You are on page 1of 944

APPENDIX K

PUBLIC COMMENTS (ON CD W/EXCEPTION OF INDEX
OF PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS)
Index of Public Comment Letters

Public Comment Letters (2016)

Public Comment Letters (2017)

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
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
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
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
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
Public Comment Letters (2016)
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Susan Miron <SMiron@cdbegin.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:35 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Fw:

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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 
 
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
1130 North Westcott Road
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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. 
Schenectady, NY 12303 
(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.
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: brbr0073@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:14 AM
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov.
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.
against Landfill SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE PEOPLE

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Brian Garland <bg@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:37 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Cole Zapp <colezapp@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:12 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: David Buckley <dbuckley4@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:01 AM
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Jim Murdico <jmurdico@randq.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:31 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: RE: Colonie Landfill Permit Application

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

To: NYS DEC - Region 4 Office
Attn: Angelo Marcuccio, Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

From: James Murdico & Joanne Tedesco
78 Mallards Landing South
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Jamie Knightes <jamieknightes@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:31 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Christina Jason Treffiletti <cjtreffiletti@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:17 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: CLOSE THE LANDFILL

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Gmail <jszemansco@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:19 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: lisa lisa <easterlylisa@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:26 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lisa lisa
Subject: Proposed Expansion of Town 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.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Rick Feiden <rickfeiden@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:00 AM
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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: tagreen@nycap.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:53 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
John T. McDonald III
Legislative Office Building
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
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-6542 or 518-431-4070
www.schumer.senate.gov/

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
The United States Senate
478 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-4451 or 518-431-0120
www.gillibrand.senate.gov
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tim D <timmiked@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 5:50 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tony <notopt@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:48 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill expansion proposal

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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 
56 Mallards Landing South 
Waterford NY 12188 

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Anne Miller <annemlmiller@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 6:55 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.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:50 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Permit

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Betty <bhartley@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:31 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: 9 County coalition study summary on landfill situation in Capital District.
Attachments: AlbanY_SWMA_FinalReport.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Don Porter <dondporter@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 2:44 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: sleden@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 5:12 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Linda Milligan <jklmill26@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 6:18 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Plan to Expand Colonie Town Landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Lisa Campo <ljcampo@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:51 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Town Landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Lois Porter <lois.s.porter@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:54 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Land Fill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Pat Quinn-Pickett <patqp@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 10:17 AM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
 
Attached is a letter  to the DEC in opposition to the Colonie Landfill Expansion. 
 
    Pat Quinn‐Pickett 
    46 Mallards Landing South 
    Waterford, NY 12188 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                               46 Mallards Landing South 
                                                                                                                                                Waterford, New York  12188 
                                                                                                                                                October 28, 2016 
 
 
Mr. Angelo Marcuccio 
NYSDEC, Region 4 Office  
Division of Environmental Permits 
1130 North Westcott Road 
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
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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 shut- down 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
B&L/Gerhardt -2- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt -3- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.”

B&L/Gerhardt -4- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
B&L/Gerhardt -5- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt -6- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt -7- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt -8- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.
B&L/Gerhardt -9- October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 11 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 12 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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”.

B&L/Gerhardt - 13 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 14 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
B&L/Gerhardt - 15 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 16 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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%.

B&L/Gerhardt - 18 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 19 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 20 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 21 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 22 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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:
a. $35,000,000 capital cost.
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:
a. $160,000,000 capital cost.
b. Potential tip fee of $93 per ton of processible waste.

B&L/Gerhardt - 23 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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:
a. $545,000,000 capital cost.
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:
a. $40,000,000 capital cost.
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:
a. $45,000,000 capital cost.
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

B&L/Gerhardt - 24 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 25 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 26 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 27 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 28 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 29 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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);

B&L/Gerhardt - 30 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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).

B&L/Gerhardt - 31 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 32 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 33 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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 clean- up 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. “

B&L/Gerhardt - 34 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 35 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 36 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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

B&L/Gerhardt - 37 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 38 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 39 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 40 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 41 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 42 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 43 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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:

B&L/Gerhardt - 44 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

* 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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 45 - October 2011
Final Report Albany County Regional Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt - 46 - October 2011
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
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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).

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-2 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-3 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

7. No “service availability” fee.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-4 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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].

