2016 Draft
12 Environmental Impact Statement along with the supporting
13 documentation for the project. I am very concerned with
14 the inaccurate generalizations, inconsistencies and
15 missing information in the Draft Environmental Impact
16 Statement. Many of the conclusions presented appear to
17 be either inaccurate or have not considered all relevant
18 information. I will be submitting detailed written
19 comments on the DEIS, but would like to comment on
20 several of the more serious deficiencies.
21 My first concern is there were no alternatives
22 developed and presented for public comment as required
23 in Section 517.9 of the codes, rules and regulations of
24 the State of New York. The only alternate presented is
25 continued operation of the landfill and more than
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
30
1 doubling its current size. The study and evaluation of
2 alternate sites was dismissed in the DEIS as the Town
3 found it was not economically feasible to consider other
4 sites.
5 The DEIS further states transferring and long
6 distance hauling of waste to another permitted disposal
7 site would cause increased fuel consumption and air
8 contaminant emissions by waste transporters and increase
9 waste disposal costs. In addition, the Town would lose
10 all income from Waste Connections/CRL’s landfill
11 operations and the adverse fiscal consequences are too
12 significant to consider as a viable option. Waste
13 should be exported only if no other solution can be
14 found.
15 I can understand that it would be difficult to
16 develop a new landfill site consistent with today’s
17 rules and regulations. Also, it appears that the Town
18 of Colonie has several significant reasons not to
19 develop any alternates other than to extend the life of
20 the landfill, and to minimize the reporting of impacts
21 and issues related to the landfill, no matter the
22 environmental and community impacts of its continued
23 operation. These reasons seem to be related to the
24 agreement with and payments received from Waste
25 Connections.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
31
1 Based on the agreement between Waste Connections
2 and the Town, there may be a conflict with the Town
3 preparing an unbiased Environmental Impact Assessment
4 and providing an objective and complete evaluation of
5 potential alternates.
6 I would like to propose one possible alternate to
7 the development of Area 7 at the Colonie Landfill. This
8 alternative would allow the landfill to close in 2017 as
9 is currently planned at the end of its approved DEC
10 permit. Based on the current level of development of
11 this alternate, I expect its implementation to be
12 significantly less expensive than the continued
13 operation of the current landfill, but at worst, no more
14 expensive.
15 The basic idea is to transfer the municipal solid
16 waste from the currently operating local transfer
17 stations to a rail yard for shipment to Seneca Meadows
18 Landfill or the High Acres Landfill in central New York
19 by rail. This could potentially solve the waste
20 disposal issues for the Capital Region.
21 New York City is currently shipping its municipal
22 waste by rail to these landfills. They are currently
23 approved with significant capacity and will remain in
24 operation for the next 40-plus years. I have spoken
25 with the facilities and they are currently looking for
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
32
1 other localities to make use of their facilities.
2 The advantage of this proposal is the use of sealed
3 metal containers – one container equals four to five
4 over the road long-haul trailers – shipped by rail
5 creating a significant savings in shipping costs as well
6 as eliminating the fuel usage and emissions of the over
7 the road truck shipments.
8 Currently local municipalities have a transfer
9 station where they are placing waste into over the road
10 long-haul trailers to be driven to the Colonie landfill
11 or the Albany landfill. Instead of filling trailer for
12 waste transfer, the steel rail container could be filled
13 at the transfer station and collected at a railhead for
14 rail shipment to the Finger Lakes Region. Alternately
15 the waste could be transferred to a central location
16 where it could be containerized for rail shipment.
17 One of the newest and most modern rail yards in the
18 country is vacant and looking for tenants – the yard
19 that the Hudson River dredging was shipped through in
20 the Schuylerville area. Alternatively the Port of
21 Albany could be used as the staging area for rail
22 shipments. Waste Connections currently is operating a
23 large single stream recycling center for all the
24 region’s recycling at the Port of Albany so a similar
25 use is already in the port.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
33
1 Capital Region waste added to the New York City
2 volume would hardly be noticeable as it is several order
3 of magnitude less than what is currently generated by
4 New York City. The cost of adding the Capital Region
5 waste stream to the Finger Lakes region should result in
6 a significant savings in the per ton processing cost as
7 the waste could be handled within the existing
8 infrastructure and there would not be the need for the
9 entire duplicate infrastructure at the Colonie landfill
10 – staff, machinery and cover fill.
11 Colonie landfill pricing is only
12 controlled/guaranteed for Colonie residents, not even
13 for Colonie businesses. The rest of the region is
14 subject to whatever cost Waste Connections feels it can
15 get away with charging, so the cost should be expected
16 to raise sharply in the near future.
17 The landfills in the Finger Lake regions are
18 anticipated to be operational for the foreseeable future
19 – estimates of fourth plus years. The projections for
20 landfill use/tipping volumes for Area 7 allowing for the
21 22-year life do not allow for any increase in generated
22 volumes in the region. With the local growth we are
23 experiencing, and the closing of the Rapp Road landfill,
24 it does not appear to be a reasonable assumption. The
25 use of overly thick cover layers will also shorten the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
34
1 life of the landfill and we know they are not above
2 doing that. Therefore, the volume in a significantly
3 shorter timeframe, still making their anticipated
4 millions of profit and then be out of the area. We
5 would be left shipping waste to the Finger Lakes region,
6 but would have a huge pile of waste along the Mohawk
7 River along with its significant visual and
8 environmental impacts and no benefits to the region. It
9 seems silly to operate a local landfill for a short
10 time, create all the associated impacts, and then switch
11 to those landfills.
12 The current technology and infrastructure already
13 exists in the region to allow for rail shipment of waste
14 to large, efficient landfills that currently have
15 approved capacity to accept the region's waste. With
16 the use of rail rather than truck shipment, Colonie
17 landfill could be capped and closed, limiting the
18 impacts to the region.
19 Based on my experience in preparing Environmental
20 Impact Statements, I could go on for several hours with
21 detailed comments covering the shortcomings of this
22 document. I will be submitting additional detailed
23 written comments during the upcoming comment period.
24 The missing and misinformation in these documents is so
25 significant that we are requesting that they be revised
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
35
1 to provide an associated impact of each of the
2 alternatives. Once this is complete, the alternates and
3 impacts should be presented to the public so they have
4 an opportunity to comment on the various alternates.
5 Thank you.
7 Brad Oswald.
8 We have a little over 30 cards so I would recommend
9 that we would refrain from applause so that we can get
10 through the speakers so that people are not here too
11 late and want to get home.
12 MR. OSWALD: Good evening. I'm Brad Oswald, a
13 resident of 90 Church Hill Road in the Town of
14 Halfmoon. I'm in the Church Hill Road historic district
15 and it is an Erie Canal hamlet.
16 I have a direct view of the Northway to the
17 landfill and it has been my bad neighbor for 36 years.
18 However, this new expansion would dwarf those previous
19 years in the next 20 years of construction. The visual
20 impact analysis in the DEIS is poorly presented and
21 deficient. I particularly recall about 12 years ago
22 when the Town of Colonie operators disturbed several
23 cells for expansion. There was a nightmare of odors,
24 24/7 over the summer. Communities around the facility
25 lost the use of their yards for the entire summer. This
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
36
1 proposal calls for disturbing cells again for expansion.
2 I request that the DEC disallow any disturbance of
3 existing cells. There isn't even a mention in the DEIS
4 of how odors would be mitigated during construction.
5 The DEIS treats 20 years of construction as a
6 temporary impact, but it is a permanent impact. There
7 are no analysis or visual graphics or realistic
8 mitigation of impacts during construction. There is a
9 description of planting for a "visual occurrence of a
10 natural meadow or whole field consistent with the visual
11 character of the surrounding regions." There is no
12 confidence that this particular effort is sincere.
13 The same can be said of the placement of a 13-foot
14 high berm on the cell that they worked in. How can this
15 block the view of trash in the adjacent hills across the
16 river? I request that DEC deny this application due to
17 the extreme impacts on the surrounding communities for
18 another 20 years. Thank you.
19 ALJ. MCBRIDE: George Harris.
20 MR. HARRIS: Thank you for holding this hearing.
21 My name is George Harris. I live at 60 Church Hill
22 Road in the Church Hill Historic District with an
23 increasingly impressive view of the landfill. I am a
24 licensed professional engineer and will be providing
25 many pages of technical comments by the end of the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
37
1 comment period.
2 I believe that this is not the proper environmental
3 setting for a massively increase industrial scale
4 regional solid waste facility operated by a
5 multi-billion dollar company. In my opinion the Draft
6 DIS and engineering report are beyond bias and are
7 presented in a way that facts are omitted, skewered or
8 even misrepresented. The real problem is the public,
9 the ALJ, the decision makers, DEC staff, other agency
10 reviewers aren't clearly presented with the true
11 magnitude of the scope of the expansion proposal.
12 Let me give you an example of skewing of facts.
13 The Draft EIS does not discuss the scale of
14 proposal. The engineering report describes the
15 expansion as follows: The landfill has accepted 5.6
16 million tons of waste since 1973. Some pages later it
17 goes on to say "The Area 7 development will create
18 approximately 11,600,000 cubic yards of additional solid
19 waste capacity." So we are comparing tons to cubic
20 yards.
21 Confusing, isn't it? Let me present it in a
22 different way.
23 I have a technical reference from the U.S E.P.A
24 that municipal solid waste compacted and placed in a
25 typical landfill operation weighs greater than 2,000
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
38
1 pounds per cubic yard. Since a cubic yard is
2 approximately 2,000 pounds per ton, I can simply restate
3 that since the 1970's 5.6 million tons of solid waste
4 has been placed. This proposal is for an additional
5 11.6 million tons. Now you have something to compare it;
6 5.6 million tons and an additional 11.6 million tons.
7 You could accurately say that we're tripling the
8 capacity of this massive landfill from 5.6 to 17.2
9 million tons.
10 As another example, one way to get an idea of
11 visual impacts was to have large weather type balloons
12 placed around the site matching the final build-out
13 elevations. Such a request was made by the Towns of
14 Waterford and Halfmoon and actually agreed to by Waste
15 Connections. However, the Town of Colonie subsequently
16 rejected this proposal in their May of 2016 letter
17 referencing the state of the art visual resource study
18 and the draft EIS. The way that you would see the study
19 would simulate picture views of the completed landfill
20 is to download 250 megabytes of the DEIS computer files
21 and then located it in the same 1,206 pages. Then you
22 would print it out on 11 by 17 inches on your printer
23 and then hold it out 18 inches to view it.
24 I will be providing extensive written comments on
25 the serious deficiencies and flaws of the study or let
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
39
1 me give you one example now.
2 If you go out and look at the landfill and happen
3 to bring a protractor, you would see that the side
4 slopes are now in the range of 12 degrees. All the
5 simulated pictures of the completed landfill presented
6 in the visual assessment report have an angle of about
7 15 degrees. However, the text of the engineering
8 reports indicates that the final slopes will be a
9 maximum of 33 degrees. This dramatically increases
10 slopes and can easily be confirmed off the planned view
11 contoured engineering drawings of the completed
12 landfill. So, the simulated pictures show 15 degree
13 slopes. The engineering report says the document is 33
14 percent slopes. This is a total misrepresentation of the
15 scale and magnitude of the proposal. Using these
16 dramatically increased slopes and the simulations, it
17 would obviously increase the visual size and the impact
18 of this massive trapezoidal monstrosity as being
19 proposed.
20 The proposal also has technical weaknesses and
21 fatal flaws.
22 The expansion to the north and west is based on
23 massively overfilling the Area 4 cap as well as Area 1.
24 Area 4 was formerly capped with funds from the DEC with
25 the stipulation that the area would never be overfilled.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
40
1 There would be obvious concerns that the area was capped
2 many years ago in a different regulatory environment and
3 may present unquantified, unidentified, unevaluated
4 threats.
5 The other area to be over-filled is Area 1. This
6 area is a large portion of an inactive hazardous waste
7 site on the New York Registry of Inactive Hazardous
8 Waste Sites. This 50-acre hazardous waste site includes
9 Area 1 and a northern portion referred to as the unnamed
10 area. In the Draft EIS and Engineering Report Area 1 is
11 never identified as being a part of a hazardous waste
12 site. The unnamed area is. The capping this area was
13 rejected outright on the basis of it being a hazardous
14 waste site. If it is outright rejected to extend the
15 cap over hazardous waste in the unnamed area, how can it
16 be acceptable to overfilling the remaining roughly 25
17 acres of hazardous Area 1 to an even greater extent and
18 depth? These issues were never discussed in the Draft
19 EIS. They are critical based upon the 1992 inactive
20 hazardous waste site investigation of these areas. The
21 URS report documents that Area 1 is part of the
22 hazardous waste site on the Phase II study area. The
23 report documents that the site accepted at least 85,000
24 tons of industrial waste - much of it hazardous - until
25 ordered to stop by DEC in 1980. It identifies that
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
41
1 there was up to 15 feet of this fill submerged in
2 places, that the area was unlined, had contamination
3 exceeding standards in both groundwater and surface
4 water. Perhaps even more critical, the URS report
5 recommended an extensive additional environmental
6 investigation. The emphasis was to be on identification
7 of all potential receptors to determine health risks and
8 the magnitude of the threat of the Mohawk River. Based
9 upon our group's review of a FOIL request of all
10 environmental sampling data related to the landfill,
11 this investigation relative to the river was never
12 conducted.
13 It is my opinion based upon a defective, skewed,
14 misleading and inaccurate Draft EIS and engineering
15 report that the permit should be denied. The landfill
16 should be closed, according to the current closure plan.
17 Near the Mohawk River is no place for a massive regional
18 industrial landfill expansion. Thank you.
20 Kevin Bronner.
21 MR. BRONNER: My name is Kevin Bronner. I'm from
22 4 Georgian Terrace in Loudonville, New York. The
23 comments that are being presented -- I'm presenting
24 them but we're really a small public service group.
25 There are two of us involved. The other person
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
42
1 couldn't be here tonight. His name is Kenneth
2 Champagne.
3 I have turned in a document that I'd like to
4 department to consider. It's six pages long and it has
5 six Powerpoint slides and three exhibits. I'm going to
6 go through it in three minutes.
7 Our little group has a basic question and the
8 question is: Can a serious accident occur from an
9 overweight refuse truck entering the landfill? We
10 developed a study in June of 2016 to study this issue.
11 What we did is we filed a FOIL request to the Town
12 of Colonie. It's attached as Exhibit 1 to my
13 presentation. We filed a FOIL request asking for
14 certain trucking information. We asked for it from
15 January to May 2016. The study was begun but it was
16 never completed. So, we still have our health and
17 safety concern.
18 The first issue: Appendix G of the Draft EIS - I
19 examined the EIS at the Colonie Town Library. Appendix
20 G was filed in June of 2016 about the time that we were
21 doing the FOIL request. So, we basically asked for the
22 names of trucks entering the facility. The Town of
23 Colonie gave us a little assistance. They gave us a
24 ledger. That's appendix 3 to the material that I have
25 here. I went up to the Town of Colonie and I did an
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
43
1 audit.
2 I forgot to mention - I have 46 years of regulatory
3 experience. I've worked on a lot of audits and I've
4 worked on all sorts of audit.
5 I went up and I looked at this document and it
6 looked like about 30% of the trucks entering the
7 landfill coming in off the roads were overweight. So,
8 what we think has to happen -- none of this appeared to
9 be addressed in the documents in the Town of Colonie
10 Library. So, we think that there should be a full audit
11 of the scale house operations at the landfill. What
12 that means is when the trucks come into the landfill, we
13 want to see the procedures involved.
14 What happened with the FOIL request -- that's
15 Exhibit 2 -- the Town basically rejected our request for
16 the names of the trucks and it had a statement that's
17 kind of telling. It says: "The information would cause
18 substantial injury or harm to the competitive position."
19 The, there was a company mentioned. You'll see it in
20 there. So, the health and safety concern of the public
21 was kind of outweighed by the competitive position of
22 the operator.
23 So, we want to have a full audit of the scale
24 house. That's the first thing we are requesting.
25 The second request has to do with page 91 of the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
44
1 Draft Impact Statement. There is a financial resources
2 portion of that. Appendix 3 of the document, I left
3 you.
4 If you need more copies, I have some available.
5 It's a ledger that we received from the Town of
6 Colonie. I went through the ledger as an accountant
7 auditor and I did some evaluation of it over a couple
8 hour period. What was interesting in this ledger was
9 that some of the data is missing from the columns. So,
10 when you look at the ledger and I guess someone at your
11 department reviewed this -- you'll see that there are
12 fields in the ledger that are missing such as code
13 numbers for trucks. The critical material that is
14 missing can effect revenues and regulatory filings for
15 the landfill. This entire ledger is about 158 pages
16 long and there is about 7,426 trucks that I think that
17 were involved in a five-month period.
18 Basically, the Town of Colonie cut off our study so
19 that it never got completed. The key email is attached
20 as Appendix 2 to my comments.
21 So, we have two basic requests. First, that DEC
22 conduct a full audit of the scale house operations to
23 explore the weight of the trucks entering the landfill
24 before the application is approved and take corrective
25 action, if necessary. Then we believe the New York
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
45
1 State DEC to audit the revenue records from the landfill
2 to determine if they are completed and the revenues
3 reported are reasonable. Perhaps the office of the
4 State Comptroller should be involved in this. We put
5 that in the comments.
6 Thank you.
8 Ryan Flinton.
9 MR. FLINTON: Good evening. My name is Ryan
10 Flinton and I'm representing Aria Energy formerly
11 Innovative Energy Systems. We operate the power plant
12 located at the landfill.
13 Aria Energy came to be in 2001 with the merger of
14 Innovative Energy Systems with two other landfill gas to
15 energy generation companies. Aria Energy has three
16 different divisions that design, constructs and operates
17 landfill gas to energy projects with over 25 years of
18 experience generating renewable energy from landfill
19 gas. Currently we operate 45 landfill gas to energy
20 projects in 16 states with a combined total of more than
21 230 megawatts of renewable power generation. Aria has
22 won multiple awards in recent years for various project
23 development and safety initiatives from the solid waste
24 association of North America, EPA landfill and methane
25 outreach program and the American Society of Civil
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
46
1 Engineers. My role with the company is that I am
2 responsible for electrical processing. I've been with
3 Aria for seven years and I am a life-long Saratoga
4 County resident, as well.
5 The Colonie plant went into operation in March of
6 2006 as a 4.8 megawatt capacity plant with three
7 generators. It's been operating since 2006.
8 In June of this year we completed an expansion
9 project increasing the generation of the plant capacity
10 to 6.4 megawatts to better utilize the landfill gas
11 coming from the landfill and to increase output of the
12 plant.
13 Additionally, we are nearing completion of the
14 bypass flare system that will ensure that the landfill
15 gas is still collected and destroyed during engine
16 downtown like maintenance. The power plant operates
17 automatically based on landfill conditions through
18 landfill monitoring to regulate plant output to best
19 utilize that. Through our continuous improvement
20 initiatives, we are always evaluating that to make sure
21 that the operation of that system is as efficient as
22 possible.
23 The Town of Colonie Landfill uses landfill gas as
24 its sole energy source to produce enough renewable
25 electricity to power more than 2,800 homes which is a
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
47
1 significant boost to the energy grid, both in New York
2 and the New England ISO systems. We have two to three
3 full-time operators at the site that are employed at our
4 generating plants for management upkeep maintenance of
5 the facility, in addition to our more direct regional
6 management field engineering environmental programs and
7 safety. This plant operates 24 hours a day, seven days
8 a week producing base-load renewable electricity from
9 the landfill gas.
10 Overall, this landfill, by my experience with all
11 of the landfills that we operate power plants at, is a
12 good example of the landfill doing the right thing in
13 the right way. It benefits vendors like me, both
14 personally as a Saratoga County resident and as an
15 employee of Aria Energy. If we are not allowed to move
16 forward with the Area 7 development, that would have an
17 adverse impact on our ability to continue producing
18 renewable power from this plant for the long-term. So,
19 that being said, I definitely urge DEC to allow Area 7
20 to open. Thank you.
22 Paul Reepmeyer.
23 MR. REEPMEYER: Good evening. I live at 112 Fonda
24 Road, Cohoes. It's south of the landfill. I've been
25 there for seven years of my life. I have a concern
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
48
1 with the traffic safety of the proposal that changed
2 the entrance to the landfill. I know that they want to
3 use the area that they are using now as part of their
4 Area 7 so their proposal was to move the traffic on
5 Fonda Road across Green Mountain Drive to Arrowhead
6 Drive to use the stop light at Fonda and Route 9. The
7 problem that I have with this is that for the large
8 trucks to turn off of Route 9 onto Fonda Road which is
9 a two-lane residential road, they are forced to go into
10 the on-coming traffic on Fonda Road. To me this is
11 going to cause a traffic back-up. There is over 100
12 trucks a day going in and out of the landfill. There
13 is a school bus garage, a trucking unit down there and
14 many other businesses. I feel that the trucks are
15 going to line up on Fonda Road and the trucks on Route
16 9 trying to enter will not be able to make the turn
17 until the Trucks come off of Fonda Road, which will
18 leave a back-up on Route 9 which is a 55 mile an hour
19 speed limit and there is going to be tractor trailers
20 back up onto Route 9.
21 Also, as they turn east to go on Fonda Road to go
22 north on Green Mountain Drive, it's also a two-lane
23 highway. To come back from the landfill, they have to
24 go onto oncoming traffic on Fonda Road to make the turn.
25 In my estimation, I think that this is going to cause a
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
49
1 highway safety problem because Route 9 is a 55 mile and
2 hour speed limit.
3 To give you a little background, I have a
4 commercial driver's license. I've had it for over 55
5 years and I was also the Chief of the Fire Department
6 that covers the landfill and to my recollection, the
7 existing landfill entrance only has had three or four
8 accidents and two of them were the sweeper from the
9 landfill. I think that they need to consider a
10 different entrance.
11 Also, I'm a property owner. I own a large piece of
12 property on Fonda Road and I don't think this does a lot
13 for my value of my property. Thank you.
15 Mark Swatling.
16 MR. SWATLING: Hi, my name is Mark Swatling and I
17 live at 10 Fonda Road, Cohoes. I have lived there for
18 several years. I'll just tell you that the Crescent
19 Bridge was a two-laned steel bridge at the time. I
20 have been here many years.
21 I saw the landfill start. I know what was there
22 and I know how it was done. There is a body of water
23 that is dried up now but it was called Widewaters. It
24 was there for many years. It was on the Crescent Cohoes
25 Road. It's across from the power plant. That is now
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
50
1 just all silt. It has been filled in. The water is not
2 there any longer because of the landfill cutting off the
3 water coming down from the canal that ran along the
4 road. The canal was also filled in.
5 My second concern is that I can look right out my
6 bedroom window and I probably don't have it as bad as
7 the folks over in Halfmoon, but I look right at the
8 landfill. I can see them operating and I can look right
9 over the top of the PBA building. I can see everything
10 that is going on there.
11 The third thing is the traffic concern. NBI runs
12 24/7 and if they say that they don't, have them stop by
13 the house at 2:00 in the morning and I can show them.
14 Again, the traffic safety concern is that they turn
15 into oncoming traffic coming on Fonda Road and coming
16 off of Green Mountain. That is going to impact that
17 road tremendously on Green Mountain because that will
18 not hold up with all that heavy weight traffic going on
19 there.
20 Again, I'm saying that it's a safety concern for
21 Fonda Road due to the fact that we never had that many
22 incidents on Route 9. I'm feeling that it would be a
23 lot cheaper if they think that it's a concern to put a
24 traffic light or a partial light there. That has to be
25 cheaper than trying to move the scales down off of Green
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
51
1 Mountain Drive.
2 We get the odor occasionally also, but not as bad
3 as the folks in Halfmoon because the prevailing wind is
4 on the west.
5 I would say I'm not for the expansion either
6 because I know that property very well of where they are
7 going to expand. Thank you.
9 Betty Hartley.
10 MS. HARTLEY: Good evening. My name is Betty
11 Hartley and I've lived at 48 Church Hill Road in
12 Halfmoon for 25 years. I'm lucky enough to have a
13 lovely view of the Mohawk River. Unfortunately, I also
14 have a direct view of the planned Area 7 of the Colonie
15 Landfill which we have been invited here tonight to
16 voice our concerns. I have a question.
17 I have a question. Back in the 2010-2011
18 timeframe, our elected officials realized that our waste
19 management programs were in dire straits. DEC was
20 enforcing more and more restrictions on local landfills
21 and ordering many to close. A nine county coalition
22 came together in an effort to find a long-term solution
23 to our waste management problems by developing a
24 feasibility study which included looking at new and
25 better technologies being implemented around the world
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
52
1 that had more efficient and hopefully environmentally
2 safer ways to handle our waste other than burying it in
3 the ground. These studies looked at better ways to
4 manage the volume with better volume control starting at
5 the individual homes.
6 In this same timeframe, the Town of Colonie had a
7 21.5 million deficit in their budget that needed to be
8 handled immediately. It appears that Colonie was taking
9 from Peter to pay Paul juggling funds to pay creditors.
10 Colonie had spent the monies required by DEC to be set
11 aside to cover the costs of the landfill closing in
12 order to pay off operating expenses. Colonie walked
13 away from the nine county feasibility study and sought
14 out bids from various companies to assume the role of
15 day to day operation and maintenance of the landfill.
16 Based on newspaper articles at the time, the Town was
17 expected to receive 23 million upon signing the contract
18 which would effectively clear the deficits in both the
19 general fund as well as the fund for the landfill. Any
20 money received after that must go toward paying off the
21 debt the Town of Colonie owes. The contract also
22 stipulated that the Town of Colonie had to get a DEC
23 permit approval to continue the life of the landfill for
24 another 20 years. If they could get this approval, they
25 would be paid an additional 12 million. It explains why
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
53
1 no alternatives were researched as the Town of Colonie
2 was locked into the contract with Waste Connections to
3 apply for the expansion permit. This makes perfect
4 sense from the perspective of Waste Connections as why
5 would such a large corporation waste their time and
6 money on only six more years of income. This decision
7 was made in the best interest of the Town of Colonie and
8 its residents but ignored the bigger and longer term
9 solutions that the nine county elected officials were
10 trying to achieve.
11 The current permit request before DEC extends the
12 life of the Colonie Landfill until 2040 by doubling the
13 size of the current landfill area. It will be the
14 largest structure in the Town easily seen for miles
15 around. The plan calls for the landfill to be even
16 closer to the shores of the Mohawk River allowing for
17 additional ground water to seep into the river, the
18 source of drinking water for the City of Cohoes directly
19 below the landfill.
20 What has not been presented so far is a long-term
21 plan for waste management beyond the requested timeframe
22 in the permit. With the explosive growth in the capital
23 district, it is hard to believe that it will take the
24 requested 20 to 25 years to fill this new Area 7. Waste
25 Connections could easily fill Area 7 in a much shorter
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
54
1 timeframe, cap the landfill and move on to another
2 location. What happens to our waste them? There is no
3 provision for how the extended Capital District area
4 will manage waste in the future. This appears to be a
5 short-sighted solution for the Town of Colonie to
6 balance their budget with no regard for the long-term
7 needs of its residents and the neighboring communities.
8 It was stated by Paula Mahan in 2011 that it would
9 take 10 to 15 years to build a new landfill and the Town
10 of Colonie could not wait for that to happen. It is now
11 2016, almost 2017, and we have wasted more than five
12 years by walking away from a proactive group of elected
13 officials looking for a long-term solution. I believe
14 that the Environmental Impact Study should include plans
15 for what happens after the landfill is closed and
16 everyone has made their money and walked away. Don’t we
17 all, as responsible citizens, owe it to our children and
18 grandchildren to find a better solution than continuing
19 to bury our waste in the ground and potentially creating
20 problems for generations to come.
21 I would ask that long-term solutions be researched
22 and presented for public comment and should include a
23 comparison of the impact of closing the landfill in 2017
24 versus 2040.
25 Thank you.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
55
2 John Szemassco.
3 MR. SZEMASSCO: Good evening. My name is John
4 Szemassco. I live on Church Hill Road and am the owner
5 of a five-star bed and breakfast called Oakcliff Bed
6 and Breakfast in Halfmoon. Unfortunately, after this
7 landfill expansion it will probably be a one or a
8 two-star bed and breakfast.
9 The Citizens Against the Landfill Expansion have
10 done due diligence regarding the issues with the
11 landfill expansion and its past and future problems. It
12 appears that the Town of Colonie either has not or does
13 not choose to ignore the outcomes and dangers of this
14 expansion as evidenced by the many documents regarding
15 the landfill that are public information. Many of them
16 have been presented tonight by George Harris and Frank
17 Hartley. In a sense, we had made your job easier by
18 highlighting the concerns, problems and dangers of the
19 expansion from these numerous reports and dangers of the
20 expansion of the landfill set forth by the Departments
21 in these reports. Since all departments involved in the
22 Town of Colonie now have the truncated knowledge
23 presented tonight, you must now begin to think long and
24 hard about the implications and the results of what you
25 are doing and the motive behind it.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
56
1 I ask one simple question: Why is this the first
