D E C banner
D E C banner

Disclaimer

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has added a link to a translation service developed by Microsoft Inc., entitled Bing Translator, as a convenience to visitors to the DEC website who speak languages other than English.

Additional information can be found at DEC's Language Assistance Page.

CWM Chemical Services - Decision, December 10 1993

CWM Chemical Services - Decision, December 10, 1993

Decision December 10, 1993

STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-1550

In the Matter of

the Application of

CWM CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC.

for permits to construct and operate a 47.1 acre hazardous waste landfill at
1550 Balmer Road, Model City, New York.

DEC Project No. 9-2934-00022/00036-0

DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING BOARD

December 10, 1993

DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING BOARD

Introduction

This Decision relates to the application of CWM Chemical Services, Inc. ("CWM" or the "Applicant") for a Certificate of Environmental Safety and Public Necessity (the "Certificate") pursuant to ECL Article 27 Title 11 to site the proposed Residuals Management Unit No. 1 ("RMU-1") at its Model City Facility in the Towns of Porter and Lewiston in Niagara County. As required by law, Governor Cuomo constituted this Facility Siting Board (the "Board") in May 1993.

The Board is obligated to render a decision on whether to grant, conditionally grant or deny a certificate for the facility. Typically, that decision is made after an adjudicatory hearing which is held by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the "Department"). In this instance, the ALJ submitted a report which indicated that there were no issues that needed to be adjudicated in a hearing. Nonetheless, the Board is required to make four findings required by Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") 27-1105(3)(f) and, as an involved agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), it is required to make findings pursuant to ECL 8-0109(8).

In reaching this Decision, the Board has reviewed the Hearing Report prepared by the ALJ, CWM's application (as supplemented by certain correspondence), the draft permit prepared by the Department Staff and the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"). The Board took official notice of the Decision of the Siting Board in the case of the CWM application for Secured Landfill-12 ("SLF-12 Decision"). In addition, the chairman of the Board and several Board members attended a meeting held between the Citizen Advisory Committee for RMU-1 (the "CAC") and the Applicant. At that meeting, an agreement resolving the major issues of concern to the CAC was announced. The resolution of these issues is incorporated into an agreement between the Applicant and the Town of Lewiston, the Town of Porter, the County of Niagara, the CAC and the Residents Organized for Lewiston-Porter's Environment, Inc. Any potential issues between the Applicant and the Department Staff were resolved and their resolution is reflected in the current draft permits.

When it became likely that neither the Department nor any third party intervenor would seek to adjudicate any issues, the Board undertook its own review of the documents then available to determine whether it was satisfied that the Applicant had made the necessary showing for all of the criteria the Board must judge and for the findings it must make. Based on that review, on September 13, 1993 counsel for the Board notified the Applicant that the Board had tentatively determined that, with the addition of one condition related to transportation, the Certificate could be issued. The Applicant was also notified at that time that, if it objected to the imposition of this condition, it was entitled to a hearing regarding the need for the condition. By letter dated September 29, 1993, counsel for the Applicant indicated that it would accept a similar condition that was acceptable to the Board. That condition is attached as Appendix A to this Decision and is incorporated hereto.

The Board is now prepared to issue its final decision in this matter. Although the Board's decision does not conform in all respects to the position taken by the Applicant (particularly in reference to the siting criteria), the Applicant is not entitled to a hearing on these differences as they have no potential significance to the outcome of this proceeding.

The discussion below addresses those areas where the Board does not agree with the Applicant's assessment of criteria upon which it must make findings. As to other areas, the Board adopts as part of its Decision the Applicant's assessment of these criteria as such appears in its application (Table 16 - Preliminary Siting Evaluation Worksheet for RMU-1). The discussion also addresses those criteria that were reweighted from the suggested weightings for landfills contained in Appendix 17 to 6 NYCRR Part 361. The Board does not accept the reweighting of the siting consideration for areas of mineral exploitation proposed by the Applicant.

Siting Criteria

Legal Issue

For purposes of evaluating the siting criteria contained in6 NYCRR 361.7, the Board concluded that the site that was beingapproved included the entire area within the boundary of the Model City Facility, including the entry gate and the weigh station. The term "site" is defined as "...that parcel of property designated by the Applicant in the application submitted pursuant to this Part" [6 NYCRR 361.1(c)(15)].