5. Annual operating budget of $22,000,000.

6. County subsidy of $3-$6 million per year.

7. No “service availability” fee.

8. Flow control enabling authorization, but not enacted by county.

9. Eminent domain authorized.

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.]

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-5 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

9. Eminent domain authorized.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-6 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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].

5. Annual operating budget of $11,045,014.

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.

7. No “service availability” fee.

8. Flow control enabling authorization.

9. Eminent domain authorized.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-7 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

7. No “service availability” fee.

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].

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-8 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

7. No “service availability” fee.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-9 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-10 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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].

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-11 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

5. Annual operating budget of $22,000,000.

6. No subsidy.

7. No “service availability” fee.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-12 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

5. Annual operating budget of $13,553,302.

6. County subsidy of $ 1,400,000 for 2010.

7. No “service availability” fee.

8. Flow control enabling authorization.

9. Eminent domain authorized.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-13 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

7. No “service availability” fee.

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix A-14 October 2011
Appendix B

Larger Solid Waste Management and
Recycling Facilities in the Study Area
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
TPY Totals => 151,829
* Privately operated.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix B-1 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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]
TPY Totals => 91,843

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix B-2 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix B-3 October 2011
Appendix C

Solid Waste Management Facility Development Process
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix C-3 October 2011
Final Report Albany County Region Solid Waste Authority Feasibility Study

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.

B&L/Gerhardt Appendix C-4 October 2011
Appendix D

NYSDEC Region 4 Comments on Preliminary Draft of Report
Appendix E

Comments on Public Review Draft
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: terry morgante <terrymorgante@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 7:59 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Carol Sheffer <shefferelli@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 2:27 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Opposition to Landfill Expansion
Attachments: Opposition to Landfill Letter.docx

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Schenectady, NY 12306
Email: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

Attn: Angelo Marcuccio

Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition
& Adjudicatory Hearing Request

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: daria wolf <dwolf1001@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 10:50 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Don Allard <don.c.allard@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 2:42 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPOSAL - COMMENTS

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Frank Murray <fmurray10@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 9:23 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: dec.sm.ENB
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:31 AM
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]  
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 9:33 AM 
To: dec.sm.ENB <ENB@dec.ny.gov> 
Subject: 4‐0126‐00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application 
 
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
ENB Region 4 Notice: 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Gail Monast <gmonast@realtyusa.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:11 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Land fill Colonie ny

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Wolf, George D - ALBANY NY <g_wolf@ml.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 11:13 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Joe Edmund <jedmund17@outlook.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:53 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Opposition to the Colonie landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Laurie Morse <realist8cp@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:03 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Dawn - Dominic <jtf00@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 8:35 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application
Attachments: Landfill.JPG

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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

Waterford, New York 12188

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Doris and Warren Stout <dwstout1@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 3:40 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Permit Application
Attachments: DEC letter re Colonie Landfill 10-30-16.docx

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: John Kenney <edwinajohn70@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 2:31 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Application for the Colonie Landfill expansion.

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: louise.golub@gmail.com on behalf of Louise Golub <louise@golubcpa.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:26 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.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Nancy Mallory <nancywhitefeather@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 1:44 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition and Adjudicatory Hearing
Request
Attachments: 100_0566.jpg; 100_0691.jpg; IMG_1122.JPG

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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

70 Mallards Landing South
Waterford, NY 12188
518-237-5951

2
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tina Lieberman <allgreencalendar@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:51 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing requested for 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: atmckane1@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 5:54 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Proposed Colonie Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Anne Sage <anne.sage@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:06 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Application

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.

Angelo Marcuccio
NYS DEC Region 4
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady NY 12306

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: BERNARD DESROCHES <bernyd@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:38 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: hearing

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.

Pease let us have an adjudicatory hearing before any decisions are
made.
Bernard Desroches

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Daniel Sheffer <dsheffer46@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:13 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application - Resident Opposition Opinion
Attachments: Opposition Letter to DEC copy.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Schenectady, NY 12306
Email: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

Attn: Angelo Marcuccio

Subject: 2016 Colonie Landfill Expansion Application Opposition
& Adjudicatory Hearing Request

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

Cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor
Email: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: David Galdun <dgaldun@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:06 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Deborah A Hartman-Symanski <dsymanski@realtyusa.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:32 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.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Baker, Diane M (OGS)
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:39 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Don <dbaker6@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 4:08 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Howe, Don (ITS)
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:20 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us
Subject: Request an adjudicatory hearing to review this Colonie Landfill Expansion Application
Attachments: DSC00083.JPG; Opposition Letter to DEC.doc; DSC00080.JPG

To whom it may concern, 
 
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

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.