2 public DEC hearing on the landfill and why were there
3 not others when it was raised the first 250 feet? I
4 think that we'd like an answer to that.
5 Thank you.
7 Adam Rosen.
8 MR. ROSEN: I'm Adam Rosen. I'm not a resident of
9 Colonie, but I grew up in Colonie. Even though I'm not
10 a resident I can speak of a place that I consider home.
11 That being said, I'm really not familiar with the
12 details of the landfill. I don't know anything about
13 traffic studies or the balloons.
14 I started working for County Waste back when they
15 were building the transfer station in Clifton Park. I
16 can say pretty quickly they basically charged me with
17 going to their facilities and making it right, fixing
18 things and making it safer, finding less impact on the
19 neighbors with lighting, sound, odor.
20 Back in 2011 I had some trepidation -- Waste
21 Connections was taking over the facilities and I hated
22 to see a good thing change. Most of us don't like
23 change. Sooner than later I realized that the corporate
24 culture was exactly the same. Waste Connections wanted
25 all the things that County Waste wanted; safety and
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
57
1 impact.
2 What I can tell you is that landfill is run by
3 people that care and that put everything else around
4 them in front of their own needs. Money has always been
5 secondary to doing the right thing. So, although I
6 don't live in Colonie, I would say that if the landfill
7 expanded, there is no one that I would trust more than
8 Waste Connections to make sure that everything was done
9 up to par. That's about it. Thank you.
11 Robert Holmes.
12 MR. HOLMES: Good evening. Thank you for the
13 opportunity to speak tonight.
14 My name is Robert Holmes. I'm with Cornerstone
15 Environmental in Rochester, New York and I'm working on
16 behalf of the Town and Waste Connections as the engineer
17 of record for the Area 7 development.
18 I'd like to open by saying that the Area 7
19 development is engineered to meet or exceed New York
20 State DEC's solid waste and environmental regulations.
21 That includes a double composite liner system. This
22 liner system will even exceed the EPA's solid waste
23 regulations for municipal solid waste mandates.
24 Additionally, the Area 7 development has been
25 designed to reuse previously landfill areas. The
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
58
1 majority of area or 83 acres of the Area 7 development
2 would be on old landfill areas. Over 23 acres of new
3 liner areas will be included and most of that where be
4 where existing landfill operations are currently
5 located.
6 The proposed grating and topographic modifications
7 are consistent with existing conditions, land use
8 patterns and zoning regulations in the project vicinity,
9 site needs and technical requirements for the landfill.
10 In fact, creating new space at existing landfill sites
11 rather than developing new sites is a preferred approach
12 by the state.
13 I'll touch on a few more aspects of the design.
14 Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the
15 landfill site would be minimized by the design of the
16 Area 7 development and in fact some aspects of
17 groundwater quality would be improved upon as a result.
18 The liner systems have been designed in accordance with
19 the DEC regulations and will provide for effective
20 primary and secondary leachate collection and removal.
21 Further, the proposed liner area would be
22 constructed over 37 acres of historic landfill that were
23 not constructed with a modern Part 360 liner system.
24 The construction of this liner would prevent
25 precipitation from infiltrating to the historic fill
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
59
1 areas. This reduction and recharge associated with the
2 Area 7 development is anticipated to result in a reduced
3 potential for groundwater impacts of these areas.
4 Groundwater will continue to be extensively monitored in
5 accordance with the environmental monitoring plan for
6 the site. There are over 20 wells that are being
7 monitored and they are sampled on a regular basis.
8 Furthermore, the removal of the existing leachate
9 storage lagoons and the replacement would of leachate
10 storage tanks and a new secondary containment system in
11 the southeast portion of the site would reduce potential
12 impacts to current water quality related leachate
13 storage.
14 Regarding the traffic at the site: The proposed
15 development will include a significant investment in the
16 traffic safety along Route 9 by relocating the entrance
17 of the facility from its current location where speeds
18 are high and visibility is limited to a location within
19 an existing industrial park at the south end of the
20 site. Studies show that existing traffic control
21 infrastructure on Fonda Road and in the existing
22 industrial park can accommodate this enhancement.
23 Sound levels from the landfill operations
24 associated with the Area 7 development will be
25 comparable to existing landfill sound levels. No
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
60
1 proposed change in the existing operations, specifically
2 the permitted daily capacity and therefore the main
3 contributor to noise such as operational traffic and
4 equipment will not be expected to change.
5 Also, the relocation of the entrance of the
6 facility to the industrial park would shift traffic
7 related noise from Route 9 to the end of the industrial
8 park where there are fewer receptors.
9 The proposed Area 7 development would result in a
10 continuation of working based operations and the
11 potential odors associated with that. However, the best
12 management practices will continue to be used to
13 minimize odors at the landfill and prevent them from
14 moving off-site. In addition, the proposed expansion of
15 the gas collection control system as a result of
16 development would significantly reduce potential odors
17 in the capture and destruction of odor causing
18 components of the landfill gas. Replacement of the open
19 area leachate storage lagoons, cover tanks, will prevent
20 odors from the leachate storage areas and eliminate the
21 need for odor neutralizers.
22 Further, with no increase in daily tonnage, there
23 will not be an increase in the potential odor causing
24 operations.
25 Lastly, the development will include an odor
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
61
1 control plant with regular site observations, protocol
2 for public communication during potential odor causing
3 entities and will also include odor notification
4 response.
5 In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Area
6 7 development design is engineered to meet or exceed the
7 interstate DEC solid waste and environmental
8 regulations. It's protective of the environment as
9 indicated by the wide range of studies completed as part
10 of the DEIS process and will result in environmental
11 improvements and based on the technical and
12 environmental analysis, is an appropriate land use for
13 the site. Thank you.
15 Matt Allen.
16 MR. ALLEN: Thank you for the opportunity to speak
17 on the record.
18 My name is Matt Allen and I'm with Saratoga
19 Associates and I am a consultant for Waste Connections.
20 I am the primary author of the visual assessment
21 component of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment
22 and I just wanted to provide a little bit of information
23 on that topic that I know is high on people's minds on
24 this project.
25 The visual impact assessment that is contained
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
62
1 within the DEIS follows rigidly the New York State
2 Department of Environmental Conservation program policy
3 on Visual Impact Assessment and Mitigation. That policy
4 has been in existence since the year 2000 and actually
5 New York State and DEC is one of the only state agencies
6 or one of the very few state agencies in the United
7 States that actually has a policy guiding scenic
8 resource management and visual impact assessment on all
9 projects in the state.
10 The analysis that is contained in the DEIS includes
11 some significant and important component that will help
12 people understand the facts of where the visibility will
13 be from the Area 7 development. It includes a
14 visibility analysis that identifies geographic area,
15 where the proposed expansion will be visible from and
16 importantly it compares that visibility to that of the
17 existing landfill as it exists today as well as it will
18 exist at the end of its currently permitted life because
19 of course that landfill is still in operation and still
20 growing in height and area. So, what you see today
21 isn't necessarily what is currently permitted. That's
22 an important distinction.
23 The analysis also includes an assessment of
24 sensitive visual resources and that's an important
25 component of how DEC looks at visual impact because we
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
63
1 can't possibly evaluate every point in the area where
2 something might be seen. The priorities are placed on
3 places that are important in the local community and the
4 NY DEC in their policy has a definition of what those
5 places are in their policy and the individual assessment
6 report identifies those as well as evaluates them one by
7 one.
8 Also, there are technically accurate photo
9 simulations contained within the document. Those photo
10 simulations were conducted from places that were
11 specifically requested by the New York State DEC and
12 they are technically accurate. If you hold them up at
13 the end of the life of the proposed landfill, I'm quite
14 confident that it will be extremely accurate to what was
15 simulated many years earlier.
16 Lastly, the visual impact assessment talks about
17 some of the mitigation measures that are in place.
18 Some of the conclusions that the study draws are
19 that the proposed landfill is a continuation of the
20 existing visual condition. It will not result in a new
21 visual impact. The viewshed analysis demonstrates that
22 if you can see the existing landfill now, that's pretty
23 much the same area where you will see the expansion as
24 it is constructed.
25 The most commonly affected views are riverside
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
64
1 locations along the Mohawk, views along Route 9 and
2 Crescent Road as they pass the landfill property and of
3 course I've heard many speakers tonight from Church Hill
4 Road. That is one of the areas that will directly view
5 the landfill as well as some locations across the river
6 in the Town of Waterford.
7 Importantly relative to the way that DEC looks at
8 the project - there are many local parks and playgrounds
9 in the area. The landfill will not affect most of those
10 locations. There certainly will be some visibility as
11 there is now from the Erie Canal Parkland along the lock
12 system and there are three major mitigation components
13 that the project includes. One of which, as I mentioned
14 -- the project is in continued use of the existing
15 landfill operations.
16 One of DEC's primary concerns is that the project
17 look at alternative locations for the landfill. Well,
18 when you look at an existing site, particularly with a
19 landfill, existing use is always preferable to
20 relocating or expanding onto a greenfield site.
21 The visual impacts of this project right now are
22 understood and are current and have been existing for a
23 number of years. The proposed project simply proposes to
24 extend that duration, not go to a different site where a
25 wholly new site will be affected.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
65
1 The landfill will be closed and revegitated with a
2 variety of grasses. Our landscaped architects carefully
3 depict those grasses and herbaceous material to mimic
4 the natural meadow effect that's common to this area.
5 Lastly, the mitigation will include berms that are
6 constructed along the operational areas to screen the
7 construction vehicles from off-site locations. That's
8 not a perfect system, but it's a very good system that
9 will hide much of the actual filling operations of the
10 construction vehicles that are working timely.
11 So, I just wanted to close by saying that the
12 project meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements
13 with regard to visual impact. Although the project
14 will, in fact, extend the duration of landfill
15 operations, it will not create a new visual impact and
16 avoids the need to open landfill operations currently in
17 unaffected areas. Extending the life of the existing
18 waste management infrastructure represents the most
19 logical approach to minimizing visual impact in our
20 communities.
21 Thank you.
23 Eric Hamilton.
24 MR. HAMILTON: I'm Eric Hamilton and I reside at
25 67 Pico Road in Clifton Park. I'm the Executive
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
66
1 Director of the Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway Coalition.
2 I'm referring to a letter which the Coalition sent to
3 Keith Goertz, the Regional Director of DEC on November
4 29, 2015. I'm not going to read the whole thing but
5 just the major points.
6 The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway Coalition expresses
7 a major concern with the proposal to increase the
8 operational capacity of the Town of Colonie landfill in
9 both height and breadth. Concerns include the visual
10 impact, odor, air quality and noise impacts of a large
11 increase to the present capacity of the Colonie
12 Landfill.
13 As early as 1998 the Colonie Landfill was
14 recognized as an issue when evaluating a proposal to
15 designate a scenic byway to tell the story of the Erie
16 Canal and the waterway west. During an evaluation for
17 our Scenic Conservation Action Plan as recently as 2007
18 the landfill was recognized as being part of a working
19 landscape in the Town of Colonie. Neighboring
20 communities experienced many years of odors which
21 emanated from the site and a changing landscape that
22 makes it increasingly difficult to appreciate the area's
23 heritage. The byway and specifically the Executive
24 Committee of the Mohawk Towpath Byway Coalition has had
25 to take a long hard look at another 20-year expansion of
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
67
1 the landfill.
2 It does go into more detail about the difficulty of
3 trying to visualize an 80-foot vertical addition to the
4 existing landfill, however, we recognize that Route 9
5 rises eight feet between the end of the Crescent Bridge
6 to the entrance to the landfill. To add that much
7 additional elevation to the landfill is certainly going
8 to be significant.
9 The Mohawk Towpath Byway includes the Cohoes
10 Crescent Road and on the north side of the river, Church
11 Hill Road, as well as Fonda Road in the Town of
12 Waterford. It also continues west into and terminates
13 in our areas -- Center of Innovation in Schenectady.
14 We're committed to the promotion and preservation and
15 protection of the historic heritage of the old Erie
16 Canal route from Cohoes and Waterford to the City of
17 Schenectady. We have been diligently working to spread
18 the word about the many historic, cultural and
19 recreational benefits of the Mohawk River corridor. The
20 Town of Colonie Landfill is a working landscape in that
21 corridor, however, one that has reached its capacity.
22 On behalf of the Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway
23 Coalition, we implore your due diligence in addressing
24 the genuine concerns that are expresses above in
25 relation to the expansion of the existing landfill.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
68
1 Thank you.
3 Kevin Kelly.
4 MR. KELLY: With respect to everyone this evening,
5 I will keep my comments very brief.
6 As a consumer, a business person and a taxpayer,
7 I'm hearing support of Area 7. The landfill is an
8 important public asset that benefits the entire Capital
9 Region. To deny Area 7 would not only mean
10 significantly higher solid waste expenses for both
11 consumers as well as businesses but also loss of current
12 and potential future jobs in the Capital Region.
13 With the pending closure of the Albany Landfill,
14 the Colonie Landfill life extension is extremely
15 important to the economic health of the Capital Region.
16 Thank you very much for your time.
18 Tom Ellis.
19 MR. ELLIS: Good evening, everybody. My name is
20 Tom Ellis and I live in Albany. I have worked as a
21 solid waste advocate on and off for the last 30 years.
22 I fully support the comments that have been made here
23 requesting the DEC hold a second public statement
24 hearing at the end of October.
25 It's also important that as comments are coming
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
69
1 into DEC on this proposal, those be posted on-line as
2 they are received. That way, people who want to submit
3 comments on their own can look on the Internet and see
4 what is being submitted and it can help you formulate
5 better comments. This is really important and the state
6 often doesn't do this.
7 Two and a half years ago NYSERDA held public
8 hearings on a proposed long-range energy plan for the
9 state. These hearings were in February and March of
10 2014. The public comment period ended in May, I think.
11 It took them over a year to post the comments that were
12 made at the public statement hearings. I attended the
13 first one and I was not able to attend the others and
14 I'll tell you that the comments that were made at the
15 first hearing were superb. It's very important that the
16 public knows what other people are submitting as these
17 comments are being submitted.
18 I fully support the requests that have been made
19 here that there be an adjudicatory proceeding in this
20 matter. If there is no adjudicatory proceeding, the
21 landfill expansion is almost certain to be approved.
22 I participated in adjudicatory hearings at the
23 Public Service Commission from 1980 to 1986 each year
24 when Niagara Mohawk applied for an electric rate
25 increase. We got a chance to read the testimony, to
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
70
1 cross-examine the witnesses. People are under oath and
2 you have a public process. The public process allows
3 the applicant to be questioned and the mistakes in the
4 application to be identified. The adjudicatory
5 proceeding is also important because it puts the DEC on
6 the spot. The DEC is then subject to public scrutiny
7 and how they conduct themselves in this activity.
8 I mean no offense to you Judge, but the DEC can be
9 very slippery. You absolutely cannot trust the DEC.
10 That's my experience.
11 I remember reading about 25 or so years back that
12 the DEC had a policy that would no longer allow
13 landfills to be cited along side of rivers in New York
14 State. I assume that a proposed landfill expansion along
15 side of a river is a site in process. I would like to
16 know what happened to that policy and if it's still in
17 effect.
18 There was a man, Mr. Bronner, who made a request
19 that there be an audit of the scale house at the
20 landfill. That, I think, is very important. I don't
21 know anything about the scale house at the Colonie
22 Landfill, but I know that at the Albany Landfill a scale
23 was broken for the better part of a year about four
24 years ago. I assume that DEC knew about it. If the
25 scale if broken, then overweight trucks can come in.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
71
1 One person here mentioned to take the waste out to
2 Seneca Meadows. I don't know if you've even seen Seneca
3 Meadows Landfill, but if you're driving along the
4 Thruway at Exit 41 and you look to the south you can see
5 it and it's miles long and it's a couple of hundred feet
6 high. Believe me, the people who live there do not want
7 your trash, either. I know a woman named Linda Oakes who
8 has been trying to shut down that landfill for a long
9 time and they're going to do it. It's not going to be
10 open for 40 more years. I think that we need much
11 better solutions to solve the waste and several people
12 here have recommended those. I think that we need to
13 make a much more intensive efforts to maximize
14 recycling, reuse and composting so that we can divert as
15 much as possible from landfills and incinerators.
18 Curt Taylor.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, very much. My name is Curt
20 Taylor and I'm a Region Engineer with Waste Connections
21 and Waste Connections operates the landfill on behalf
22 of the Town.
23 The Colonie Landfill currently provides
24 environmentally sound and cost effective waste disposal
25 for the surrounding area in the entire region. This
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
72
1 project allows this resource to continue to operate for
2 another 20 years without adding more property to the
3 landfill facility. In doing so, the project also
4 improves traffic safety by moving the facility entrance
5 to an existing signalized entrance at Fonda Road and to
6 the existing industrial park. It replaces the existing
7 leachate storage lagoons which have in the past been an
8 odor issue - with leachate storage tanks. That should
9 prevent that particular odor issue from reoccurring.
10 This project improves stormwater controls at the
11 existing site and those proposed stormwater controls are
12 designed in accordance with existing current stormwater
13 control standards.
14 The Visual Resource Assessment was completed. That
15 is contained in the DEIS and was discussed earlier. It
16 determined that there were no significant adverse
17 impacts based on the Area 7 development.
18 The project planning for Area 7 began no later than
19 2007 where is was discussed in the local solid waste
20 management plan for the Town of Colonie. The basic
21 project details were discussed at different public
22 meetings that started in 2014 and continued through this
23 year. This is another public venue in that series of
24 presentation. Although the application was filed in
25 2015, those application documents were posted on our
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
73
1 website in early 2015. They have been reviewed over that
2 intervening time period by the DEC. The application
3 documents have been approved during that period in
4 accordance with DEC requests and the application and the
5 process has benefitted from that, but the basic premise
6 of the Area 7 application and the Area 78 design hasn't
7 really changed. It's basically very consistent with what
8 was posted on the website in early 2015 and presented in
9 2014, 15 and 16.
10 In conclusion the project is an important area
11 resource for the entire region and should be approved.
12 Thank you.
14 Naz Garabedian.
15 MR. GARABEDIAN: Good evening. I'm not here to
16 choose sides. What I am here to do is tell you my
17 honest opinion as a resident of Saratoga County and
18 Waterford.
19 My wife and I moved into the area about 11 years
20 ago. We happen to move in December where you cannot
21 smell anything. I can tell you that in all honestly
22 that the following summer was horrendous. At the time
23 it was still run by the Town of Colonie. You could not
24 use your yard. I have children and I would not even send
25 them outside. I can honestly say that in the past four
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
74
1 years or so since Waste Connections company came in, it
2 has never been better. I have not smelled anything
3 perhaps more than one day in the last four year. Prior
4 to that it was terrible. I have to give them credit for
5 what they have done for the community.
6 While I understand that there are other concerns
7 surrounding this, I cannot give them enough of a pat on
8 the back for what they have done to make it dramatically
9 better.
10 I also want to remind area residents, be careful
11 what you ask for because these types of things can be a
12 burden if you get it. For example, I happen to be a
13 salesman. As a salesman, you tend to run into other
14 salesman and we discuss things about companies that we
15 may sell to or so on. One of the salesman that I
16 recently ran into sold to a compost company in
17 Waterford. He was lamenting that business is down. I
18 don't know for certain all about that company, but I
19 know that they have more than one reactor on that
20 premises and right now according to him, only one is
21 working. I don't know if that's a testament to New York
22 being difficult as far as not very business friendly. I
23 can assure you that if that place ever closed down or
24 left, who do you think will bear the tax burden? It will
25 be the residents, I can guarantee it. My taxes went up
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
75
1 50% in the last 10 years. From the first day that I
2 bought my home - I really don't need more. I would
3 prefer to reduce it. I will give an atta boy also to
4 the Town Supervisor. He has kept taxes in check for the
5 last few years, but it's still a major jump. I don't
6 know about you guys but did you get a 50% raise in pay
7 to compensate for those costs? All those things are
8 going to add up.
9 There is an old saying that a small leak will sink
10 a great ship. It's true. It's the nickels and dimes
11 that will kill you. Extra costs will constantly cause
12 problems. It will make you want to leave. Once you
13 leave, nobody is coming back.
14 I ran into a Police Officer not too long ago and we
15 were discussing the same thing. He was a Police Officer
16 in Troy and he had mentioned that the City of Troy was
17 having budget deficits and one of the things that they
18 were doing was they were out in full force - and don't
19 tell me that none of you have noticed that.
20 If you push the people to the edge, do you think
21 that they'll come back? Once they leave, they're gone.
22 I love this area and I love this community. I don't
23 want to see that happen here. Quite frankly, I'm just
24 being honest. I don't want to choose sides, but I will
25 say you're not going to want that cost. You're not going
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
76
1 to want to have to ship your trash to Syracuse or
2 something like that for a matter of convenience.
3 There was a gentleman earlier that said they don't
4 want your trash either. It's true. They probably
5 don't.
6 The fact of the matter is that if we reduce those
7 transportation costs -- you don't want to send it
8 elsewhere and then the following year gas becomes $4.00
9 a gallon again. What do you think that is going to do?
10 Our garbage pick-up is included in our taxes, if I'm not
11 mistaken. If it's already $500.00 a year, do you not
12 think that suddenty it will be $1,000.00.
13 That being said, I can't say that I'm against the
14 expansion of the landfill because if it creates an
15 environment that the citizens will have less cost and
16 less burden, I'm okay with it.
17 Thank you.
19 Bruce Tansk.
20 MR. TANSK: Thank you for giving me the
21 opportunity tonight.
22 I come here as a businessman in Saratoga County and
23 the greater capital district. I stand behind the need to
24 expand the Town of Colonie Landfill. The two main
25 reasons why I support this proposed expansion is that we
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
77
1 have an existing operational waste disposal facility
2 willing and able to expand and service for the future.
3 The other reason related is that we need to keep
4 the cost associated with waste disposal and the business
5 sense to a minimum.
6 What people don't understand is I'm out in the
7 field every single day. I see what goes on. I currently
8 own and operate over 2,000 apartments in Saratoga,
9 Scotia, Brunswick, Stillwater, Clifton Park and
10 Halfmoon. I see what goes on with garbage. I see people
11 bring garbage to my dumpsters because they can't afford
12 to take it anywhere else. I spend between $130,000.00
13 to $140,000.00 a year to get rid of garbage. I pride
14 myself in giving people a realistic place to live for a
15 realistic amount of money. I can tell you right now
16 what is going to happen. If we do not approve this
17 expansion, people are going to be dumping more garbage
18 on the streets, on the sidewalks and in that Towpath --
19 that's where you're going to find your garbage.
20 Currently right now it takes me three men, four
21 times a week, two hours a day to pick up garbage that
22 other people drop off because they can't afford to pay
23 to take it to the dump.
24 This other gentleman said because what you wish
25 for. I think that the proof will be in the pudding when
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
78
1 you start seeing garbage all over the street. Just go
2 down to some of the apartment complexes in Albany and
3 Schenectady. You see garbage plowed on the sidewalk
4 because they can't afford to get rid of it.
5 Furthermore, what is the alternative if this
6 landfill was to be closed? We'd have to ship our waste
7 to another facility and it would be a detriment to the
8 whole environment if we were to shut the Colonie
9 Landfill down.
10 I simply see it like this: The Colonie Landfill
11 has been operational for decades. It has a plan to
12 expand for another 20 years. The plan has improvements
13 to address nuisances of odor and other environmental
14 concerns.
15 In closing, I drive up and down Route 9 probably 30
16 times a week and prior to 2011 when Waste Connections
17 took over, I'm sure that everybody in this room saw what
18 a mess that landfill used to be. I'll bet everybody in
19 this room that not one person has ever called Waste
20 Connections and said hey guys, you know what? You guys
21 are doing a great job. Let me tell you something. That
22 landfill looks as nice as a golf course. The grass is
23 green. There are no papers. Everybody should take a
24 long look and look back prior to 2011 and you'll see
25 exactly what I mean. Again, be careful what you wish
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
79
1 for. Thank you very much.
3 Carl Clemente.
4 MR. CLEMENTE: I'm Carl Clemente with Fonda
5 Concrete, a local business in the Town of Colonie.
6 I think that the most important thing here is: Is
7 there a need? The need is very clear that we have to
8 have this landfill. There is no place to go with it. If
9 Albany is going to possibly close, it's not fair for the
10 State of New York to send our garbage out of this area
11 to a different area, to Seneca or wherever. It needs to
12 be deposited here.
13 Composing, like the man said - absolutely. There
14 should be more composting and there should be more
15 recycling. Not everybody is doing it. My wife drives me
16 crazy with recycling. She won't let me throw out a
17 coffee cup in a garbage can without recycling.
18 I've been out of that landfill for 30 years. It's
19 kind of like what Bruce said. I don't want to knock the
20 Town of Colonie but it was a mess. You go into that
21 landfill today and everything is clean, even to the
22 point where all the slopes are mowed. Everything has
23 been neatened up. A lot of people had a lot of smell
24 because they were doing a lot of composting. They're not
25 even composting there anymore. That smell is gone. The
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
80
1 landfill is very contained.
2 When you get on the New York State Thruway and you
3 go by the other landfill, the Albany Landfill, that's
4 all you smell. Since Waste Connections has taken it
5 over, they have done a great job of it. I'm just here
6 to support that. Thank you.
8 Curt Shaner.
9 MR. SHANER: Good evening. My name is Curt Shaner
10 and I'm an enginner with Waste Connections. I manage
11 engineering for the eastern region which affords me the
12 opportunity to see landfills in most of the states east
13 of the Mississippi, expansions and development of
14 greenfield sites.
15 At almost any landfill expansion or setting of a
16 new facility there are meetings like this and people
17 come and voice their concerns. I guess I have found
18 that over the years that those concerns are often
19 through lack of knowledge of some of the details. I
20 think that meetings like this or more informational
21 meetings can be advantageous to kind of give people
22 information on the projects. That's why we volunteered
23 and went around to each of the neighboring communities
24 and try to have meetings there to try and give people
25 information on the project. I know that a lot of you
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
81
1 have been at some of those meetings and you're back here
2 tonight. Hopefully some information was transmitted
3 through those meetings.
4 I was listening to the radio Wednesday morning and
5 there was a little bit in the morning DJ thing about the
6 most appreciated jobs. What do you know? The landfill
7 garbage man was the most unappreciated job. It's
8 interesting that as an industry we are viewed as the
9 guys that make the garbage rather than the guys who
10 solve the garbage problem. Everybody puts the garbage on
11 the curb but never really thinks about where it goes
12 from there and how that gets handled. We didn't produce
13 this waste. We're taking it away from the residents and
14 businesses across America and trying to find the best
15 home for it and handle it in an economical and
16 environmentally sound manner.
17 There was some talk earlier about new technologies
18 and to date, recycling has cut the volume that goes to
19 landfills. That's composting, but there is still a core
20 amount left to handle as a community. Until that new
21 technology that handles that comes along, we're left to
22 finding the best place to put it. In this particular
23 case, I think that developing Area 7 at the Town of
24 Colonie Landfill is that most viable option. While a
25 select few individuals probably take exception to that
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
82
1 and always will. Hopefully the larger majority of
2 individuals in the community will get more comfortable
3 with that. Thank you.
5 That was my last speaker card for this evening. Is
6 there anyone else that wanted to make a comment before
7 we close our hearing this evening?
8 (There was no response.)
9 Okay, then on behalf of the Department of
10 Environmental Conservation, I thank you for coming out
11 this evening. Have a safe trip home.
12
13 (Whereas the above entitled proceeding was
14 concluded at 8:08 p.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
83
1 CERTIFICATION
3 I, NANCY L. STRANG, Shorthand Reporter and Notary
4 Public in and for the State of New York, hereby CERTIFY
5 that the record taken by me at the time and place noted
6 in the heading hereof is a true and accurate transcript
7 of same, to the best of my ability and belief.
9 ___________________________________
10 NANCY L. STRANG
11
12
13 Dated _______________________________
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
October 25, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript
1
1 TOWN BOARD COUNTY OF ALBANY
2 TOWN OF COLONIE
3 *******************************************************
4 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF

THE TOWN OF COLONIE
5 TO THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
6 *******************************************************
7 THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES of the above entitled

matter by NANCY L. STRANG, a Shorthand Reporter, on
8 October 25, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at Shaker High School 445
Watervliet Shaker Road, Latham, New York 12110.
9
10 MOLLY T. MCBRIDE, ESQ., Administrative Law Judge
11
ALSO PRESENT:
12 Matthew McGarry, Public Works Engineer, Town of Colonie
Jack Lawler, Supervisor, Town of Waterford
13 Kathy Marchione, Senator
Alison McLean Lane, Albany County Legislator
14 Tom Nolte, President, Colonie Chamber of Commerce
Tom Johnson, Sterling Environmental
15
Matt Allen
16 Eric Ameres
Thomas Ellis
17 Dave Engle, Esq.
Ryan Flinton
18 Mark Gabriel
Betty Hartley
19 Frank Hartley
George Harris
20 Rob Holmes
Kathleen Kowsky
21 Brent Landis
Joe McTague
22 Jonathan McDade
Ron Moraski
23 Ryan Nadi
Tim Nichols
24 Henrietta O'Grady
Peter Swota
25 Mark Schachner, Esq.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
2
1 Cont.
2 Robert Santa Lucia

Russell Stout
3 Carolyn Strand
Curt Taylor
4 Jack Wands
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
3
1 ALJ. MCBRIDE: I was told last time that there
2 were some problems in hearing the speakers. If anyone
3 has problems tonight in hearing the speakers, please
4 let me know right away and I make sure that they adjust
5 the microphone so that everyone in the audience can
6 hear all the comments.
7 Also, what we will do after we receive the
8 transcript from tonight’s hearing and with the
9 transcript that we had from the September 20th hearing –
10 we’ll make sure that a copy is available in the public
11 repositories where the other documents are. So, if you
12 would like to be able to review the transcripts from
13 tonight or the September 20th hearing, they will be
14 there.
15 Again, just put your hand up or let me know somehow
16 if you can’t hear the speakers.
17 Good evening, everyone. My name is Molly McBride
18 and I’m the Administrative Law Judge with the New York
19 State Department of Environmental Conservation. I’ll be
20 presiding over this evening’s legislative public comment
21 hearing.
22 The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments
23 from the public regarding the application of the Town of
24 Colonie to develop approximately 132 acres of land
25 referred to as Area 7 within the existing 212 acre of
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
4
1 landfill site. This land will be new landfill space.
2 Permits required for the landfill expansion
3 includes solid waste, air, freshwater wetland permits
4 and a water quality certification.
5 The project would impact approximately 1.4 acres of
6 federal wetlands and 1.3 acres of the 100 foot buffer
7 area of state wetland TN-10. The New York State
8 Department of Environmental Conservation is the SEQR
9 lead agency and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
10 has been completed by the applicant for this action and
11 has been accepted by the department.
12 The department has prepared a Draft Air Title 5
13 Permit and has made a tentative determination to issue
14 an Air Title 5 Permit for this matter.
15 In accordance with the 6NYCRR Part 621.79 and
16 201-6.3C, the administrator of the United States
17 Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to bar
18 issuance of any title for a facility permit if it is
19 determined not to be compliance with applicable
20 requirements for the Clean Air Act.
21 Notice of completion of the Draft Environmental
22 Impact Statement, notice of completed applications,
23 notice of public comment period and notice of the
24 legislative public comment hearing that was held on
25 September 20th were published in the department’s
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
5
1 Environmental Notice Bulletin on August 24, 2016 as well
2 as the Times Union on August 24, 2016.
3 In addition, the legislative public comment hearing
4 was held here at the Shaker High School on September
5 20th to receive comments on this project.
6 The DEC made a determination to hold a second
7 public comment hearing and notice of that second hearing
8 was published in the department ENB on October 12, 2016
9 and it was also published in the Times Union.
10 This hearing is to provide an opportunity for the
11 public to comment on the application. The department is
12 accepting written and oral comments up until November 1,
13 2016. Therefore, all comments must be received by the
14 department by that date to be considered. The mailing
15 address for written comments is the New York State
16 Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, 1130
17 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, New York, attention:
18 Deputy Regional Permit Administrator. That address is
19 available at the table immediately outside in the
20 hallway where you signed in this evening. If you did
21 not get that address, that address will be available
22 this evening, right outside.
23 If you spoke at the September 20th hearing or have
24 submitted written comments, it is not necessary for you
25 to speak again this evening. All comments made through
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
6
1 November 1, 2016 will be reviewed by department staff
2 when they review this application. Equal weight is
3 given to written and oral comments.
4 Tonight’s hearing is to receive comments. It is
5 not a question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to
6 make a comment this evening must fill out a speaker
7 card. The cards are available at the table outside of
8 this room.
9 I will call your name when it is your turn to
10 speak. I apologize if I mispronounce your name. Please
11 correct me when you come to the microphone.
12 When you do come forward, please speak loudly,
13 slowly and clearly as we have a court reporter here this
14 evening making an accurate record of all comments made.
15 Please begin with your name and your address and if you
16 are speaking on behalf of someone or a group, please
17 identify who it is that you are representing.
18 If you have any questions for department staff or
19 the Town of Colonie, I would ask that you raise them
20 outside of this proceeding.
21 As I indicated, if you do not wish to make an oral
22 statement, you may submit a written statement. We have
23 forms available outside on the table, if you would like
24 to submit your comments this evening or they may be
25 submitted to the department. Again, they must be
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
7
1 received by November 1, 2016 to be considered.
2 I will now begin calling speakers. Our first
3 speaker is Senator Marchione.
4 SENATOR MARCHIONE: Thank you very much. As you
5 said, I’m Kathy Marchione and I live in Halfmoon. Thank
6 you for this opportunity to speak.
7 I would first like to thank you for the second
8 public hearing. I wrote back a while ago and asked for
9 a second public hearing as I felt that having to go
10 through 3,000 pages in a very short period of time with
11 this one public hearing wasn’t enough for the people of
12 this area for time purposes and to be able to adequately
13 respond. So, first, I want to say thank you.
14 I am here to speak on behalf of the men and women
15 in the communities that I represent, specifically the
16 Towns of Halfmoon and Waterford.
17 The proposed expansion of the Colonie landfill is a
18 highly contentious and controversial issue. There is
19 strong opposition against this proposed project. There
20 are many serious concerns about the project’s expected
21 impact on the environment and quality of life for the
22 surrounding communities.
23 I did write to Commissioner Seggos asking for an
24 adjudicatory hearing on the landfill project. I believe
25 that all voices against this project or for this project
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
8
1 must be heard and that their concerns must be taken
2 seriously. Rushed decisions often lead to bad decisions
3 and we only get one chance to get this right. We should
4 take all of the time that is needed to make the right
5 decision. We must not lose this opportunity.
6 Therefore, I am verbally asking for an adjudicatory
7 hearing so that people can be sworn in and that their
8 voices that are truthful because we know that they will
9 be sworn in and that they have an opportunity to speak.
11 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Thank you, ma’am.
12 Our next speaker is Alison McClean Lane.
13 SENATOR MARCHIONE: Excuse me. I just want to
14 apologize for having to leave. It’s not that I don’t
15 want to listen to everyone else, it’s that I have
16 another scheduled meeting that I have to attend. Thank
17 you for having me.
18 MS. MCLEAN: My name is Alison McLean Lane and I
19 reside at 7 Sage Court in Menands, New York 12204. I am
20 an Albany County Legislator representing the 14th
21 Legislative District which includes the Hamlet of
22 Loudonville, the Village of Menands and a portion of the
23 beautiful City of Watervliet.
24 I am here in support of a proposal to develop the
25 132 acres that is also referred to as Area 7. The
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
9
1 reason that I am in strong support of this proposal is
2 because of the fiscal health of our entire region.
3 Simply put, if we had to truck millions of tons of
4 refuse to the next available landfill at Seneca Meadows
5 in Rochester I think that it would add millions to our
6 tax levies that ultimately would be passed along in the
7 form of higher taxes to both commercial and residential
8 taxpayers here in our region. All of the municipalities
9 that are in my district use this landfill. I am a
10 resident of the Village of Menands. Obliviously, this
11 is where our refuse is taken from the Village of Menands
12 and if we had to take it farther and farther away, it
13 would add more money to our taxes. So, it’s a concern
14 for the fiscal health for our communities and so
15 therefore I stand in strong support.
16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
17 ALJ. MCBRIDE: John Lawler.
18 MR. LAWLER: First of all, like Senator Marchione
19 I'd like to thank the department for scheduling the
20 second public hearing. I think that this is a critical
21 matter to a great many people in this region and I
22 believe that there is substantial concern regarding the
23 application as far as the quality and completeness of
24 the application and the environment.
25 The first thing that I would like to do tonight is
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
10
1 also thank the people that took the time to be here. I
2 recognize a great many of them and I appreciate your
3 involvement here tonight. It's going to be critical to
4 have that going forward, as well.
5 I want to take one second and say that Assemblyman
6 John McDonald could not be here this evening. He did,
7 however, submit a letter to the department and I’d like
8 to take a moment to read that as there are some people
9 here that might not be aware of it. It’s addressed to
10 the Hon. Basil Seggos, Commissioner of the New York
11 State Department of Environmental Conservation.
12 Dear Commissioner: I write formally requesting that
13 the State Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC,
14 call for an adjudicatory hearing regarding the proposed
15 expansion of the Town of Colonie landfill Area 7. Over
16 the past several months I have heard concerns from a
17 percentage of the residents that I serve in my district
18 and outside of it. These concerns are ones that I
19 believe need a full public vetting during this process
20 which is the reason why I am supportive of the request
21 for an adjudicatory hearing. The hearing will provide
22 the public a full opportunity to be heard and the
23 department to consider all components in its final
24 decision in an impartial process. Sincerely,
25 Assemblyman John McDonald.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
11
1 I have a few comments of my own. I’m going to
2 quote for a second from the actual Executive Summary of
3 the Environmental Impact Statement. I quote:
4 “The no action alternative would result in the
5 closing of the Town of Colonie Landfill once it reaches
6 its current permitted capacity requiring and
7 transferring the long distance hauling of waste to
8 another permitted disposal site. This alternative would
9 cause additional fuel consumption by waste transfers and
10 with an increased air contaminate emissions, and
11 increased waste disposal cost to residents and
12 businesses in the Town and surrounding communities."
13 I'm stopping the quote for a second and I would
14 like to emphatically note that nowhere in this document
15 does that conclusion have any supporting documentation
16 or any notation. It is pure conjecture, completely
17 unsubstantiated by over 1,000 pages of documentation
18 that makes up the State Environmental Impact Statement.
19 Nowhere does that conclusion validate - nowhere is it
20 even addressed. It's simply dismissed that there could
21 be alternatives. In fact, the applicant goes on and
22 I'll quote again:
23 "In addition to Town losing all landfill operations
24 approval and CRL"
25 I believe that's Waste Connections.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
12
1 "And from the sale of electricity generated by the
2 landfill gas and energy facility, the adverse fiscal
3 consequences of the no action alternative are two
4 significant to consider it a viable option."
5 That is the crux of this application. Time in and
6 time out, this document says we have to do this because
7 Colonie needs the money. While I, as a Town Supervisor
8 myself, have great sympathy for the financial pressure
9 that towns and other local officials are under.
10 Financial stress for a community is not a substitute for
11 sound environmental public policy. It is very clear in
12 this document that this is a money gram. Public policy
13 should not be dictated to by the stock price of Waste
14 Connections. Our public policy should not be for sale.
15 What should be done are those actions that are in the
16 best interest of our community as a whole. This is why
17 we are calling for an adjudicatory hearing. We will be
18 submitting written comments - highly technical comments
19 from our engineers and legal comments from our attorneys
20 which we believe will document the tremendous short
21 fallings of this document. Those will best be brought
22 to light and best be delivered for the public to
23 consider that the application.
24 The Executive Summary goes on to say:
25 "Waste should be exported only if no other solution
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
13
1 can be found."
2 This document makes pretty sure that no other
3 solution will be found because it makes no attempt to
4 find any other solution.
5 There are landfills throughout this state and there
6 is great capacity locally. In fact, the Saratoga County
7 Landfill has yet to take its first bag of garbage. It
8 will shortly be on-line. In the document they
9 referenced the landfill is designated as the solid waste
10 solution for the planning unit. Let's never very clear
11 here. The planning unit includes the Town of Colonie,
12 the Village of Menands, the Village of Colonie and the
13 City of Watervliet. This landfill expansion goes
14 exponentially thousands of times greater than the solid
15 waste needs of those four communities that make up the
16 planning unit. So, when they speak about this being
17 necessary to meet their responsibilities as a solution
18 for the planning unit's solid waste needs, lets be very
19 clear about who that landfill is serving as members of
20 the planning unit; the Village of Colonie, the Village
21 of Menands, the Town of Colonie which I am pretty sure
22 includes the Village of Menands and the Village of
23 Colonie and the City of Watervliet. This is such
24 overkill - this expansion is such overkill and there are
25 so many flaws in this application. Respectfully, these
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
14
1 flaws and an honest straight-forward discussion of this
2 application that the people are entitled to who will be
3 most impacted by it can only be addressed in an
4 adjudicatory hearing. We hope that will be the decision
5 that the department will support.
6 I thank you, very much.
7 ALJ. MCBRIDE: I'm now going to be calling members
8 of the public. I wanted to note for everyone that I
9 have about 36 cards right now. Generally what we do is
10 ask people to be mindful to the fact that a lot of
11 people would like to make comments here this evening
12 and if you've already made comments, I would ask that
13 you not repeat those comments so that everyone who is
14 here has their opportunity to be heard. Also, I do
15 realize that this is an issue that you are all
16 passionate about and I'm going to ask you to refrain
17 from clapping so that we can keep things moving along
18 here this evening so that everybody gets their
19 opportunity. Thank you.
20 Our first speaker is Tom Nolte.
21 MR. NOLTE: My name is Tom Nolte and I've worked
22 for the Colonie Chamber of Commerce at 952 Loudon Road
23 here in Latham. I also live in the Town of Colonie at
24 20 Renas Drive and the mailing address is Cohoes.
25 I'm the President of the Colonie Chamber of
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
15
1 Commerce. As such, I do represent businesses who also
2 not only set up shop here in our Town but who also live
3 here. As my predecessor said, I want to thank you for
4 the opportunity to give both sides an opportunity to
5 speak on this important subject.
6 The Colonie Chamber of Commerce is a service
7 organization of over 500 business members formed to meet
8 the interests and needs of the commercial, industrial
9 and professional sectors and to foster trade and
10 commerce in the Colonie area.
11 Last year the Chamber celebrated our 30th
12 anniversary originally as the Latham Area Chamber of
13 Commerce and growing into the Colonie Chamber. In those
14 30 years our mission has remained the same: to promote
15 and enhance the local business community in our area.
16 That being said, people do not come from out of town,
17 for the most part, to set up business in Colonie. My
18 members are people who are part of the community, people
19 who send their kids to North Colonie, South Colonie, CBA
20 and the like. These are people who live in the area.
21 My predecessors, Senator Marchione and Supervisor
22 Lawler and Alison McLean Lane have stated their case. I
23 am here representing business interests in Colonie.
24 Again, I want to make it clear that these are also
25 residents who live in our Town.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
16
1 I wanted to say to Jack that you are correct; both
2 the Village of Menands and the Village of Colonie are
3 located in the Town.
4 Attracting new business is also the mission of
5 chambers, local and economic development corporations
6 and other business member driven organizations like the
7 center for economic growth. We need to have the right
8 assets and a worthy playing field in order to be
9 successful. One important asset in our business
10 community is the Colonie Landfill. The looming closure
11 of the City of Albany's Rapp Road Landfill makes the
12 opening of Area 7 at the Colonie Landfill even more
13 important.
14 Does anyone know how much more it will cost our
15 businesses, our not for profit organizations and our
16 residents to transport our solid waste out of this area?
17 We don't, but we are given the opportunity to find out
18 more about that. Again, I thank you for that.
19 A recent analysis compared 50 state capitals to
20 identify which among the combines the best of everything
21 an ideal city contains. The economic well being of
22 Albany ranked 43 out of 50. Perhaps one improvement
23 that we can make in the future as a region is to address
24 our solid waste challenges to develop a long range solid
25 waste management plan regional. Until such a plan is in
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
17
1 place, we cannot afford to close both of our regional
2 solid waste landfills, as least not for now.
3 Thank you for this opportunity.
5 Brent Landis.
6 MR. LANDIS: Good evening and thank you for this
7 opportunity to speak. My name is Brent Landis. I live
8 in Mallards Landing South which is in the Town of
9 Waterford and it's about a mile east of this facility.
10 I was alerted to this public hearing when a letter
11 arrived at my door from Mr. Lawler claiming that the
12 facility would be devastating on the quality of our
13 lives and real estate values. I wanted to attend this
14 meeting to hear and see more about that.
15 From what I know, I respectfully disagree with Mr.
16 Lawler and would like to offer another perspective.
17 I'm a real estate broker and active in the market
18 for more than 20 years. Many times new home buyers in
19 this area don't even know that this is a landfill when
20 they see it. I never hear any objections about it. Just
21 like public water and sewer are important to our
22 community infrastructure, this facility is important to
23 community infrastructure. If a community is lucky
24 enough in the first place to get a facility like this
25 and there is unused disposal capacity, we need to keep
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
18
1 these facilities open.
2 Mr. Lawler's letter claims that the height of the
3 landfill will increase approximately 100 feet. I
4 believe that is nothing to be concerned about and the
5 additional height would be barely noticeable to area
6 residents.
7 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Excuse me, I'm going to ask that
8 you be respectful of every speaker, whether we agree
9 with them or not. Thank you.
10 MR. LANDIS: In my experience over the years I
11 have noticed few, if any, problems with this facility.
12 Maybe once or twice I get a whiff of landfill gas and
13 it's no big deal.
14 As a kid growing up in the country on dairy farms,
15 the odors from the hurd were 50 to 100 time stronger.
16 I see several reasons to approve this application.
17 In this region of New York we are running out of
18 disposal capacity which will mean exporting our trash to
19 other facilities. Exporting our trash means increased
20 costs for the consumer. Closing this facility will mean
21 a loss of millions of dollars in revenue to the Town of
22 Colonie which will mean higher property taxes for those
23 residents. Keeping this facility open means that we
24 don't need to worry about not having a place to send our
25 trash for the next 20 years.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
19
1 In closing, I support approval of this application
2 and I thank you for this time to speak.
4 Peter Swota.
5 MR. SWOTA: Good evening. My name is Peter Swota.
6 I own and reside at 29 Gawala Drive, Waterford, 12188.
7 I live approximately one mile east of the Town of
8 Colonie Landfill. I'm here to speak in opposition to
9 the application for extension for the life of the Town
10 of Colonie Landfill. I'm representing myself but I
11 think that I speak for hundreds of residents in my
12 development and adjacent neighborhoods.
13 This landfill is in the Town of Colonie but it
14 significantly restricts the enjoyment of my home and
15 homes of my neighbors and other residents surrounding
16 the landfill. This landfill gives off occasional
17 overpowering stench. That is not the whole story. I
18 have personally phoned the General Manger of the
19 landfill approximately a dozen times to record the
20 sickening stench. Many of these times I also phoned DEC
21 and made them aware too. To his credit, the landfill
22 Manger responds to my calls. The wreaking odor from the
23 landfill is just an obvious manifestation of a larger
24 issue. The chemicals, many of them are carcinogens that
25 we don't smell around the landfill are blown about in
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
20
1 the wind to all neighborhoods surrounding the landfill.
2 Many scientific studies confirm that even the best of
3 landfills are toxic, cancer-causing waste vaporized in
4 soil covering mix with the air masses of the landfills.
5 This is a persistent process that goes on every day. As
6 many as 44 airborne toxins have been identified from
7 such substances as paint thinners, bleach, ammonia
8 solvents and pesticides in a landfill. These same
9 studies have concluded that these chemicals have a
10 significant harmful affect on the quality of air. They
11 are health hazards. Just because they don't have a
12 detectable odor, doesn't mean that they are not doing
13 internal harm to nearby residents. Additionally,
14 changing wind direction with the mass toxic air
15 circulating around from place to place, multiplying
16 airborne health hazards is unacceptable.
17 Leachates are as lethal as the airborne toxins. No
18 matter how well operated the landfill might be, there
19 are still leachates. The proximity of the Town of
20 Colonie Landfill to the surrounding residents, have
21 significant negative impacts to the echo systems to the
22 Mohawk River and the Hudson River to which the Mohawk
23 flows.
24 With the height of the proposed expansion and all
25 of the issues I have discussed, no one would be
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
21
1 interested in purchasing my property after seeing a
2 mountain of landfill material and the wind that blows
3 the landfill stench over my property.
4 This landfill was supposed to close in 2018. That
5 was the request of the Town of Colonie. They should
6 honor it. It is unjust to change the rules by extending
7 the life of the Colonie Landfill so that the Town can
8 make a few more bucks despite the dangers and the health
9 of the surrounding residents. For too long we neighbors
10 have endured the stench and the noise of the landfill.
11 If you lived by it and you believed that you were at
12 risk, you would not only deny the extension, you would
13 act to close the landfill as soon as possible. I ask
14 you to deny the Town of Colonie's request for the
15 extension of the life of the landfill for 20 years or
16 any time period, for that matter. The fact that the
17 Town of Colonie's Landfill is a cash cow is not
18 sufficient grounds of granting any extension given the
19 overwhelming potential health and environmental hazards
20 that are caused by this landfill. Landfills simply do
21 not belong in populated areas. They are eyesores and
22 they can cause life threatening health impacts.
23 Thank you for this opportunity to speak in strong
24 opposition to the Town of Colonie's application for an
25 extension of the life of the landfill.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
22
2 MR. HARTLEY: Good evening. I am Frank Hartley
3 and I have resided at 48 Church Hill Road in the Town
4 of Halfmoon for the past 30 years. My home is located
5 on the north side of the Mohawk River in Saratoga
6 County where I have had a continuous view of the
7 existing landfill and its operation. I am a member of
8 the Citizens Concerned About the Landfill Expansion, a
9 group that represents local residents. I am a New York
10 State Licensed Professional Engineer with extensive
11 experience in the preparation of Environmental Impact
12 Statements and community outreach for major public
13 works projects.
14 I have reviewed in detail the June 2016 Draft
15 Environmental Impact Statement along with the supporting
16 documentation for the project. I am very concerned with
17 the inaccurate generalizations, inconsistencies, and
18 missing information in the Draft Environmental Impact
19 Statement. Many of the conclusions presented appear to
20 be either inaccurate or have not considered all relevant