Although the application designates the boundaries of RMU-1 as the site, the Board finds this designation is untenable. The landfill itself cannot function without other support facilities located at the Model City Facility. Therefore, if an approval were given based on the boundaries of RMU-1, the ancillary facilities where hazardous waste is handled or treated/processed would not have been approved under the siting law and could not legally operate in support of the landfill.

Findings on Siting Criteria

The Board modifies the Applicant's proposed findings on certain siting criteria as set forth below. These findings are based upon the imposition of the condition set forth in Appendix A to this Decision. A summary of the Board's conclusions on all siting criteria is contained in Appendix B to this Decision. The total score for the facility is 182.4, and therefore it is within the acceptable limits defined by regulation [6 NYCRR 361.7(c)(3)].

3(a) Mode of Transportation

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion based in large part on information from a handbook prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Board examined the documents referenced in the application as well as the 1986 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment ("OTA") report cited in the SLF-12 Decision. Relying principally on the study done by the OTA, the Board concludes that truck transportation has a higher accident rate than either of the alternatives. Therefore, the Board assigned a rating of (3) to this criterion.

3(e) Transportation Restrictions

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion based on its evaluation that the average number of restrictions per mile was less than four.

The Board identified a total of 45 traffic restrictions over the 8.6 miles from the site entrance to the nearest highway. This evaluation results in a average of 5 traffic restrictions per miles which conforms to a rating of (2).

5(a) Utility Lines

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion asserting that the nearest high power utility line is located at the western edge of the CWM Model City Facility, 0.6 miles from the RMU-1 site and therefore not within the site's vicinity.

The Board assigned a (2) to this criterion. The Board has defined the "site" as the area within the boundary line of the CWM Model City Facility. Therefore the high power utility line is in the vicinity of the site but relocation is not necessary.

6(a) Consistency with the Intent of Master Land Use Plan

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion. The Applicant cites the present town zoning for its determination. The proposed RMU-1 is located entirely within the town of Porter in an area zoned "heavy industry" and therefore the Applicant concludes that the proposed unit is consistent with the specific intent and overall approach to the Town's Master Plan.

The Board assigned a rating of (2) to this criterion. The 1979 Porter-South Central Master Plan makes reference to a wetland which is located within the proposed RMU-1 site. The plan recognizes the wetland as an important environmental consideration and recommends that the wetland be protected. The Board views the proposed elimination of this wetland as an inconsistency with the specific intent of the plan. There were no inconsistencies concerning the portion of the site located in the Town of Lewiston.

7(a) Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters

The Applicant assigned a rating of (2) to this criterion reasoning that from a hydrogeological standpoint the site is in an optimum location.

The Board assigned a rating of (3) to this criterion. The Board's rationale is based on the fact that the RMU-1 site will be partly located in a 7 acre federally protected wetland and the Applicant's wetlands mitigation plan will require extensive effort to overcome this condition. Also, construction of RMU-1 will eliminate 16 acre-feet of floodwater storage capacity, for which extensive mitigation work is planned.

8(a) Water Supply Sources

The Applicant originally assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion stating that the site was not close to drinking water, recreational waters or other water supplies. However, the Applicant later conceded that an active private water supply well does exist in close proximity to the site and therefore changed its proposed rating from a (1) to a (2). The Board concurs with the rating of (2).

9. Fire and Explosions

The Board voted to reduce the siting consideration weight for this criteria from 11 to 9. The Board determined that the effect of fire or explosion, should one occur, would be limited to the site, which is far removed from the nearest population. Further, explosives are neither used nor stored at the site, and the wastes disposed of at the site are not explosive by nature. The Board concluded that this criterion has less importance and therefore assigned it a lower weight.

9(c) Proximity to Fire Department and Firefighting Water Supply

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion asserting that it has on-site firefighting capability in the form of a hose-tender truck and an adequate water supply.

The Board assigned a rating of (2) to this criterion. The Board concludes that other equipment owned by the Applicant are not equivalent to the fire- fighting equipment normally used by a fire department. Also, the site is further than 3 miles to the nearest fire department.

10(b) Prevailing Wind Direction

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion contending that the most sensitive receptors are upwind of the site, the prevailing wind direction coming from the southwest.

The Board assigned a rating of (3) to this criterion noting that the Village of Ransomville is located northeast of the site and therefore is downwind of the proposed site.

14. Open Space, Recreational and Visual Impacts

The Board voted to increase the siting consideration weight from 3 to 5. The Board determined that this siting consideration should be given greater weight in recognition of the importance of this area to the community as an open space resource.

14(c) Visual Impacts

The Applicant assigned a rating of (1) to this criterion contending that screening by existing vegetation will Block RMU-1 from local passers-by on Balmer Road.

The Board assigned a rating of (2) to this criterion because the lighting used at the facility for night work could make the facility readily noticeable to passers-by.

Need

The proposed RMU-1 facility constitutes a critical environmental management resource for New York State. Under federal law, each state must demonstrate the continuing capacity to manage all of the hazardous waste generated within its borders. New York State has no other commercial land burial facility for hazardous waste and therefore this project is needed if the State is to be able to meet the requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ("SARA") (Pub. L. No. 99-499) for hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of through other means.

The facility also constitutes a significant economic development resource providing New York businesses with a cost-effective disposal site for treated waste materials and serving as a disposal site for treated remedial wastes. These functions will support the needs of existing industry and should enable the reuse of old, abandoned industrial sites for new economic activity.

Because this new resource is so valuable, it is crucial that its useful life be extended as long as possible. The Board recognizes and supports the efforts of the Department to do so through limiting the types of wastes that can be land-buried and through requiring generators to reduce the amount of hazardous waste they produce. The Board urges the Department to continue using all available authority to maximize the useful life of this facility.

Findings

ECL Article 27 Title 11

The Siting Board finds that the record of the hearing in this matter supports the following conclusions:

  1. Residential areas and contiguous populations will not be endangered by the siting of the proposed facility;
  2. The proposed facility attains an approvable score with respect to the siting criteria;
  3. There is a need for the proposed facility; and
  4. The construction and operation of the proposed facility will be in the public interest.

SEQRA

The Board has given consideration to the FEIS and finds that it meets all the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.

The Board further finds:

(1) that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action which is being approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the FEIS; and

(2) that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by the conditions that are imposed by this Decision.

Conclusion

The Board therefore determines that this application is approvable, as modified by the permit conditions that are contained in the draft permit prepared by the Department and by the condition contained in Appendix A to this Decision. The Board authorizes the Chairman or his designee to issue a Certificate of Environmental Safety and Public Necessity.

_____________/s/_____________
PETER BUSH, Designee for THOMAS C. JORLING, Commissioner,
NYS Department of Conservation and Chairman of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
WILLIAM FERRETTI
Designee for VINCENT TESE,Commissioner
NYS Department of Economic Development and Member of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
ALLISON WAKEMAN
Designee for MARK R. CHASSIN, M.D., Commissioner
NYS Department of Health and Member of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
DAVID PILLIOD
Designee for GAIL S. SHAFFER, Secretary of State
NYS Department of State and Member of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
EUGENE NOWICKI
Designee for JOHN C. EGAN, Commissioner
NYS Department of Transportation and Member of the Siting Board

Dated: December 10, 1993
Albany, New York

Minority Opinion By CWM INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING BOARD In the matter of the Application of CWM Chemical Services, Inc.

The CWM Industrial Hazardous Waste Siting Board was charged to review the Article 27, Title 11, Environmental Conservation Law, Part 361 Application from CWM Chemical Services and to make a determination as to the project's compliance with the siting criteria.

To accomplish this task, the Board reviewed the application as well as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and subsequently the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

The Board attended a meeting with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and CWM as well as the Legislative meetings which were held to determine any issues not resolved. The Board listened to statements made by the public, both in favor and against the project, as well as reviewed written statements by both sides.

The materials furnished to the Board to assist in its determination raised many issues. The Board on three occasions had to refer back to the applicant a total of 29 requests for clarification on matters that had been supplied. In several instances, the replies were not consistent with the application documents.

The Board disagreed with the applicant's scoring of the criteria, pursuant to subdivision one of Article 27, Title 11, in nine instances. The total scoring of the Board was 182.4 as compared to the applicant's scoring of 149. The Minority's tentative scoring is 200.9 which would make the siting of this facility NOT APPROPRIATE at the proposed site. The Minority's summary scoring for the siting criteria is contained in Appendix C to the Decision.

The Minority Board members disagree with the Majority on the rating of Criteria 1 (Population Density).