21 information. I will be submitting detailed written
22 comments on the DEIS, but would like to comment on
23 several of the more serious deficiencies.
24 My first concern is the Town of Colonie has tried
25 to progress the proposed expansion with minimal public
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
23
1 outreach and coordination. Originally it proposed the
2 expansion as a minor modification to the existing
3 permit. One it was pointed out that the expansion would
4 triple the current landfill, the Town agreed to prepare
5 and Environmental Impact Statement and to progress the
6 review under SEQR.
7 It appears that some of the information provided to
8 the public in the minimal public outreach effort and in
9 the DEIS is inaccurate, incomplete or in many instances
10 are unsubstantiated statements. Inaccurate information
11 that was presented ranges from statements that this is
12 not an expansion of the landfill, there are no
13 alternates to expanding the landfill and not expanding
14 the landfill will cause significant disposal cost
15 increases. Additional issues are a visual impact study
16 that does not represent the actual construction along
17 with stating the only construction mitigation available
18 during the 20 plus years of construction is a 10 foot
19 high berm of garbage to shield operations. The DEIS
20 needs to be revised with all errors and misinformation
21 corrected and then presented to the public so the
22 proposed expansion can be discussed with all the facts
23 available.
24 My next concern is that the property value decrease
25 that the neighboring properties will experience if the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
24
1 landfill is allowed to operate for the next 20 plus
2 years. The DEIS states the Area 7 development would not
3 have significant adverse impacts on land use, zoning,
4 development or property values, and therefore no
5 mitigation measures are proposed.
6 The statement is unreasonable and inaccurate. The
7 current view of the landfill is of a closed landfill
8 that has been graded, capped and planted. The current
9 filling operations are taking place in the southwest
10 quadrant creating minimal visual impact. The landfill
11 is scheduled to close by 2018. Current local property
12 values are based on the view of the closed landfill.
13 The DEIS indicated that once construction of Area 7
14 begins, they will remove the existing vegetation, the
15 permanent cap, place a new bottom liner and begin over
16 filling the current closed cells. This will change the
17 view of the closed and capped areas from planted to bare
18 dirt and garbage. There have been no construction
19 mitigations proposed with the exception of constructing
20 a 10 foot high berm of garbage around the current
21 activities to shield them. The DEIS states that capping
22 or planting on the face will be performed once the
23 section of fill construction is complete, which would be
24 assumed to be once Area 7 is completed to an elevation
25 417 feet, fully visible for the entire construction
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
25
1 period. The sequence of cover and closure once the
2 final elevation is reached is consistent with the
3 previous construction and closing of Area 5 and the east
4 exposure of Area 6. Area 5 was not capped and planted
5 until the final elevation was reached and Area 6 has not
6 seen any final grading or planting over the last three
7 or more years of construction. As the construction
8 progresses, the fill will become the highest feature
9 within over 28 square miles of the landfill.
10 That there will be no impact to property values is
11 out and out false.
12 We are requesting an appraisal of the adjacent and
13 nearby properties, both in northern Albany and southern
14 Saratoga Counties by a qualified professional real
15 estate appraiser. The appraisals should reflect current
16 values with the north, east and west faces capped, no
17 visible construction and the landfill closing by 2018.
18 It should also present the property values once Area 7
19 fill starts and is ongoing for the next 20 plus years,
20 creating a permanent construction impact for the
21 neighborhood.
22 No actions should be taken on the project
23 application until the impact on local property values is
24 identified.
25 The next concern is permanent construction impacts.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
26
1 A typical Environmental Impact Statement deals with the
2 impacts of the completed project and provides the
3 analysis to disclose the potential impacts of the
4 project. Lesser consideration is usually given to the
5 construction impacts as they are temporary and will be
6 mitigated once the project is complete. As noted above,
7 the construction of Area 7 will be a permanent impact of
8 over 20 years duration and as such has not been
9 disclosed in the DEIS, analyzed or mitigated.
10 The only mitigation offered in the DEIS is to
11 minimize the duration and magnitude of operational
12 impacts, landfilling within each successive vertical
13 lift would be phased in a manner that would screen much
14 of the day to day operations from off-site receptors
15 through the use of berms to be placed along the
16 perimeter of the lift area. As landfilling is
17 completed, closed areas would be revegitated with a mix
18 of native grasses and herbaceous vegetation. The intent
19 of this mitigation is to create the visual appearance of
20 a surrounding region. In addition, mowing of the
21 completed landfill would be limited to maintain this
22 desired visual character.
23 To date, there has not been any effort at a
24 planting or the creation of the appearance of a natural
25 meadow or old field consistent witg the visual character
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
27
1 of the surrounding region in any of the closed and
2 capped areas of the landfill. In fact, it is not
3 reasonable to assume a 270 foot high mountain of trash
4 with 30% side slopes can ever be considered to have the
5 appearance of a natural meadow or old field. It must be
6 recognized that the fill will start within 120 feet of
7 the Mohawk River, rise at a 30% slope to an elevation of
8 417 feet creating the highest point in the landscape
9 from Utica to Saratoga, to the Berkshires which will ve
10 very noticeable.
11 There has been inadequate study of the over 20
12 years of construction and as such, the following needs
13 to be addressed: Analysis of construction impacts;
14 accurate visual graphics of the construction; proposals
15 for the realistic mitigation of impacts during
16 construction; a more realistic description of the
17 landfill than natural meadow or old field.
18 Thank you.
20 Joe McTague.
21 MR. MCTAGUE: I just want to come up here and put
22 on record that I am opposed to the expansion of
23 landfill. My name is Joe McTague and I live at 36
24 Heritage Court and am a Town of Colonie resident.
25 I just want to echo some of the comments that were
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
28
1 already made. There are some very good speakers here
2 that put a lot of thought into this and I really do
3 appreciate that. I too agree that there seems to be
4 some inherent bias reported.
5 I have researched on the Internet and I've looked
6 at Cornerstone's website and they have three client
7 lists; one for the west region, one for the mid-west and
8 one for the east. On all three of those lists Waste
9 Connections is listed. There are definitely some
10 inherent biases; words like only 132 acres; only 1.2
11 tons of additional DOC emissions. The word only is
12 mentioned many times. It definitely seems to be a lean
13 towards trying to down-play the impact here.
14 I think that the Town of Colonie is biased in its
15 decision to pursue this permit. The 12 million dollar
16 incentive payment on the line -- it's very easy to lose
17 focus on what is important here. I'm sure that a lot of
18 people would like to go back and say that they don't
19 have to raise taxes.
20 I also want to stress the lack of research on
21 alternatives. In the Town of Colonie's permit they
22 actually put that it would not be economically or
23 fiscally feasible to consider alternatives. So, the Town
24 itself had admitted that it had not looked at
25 alternatives.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
29
1 There are so many things that I wanted to say, but
2 I want to keep it to three minutes.
3 I live in Lion Creek Estates which is two miles
4 from the entrance to the landfill and I do experience a
5 strong odor consistently - to the point that I'm woken
6 in the middle of the night if I sleep with my windows
7 open. In the impact statement they also mentioned that
8 it's typically a summer-type issue. I experience it
9 year round. The fact that there is already 14
10 complaints in the report - I think that it was in 2014
11 -- if I drive west on Fonda Road or head north on Route
12 9, 75% of the time I can smell the landfill.
13 This is very near and dear to my heart.
14 My three minutes is up. I really want to stress
15 the fact that I am opposed to this for the environmental
16 impacts - the water problem and the air problem and
17 really the lack of any alternatives.
18 Thank you.
19 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Henrietta O'Grady.
20 MS. O'GRADY: My name is Henrietta J. O'Grady and
21 I'm a resident of Church Hill Road, Town of Halfmoon.
22 After reviewing the testimony from the first public
23 hearing and taking a closer look at the application, I
24 have made several observations.
25 Foremost, the absence of alternative sites in the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
30
1 application shows a lack of compliance with the SEQR
2 process resulting in an incomplete application. Since
3 there are numerous other approved landfill sites that
4 may charge lesser fees, it would be questionable to say
5 that closing the Colonie Landfill will cost the public
6 more because comparative information is not readily
7 available. Consequently, a determination on this
8 application cannot be made when it is deemed incomplete
9 and the economics of the project cannot be weighed
10 against SEQR provisions.
11 Secondly, it is my observation that this
12 application is not business as usual by adding another
13 segment to the landfill, as recently stated by the
14 Colonie Supervisor. Instead, it is a massive new plan
15 to more than double the size of the present landfill.
16 New undisturbed areas will be developed and cells that
17 were supposed to be closed will be included to satisfy
18 financial interests.
19 Thirdly, the visual assessment in the DEIS states
20 that a berm is not perfect in obscuring the daily
21 operation of the landfill from neighboring areas.
22 However, no other solution is offered. It stands to
23 reason that the higher the landfill, the further the
24 impact of the viewshed before and after all the leaves
25 have fallen. Visually, the increased height of the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
31
1 landfill will negatively impact the Mohawk Hudson Bike
2 Path at Crescent Station on Fonda Road in Colonie and
3 the Crescent to Vischer Ferry Community Trail in
4 Halfmoon and Clifton Park.
5 Lastly, a question arises about industrial waste at
6 the Colonie Landfill. Where did the industrial waste or
7 PFOAs from the Hoosick Falls plant go? Did it end up in
8 the Colonie Landfill and if so, are tests being
9 conducted for PFOA?
10 In conclusion, there is a need for sworn testimony
11 in this whole process. I join with many of my
12 colleagues in calling for an adjudicatory hearing to
13 provide for sworn testimony of all concerned parties.
14 That is the only way we will be able to truly weigh the
15 public benefit and economics of the project.
16 Thank you.
17 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Ryan Nadi.
18 MR. NADI: Good evening. My name is Ryan Nadi and
19 I live on Towpath Lane in Waterford. I had a lot of
20 comments that have actually already been heard tonight
21 so I'm going to pass over those.
22 Something that I don't know has been addressed -- I
23 wasn't here at the first hearing is the inherent problem
24 to the Town of Colonie and the surrounding neighbors.
25 The landfill was supposed to be capped and closed in
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
32
1 2018. I, myself, moved into viewing distance of the
2 landfill three years ago. In doing so, my own homework
3 came across the Town of Colonie's Comprehensive Plan in
4 2005 and that the landfill was essentially going through
5 its capacity and going to close out within the next 50
6 or so years.
7 Waste Connections has opened their own website;
8 townofcolonielandfill.com. That includes an area on
9 there that they are aware of the plan that was dated
10 2006 and 2007, that is would reach capacity in 2018,
11 causing all operations to cease. Knowing that four
12 years later, they decided to go into negotiations and in
13 2011 went under contract with a landfill that was
14 supposed to be closed seven years later. So, it seems
15 to me that what we have here is an economic decision
16 that is being asked of an environmental agency. The
17 economic interests at large here are very strong and
18 very consolidated to one municipality and its associated
19 municipalities. It quickly dismisses all of its
20 neighbors, the impact that it would have on them and
21 just as its been pointed out tonight the application
22 meets the bare minimum in that it answers the questions
23 that are asked of it, but not the questions that are not
24 asked. Questions such as: What are the alternatives?
25 What would it cost to take the trash elsewhere? Simple
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
33
1 things like that which by omission seem purposeful. We
2 don't want to disclose what may be unfavorable. We are
3 just looking at the balance of 20 years of payments of
4 one million dollars annually to the Town of Colonie. We
5 don't want to concern ourselves with perhaps just losing
6 that one economic income string.
7 The other part that has been mentioned is the 100
8 foot height. Just to reiterate: What I had come across
9 is 87 feet in increase of height over 132 acres
10 including between 1.4 and 2.7 of designated wetlands.
11 Those are areas that were designated to be undisturbed
12 and never to be repurposed for a landfill. That 87 feet
13 - over 132 acres would be essentially creating an area -
14 just a new area that would rise above the median height.
15 For us, we have plenty of hills and mountains; we're
16 used to it. Just a point on how much height we're
17 talking about - to stand by and say that there will be
18 no issues with that amount of volume over the course of
19 20 years - or at least they can be mitigated with a new
20 system or seed, if possible.
21 The last point that I want to bring up is that we
22 keep hearing this term in 20 years. I have a severe
23 contention with that based on the last couple of years.
24 As I mentioned before, it is well known that they wanted
25 to recontract in 2011.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
34
1 Since 2011 we do not have specific numbers as to
2 what the revenue from this has been to the Town of
3 Colonie other than the public contract.
4 In 2015 Waste Connections was fined via the Town of
5 Colonie for bringing in a substantial amount of daily
6 cover which is another fancy term for saying we're going
7 to cover up our trash with more trash -- to the tune of
8 1,700 pounds of trash for 2,000 pounds of trash. The
9 associated environmental groups said that's a bit too
10 much. We want you down to 500 pounds. There is a
11 $530,000.00 fine.
12 The reason that I bring that up is that in 2013 the
13 amount of trash that was brought in was raised from
14 170,000 tons per year to 255,000 per year. So, between
15 2013 and this daily cover, we have an unknown amount of
16 additional trash brought in just in the few years
17 between 2011 under new management and the associated
18 fines within four to five years later.
19 Twenty years seems like perhaps they have a great
20 plan. Twenty years at 255,000 tons per year. My
21 concern is that we have seen at least two attempts to go
22 around what was previously permitted. One was
23 documented and one was a questionably legal decision to
24 just bring in more cover. How much is 20 years really
25 going to bring us? It is 20 years at the current amount
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
35
1 or 20 years at the amount of three or four years from
2 now when they request a permit for an additional per
3 year? Perhaps there will be more than that when they
4 are able to bring in more cover. Eighty-seven feet is
5 what they're talking about now. I'm concerned that it's
6 more than that. The associated impact and the fact that
7 this is an economic issue seems to me that this is not
8 fully vetted and I'm really here to oppose this and it
9 needs more discussion in a more legal setting. Thank
10 you.
12 MR. SCHACHNER: Thank you, Judge McBride.
13 My name is Mark Schachner and I'm an attorney from
14 Miller Mannix Schachner Hafner with offices in Glens
15 Falls. Our principal office address is 15 West Notre
16 Dame Street in Glens Falls. I'm special legal counsel
17 for the Town of Waterford which we have already heard
18 from the Supervisor. They are opposed to the expansion
19 of the Colonie Landfill. We, too, thank the department
20 for affording us this second night of legislative public
21 comment hearing. Obviously, the Town is opposed. We
22 heard it before and we're hearing it again. We're not
23 pulling away. We will submit detailed written comments.
24 I'm only going to summarize our position briefly. You
25 heard it before and you’ll hear it again. We’re not
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
36
1 going away. We will submit detailed written comments.
2 I'm only going to summarize our position briefly.
3 At the end of September at the first hearing, we
4 spoke largely about the fact that the Draft
5 Environmental Impact Statement makes it painfully clear
6 that there are any number of significant adverse
7 environmental impacts that are not proposed to be
8 appropriately mitigated and in our view cannot possibly
9 be appropriately mitigated. Those include the visual
10 and aesthetic environmental impacts, the additional
11 generation of odors, additional noise and possibly other
12 things as well.
13 What is interesting about what has happened in the
14 last four weeks and couple of days is that people have
15 had a chance to go through the DEIS very closely and
16 arrived – seemingly many of us have arrived on the
17 revelation that this particular application is really
18 all about economics. It really is all about the money
19 that Supervisor Lawler mentioned and any number of
20 speakers have focused their comments on the economics
21 and the discussion of economics in the DEIS. We believe
22 that the economics issue not only is clearly not an
23 appropriated justification for such an environmental
24 unfriendly project. In addition, there is a clear
25 element of smoke and mirrors in the economics analysis
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
37
1 as applied by the applicant. The monopolistic nature of
2 the arrangement between the Town and the operative and
3 the monopolistic arrangement between the operator and
4 any number of customers in and around the area is such
5 that the smoke and mirrors aspect is that the tipping
6 fee discussion is actually disingenuous and the notion
7 that the economic role as we know it would come to an
8 end if this landfill expansion is not approved, is
9 really afoul.
10 We are going to be submitting detailed written
11 comments about that aspect as well.
12 There is no possibility that the department can
13 make the required findings that SEQR, the State
14 Environmental Quality Review Act, requires for approval
15 of this type of project or any type of project that is
16 subject to an Environmental Impact Statement. More
17 specifically, there is no possibly, even after hearing,
18 that the department could make the determination that
19 among the reasonable alternatives -- we’ve all had a
20 reasonable discussion about that – but among the
21 reasonable alternatives, this proposed action minimizes
22 or avoids potential adverse environmental impacts to the
23 maximum extent practicable. There is no possibility
24 that the department would be able to make that finding
25 and it’s a finding that is required by law by the New
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
38
1 York State Environmental Review Act.
2 Lastly, we are encouraged by the speakers who have
3 taken the information and recognized that the department
4 can’t go home, no matter how persuasive we are and deny
5 this permit application tomorrow. There is another step
6 that we, the Town of Waterford, and many others have
7 asked for and that’s an adjudicatory hearing. Judge
8 McBride well knows and the department representatives
9 all know and many others that know what the threshold
10 burden is to get an adjudicatory hearing. The threshold
11 burden is that comments like the comments that we are
12 all making have to rise to the level of creating issues
13 that could lead to permanent denial or in the position
14 of significant conditions on any permit that was
15 granted. We suggest that the verbal comments that have
16 already been made on September 20th and this evening
17 clearly already meet that threshold and meet that
18 burden. So, even if no additional written comments were
19 submitted through the mail, clearly there needs to be an
20 adjudicatory hearing. The applicant might want to
21 consider conceding that. What typically happens in
22 these permit proceedings is that the applicant goes
23 through great efforts to try to convince the lead agency
24 – in this case the department – that all of these
25 comments don’t amount to meeting the burden that I just
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
39
1 described and there is no need for an adjudicatory
2 hearing. We think that position is not really credible
3 here and the judge should issue an issues conference
4 under the assumption that it won’t have an adjudicatory
5 hearing and we would actually suggest that the applicant
6 concede that. It’s so clear and it’s not just the only
7 just the Town of Waterford it’s clear that they have met
8 the threshold burden for calling for an adjudicatory
9 hearing. Thank you.
11 Mark Millspaugh.
12 MR. MILLSPAUGH: I’m Mark Millspaugh with Sterling
13 Environmental located in Latham, New York. I’m
14 appearing tonight on behalf of the Town of Waterford.
15 The proposed Area 7 development is huge and will
16 extend the old dump that includes a 40 to 50 acre
17 inactive hazardous waste site identified by the New York
18 State Department of Environmental Conservation. This
19 site is described by DEC as all of Area 1 and the
20 so-called unnamed area to the north. Preliminary
21 investigations conducted by DEC indicate that the waste
22 is in direct contact with bedrock and is saturated with
23 ground water. Until the DEC is fully satisfied that the
24 hazardous waste contained in Area 1 and the unnamed
25 landfill do not require any further action, this portion
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
40
1 of the property should not be used for any future
2 development. Further, the DEC could use this
3 opportunity to require the applicant to complete the
4 appropriate investigations and undertake remedial
5 action, if necessary.
6 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is not
7 responsive to the scoping document and provides no
8 meaningful analysis of alternatives. Over the span of
9 less than five pages, the DEIS summarily dismisses
10 alternative sites, alternative technologies, alternative
11 layouts and the no-action alternative. No details,
12 figures, graphics, description or cost estimates were
13 provided to demonstrate that the alternatives were
14 actually evaluated to the degree required by SEQR and as
15 set forth in the scoping document. The DEIS states that
16 the no action alternative should be dismissed in order
17 to avoid a local property tax increase.
18 The landfill is very near population centers. It’s
19 close to sensitive environment receptors and scenic
20 veiwsheds. SEQR requires that alternatives to this
21 proposed action be given a hard look.
22 We heard speakers tonight saying that, in effect,
23 there is no alternative to the proposed action and the
24 costs will increase. However, as reported by DEC there
25 is currently a significant surplus of permitted landfill
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
41
1 disposal capacity in New York State. This includes a
2 recently expanded permit of the former Saratoga County
3 Landfill now owned by Finch, located a mere 30 miles to
4 the north. Thirty-five percent of the waste delivered
5 to the Colonie Landfill originates in Saratoga County.
6 It’s kind of a no-brainer that waste could go north and
7 would not have to go to the Colonie Landfill.
8 This glutton capacity in New York State has brought
9 down tipping fees. Some are currently as low as $20.00;
10 well below the advertised rate in Colonie of $70.00 a
11 ton. If the Colonie Landfill were to close at this
12 time, the waste industry would make the necessary
13 adjustments and the local community may actually benefit
14 through reduced costs of disposal.
15 DEC has a history of closing landfills in New York
16 State over the last two decades; hundreds of landfills
17 have closed. In each case, the industry adjusts and
18 life goes on. This application is on behalf of the
19 municipality. Pursuant to Part 360 DEC is required to
20 treat the Area 7 development as a new application.
21 The new applications on behalf of municipalities
22 are required to include certain minimal submissions
23 including site selection study. No site selection study
24 was included. The application must also demonstrate the
25 consistency with the local solid waste management plan.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
42
1 The Town of Colonie’s plan has expired in 2015 and
2 currently there is no approved plan in place.
3 Lastly, 90% of the waste delivered to this facility
4 originates outside the planning unit. There is no
5 demonstration in the application that the waste received
6 from the communities outside the planning unit have
7 completed their own local solid waste management plan or
8 the required comprehensive recycling analysis.
9 Thank you.
11 Tom Johnson.
12 MR. JOHNSON: Good evening. My name is Tom Johnson
13 and I’m a Senior Hydrogeologist with Sterling
14 Environmental Engineering with offices in Latham, New
15 York. We are consultants for the Town of Waterford.
16 The site of the Town of Colonie Landfill is not
17 ideal for a large landfill expansion. It would not be
18 permittable at the site to pursue expansion for the
19 following reasons:
20 The site does not provide the required separation
21 to bedrock, nor does it provide requisite thickness for
22 LG soil for solid waste. Drilling logs included in the
23 DEIS indicate that waste which is in contact with
24 bedrock in some locations in geologic cross-sections
25 show only two or three feet of soil in some places
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
43
1 separating the waste material from the underlying
2 bedrock in central portions of the existing landfill.
3 This is contrary to the Part 260 requirements.
4 Groundwater flow directions in the uppermost water
5 bearing unit is to the east toward the Mohawk River
6 which is only about 100 feet from the north side of the
7 landfill. The stationing of downgrading groundwater
8 monitoring levels must be very close in this area in
9 order to protect potential contamination that migrates
10 directly to the river from the landfill. To propose