The Siting Board concluded that the site being considered included the entire area within the boundary of the Model City Facility because, according to the Board's definition, the landfill cannot function without other support facilities. The Minority concludes that the effluent pipeline to the Niagara River is also an essential component of the facility and that the land, either owned or leased by the applicant, should be included in the site designation. That being the case, the Minority now finds that the population of the area neighboring the facility is very high and the potential for growth is also very high. The current building pattern evidences that the population will grow at a rate higher than predicted. Within a quarter of a mile from the facility is the Lew-Port school which houses some 2700 students and 350 employees. Also within a half mile of the site, as defined by the Minority, are the Youngstown Estates, Collingswood Estates and Tranquility Acres housing developments and the U.S. Army and National Guard training site. Approximately 3884 residential and non-residential persons are located within a half mile of the site.

Therefore, the Minority would assign a rating of (3) to both siting criteria 1(a) and 1(b).

The Minority disagrees with the Majority on the Criteria rating of Item 4(a) (Proximity to Incompatible Structures).

The Minority finds that there are substantial structures within a quarter mile of the site, as defined by the Minority: the Lew-Port school campus, U.S. Army and National Guard training facilities, a restaurant, a sewer pump lift station and several residences. Because of their proximity to the site they are all at risk from the facilities activities.

Therefore, the Minority would assign a rating of (3) to siting criterion 4(a).

The Minority disagrees with the SEQRA findings of the Majority in that the applicant did not answer the question of reasonable alternative sites to this location for hazardous waste treatment, storage and final disposal. While the applicant currently operates three hazardous waste landfills, that are as large or larger than this proposed site, no evidence was presented to show that either or all of these sites could not handle the waste materials expected to come to the proposed site. The question of whether rail, water or air transportation could be utilized at these other sites was not offered for discussion. Alternatives to landfilling were not adequately presented for study. These items should have been adjudicated.

The minority opinion is that this site is NOT APPROPRIATE for a hazardous waste disposal facility because of the following:

  1. The density of residential and non-residential population neighboring the site and transportation route.
  2. The construction and operation of this facility will not be in the best interest of the residents of Lewiston or Porter.
  3. The scoring of the Criteria exceeds 200.

_____________/s/_____________
ERWIN K. FARBER
Member of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
PHILIP FRANDINA
Member of the Siting Board

_____________/s/_____________
PETER DIACHUN
Member of the Siting Board

December 10, 1993

State of New York
Industrial Hazardous Waste Siting Board
Certificate of Environmental Safety and Public Necessity

The Industrial Hazardous Waste Siting Board ("the siting board") issues this certificate to:

CWM Chemical Services, Inc. ("CWM") in respect to Residuals Management Unit No. 1 ("RMU-1") identified by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") Project No. 9-2934-00022/00036-0 and approved in the Board's Decision dated December 10, 1993.

Description of the Project

The proposed RMU-1 project is located at 1550 Balmer Road, Model City, in the Towns of Porter and Lewiston, Niagara County.

The project is a 47.1-acre landfill for 2.8 million cubic yards of solid/hazardous waste. As proposed, it will include a double composite bottom liner; two leachate collection systems; a leachate lift station; air, surface water and groundwater monitoring; a stormwater retention basin, with ditching; soil/gravel stockpiles; and compensatory wetlands and flood water storage. Varying amounts of settled stormwater will be batched and discharged to a ditch on Twelve Mile Creek. Air emissions will be vented at the lift station and leachate manways. A 7.1-acre federally regulated wetland will be filled. Waste transporters will reach the site by means of N.Y. Route 104, N.Y. Route 18, and then Balmer Road for a distance of 2.25 miles.

The siting board has conditioned approval of this project upon inclusion of an additional special condition in the project's DEC permits. The text of this condition, which regulates transportation of wastes, is attached to the siting board's decision in this matter.

This Certificate enables CWM to locate the project at its Model City site as approved and to proceed to construction of the project, but only if the DEC issues the necessary permits under the Environmental Conservation Law and then only consistent with the conditions of such permits. Upon the issuance of such permits, this Certificate shall merge therewith and become part thereof, enforceable as such, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 361.6(a)(4).

INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
SITING BOARD
Thomas C. Jorling, Chair
____________/s/____________
By: Peter Bush, Designee

Date Issued: December 10, 1993

Amendment to CWM Transportation Condition

All trucks transporting, in bulk, blended fuels, PCB contaminated oils, or liquid or solid materials which present a risk of vapor release or fuming will be scheduled to arrive or depart the facility between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. CWM Chemical Services, Inc. ("CWM") will obtain a copy of the Lew-Port School "event" calendar and attempt to schedule shipments of the aforesaid materials so as to avoid events that are expected to be heavily attended.

No trucks carrying hazardous waste will be scheduled for arrival or departure between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 2:15 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. on days when the Lewiston-Porter School complex is in session.

Trucks carrying hazardous wastes to the facility and arriving via I-190 shall use the existing designated route. Trucks carrying hazardous wastes to the facility arriving from the eastern part of Niagara County shall use the designated state highways to Balmer Road. CWM will designate an alternative inbound route for trucks arriving via I-190 if adequate traffic safety devices (signals) are installed at the cloverleaf off ramp left hand turn onto Rt. 104 East.

CWM shall explicitly incorporate the above requirements in all authorizations that are granted to transporters who list the Model City facility site at 1550 Balmer Road in the Towns of Porter and Lewiston, Niagara County, on their New York State Part 364 hazardous waste transporter permits.

It is intended that the above requirements as they apply to all transporters (including those operating under the control of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. or any other corporate affiliate of CWM) be enforced by CWM as provided for in the CWM Model City Transportation Rules and Regulations, as amended by the Site Operations Plan (Appendix 1 of the CAC Agreement dated July 21, 1993). CWM's failure to explicitly incorporate the conditions referenced above in signing a transporter's Part 364 permit form or its failure to enforce those conditions as provided for in the CWM Model City Transporter Rules and Regulations, as amended by the Site Operations Plan, shall constitute a violation of its Part 373 Permit to operate RMU-1, and hence a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"). It is, however, recognized that the CWM Model City Transporter Rules and Regulations allow a measure of discretion to CWM in determining the sanctions to be imposed on any transporter.

CWM has represented that it currently does not either own or operate any hazardous waste transport vehicles. In the event that CWM owns or operates such vehicles at any future time, a failure of these vehicles to comply with any of the above conditions shall constitute a violation of CWM's Part 373 permit to operate RMU-1 and hence a violation of the ECL.

It is also recognized that these conditions are almost identical to certain provisions in the CAC Agreement and that the parties to that Agreement intended that the terms of that Agreement may be amended from time to time as the situation warrants and the parties agree. Any changes in the corresponding provisions of the CAC Agreement shall result in an immediate corresponding change in the above-noted conditions. Since the same requirements are contained in the CAC Agreement, it is intended that the parties to the CAC Agreement, particularly the Towns of Lewiston and Porter and the County of Niagara, will be the principal parties responsible for the enforcement of these conditions and the resolution of any disputes concerning the implementation thereof.

9/29/93

SITING CONSIDERATIONS AVERAGE WEIGHTS AND SPECIAL CASE WEIGHT CHANGES
Siting Consideration Facility Type
Average weights Landfill Incinerator Transfer/ Storage Pits/Ponds/Lagoons Treatment
Population Density 10
Population Adjacent to Transport Route 7
Risk of Accident in Transportation 10 +(2-4)
Proximity to Incompatible Structures 3
Utility Lines 1
Municipal Effects 4
Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters 18 -(2-3) +(2-4) -(2-3)
Water Supply Sources 8
Fires and Explosions 11 +(2-4) +(1-3)
Air Quality 12 +(4-6) +(1-2)
Areas of Mineral Exploitation 3 +(1) +(1) -(1) -(1)
Preservation of Endangered, Threatened, and Indigenous Species 6
Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources 4
Open Space, Recreational and Visual Impacts 3 +(1-2) +(1-2) -(1-2) +(1-2) -(1-2)