11 downgrading and monitoring of that spacing in the DEIS
12 is not sufficient. Groundwater flows apparently have
13 not been calculated using the measured groundwater
14 gradients and hydraulic connectivities for the critical
15 unit. An analysis of contaminate plans between a
16 potential release and downgradient monitoring wells and
17 the river is needed to evaluate the response time and
18 possible measures if release is detected. The
19 localizing patch of groundwater quality from the
20 existing landfill makes it very difficult to separately
21 monitor and detect a potential release from the
22 contamination of the proposed expansion. The proposed
23 approach to identify changes in groundwater quality due
24 to a release from the expansion involves statistical
25 analysis and interpretation collected over multiple
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
44
1 quarterly monitoring before a release is confirmed.
2 Then, a contingency order quality monitoring plan is
3 proposed if a significant release is indicated.
4 Contamination may reach a nearby river by the time
5 contamination release is statistically confirmed and the
6 contingency monitoring is completed. Regulation
7 requires a limitation of corrective measures if
8 groundwater monitoring confirms a release of
9 contamination.
10 Crescent Road is only about 50 feet down gradient
11 from some of the most critical down gradient monitoring
12 wells where such a release would be detected. The Mohawk
13 River is only another 30 or 40 feet down gradient of
14 Crescent Road with a very limited distance to the road
15 and the wells to the road and the river creates a
16 significant constraint on the type and the effectiveness
17 of the potential corrective measures that could be
18 implemented in the event of a detected release of
19 contamination.
20 Thank you.
22 Dave Engle.
23 MR. ENGLE: Good evening. My name is Dave Engle
24 and I'm an attorney in Albany with the firm of Nolan
25 and Heller. I represent the Town of Halfmoon. I'm
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
45
1 going to try to keep this short and not repeat some of
2 the prior comments, although I want to specifically
3 endorse the comments made my Mr. Schachner and Mr.
4 Johnson. They are all consistent views of this matter.
5 As you know, the Town of Halfmoon is located
6 directly across the river, across the Route 9 bridge
7 from the landfill. Let's be straight here. The
8 existing landfill is a nuisance. It's a visual
9 intrusion. It has an odor problem. Each of those
10 problems compound the other. What cannot go through
11 that area, avoid seeing that area and the frequent odors
12 reminds one what one is seeing. This is not a situation
13 that calls for enlargement or enhancement. It's a
14 situation that calls for remediation and regress.
15 The context in which this eyesore and this odor
16 problem exists is not some abstraction that's out in
17 some area that nobody cares about. It's close to
18 residential areas. It's close to the Mohawk Towpath
19 scenic byway. It's right on the river, as has been
20 noted. It's an area which is known for its scenic, it's
21 recreational, it has cultural qualities. The river is a
22 recreational resource and somehow that all gets
23 overlooked and is not considered at all in the
24 application. This is an expansion that was not supposed
25 to happen and that is something that the department
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
46
1 should keep in mind by the decision makers.
2 Back in the last decade when Area 6 was permitted
3 the applicant represented and received a permit on the
4 condition that was it. The landfill would go through
5 Area 6 and then it would be closed. There would be no
6 Area 7, or God forbid an Area 8. Now we have the
7 euphemistically called Area 7 application, which would
8 suggest that Area 7, following Areas 1 though 6, is a
9 matter of similar size. But no, it's not that at all.
10 Area 7, instead, is an enormous facility that will
11 eclipse the size of everything that has been there up to
12 this point and it's so out of scale and seems so alien
13 to what has been that rather than calling it Area 7 I
14 would suggest a better term for it might be Area 51.
15 It ought to be recognized that the DEIS on a bunch
16 of technical bases is seriously deficient and the
17 application is deficient. Let's start with some very
18 easy stuff.
19 Under DEC regulations this application should not
20 even be under consideration as a permit modification.
21 It should be treated as a new application and it should
22 be subject to all of the reviews and analyses that it
23 would get as a new application for any green sites. For
24 the reasons that Mr. Johnson has stated and for the
25 reasons that others will state in our detailed written
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
47
1 comments this location could not pass muster and could
2 not be permanent.
3 Some more defects: As has been pointed out, there
4 is no real meaningful analysis or alternatives. The
5 scoping document identified the need to analyze
6 alternatives as the citing size and technology. None of
7 that was done. Instead, as others have pointed out what
8 there is a plea that says oh, we cannot afford not to do
9 it. And to the extent that there is a discussion about
10 the landfill at all, it is a discussion that seems to
11 deal with the financial plight of the Town of Colonie. I
12 represent the town of Halfmoon. I am not here to
13 question the financial motives of anyone else. If you
14 really are here as an applicant, Town of Colonie,
15 because you need the money then that opens up a whole
16 range of alternatives that don't so much pertain to your
17 solid waste problems as it pertains to how you manage
18 your money and raise your revenue. I suspect the Town of
19 Colonie does not want to get into that kind of analysis.
20 The visual impact analysis, such as it is, is
21 woefully insufficient. It does not even meet the
22 criteria – does not come close to the criteria set forth
23 in DEC's own guidance document for this kind of
24 situation. DEC's guidance document – I don't want to
25 belabor the point here as we will put more details and
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
48
1 are written comments. The analysis is supposed to be
2 taken out 5 miles. It doesn't say 3 miles or 2 miles. It
3 says 5 miles. There is a whole explanation in the
4 guidance document as to why and where 5 miles as a
5 distance comes from. If you look at the visual
6 assessment in this application it goes out 3 miles. When
7 you get out to the end of 3 miles it's concluded that it
8 cannot be seen. If you look at the document as to where
9 it can be seen which is shaded in red, the red goes
10 right out to the three-mile line. Yet, there is no
11 analysis that goes beyond that. Of course, the fact that
12 it can be seen out 3 miles suggests that any arguments
13 that this thing is not visually significant is simply
14 without merit at all. If DEC is going to go ahead with
15 this application, and the application ought to meet the
16 DEC standards that DEC says should be followed when you
17 do a visual assessment.As I say, this one has not done
18 it. Then, when you look at what they have done on the
19 visual assessment, you look at the view shed with all of
20 this area colored in red and the first thing that jumps
21 off the page at you when you look at it is the river is
22 not included in the view shed. Now, if you looked at
23 that analysis literally you would conclude that you
24 could be standing on the shore in Halfmoon with a view
25 of the landfill, but if you got into a boat and went
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
49
1 fishing the landfill would become invisible. Now, that's
2 a pretty preposterous idea but that's what the analysis
3 suggests. The analysis could not have been done well. It
4 should be redone. This application should not move ahead
5 with that and other clear defects.
6 As noted by others who have been here this evening,
7 there is an older problem. No one seems to dispute that.
8 This is a problem that ought to be fully investigated
9 and analyzed and practical solutions ought to be
10 proposed. That all ought to be a prerequisite for even
11 going ahead with this application.
12 The landfill application includes, as has been
13 noted, the extension of fill into wetland areas. Now, we
14 are Halfmoon. We are on the other side of the river. I
15 understand that may be an issue that is more appropriate
16 for others. At the end of the day, the DEC regulations
17 simply say that these types of facilities are not to be
18 expanded into the wetlands. So, the question is fairly
19 asked: What gives here? Why is that that you have a
20 regulatory provision that say that wetlands are not to
21 be included in the footprint of solid waste management
22 facilities, particularly landfills and yet here you have
23 an expansion that is presumably inconsiderate under the
24 permits?
25 As Mr. Millspaugh pointed out, the so-called on
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
50
1 named area, the old hazardous-waste site is a Class III
2 hazardous-waste site under DEC's regulations. Now class
3 III is a curious designation. That means the agency,
4 even after all these years hasn't determined whether
5 that particular inactive site constitutes a threat to
6 public health and the environment, but the agency has
7 not concluded that it doesn't know anything about that
8 area. If you look at the DEC site registry what you will
9 find is that the department has determined that
10 industrial waste came from such sources as the
11 Watervliet Arsenal, Norton Company, Ford Motor and Troy
12 belting and supply. It also goes on to conclude that
13 among the contaminants of concern are paint containing
14 waste and solvent, solvent-based phenols,
15 trichloroethylene, urethane sludges, and chromium
16 hydroxide sludge. Now, there is not a lot of room for
17 comfort with that information. And here again, this
18 application should not be moving forward until that
19 problem is fully vetted out and we come to an
20 understanding as to whether that area is a threat to
21 public health and the environment. Understand, the
22 proposal here is to put a waste mass on top of that.
23 That is a rather unique approach for dealing with a
24 hazardous-waste problem which the agency recognizes to
25 exist, but is apparently leaving unresolved.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
51
1 As Mr. Millspaugh pointed out, there are
2 alternatives. There is the French landfill. The solid
3 waste market in the state is far more robust than is
4 suggested by the application documents. In fact, the
5 tipping fees at this landfill under this proposal would
6 exceed those that are commonly obtained throughout the
7 upstate New York market. There was a reference to the
8 fact that if you don't dispose of it here, you have to
9 exported to someplace else. Let's understand something
10 here. The so-called Colonie waste shed, the Town of
11 Colonie and those other municipalities for home this is
12 purportedly going to be expanded and operated constitute
13 a small percentage of the waste that will go in there.
14 Right now, waste is being imported into the town from
15 other areas and indeed, the 2015 consent order that the
16 agency cut with the Town of Colonie kind of reflects the
17 problem. That 2015 consent order was cut because as it
18 turns out the Town of Colonie was accepting excessive
19 amounts of alternative daily cover.
20 Unless they would be any misunderstanding as to
21 what that is all about, if you go to the end of the
22 report of the Town of Colonie what you find out is that
23 alternative daily cover – and in 2015 it was in an
24 amount that almost equated the amount of municipal solid
25 waste that came in – that alternative daily cover was
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
52
1 incinerator ash, petroleum contaminated soils from
2 contaminated sites and paper sludge.
3 Now, somebody made money ringing that material in
4 the quantities that almost were equivalent to the amount
5 of NSW that came in. That somebody was not the Town of
6 Colonie. It was Waste Connections. At the end of that
7 problem being detected and it made such a DEC
8 enforcement effort there was a consent order. Now
9 curiously, the consent order was not cut with waste
10 connections even though they had made the arrangements
11 apparently to bring in the alternative daily cover. They
12 made the money I bringing in the alternative daily
13 cover. The consent order was cut with the town of
14 Colonie and the town of Colonie paid about a half
15 million dollars to DDC and then the consent order has a
16 somewhat unique provision and it simply says the Town of
17 Colonie represents that it is being identified by Waste
18 Connections, or maybe it's Capital Region's Landfills or
19 whatever identity they were using.
20 That brings me to one last point here. It is
21 unclear who the applicant is here. Mr. Millspaugh
22 pointed out the defects in this application if it is in
23 fact a municipal application to the Town of Colonie.
24 There is no site selection study. There is no
25 demonstration consistency with the Solid Waste
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
53
1 Management Plan. Let's be realistic. The real party
2 behind all of this is Waste Connections. Waste
3 Connections has now for a period of time than bringing
4 in material to this landfill to suit its needs on a
5 grander far more regional basis in the town of Colonie's
6 needs. So, there is stuff coming in from as far south as
7 the lower Hudson Valley, from Western New England, from
8 areas more than 100 to 150 miles around.
9 That being said, if in fact waste connections is
10 the real party of interest here, then another area of
11 inquiry should be open and that is the compliance
12 history of Waste Connections. Waste Connections
13 evidently cause the violations here in 2015 and gave
14 rise to the consent order in 2015. Waste Connections has
15 been around for a while. If this is treated as a private
16 merchant facility, been a full compliance history of
17 waste connections should be undertaken and that history
18 of compliance should be taken into consideration in
19 determining whether this applicant is qualified and
20 suitable to be operating here. Based on what little we
21 know, clearly there are serious questions about these
22 qualifications.
23 Those are our comments for tonight. I appreciate
24 the opportunity to speak and we will be submitting full
25 written comments as Mr. Schachner as pointed out. There
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
54
1 is a full basis for a full evidentiary hearing. This is
2 not a matter that should be limited. Our concerns are
3 real. This is a highly unusual application given all the
4 circumstances and there is much to be done it justice is
5 to be achieved with respect to this application.
6 Thank you.
8 MR. ELLIS: My name is Tom Ellis and I live in
9 Albany. I have worked in an energy and solid waste
10 facilities for about 30 years.
11 I hope that anyone from the press here tonight
12 makes note that the opponents of this landfill expansion
13 on making a very impressive case for denying the
14 expansion. I hope that is reported accurately.
15 I want to make sure that everyone knows what an
16 adjudicatory proceeding is. And adjudicatory hearing is
17 sort of like a trial. I'm not sure if each agency
18 conducts them the same way, but I imagine there are
19 important similarities. When I participated in New York
20 State Public Service Commission hearings from 1980 to
21 1986, Niagara Mohawk would apply for electricity rate
22 increase each April. The PSC would quickly assign an
23 administrative law judge to the case board call a
24 meeting of interested parties – they were usually the
25 same or nearly so each year – and we would create a
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
55
1 schedule. Niagara Mohawk would provide a free copy of
2 its rate increase filing to each party. Two or three
3 months later, cross examination of Niagara Mohawk
4 witnesses – usually Vice Presidents and division heads –
5 would occur for a week or so. A month later, opponents
6 of the rate increase or parts thereof would submit their
7 testimony. A month later Niagara Mohawk could
8 cross-examine them. Following the hearings, each side
9 would submit an initial brief to the Administrative Law
10 Judge summarizing what we thought we had accomplished in
11 two weeks later each could submit a reply brief
12 responding to the comments contained in the initial
13 briefs of others. A month later the Administrative Law
14 Judge would issue a recommended decision, to which all
15 parties could submit a brief on exceptions to the
16 Judge's recommendations and then a few weeks later
17 submit a reply brief on exceptions to what others have
18 written in their briefs on exceptions. The PSC
19 Commissioners who hold a formal meeting every couple of
20 weeks would meet, discuss the case, consult with their
21 staff, and reach a decision usually in February or early
22 March and within a week or so publish their decision.
23 During the adjudicatory proceeding, each party
24 could submit interrogatories to other parties requesting
25 information not in the application or clarification on
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
56
1 what was contained therein. This is called discovery.For
2 opponents of the proposed Colonie landfill expansion and
3 I use that word loosely --and adjudicatory proceeding
4 offers several advantages. One is that it extends the
5 decision-making process from a few months to many
6 months, perhaps a year or more. Additional time allows
7 opponents to gather more information and organize their
8 people. An adjudicatory proceeding is a public process
9 with hearings open to all who wish to observe and
10 perhaps participate. Open hearings allow for more public
11 knowledge of the process and issues; the news media can
12 be called upon to report on the hearings were even sit
13 and observe what is occurring. Opponents can hold
14 demonstrations or other types of publicity events
15 simultaneously with the adjudicatory proceedings. During
16 the proceedings, opponents have an opportunity to
17 highlight DEIS errors and DEIS omissions. A stenographer
18 records all of the adjudicatory meetings in these
19 transcripts can be made available and studied. Secrecy
20 is vastly reduced with an adjudicatory proceeding than
21 what would occur without one.
22 Equally important with an adjudicatory proceeding,
23 the DEC would have to more clearly explain its secretive
24 decision making process than without an adjudicatory
25 proceeding, and the public could observe how DEC
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
57
1 operates. DEC would be held to a much higher level of
2 transparency and accountability. This is of supreme
3 importance of the landfill project. If the landfill
4 expansion is approved, opponents can use the evidence
5 created during the adjudicatory proceeding is the basis
6 for a lawsuit challenging the decision.
7 So, I strongly support the efforts of the towns and
8 their attorneys and residents and demanding an
9 adjudicatory proceeding in this matter.
12 Jack Wands.
13 MR. WANDS: I did not bring anything written down.
14 I have been living on Fonda Road for 31 odd years.
15 Obviously, the landfill has been there much longer than
16 that.
17 One thing – I didn't know that there would not be
18 anyone from the Town or Waste Connections here tonight.
19 There are questions that I need to ask. What I am
20 hearing is that the biggest concern or what the argument
21 is for keeping the landfill and expanding the landfill
22 is the necessity to be able to have a place to put the
23 refuse and garbage of the Capital District. Nobody has
24 said anything tonight -- I apologize that I was not at
25 the September 20 meeting. I don't know if this was ever
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
58
1 brought up, but I witness 24/7 365 tractor-trailer loads
2 of refuse coming into that landfill. I don't know if
3 anybody has ever questioned that. I have watched it. I
4 have followed them. They are coming up from some place
5 in the South. I have also seen them come from the north
6 also. I don't know where they're coming from, or where
7 they are originating from or what they are bringing in.
8 They have their own terminal on landfill property. I
9 have counted at least as many as 30 trucks there that
10 come in at all times of the day and night. They stage
11 during whatever business hours are. If that was looked
12 into, we probably would have enough capacity to keep
13 that landfill working for the Capital District for
14 longer than anybody in this room is going to live if we
15 keep it from her own resources and not keep it as just a
16 money source for a large company.
17 The Town of Colonie came into this agreement
18 because it was a white horse riding in to solve all the
19 problems. There was money to be made there. We just
20 didn't have the people in the right places to know how
21 to manage it to make that money. Waste Connections
22 didn't come in here spill out $20 million dollars and
23 then pay the Town $1 million dollars a year because they
24 wanted to make money on top of that. All that money
25 could have been the Town of Colonie's money.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
59
1 The other thing that I ask be reviewed is that I
2 looked at the map out their as far as where the truck
3 routes – the proposed truck routes are going to be. They
4 are going to ask that they come down Fonda Road and then
5 turned in Green Mountain. Fonda Road is a residential
6 road. I understand that at the end of that it is
7 commercially zoned, but it is a road that is used I
8 residential homeowners. Fonda Road at best, is 20 feet
9 wide. I'm probably being generous in saying 20 feet
10 wide. With tractor-trailers coming down that road I have
11 negotiated around them for years now – trying to do
12 that. They are using it now. It's no big deal that it is
13 going to be proposed. They are using it now as their
14 entry point for commercial vehicles.
15 I've been around for a little while. Years ago, the
16 entrance to that landfill was on River Road – Cohoes
17 Crescent Road. There is very little residential on the
18 road. If there was going to be any kind of commercial
19 expansion to that, I propose or ask that the entry point
20 be looked at on the Cohoes Crescent Road and not a
21 residential road in the Town of Colonie.
22 Thank you.
24 Robert Santa Lucia.
25 MR. SANTA LUCIA: I want to thank everyone for
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
60
1 letting me speak. My wife and I moved arrowhead land 23
2 years ago. When we bought the home we were told that
3 the landfill would be closed in 2018. Please said oh,
4 okay.
5 We are opposing the change of the entrance because
6 we are ready have six businesses on our very small road
7 of Arrowhead, and many trucks. ABF is 24 hours a day,
8 seven days a week. Straightline Industries -- they are
9 all on our little road. We have three residences, but
10 the traffic is always been horrendous. We were told they
11 were going to change the entrance on Mountain Road which
12 is at the end of Arrowhead which would mean all the
13 people that would be dumping their garbage are going to
14 be going down the hill. So, we are going to have more
15 traffic. The road is shorter and the additional traffic
16 will be very dangerous.
17 The site of the landfill would increase – the smell
18 and the height will be 100 feet higher and it would be
19 unacceptable to all of us residents. Our property value
20 would also be impacted. A quality-of-life to be
21 infringed on.
22 That's about all I can say.
25 Russell Stout.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
61
1 MR. STOUT: My name is Russell Stout and I'm a
2 resident of Waterford. I'm here to speak in opposition
3 for the expansion of the landfill.
4 First off, I would like to thank the other folks
5 who came out tonight and other residents who came out to
6 speak against this for economic and environmental and
7 fiscal reasons. There is much justification, and it is
8 appreciated.
9 My wife and I and our three children moved into the
10 house located across the river from the landfill. We
11 moved there about three and half years ago with
12 reluctance to being so close to the dumping nearby. We
13 have good friends in the neighborhood who said the smell
14 was rarely ever an issue. It seemed fine at first and
15 then the smell became a regular problem. Then, the dump
16 started accepting waste from New York City after the
17 devastating hurricane. It made us wonder whether we made
18 a terrible decision to purchase the property that we
19 live in today. Many times we would be outside walking
20 with her family and I was checking my two-year-old's
21 diaper to determine if the smell was from the diaper or
22 the dump across the road.
23 Two weeks or so ago we were taking a walk with the
24 children and we were stopped by a couple who are
25 thinking about purchasing a home in the neighborhood.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
62
1 There were folks here tonight indicating that it's not a
2 concern for folks. There is a homeowner couple of houses
3 down and the first question that came from them was
4 whether or not the huge show was the dump. We told them
5 yes, it was. We were immediately asked if the smell was
6 ever a problem. This is what people want to know about
7 in the neighborhood. His decision to increase the
8 landfill will decrease the value of the homes. The
9 expansion was not something that we knew about when we
10 decided to purchase a home in this neighborhood. When we
11 drive home every day we can see the mountain of garbage
12 while we are driving. When the sun sets, it blocks the
13 sun. We oppose the expansion of the landfill.
14 Thank you.
16 Betty Hartley.
17 MS. HARTLEY: Good evening. My name is Betty
18 Hartley and I live at 48 Churchville Road in Halfmoon.
19 I am also a member of the Concerned Citizens About
20 Landfill Expansion.
21 Tonight, I would like to follow up on comments made
22 at our last hearing by the Draft Environmental Impact
23 Study Visual Assessment Consultant. He took exception to
24 the negative public comments given during the last
25 hearing that the visual assessment photos were not a
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
63
1 reasonable depiction of an active landfill. He clearly
2 stated several times that his visual assessment that all
3 the requirements of the New York State DEC DEIS process.
4 If that is true, that I have to ask what DEC was
5 thinking. Logic alone will tell you that there has to be
6 a visual impact of any landfill operation. We see them
7 all over the state as we are driving and each and every
8 one of them as a negative visual impact.
9 I would like to quote a statement made in 2.9.2.1
10 photo simulations in the documentation of the DEIS.
11 The locations for photo simulations are selected to
12 illustrate the most exposed vantage point in the
13 vicinity of each viewpoint identified for simulation
14 thing documented. Therefore, photo simulations represent
15 worst-case views of the existing landfill and proposed
16 project. As illustrated by view shed mapping the
17 proposed Area 7 development will not be visible from
18 approximately 95.6% of the study area due to intervening
19 landform and vegetation.
20 I, personally, find this hard to believe. The
21 visual assessment appears to be an adequate. The Colonie
22 Landfill is on Route 9, one of the busiest roads in the
23 north/south corridor of the Capital District, let alone
24 that the DEIS clearly states that the landfill will be
25 visible from the Northway. Is this really just a small
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
64
1 percentage of people will view this every day on their
2 way to work, let alone the tourists will use this busy
3 highway to visit the beauty of the Adirondacks. And was
4 this 95.6% determined in the summer or the winter, when
5 all the leaves and vegetation are missing?
6 The Mohawk River is a major thoroughfare for
7 boaters traveling between Atlantic Ocean and the Great
8 Lakes. New York State has always taken tremendous pride
9 in the New York State Canal system which allows boaters
10 and tourists to travel both north and west. Governor
11 Cuomo has spent tremendous resources to build this area,
12 investing state dollars in order to make this a premier
13 tourist attraction. The Mohawk is a recognized
14 recreational designated area for history buffs,
15 fishermen, boaters, kayakers, canoers, transporter of
16 yachts and even large cruise boats come through. A
17 cruise ship comes through several times a year
18 showcasing our lochs and transporting tourists through
19 our area on the way to the Great Lakes. Imagine you're
20 on a cruise and you come up the Hudson, turn left and
21 Waterford to enter the Mohawk River. You stand on the
22 front of the boat to see the ship go through the famous
23 Light of Lochs. As you depart the Guard Gate 6, you look
24 ahead and see a lovely view of the hills and the islands
25 in the distance. You come out to a state park on your
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
65
1 right and left. Then, you look up on the left and see a
2 garbage strewn landfill. Is this really what the
3 Governor had in mind for the entry point of the western
4 part of New York State Canal System.
5 I feel that I need to ask anyone from DEC even
6 talked to the I love New York campaign to get their
7 viewpoint on this permit request? Is Governor Cuomo even
8 aware that this landfill expansion is looking for a
9 long-term permit from DEC.
10 I would like to submit photos that my husband and I
11 have taken over the last 17 months, ever since we first
12 heard of the plans to expand the landfill. We have a
13 large dog needs a good run every day. We take advantage
14 of the State Canal Park near Guard Gate 6, a wonderful
15 family oriented park which happens to it river from the
16 current open area of the landfill. We have watch the
17 landfill the taller and wider in this particular area. I
18 am attaching photos to clearly show went active open
19 landfill really looks like. They are not the same as the
20 pictures shown on the DEIS. I cannot understand how
21 anyone could think there is no visual impact. As you
22 will see, there is no attempt to hide the garbage being
23 spewed from the tractor-trailers and stands taller than
24 any 10-foot berm could possibly hide.
25 I would ask that the DEIS include realistic photos
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
66
1 of the active expansion of the Colonie Landfill.
2 One last point: Our elected officials, both local
3 and state have requested that weather balloons placed
4 showcasing space that the new Area 7 will occupy that
5 will demonstrate clearly the final height and width
6 after the expansion is complete. Waste Connections
7 agreed to the request. The Town of Colonie has refused
8 stating that the visuals in the DEIS adequately allow
9 the public to visualize the impact. What is the Town of
10 Colonie trying to hide? Shouldn't they be good neighbors
11 and allow the public to see what their expansion
12 entails? I would ask that the DEC request the weather
13 balloons so that there is never any doubt that the
14 Colonie landfill expansion will have a major impact on
15 this area.
16 Thank you.
18 George Harris.
19 MR. HARRIS: My name is George Harris. I'm a
20 professional engineer and live in the Church Hill
21 historic district of the Town of Halfmoon. I represent
22 a group of homeowners in the Church Hill district. I
23 will be submitting lengthy written technical comments
24 on what I believe to be substantial issues justifying
25 an adjudicatory hearing. For now, I like to discuss the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
67
1 history of the public process associated with the
2 Colonie Landfill as seen from the perspective of Church
3 Hill residents and to express our concerns that
4 critical, independent evaluation must be made of such
5 environmental projects.
6 That entire public process from our perspective the
7 sickly only has two dates; On November 1, 1978 the State
8 Environmental Quality Review Act was passed into law. It
9 requires an Environmental Impact Statement and public
10 comment. If an action is being undertaken that has
11 potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
12 The second date is August 24, 2016. That is the date
13 that the DEC announced the release of the draft EIS and
14 notice of public comment.
15 So, the first public hearing and the first
16 Environmental Impact Study conducted at the site were
17 released after almost 40 years of landfilling of waste
18 towering some 225 feet over the adjacent Mohawk River.
19 The Mohawk River is a Class A water source and is 1.5
20 miles upstream of the City of Cohoes drinking water
21 intake. From the perspective of the Church Hill
22 residents, is the landfill has developed it appears that
23 there was little agency concern over the degradation of
24 the Mohawk River view shed or of the order impacts.
25 However, it was assumed the DEC was monitoring and
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
68
1 evaluating potential environment impacts. The public
2 relies on the DEC taking a critical, analytical look
3 environmental proposals as well as offering the public a
4 chance, too.
5 Of course, a few other things did happen between
6 the 1970s in 2016. In 1993 they Town of Colonie Landfill
7 was added to the New York State Registry of an active
8 hazardous waste sites. At that time, it was noted the 50
9 acre closed portion of the landfill was significantly
10 affecting groundwater and the site was referred to the
11 Division of Solid Waste. In 1992 URS engineering report,
12 which was the basis of the listing, recommended
13 extensive additional investigation to determine the
14 magnitude of the threat to the Mohawk River. That
15 investigation was never conducted in the responsibility
16 to monitor the landfill impacts was turned over to the
17 Town of Colonie as part of its responsibility for
18 ongoing landfill monitoring. As I stated at the first
19 public hearing, the proposed landfill expansion covers
20 some 25 acres of that hazardous waste site.
21 Soon after that period, the landfill went through a
22 series of permitted expansions. In 1997 Malcolm Pirnie,
23 Consulting Engineers, presented the paper "Landfilling,
24 Challenges in the 21st Century" at a conference of waste
25 management professionals. In that paper they describe
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
69
1 strategies to avoid landfill siting issues and how to
2 minimize public opposition by proposing an expansion to
3 an existing site. The Town of Colonie was cited as a
4 success story where based on completion of an
5 environmental assessment form, the action was deemed a
6 minor additional environmental impact and a full
7 Environmental Impact Statement was not required under
8 SEQRA. Since that time, some 5,000,000 tons of waste has
9 been placed in the landfill. In that same paper they
10 included a diagram of how a portion of the expansion
11 includes waste cells with liners actually placed in site
12 groundwater the trains off-site into the Mohawk River.
13 The proposed landfill expansion also will cover those
14 portions of the landfill with waste cells already
15 constructed in groundwater.
16 In 2015 DEC issued a Notice of Violation to the
17 facility operator's or failing to report and
18 contaminating several outfall areas that drain into the
19 wetlands or the Mohawk River for over a period of two
20 years. The Notice of Violation was issued after a 2013
21 USEPA site inspection audit of the landfill noting
22 numerous deficiencies and areas of concern.
23 In spite of the violations over two years
24 contaminating outfall areas to raining to the river, and
25 the URS recommendation in the 1990s to investigate
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
70
1 impacts to the river, the proposed landfill monitoring
2 is no provision sampling sediment or surface water in
3 the river. Scenes to verify the results to date of two
4 FOIL requests to the DEC. of the hundreds of analytical
5 results provided, there are no river sediment or surface
6 water samples. Likewise, the 2016 Site Investigation
7 Report to determine the so-called site suitability
8 recommendation does not contain one single sample from
9 the Mohawk River sediments or surface water.
10 Is it even possible that for 40 years the potential
11 threats to the Mohawk River have been based solely on
12 conjecture and site geology and on-site groundwater?
13 Even the Site Investigation Report in support of the
14 application, in one section demonstrates that
15 groundwater is clearly contaminated and in another
16 section states that all three water bearing zones flow
17 into the Mohawk River. It gets to the point that in
18 defending that the Colonie Landfill is in the mapped
19 area of the Schenectady – Niskayuna sole source aquifer,
20 the inference is that the groundwater just flows into
21 the Mohawk River anyway. If the current landfill isn't
22 properly characterized with respect to the threats to
23 the river and aquifers, it cannot possibly be predicted
24 with the impact of the expansion might be.
25 Possibly, it could be considered at the expansions
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
71
1 proposed piggyback waste containment cells are well
2 designed when viewed separately. However, the existing
3 underlying foundation is an environmental and potential
4 resource damage house of cards. Underneath the proposed
5 millions of tons of additional waste the new cells will
6 be a 25 acre portion of a hazardous waste site; former
7 waste cells either unlined or potentially with leaking
8 old clay bottoms; waste cells actually constructed in
9 groundwater as well as existing ground contamination
10 discharging to the river and possibly a sole source
11 aquifer.
12 If a new landfill of this scope and magnitude was
13 undergoing citing approval, it would be hard to imagine
14 such an underlying foundation has been accepted as
15 suitable. It seems absolutely inconceivable in this
16 environmental setting.
17 Thank you.
19 Carolyn Strand.
20 MS. STRAND: In addition to a landfill, the Town
21 of Colonie is also home to a lot of coyotes. I go
22 outside at night from my residence in the Winding Creek
23 subdivision and I shine my flashlight to make sure that
24 I don't get any unwanted visitors bugging my dogs and I
25 see what looks like snow every night all year round
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
72
1 likes the air.
2 This is my first public hearing of any kind and in
3 my own words it really sorry to have to learn about what
4 particulates in the air are and leachates in the water.
5 I see these things and it didn't really dawn on me until
6 all of this conversation started that this might be what
7 it is. It is less than 1 mile away from the dump.
8 I started looking on the website and I found orders
9 of consent. I'm not a lawyer, but I see that there are a
10 lot of problems with the management company that has
11 been running the dump.
12 In 2013 they were cited for a combination of about
13 433 days worth of violations where they did not report
14 some issue with leachates getting beyond where they were
15 supposed to be. I wonder that if the people could turn
16 back time or in charge of Flint Michigan's water supply
17 – turn back time and make a choice between what's easy
18 and what's right, what they might decide today knowing
19 what happened.
20 I think that it's great that you're having a second
21 hearing and I appreciate the dude who put the letter in
22 my mailbox because otherwise I would not have known
23 about it. I also appreciate the Times Union, a great
24 newspaper – and I apologize if your reporter is still
25 here but not a ton of people read the Times Union from
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
73
1 cover to cover, especially the public notices. The DEC
2 had a letter also, but it's just not something that I
3 would have ever known about. I find myself wanting to
4 say that probably the best way to get more people to
5 comment on this before next Tuesday which seems like it
6 is the thing to do to make our voices heard is to go
7 home and get on social media and give Hillary and Donald
8 a rest and make a note or two on your Facebook page,
9 talk to your neighbors, get your kids to Tweet about it
10 to make sure that everybody knows that they need to be
11 heard because the time is coming to an end where that
12 will be counted.
13 I also completely horrified that we find ourselves
14 in this situation at this late date. I'm a political
15 independent that I can't believe that I remember hearing
16 how would a success the Colonie Landfill is for our
17 Town. It seems like it's been assumed that this would be
18 granted and that this extension would be given because
19 there is no plan B that anyone has looked at this entire
20 time. If I were a business person, I would lose my job
21 if I had a huge decision it was impacting the entire
22 organization – in this case, the Town – and I didn't
23 have some backup plan when this was coming up.
24 I appreciate the fact that is not really the DEC's
25 problem and Commissioner Seggo is newly appointed. So,
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
74
1 this is not something that started on his watch but I
2 also think that this is a great opportunity for the DEC
3 and the Commissioner to show some true leadership make
4 sure that the decision is made is in fact made the right
5 reasons and is supported by the Environmental Impact
6 Statements. The research behind it is important and I
7 don't know enough about it to comment on it but it sure
8 seems Ike it needs to be more.
9 Thank you.
11 Matt Allen.
12 MR. ALLEN: Good evening. My name is Matt Allen. I
13 am with Saratoga Associates and my firm prepared the
14 Visual Impact Assessment for this project on behalf of
15 the project sponsor. I appreciate the opportunity to
16 speak tonight because I know that's an issue that has
17 been raised many times tonight. We know it is an issue
18 and a concern. So, I just wanted to go on the record
19 and reinforce some of the findings of the Visual Impact
20 Assessment.
21 Saratoga Associates conducted a Visual Impact
22 Assessment for the proposed Area 7 development in the
23 assessment was consistent with the New York State DEC
24 program policy concerning assessing and mitigating
25 Visual Impact Assessments. Visual impacts to be
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
75
1 considered were identified through a public scoping
2 process. The scope described existing conditions,
3 potential impacts, anticipated information necessary to
4 address such impacts and the initial identification of
5 medication measures. The visual resource assessment
6 included the visibility analysis that identified the
7 area where the proposed expansion would be visible as
8 compared to the current permitted landfill and
9 assessment of potential impact on sensitive visual
10 resources, photo simulations of the appearance of the
11 facility from numerous vantage points during and at the
12 completion of landfill construction and evaluation of
13 opportunities for effective mitigation again consistent
14 with New York State DEC standards.
15 Experienced visual analysts typically consider
16 photo simulations to be in industry-standard commonly
17 used to express scale visual character of proposed
18 visibility and potential impacts on scenic resources.
19 Simulations clearly expressed project impacts in the
20 total local context. Balloons are sometimes used to
21 demonstrate public visibility, but it can be difficult
22 to accurately represent the visual scale and mass of a
23 large feature covering many acres like a landfill using
24 balloons.
25 For this reason, simulations provide higher-quality
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
76
1 information for the public to consider. Thus, in our
2 opinion simulations are much better tools than balloons
3 were evaluating project visibility for this landfill
4 project.
5 Some of the conclusions of the report stated were
6 the proposed expansion is on the site and existing
7 landfill and it is a continuation of an existing visual
8 condition. It will not result in a new visual impact.
9 The existing and proposed landfill will be fully
10 screened from approximately 96.6% of all land within a 3
11 mile radius. And that is fairly easy to understand if
12 you drive through the area and simply note how much of
13 the area you have an extended view from. Most of the
14 area's screened by local vegetation.
15 So, that is a very understandable number.
16 Areas of new visibility are generally limited to
17 geographic extensions of existing lands that are already
18 affected by views of the existing land.
19 There are seven visual resources meeting the New
20 York State DEC definition of sensitive visual resources
21 that will have visibility of the proposed project. Six
22 of these resources are currently affected by proximate
23 views of the existing landfill. Most local parks,
24 playgrounds and recreational facilities in residential
25 neighborhoods are and will continue to be completely
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
77
1 screened from the proposed facility.
2 Some mitigation measures that the assessment
3 identifies – the proposed project is a continuation of
4 the existing landfill operations. Continued use of the
5 facility for landfilling operations avoids the need to
6 use new landfill sites that may be adversely impacted to
7 the resources not currently affected I landfill
8 activities. Avoidance of new visual impacts to the
9 element of the New York State DEC visual medication
10 policies.
11 Mitigation strategies are proposed. When landfill
12 is completed post areas will be re-vegetated with a mix
13 of native seed type to help blend the landform into the
14 surrounding landscape. The intent of the mitigation is
15 to create the visual appearance of a natural meadow
16 consistent with the visual character of the surrounding
17 region. Minimizing visual contrast and creating a
18 naturalistic form is consistent with the New York State
19 visual DEC visual policy. To minimize the duration and
20 magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling with any
21 successive vertical lift would be phased in a manner
22 that would screen much of the day to day operations from
23 off-site receptors.This interim berm would create a
24 visual barrier that progressively screens views of
25 operations and construction vehicles as well as daily
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
78
1 operational areas of uncovered waste material. In this
2 manner, the project design provides for substantial
3 screening of daily operations.
4 In conclusion, the project meets or exceeds all of
5 the regulatory requirements with regard to visual
6 impact. The project would extend the duration of
7 landfill activities that would not create a new visual
8 impact. It avoids the need to open landfill operations
9 and currently unaffected areas.
10 Thank you.
12 Rob Holmes.
13 MR. HOLMES: Good evening. Thank you for the
14 opportunity to speak this evening. I name is Robert
15 Holmes of Cornerstone Environmental. We are working on
16 behalf of Waste Connections as engineer for the Area 7
17 development.
18 I like to open by saying the Area 7 development is
19 designed and engineered to meet or exceed New York State
20 DEC solid waste regulations.
21 The Area 7 development has been designed to reuse
22 previously used landfill areas. There is approximately
23 23 acres of new landfill area that would be included in
24 most of that would be in areas where existing landfill
25 operations already exist.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
79
1 The construction of the liner discussed tonight is
2 anticipated to provide a greater protection for those
3 areas in use.
4 Proposed grading will be consistent with the
5 existing conditions, planning strategies and zoning
6 regulations in the vicinity. The site meets the
7 technical requirements for a landfill. In fact, creating
8 new airspace and existing landfill sites rather than new
9 sites is the preferred approach by New York State DEC.
10 I would like to touch on a few more aspects of the
11 design.
12 Regarding groundwater - potential impacts to
13 groundwater researched at the landfill site would be
14 minimized by the design of the Area 7 development and in
15 fact some aspects of groundwater quality will be
16 improved as a result of the development.
17 The liner design has been designed in accordance
18 with DEC regulations and will provide for effective
19 primary and secondary leachate collection. Further, the
20 proposed liner would be constructed over 37 acres of
21 historic landfill Areas 1 through 4.
22 That were not constructed with the modern part 360
23 system. The construction of this liner prevents
24 precipitation from infiltrating into the soil.
25 Groundwater will be continued to be extensively
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
80
1 monitored in accordance with the environment monitoring
2 for the site. There are over 20 wells the monitoring
3 network at the site and they are monitored on a regular
4 basis. The removal of the existing leachate storage
5 units and the replacement of with leachate storage tanks
6 on the southeast portion of the site would reduce
7 potential impacts to groundwater quality.
8 Regarding traffic: the proposed Area 7 development
9 will include significant enhancements for traffic safety
10 along Route 9 in relocating the entrance of the facility
11 from its current location on Route 9 with the speeds are
12 high and the visibility is limited, to a location in an
13 existing industrial Park at the south end of the site
14 that is already used by a significant number of tractor
15 trailers. This is where all landfill traffic will enter
16 the site. Studies show that existing traffic control on
17 Route 9, Fonda Road and in the existing industrial Park
18 will accommodate this relocation of the entrance to the
19 landfill.
20 Regarding odor control and management of landfill
21 gas: the proposed Area 7 development would result in a
22 continuation of working with these operations and the
23 potential odors associated with them. However, practices
24 that are currently ongoing site will continue to be
25 used.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
81
1 Placement of the current existing open air leachate
2 storage units will be replaced with covered tanks to
3 prevent odors from leachate storage and eliminate odors
4 more efficiently.
5 With no proposed increase in daily tonnage, it will
6 not be a potential increase potential odor causing
7 operations.
8 Lastly, the development will include an odor
9 control device. With regular site observations with
10 documentation, protocol for monitoring public
11 communications will improve the response time of causing
12 activities.
13 Regarding noise: the sound levels on the landfill
14 operations associated with the proposed Area 7
15 development will be comparable to existing landfills.
16 There is no proposed change in existing operations in
17 daily tonnage, specifically the capacity. Therefore,
18 contributors to noise such as operational traffic and
19 equipment will not be expected to change.
20 Also, the relocation of the entrance to the
21 facility; Arrowhead Lane through the industrial park
22 will shift traffic related noise from US Route 9 to the
23 industrial park at the new entrance.
24 In closing, I would just like to reiterate that the
25 Area 7 development was engineered to meet or exceed New
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
82
1 York State Department of Environmental Conservation
2 Solid Waste and Environmental Regulations. It is
3 protective of the environment as indicated by the wide
4 range of studies in the DEIS process. This will result
5 in an environmental improvements. Based on the technical
6 and environmental analyses this is an appropriate
7 development for this site.
8 Thank you.
9 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Tim Nichols.
10 MR. NICHOLS: Good evening. Thank you for having
11 the second public hearing.
12 Thank you, Judge McBride or your words tonight as
13 well as the staff from DED for being here and listening
14 to our concerns. You're doing a great job.
15 I want to commend our neighbors to the north,
16 Halfmoon and Waterford for your tonight. I was at the
17 public hearing in September as well and did not speak at
18 that time. I feel like I have learned a lot listening to
19 all the people who spoke in September and tonight.
20 My name is Tim Nichols. I live in Latham, New York
21 I'm a life-long Colonie resident. Years and years ago
22 Town of Colonie for a long time is looked at the
23 landfill is a cash cow. I remember a budget meeting
24 probably in the mid-90s when the Town Comptroller at the
25 time was asked a question about what happens if there's
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
83
1 a shortfall in the revenue. He simply said will just
2 raise the tipping fees.
3 Now, we have gone from that cash cow to a golden
4 goose, except the golden goose is now in the hands of
5 Waste Connections. The Town is in this weird and
6 disappointing discouraging position of being on the side
7 of Waste Connections and not on the side of the people.
8 Because, in fact, they are doing their bidding. They
9 have to because of the contract. Now, they do not have
10 to go to this extent, and I would say first of all that
11 I am opposed to this proposal – vehemently opposed. I
12 think it is a short sighted concept that needs to be
13 started off with a stretch. At the very minimum, I urge
14 and adjudicatory hearing. We absolutely need more
15 information. In fact, I'm really quite appalled to hear
16 from people of the Town of Colonie. There have been
17 several who have spoken before me who have said they
18 have not heard anything about this. There has been no
19 information coming from the Town of Colonie about this
20 application informing the public about what it means.
21 This reminds me of what happened a few years ago
22 when the Town began to consider entering into an
23 agreement with Waste Connections which ended up being
24 this contract to lease the landfill over to this private
25 for-profit corporation, lose control of it for a payout
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
84
1 of like $23 million dollars. They had, I think, three
2 public hearings at the time. One was at the town hall in
3 Loudonville, the other was at the Crossings which is on
4 Albany Shaker Road over by Wolf Road and then finally I
5 believe they had one at the Village of Colonie. They did
6 not have the public hearing at the Boght Firehouse where
7 the Loudonville School. The firehouse, at the time, was
8 located at the intersection of Route 9 and Boght Road; a
9 stones throw away from the landfill. The people most
10 affected by the landfill were never notified. Tonight,
11 obviously, the same folks are left in the dark. I think
12 if people knew – not only in those neighborhoods around
13 the Town what this really means, I think they would be
14 mortified.
15 Now I am not speaking in favor of necessarily