TOTAL SCORE = 100

SITING EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Siting Consideration Criteria % of Siting Consideration Weight Rating 1, 2 or 3 Siting Criteria Scores Sum of Criteria Score Siting Consideration Weight Siting Consideration Score
Population Density Population within 0.5 miles of the site boundary 70 1 0.7 1.3 10 13
The projected population and the rate of growth for the area within 0.5 miles of the site boundary during the 20 year period following initial site operation 30 2 0.6
Population Adjacent to Transport Route Population for areas within 0.5 miles of anticipated transportation routes 70 3 2.1 3.0 7 21
The projected population and the rate of growth for areas within 0.5 miles of the transport routes during the 20 year period following initial site operation 30 3 .9
Risk of Accident in Transportation Mode of Transportation 10 3 .3 2.3 10 23
Length of transport route 15 2 .3
Accident rate of transport route 20 1 .2
Structures within 0.5 miles of the transportation route 10 3 .3
Transportation restrictions 15 2 .3
Nature and volume of waste being transported 30 3 .9
Proximity to Incompatible Structures Proximity to airports 50 1 .5 1.5 3 4.5
Proximity to other incompatible structures 50 2 1
Utility Lines Proximity to major utility lines 100 2 2 2 1 2
Municipal Effects Consistency with the intent of master land use plan 10 2 .2 1.1 4 4.4
Consistency with local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations 10 1 .1
Public expense/revenue tradeoffs 80 1 .8
Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters Ground and surface water aspects 40 3 1.2 2.0 18 36.0
Runoff 20 2 .4
Hydrogeological characteristics 40 1 .4
Water Supply Sources Relationship to water supply sources 100 2 2 2 8 16
Fire and Explosions Minimum distance 50 1 .5 1.5 adjusted down to 9 13.5
Fire Department and emergency medical services 20 2 .4
Proximity to fire department and fire fighting water supply. A suitable water supply shall be as recommended by the NYS Department of State Office of Fire Prevention & Control 30 2 .6
Air Quality Atmospheric stability 20 2 .4 2.5 12 30
Prevailing wind direction 50 3 1.5
Wind speed 30 2 .6
Areas of Mineral Exploitation Risk of subsidence 100 1 1.0 1.0 3 3.0
Preservation of Endangered, Threatened and Indigenous Species Developmental and operational impacts on endangered, threatened and indigenous species or critical habitat 100 1 1.0 1.0 6 6.0
Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources Proximity to historical or cultural resources 100 1 1.0 1.0 4 4.0
Open Space, Recreational and Visual Impacts Proximity to open space and recreational resources 50 1 .5 1.2 3 adjusted up to 5 6.0
Relationship to scenic views or vistas 30 1 .3
Degree to which proposed facilities are readily noticeable to passersby 20 2 .4

SCORE TOTAL 182.4

SITING EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Siting Consideration Criteria % of Siting Consideration Weight Rating 1, 2 or 3 Siting Criteria Scores Sum of Criteria Score Siting Consideration Weight Siting Consideration Score
Population Density Population within 0.5 miles of the site boundary 70 3 2.1 3.0 10 30
The projected population and the rate of growth for the area within 0.5 miles of the site boundary during the 20 year period following initial site operation 30 3 .9
Population Adjacent to Transport Route Population for areas within 0.5 miles of anticipated transportation routes 70 3 2.1 3.0 7 21.0
The projected population and the rate of growth for areas within 0.5 miles of the transport routes during the 20 year period following initial site operation 30 3 .9
Risk of Accident in Transportation Mode of Transportation 10 3 .3 2.3 10 23.0
Length of transport route 15 2 .3
Accident rate of transport route 20 1 .2
Structures within 0.5 miles of the transportation route 10 3 .3
Transportation restrictions 15 2 .3
Nature and volume of waste being transported 30 3 .9
Proximity to Incompatible Structures Proximity to airports 50 1 .5 2.0 3 6.0
Proximity to other incompatible structures 50 3 1.5
Utility Lines Proximity to major utility lines 100 2 2 2.0 1 2.0
Municipal Effects Consistency with the intent of master land use plan 10 2 .2 1.1 4 4.4
Consistency with local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations 10 1 .1
Public expense/revenue tradeoffs 80 1 .8
Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters Ground and surface water aspects 40 3 1.2 2.0 18 36.0
Runoff 20 2 .4
Hydrogeological characteristics 40 1 .4
Water Supply Sources Relationship to water supply sources 100 2 2 2.0 8 16.0
Fire and Explosions Minimum distance 50 1 .5 1.5 9 13.5
Fire Department and emergency medical services 20 2 .4
Proximity to fire department and fire fighting water supply. A suitable water supply shall be as recommended by the NYS Department of State Office of Fire Prevention & Control 30 2 .6
Air Quality Atmospheric stability 20 2 .4 2.5 12 30
Prevailing wind direction 50 3 1.5
Wind speed 30 2 .6
Areas of Mineral Exploitation Risk of subsidence 100 1 1 1 3 3.0
Preservation of Endangered, Threatened and Indigenous Species Developmental and operational impacts on endangered, threatened and indigenous species or critical habitat 100 1 1 1 6 6.0
Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources Proximity to historical or cultural resources 100 1 1 1 4 4.0
Open Space, Recreational and Visual Impacts Proximity to open space and recreational resources 50 1 .5 1.2 5 6.0
Relationship to scenic views or vistas 30 1 .3
Degree to which proposed facilities are readily noticeable to passersby 20 2 .4

SITING BOARD SCORE 200.9