16 closing the landfill. I actually want to preserve and
17 save it for our use – for the use of the community of
18 Colonie. Ninety percent of the waste coming in now is
19 from out of town. If we allow this application to go
20 through, we're going to have a railroad trucks of
21 garbage coming into that landfill.
22 Waste Connections is not interested in preserving
23 the landfill. They are interested in cashing in on their
24 business. They know the garbage means money. That's why
25 we have 90% of it coming from out of town. I would much
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
85
1 prefer if the Town had just settled for a landfill for
2 us in the community, and not for bringing in money for
3 the Town and now doing the bidding for a profit company
4 that is looking to maximize their profits by having this
5 application go through.
6 This process requires community input. I don't know
7 how you can have community input when nobody has been
8 asked to participate. I would urge an adjudicatory
9 hearing. I would also ask the department do a thorough
10 investigation into who was notified by whom, what was in
11 those notifications and if any of these. I would like to
12 see the Town of Colonie somehow disengage from being the
13 water boy to Waste Connections whether it be getting rid
14 of the contract, or at least revising it so that they
15 can represent people in the best interest of our
16 community and not the best interest of a for-profit
17 company is only interested in maximizing their profit. I
18 think if we had a process where we had a slower smaller
19 expansion, I think there would perhaps be more support.
20 This is outrageous and I oppose it.
21 Thank you.
22 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Ron Moraski.
23 MR. MORASKI: Good evening. My name is Ron
24 Moraski. I live on Towpath Road in Waterford, right
25 across from the landfill. I am not an environmentalist.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
86
1 I tend to be more pro-business in my thinking. I do,
2 however, appreciate the natural resources and try to
3 take some responsibility to maintain them.
4 After spending a good amount of time with people
5 that we knew in the neighborhood that we now live in my
6 wife and I decided to move to our current address in
7 2009.
8 In 2009 to 2011 we witnessed firsthand a local
9 landfill that appeared to be managed with limited impact
10 to those around it. Yes, we were told that the landfill
11 would be closed in 2018. This made sense to me, given
12 its proximity to a freshwater drinking source the fact
13 that so many other cities and towns were focusing on
14 developing waterfront property. From 2009 to 2011 the
15 only complaint was an occasional odor. When the Town of
16 Colonie contracted with Waste Connections in the fall of
17 2011 it was like a switch was flipped. He was an
18 immediate and overwhelming difference. After making
19 several calls almost daily for more odors, I was told
20 that the Town of Colonie employees sabotaged their
21 systems before they left. It took until the first freeze
22 that year before we noticed a difference in the odors.
23 In the spring of 2012 it came right back.
24 Since then, I have made countless calls. It is not
25 something I'm proud of nor have the time for. Many of
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
87
1 those calls were due to the overfilling of garbage and
2 lack of controls that Waste Connections was fined for,
3 as well as the massive influx trash they came from
4 downstate due to Hurricane Sandy. I was told by those
5 that run the landfill that they were not prepared by the
6 waste coming from the hurricane damage being so badly
7 wet and decomposed. Really? I think that any reasonable
8 person could have figured that out.
9 Complaints, findings and corruption haven't changed
10 much, except to keep the problem growing. I don't
11 believe what they say.
12 Take the story about relocating the entrance for
13 safety reasons. The fact is, the entry today is safe.
14 The real issue is that the Town of Colonie and Waste
15 Connections are trying to hide the dump due to the
16 smell. Developers are trying to sell homes over there
17 but are failing miserably. In 100 lots, one home has
18 sold. No matter what they do, they cannot hide the smell
19 by moving the entrance.
20 The bottom line here is that there are lower costs,
21 more environmentally responsible alternatives for the
22 capital region. This is important in DEC should know
23 that, but Waste Connections as a monopoly in the entire
24 process now and wants to maximize their profits. Beside
25 their own profits, the Town of Colonie seems to have no
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
88
1 conscience about the location landfill as it relates to
2 the neighboring towns, particularly the Mohawk River.
3 I'd like to end with a personal appeal to Paula
4 Mahan in the Town of Colonie leadership and the DEC.
5 Take a look at the landfill of Google maps as it relates
6 to the rest of the Town, in particular the Mohawk River.
7 Draw a circle in the center of the landfill and look at
8 the two-mile radius and look at the communities that you
9 are impacting. Look at how much freshwater surrounds the
10 landfill. This proposal was for a new landfill in this
11 particular piece of property, it would never be approved
12 in the state. I doubt that it would even be considered.
13 So, I would have to ask why would we allow any further
14 dumping to be an option? Think about all the damage that
15 will be done over the next 20 years in this proposal
16 moves forward; damage that has the potential for 100
17 plus years of impact on the freshwater supply. You will
18 never have a chance right now to do the right thing and
19 to put an end to this proposal.
20 Thank you.
22 We're going to take a brief break for the court
23 reporter.
24 (There was a brief break in the proceedings.)
25 Curt Taylor.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
89
1 MR. TAYLOR: My name is Curt Taylor. I am a
2 regional engineer with Waste Connections. Waste
3 Connections operates the landfill on behalf of the Town
4 of Colonie. The landfill currently provides
5 environmentally sound and cost-effective waste disposal
6 or surrounding areas.
7 This project provides for this resource to continue
8 to operate for another 20 years without adding more
9 property to the landfill facility. In doing so, the
10 project also includes traffic safety by moving the
11 facility entrance to an existing entrance on Fonda Road
12 in the existing industrial park. It replaces leachate
13 storage lagoons which have in the past been an odor
14 issue with leachate storage tanks and many other
15 additional measures are included to control odors at the
16 landfill.
17 This project also improves stormwater control at
18 the existing site and those proposed stormwater controls
19 are designed in accordance with the existing stormwater
20 control standards. What this project is not do as it
21 does not change the amount of waste to be accepted at
22 the landfill on an annual basis. That is currently kept
23 by the existing permanent and will not change.
24 A visual resource assessment was completed as
25 contained in the DEIS and as discussed earlier here, it
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
90
1 was determined there were no significant adverse
2 environmental impacts based on the Area 7 development.
3 The project planning for Area 7 began prior to 2007
4 where was discussed in the local solid waste management
5 plan. Since then, a public scoping. In public scoping
6 process for Area 7 development resulted in determining
7 what issues were to be examined in the DEIS and the
8 scoping document was accepted by DEC and was followed in
9 preparing the DEIS. That was published and noticed and
10 went through a public process in 2014.
11 The basic project details discussed at many public
12 meetings that started in 2014 and tonight – although the
13 application was filed in 2015, application documents
14 were posted on our website the beginning of 2015 in the
15 basic premise of the expansion is not changed since
16 then.
17 ALJ. MCBRIDE: I do not mean to cut you off, but I
18 wanted to collect comments this evening from the public
19 regarding this application, as opposed to Waste
20 Connections having an open session to communicate with
21 members of the Town. Certainly, you can have an
22 information session if you would like, but I would
23 like, since we do have people that have stayed quite
24 late this evening – I would want to give their
25 opportunity to make their comments. So, if you could
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
91
1 just wrap up?
2 MR. TAYLOR: I certainly can.
3 In conclusion, the project is an important area
4 resource providing waste disposal and an economic
5 resource to the area. This should be approved. Thank
6 you.
8 Mark Gabriel.
9 MR. GABRIEL: My name is Mark Gabriel. I live at
10 48 Fonda Road. My property is adjacent to Green
11 Mountain Drive. I've been living there for 54 years on
12 and off. I lived there with dump was our playground, a
13 rifle range and on Saturdays this Area 7 - we would sit
14 and wait till after they closed at noon we would watch
15 bulldozers dig trenches and we would wait for sometimes
16 literally dozens of tractor trailers unloading 55
17 gallon drums to those trenches. Monday morning first
18 order of business was covering them over.
19 We're Area 7 is – that is where the entrance used
20 to be. They had moved those trenches further south.
21 Still, I believe that this area -- I imagine that is a
22 big sponge. I'm sure that those 55 gallon drums are all
23 rotted and I can just imagine what will leach out of the
24 ground when you put hundreds of metric tons of trash on
25 top of that. All I can think of is General Electric
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
92
1 spending $100 million dollars on a campaign not to
2 dredge the Hudson River, and we know that was defeated.
3 Another my taxes are incredible right now. I can only
4 think that if the Town of Colonie had to pay for a
5 cleanup, the economics of something like that would be
6 much more overbearing than the revenue that the dump
7 would generate. I think they said 1.5 million a year.
8 Environmentally and economically it doesn't make sense
9 to me, personally.
10 Thank you.
12 Eric Ameres.
13 MR. AMERES: I, my name is Eric Ameres. I live in
14 the Boght area. I'm one of the people in the Boght area
15 that apparently got this notice from one of our
16 neighbors. I have to echo a lot of people's sediment
17 and that it is surprising how little information was
18 out there in an accessible way so that we can know what
19 was going on.
20 I have lived in my house approximately 25 years. It
21 is literally a stone's throw away from the dump. There's
22 this idea that someday we will be able to refer to it as
23 the old dump as opposed to the dump or the landfill.
24 That is something that I look forward to. Hearing this
25 notion that it is going forward another 20 years is a
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
93
1 little bit alarming.
2 I am an engineer and scientist by profession. So, I
3 can appreciate the amount of effort that goes into all
4 of the certain studies in the engineering behind it to
5 try to do the best that can be done, and these types of
6 things. To me, and a lot of people, refuse management is
7 a necessary evil. We produce traffic and trash and we
8 have to deal with. This notion of it being a profit
9 center bothers me and I think companies who are running
10 things for profit motive, especially something as
11 critical as something that is going to be noxious for
12 the next 20 years as well as forever. Trash is not going
13 to disappear in 20 years. That alarms me a lot. These
14 notions that I'm sure an adequate assessment was done
15 but the visual assessments and simulations don't capture
16 for a number of years I remember driving south on Route
17 9 -- it's the people to get to my house – go south on
18 Nine 9 and you'll see this big mountain with the boat on
19 top of it. Not going to show you that in a visual
20 assessment simulation. I don't know of that managed to
21 happen, but it did. Things like managed to happen. And
22 to you live there and drive by it every day -- I bought
23 my property and literally within a week I went outside
24 and said what the heck is that – that smell on that nice
25 crisp winter morning. I called the Town and I said, is
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
94
1 that be expected? They said that's probably the Orshans
2 doing something in their fields or something like that.
3 This is 25 years ago and it actually hasn't gotten
4 better. Now there is profit is motivated.
5 For no other reason, I want to have my voice heard
6 and on the record as being opposed to this obviously.
7 Like I said, it's a necessary evil and you have to deal
8 with these sort of things.
9 I want to echo Tim's statement earlier in saying it
10 is a resource for the Town. I have paid for my trash to
11 be taken literally since I have lived there. I've never
12 had the good fortune of having been built into things. I
13 have had to either bring it there myself or pay someone
14 to do it. I understand that part of it, but I also
15 understand that we have to consider this very, very
16 seriously. I feel that at minimum an adjudication
17 process -- we sort of have to do that because expedients
18 in this situation is not what is called for. Careful
19 consideration is what is called for. To say that it's
20 only going to be as bad as it is now but it is going to
21 continue for 20 years -- a much better would it be if it
22 just stopped? Obviously businesses are businesses and
23 they are not into it for charity. Clearly, it can't just
24 be adequate. Has to be in service of the community and
25 those who live around it must be given consideration.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
95
1 Thank you.
2 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Kathleen Kowsky.
3 MS. KOWSKY: Good evening. I'm Kathy Kowsky. I
4 live in the Town of Halfmoon. I live about 2 miles
5 northwest of the dump for over 60 years. At my house we
6 still have to shut the windows in the summer.
7 I was hired at the Cohoes City School District in
8 1979. I traveled the Cohoes Crescent Road twice a day,
9 every day until I retired in 2012. Over that time, I
10 literally watched the dump grow. There are numerous
11 problems that they have been putting under the rug for
12 years. The one that hits me the most was back in the
13 mid-90s we had a very wet spring. The water rolled down
14 the east side of the landfill. From the northern
15 entrance it rolled across the road for three days. It
16 was just rolling by and I had to drive through it. After
17 that, I stopped drinking Cohoes water.
18 About four years ago the Town of Colonie closed
19 Cohoes Crescent Road. They said it would be for four
20 days and it turned out to be 10 days. They said it was
21 for resurfacing because what happens is the east side of
22 the dump as too high the pitch the water rolls down.
23 They didn't even have a drainage ditch between the dump
24 in the road. The water was rolling right over the road
25 and I got to the point where it damage the road and they
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
96
1 didn't patch it and it was a mess all the time. They
2 said they were going to resurface the area that was bad.
3 They resurface it right after they put a drainage pipe
4 under the road from the dump to the Mohawk River. You
5 can find that to this day. There is a dip in the road
6 where they put that drainage ditch in.
7 They are talking about extending the dump to the
8 north side. That's where the drainage ditch is. It's
9 horrendous. They finally did resurface the road about
10 three years ago. They didn't put the proper sealants on.
11 This should have been a crown in the middle of the road
12 and this should be a drainage ditch on the side of the
13 road. The water continues to come from the dump again.
14 On the side of the road there is a section that is all
15 breaking up to this day.
16 This is the new section where they said where they
17 brought it to the north side to breeze and clear out
18 something on the other side. That's old dump. Again,
19 that drains across the road.
20 The City of Cohoes draws water from the Mohawk. I
21 find it disgusting that you are less than 100 feet away
22 and you are making this mountain of more garbage. I
23 know, myself, we find six footed frogs on the bend of
24 the road where they used to dump the old GE in
25 Schenectady Chemical. To have the dump go that much
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
97
1 higher is absolutely ludicrous. I am totally opposed and
2 the thing is, I question the integrity of the dump now.
3 Don't expand it.
4 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Ryan Flinton.
5 MR. FLINTON: Good evening. My name is Ryan
6 Flinton representing Aria Energy. Aria Energy is the
7 current owner of the power plant at the landfill that
8 generates electricity from the landfill gas. That plant
9 was originally built by Innovative Energy Systems in
10 2011.
11 The power plant there was built in 2006 to generate
12 renewable electricity from the landfill gas. Since 2006
13 the power plant has been generating enough electricity
14 in the neighborhood of about 4 Megawatts into the local
15 power grid from the landfill gas. The company today – we
16 operate 45 sites around the United States and in central
17 New York. Colonie is one of the sites that we have had
18 for a very long time. The summer we expanded that site
19 to use landfill gas more efficiently to generate up to 6
20 Megawatts of electricity.
21 What I wanted to emphasize is that the ongoing
22 operation of the landfill allows us to continue to
23 generate electricity – renewable electricity for the
24 foreseeable future. Right now we generate enough power
25 to power 2,800 homes from the gas landfill.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
98
1 Part 2 to 3 full-time employees benefit through us
2 being in business in the operation of the landfill.
3 Basically, it is doing the responsible thing by
4 continuing to improve the landfill and it also allows us
5 to improve our gas collection system. This facility
6 allows businesses like us to continue to operate and
7 employ people.
8 ALJ. MCBRIDE: Jonathan McDade.
9 MR. MCDADE: I appreciate the opportunity to
10 express my opposition to the proposed development of
11 Area 7 at the Colonie Landfill. I also appreciate that
12 the NYSDEC decided to hold a public hearing on the EIS
13 so that local officials and residents alike could both
14 hear about the proposal and provide comments before you
15 as the regulatory authority on this proposal. As a
16 resident of Waterford living across the Mohawk River
17 from the landfill I realize as we all do that the
18 landfill has been in existence for many years. Having
19 lived in Clifton Park the 20 1990 and 2003, before
20 being relocated to another state for eight years, I was
21 quite familiar with the landfill operation. So, when my
22 family and I were in the process of moving back to the
23 Capital District in 2011 we heard the Town was soon
24 ending their operation of the landfill causing us to
25 think that the Town I even close the landfill. However,
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
99
1 as we moved forward and putting a contract on a home in
2 Waterford, we learned the Town and instead received a
3 permit extension and was contracting out the operation.
4 Like many of my current neighbors, they also believed
5 that extension would only be until 2018.
6 Now the Town and CRL are asking not just for
7 another extension, but a major expansion of this
8 landfill, one that is higher, broader and far more
9 impactful than ever imagined. And expansion that would
10 rise above the tree line ringing a new meaning to the
11 term Mount Colonie, and the landfill would continue to
12 generate air quality, odor, noise, visual and other
13 impacts along the historic and scenic Mohawk River and
14 New York canal system, thereby affecting our community's
15 ability to fully enjoy the rich character of our area;
16 not only for Waterford but also for Halfmoon, Cohoes and
17 even Colonie.
18 The New York State DEC obviously recognize the
19 potential significance of these environmental impacts
20 when you called for the preparation of the EIS is now
21 under review. However, I challenge the DEC to
22 objectively consider whether this EIS adequately
23 explores the alternatives to end the impacts of the
24 proposed expansion. The following alternatives are
25 included in the EIS.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
100
1 No action: dismissed basically due to the fiscal
2 costs. I recognized something must be done with this but
3 then the EIS states that waste should only be exported
4 if no other solution can be found. Only one other
5 alternative solution really even explored.
6 Alternative sites: this was dismissed because the
7 Town believes the proposed expansion of the development
8 can be accommodated within the existing site. Maybe this
9 is true within the overall footprint but not without
10 creating an extended and higher ridge that I challenge
11 is not consistent with the existing topography of the
12 area. The Landfill 7 Engineering Study includes a
13 landscape plan that states the landfill will be
14 revegetated and mitigated to create the visual
15 appearance of a natural meadow or old field with the
16 visual character of the surrounding region. However,
17 when did a 500 plus foot high ridge line consistent with
18 the surrounding topography? Five hundred feet above sea
19 level starts to compete with the height of the mid to
20 high rise towers. For example, the Corning Towers are
21 about 582 590 feet high. Area 7 is no meadow.
22 Alternative technologies: while this is not a
23 technology that I am familiar with, it is disappointing
24 to see how little MSW treatment technology has advanced
25 in this important area.
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
101
1 Alternative development scenarios: is very
2 disappointing that consideration of these options were
3 dismissed rather quickly in the EIS. One potentially
4 feasible option could be his southern expansion. When
5 that could reduce the significant increase in elevation.
6 However, this was dismissed out of hand due to the
7 proposed relocation of the entrance. While I strongly
8 support safety on our highway, the lack of any analysis
9 of alternative traffic scheme speaks clearly to be an
10 adequacy of the analysis.
11 The process under SEQR requires a range of
12 potential impact in the EIS. There are many examples
13 where the mitigation of such a broad range of
14 environmental impact does have a cost, but not to do so
15 can have a greater cost to society. Why are no other
16 sitings even discussed?
17 While I will leave it to the technical experts to
18 evaluate the adequacy of most of the impacts, one of the
19 key impact areas that I contend is treated very
20 inadequately is the impact on the character of the
21 community. In particular, the surrounding communities of
22 Waterford, Halfmoon, and Cohoes. So, again I challenge
23 the DEC to carefully and objectively review the impacts
24 of this critical aspect of the environmental process.
25 The EIS limits impacts to the topography to the
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
102
1 existing landfill area and the potential impact to air
2 navigation. The EIS is also inadequate and stating that
3 the visual impacts of the proposed expansion are but a
4 continuation of the existing operation. How does such a
5 major expansion and Area 7 and a significant increase in
6 elevation represent merely a continuation of the
7 existing operation? The EIS also indicates the impact of
8 odors would be another continuation of the existing
9 operation, where the local residents serve as the
10 primary source of detection. From the perspective of the
11 character of the community, the variability and
12 uncertainty of odor impacts and potential air-quality
13 impacts, especially during the summer months, has had
14 and still represents a real impact on community life.
15 Living along the river and canal affords many wonderful
16 outdoor opportunities, but a major expansion of the
17 operation with 20 more years of bulldozers and trucks,
18 odors, air quality and a growing hillside is out of
19 character in the area and is a significant negative
20 impact.
21 Finally, I want to highlight a couple of notable
22 SEQR court cases addressing community character.
23 First, the DEC website addressing SEQR assessments
24 state that communicating character is defined by all
25 man-made and natural features of the area. It includes
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
103
1 the visual character of the town, village or city, into
2 the visual landscape; it also includes the buildings and
3 structures and their uses the natural environment,
4 activities, talent services, and local policies that are
5 in place. These combined to create a sense of place or
6 character that defines the area.
7 A sense of place: the DEC needs to objectively
8 assess whether the proposed action is consistent with
9 the existing and ongoing community character. I contend
10 the action does interfere with the use and enjoyment of
11 officially recognized public resources. It also is
12 inconsistent with the character of the existing natural
13 landscape. This is backed up by the following court
14 cases.
15 In the case of Village of Chestnut Ridge versus
16 Town of Ramapo court found the power to define the
17 community character is a unique prerogative of a
18 municipality acting in its governmental capacity and
19 that generally through the exercise of their zoning and
20 planning powers, municipalities are given the job of
21 defining their own character. Our town is being limited
22 in this regard by this proposed expansion.
23 In the case of Lane Construction Corporation versus
24 Cahill the court upheld the denial of a mining permit
25 because the projects impacts on the historical and
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
104
1 scenic character of the community could not be
2 sufficiently mitigated. Mining would have reduced a
3 prominent topographical feature and there was no way to
4 mitigate the long term impacts. In a similar but
5 opposite way, the vertical and longitudinal expansion
6 proposed for Area 7 creates a negative impact on the
7 character of the surrounding communities, including my
8 own, and would negatively effect the orderly development
9 of Waterford and the other surrounding towns due to the
10 increase impacts of this proposed action.
11 For these reasons and more as others have shared. I
12 oppose this action and urge the DC to properly weigh the
13 in adequate representation of the impacts on and
14 alternatives for our community in this EIS.
15 I also support the holding of the adjudicatory
16 hearing.
17 Thank you.
18 ALJ. MCBRIDE: On behalf of the department I thank
19 you all for coming out this evening. Have a safe trip
20 home.
21
22 (Whereas the above entitled proceeding was
23 concluded at 8:55 p.m.)
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699
105
1 CERTIFICATION
3 I, NANCY L. STRANG, Shorthand Reporter and Notary
4 Public in and for the State of New York, hereby CERTIFY
5 that the record taken by me at the time and place noted
6 in the heading hereof is a true and accurate transcript
7 of same, to the best of my ability and belief.
9 ___________________________________
10 NANCY L. STRANG
11
12
13 Dated _______________________________
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Transcription
Ph 518-542-7699

Appendix K - Comments

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appendix K - Comments

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PUBLIC COMMENTS (ON CD W/EXCEPTION OF INDEX

Public Comment Letters (2016)

Public Comment Letters (2017)

September 20, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript

October 25, 2016 Public Hearing Transcript

Document Comment Date of

Document Comment Date of

Document Comment Date of

September 19, 2016

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

ECC: Jack Lawler, Supervisor Town of Waterford

From: Michelle Parvana <rocrmom67@gmail.com>

From: Susan Miron <SMiron@cdbegin.com>

Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Objections – October 21, 2016

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

www.epa.gov - Overview of Greenhouse Gases/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/US EPA – US

www.beyondlandfilling.org – this site states:

*Methane, which is generated in landfills in massive quantities, is a greenhouse gas on

Stephen and Donna Ellrott

From: mary bolognino <mary.bolognino@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Romano <tromano4@nycap.rr.com>

From: Brian Garland <bg@nycap.rr.com>

From: Cole Zapp <colezapp@yahoo.com>

Thank you for your time,

From: David Buckley <dbuckley4@icloud.com>

Sent from my iPhone

From: Jim Murdico <jmurdico@randq.com>

To: NYS DEC - Region 4 Office

From: James Murdico & Joanne Tedesco

Dear Mr. Marcuccio,

From: Jamie Knightes <jamieknightes@gmail.com>

Dear. Ms. Marcuccio:

From: Christina Jason Treffiletti <cjtreffiletti@hotmail.com>

From: Gmail <jszemansco@gmail.com>

My name is John Szemansco and I operate The Oakcliff bed-and-breakfast in Halfmoon.

Sent from my iPhone

From: lisa lisa <easterlylisa@hotmail.com>

Dear Angelo Marcuccio:

Please present these comments at the upcoming public meeting.

From: Rick Feiden <rickfeiden@yahoo.com>

NYS DEC – Region 4 Office Thomas A. Green

Attn: Angelo Marcuccio

Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition

cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor

New York State Senate District 43

New York State Assembly District 108

United States Congressional District 20

United States Senate

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

From: Tim D <timmiked@gmail.com>

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

From: Tony <notopt@hotmail.com>

From: Aaron Heyman <ahh7131@gmail.com>

From: Patricia Jenne <trescat@aol.com>

On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Patricia Jenne <trescat@aol.com> wrote:

From: Anne Miller <annemlmiller@gmail.com>

From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>

Sent from my iPad

From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sent from my iPad

From: Don Porter <dondporter@gmail.com>

Thanks for receiving my input.