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
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.state.ny.us

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/senator/kathleen-marchione

New York State Assembly District 108
John T. McDonald III
Legislative Office Building
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
313 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-6542 or 518-431-4070
www.schumer.senate.gov/

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
The United States Senate
531 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-4451 or 518-431-0120
www.gillibrand.senate.gov
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Edith Tull <etull_219@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 2:08 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Extension of Colonie town landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

To Whom It May Concern,
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: dec.sm.ENB
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:31 AM
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]  
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 9:33 AM 
To: dec.sm.ENB <ENB@dec.ny.gov> 
Subject: 4‐0126‐00033/00001 (Solid Waste Management) Permit application 
 
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
ENB Region 4 Notice: 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: fhartley@nycap.rr.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:11 AM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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.
Schenectady, NY 12306

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.

Reason to Deny the Application:
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

Reason to Deny the Application:

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.

Reason to Deny the Application:

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.

Reason to Deny the Application:

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.”

Reason to Deny the Application:

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.”

Reason to Deny the Application:
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.

Reason to Deny the Application:
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.
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: gmonast@realtyusa.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 5:15 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: opposition of landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: George Bigaouette <geojbig@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:28 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
October 31, 2016

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

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

Cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Kathleen A. Marchiione
John T. McDonald
Congressman Paul Tonko
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand.

3
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Jeffrey Wilson <jeffreywlsn@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:17 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.

To whom it may concern,

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Jhdrake40 <jhdrake40@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 5:50 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: TPC landfill expansion concern

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

I demand that the Town hold a adjudicatory hearing ASAP!

Enough is enough!

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: joehetko@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:09 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: comment on Colonie Landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: John Lawler <lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:20 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
Thanks Frank 
 
From: fhartley@nycap.rr.com [mailto:fhartley@nycap.rr.com]  
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:11 AM 
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.  
  
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Marcia Fazio <marciaf720@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:06 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Rd
Schenectady, NY 12306

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: mariejohnson@realtyusa.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:48 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion Opposition

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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.
____________________

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Mark Quandt <MarkQ@regionalfoodbank.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 4:19 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Comments
Attachments: SCAN005.PDF

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Rd.
Schenectady, NY 12306

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: patrick quinn <profquinn13@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:38 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town 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.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Paula Weiss <paulabweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:23 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comment on Colonie Landfill proposed expansion
Attachments: comment to DEC on Colonie Landfill Expansion.docx

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Phil Silverman <psilverman7801@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:10 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: OPPOSED TO COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: robert.schlieman <robert.schlieman@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:41 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: Robert Schlieman
Subject: Colonie Landfill Enlargement

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Ronnie Senez <readnwrite53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 5:54 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us;
marchione@nysenate.gov; McDonaldJ@nyassembly.gov; schumer@senate.gov;
wwwgillibrand.senate.gov@realtyusa.com
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application – Resident Opposition Opinion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.

October 30, 2016

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

Dear Mr. Marcuccio,

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 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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: rosanne van heertum <romovan1@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:04 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Proposal

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: susan@islandbeachhouserental.com on behalf of Susan Weber <sweber2
@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:43 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Town of Colonie/Waste Connections Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Susanna Crump <suecrump@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:17 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Town Dump Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tamara Baker <TamaraBaker85@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:06 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

I am writing to state my opposition for the expansion of the colonie landfill.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: tlittle@realtyusa.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:42 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us;
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.

October 31, 2016

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
E: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

RE: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Application – Resident Opposition Opinion

Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

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.
1
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
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,

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

Cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Kathleen A. Marchiione
John T. McDonald
Congressman Paul Tonko
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand.
2
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

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.
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Brad <bradanthony7@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:32 AM
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.

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.

Sent from my iPhone

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Carl Murray <carlsolarguy@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:24 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Cathy Knightes <cathyknightes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 6:28 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Marcia Kees <mkees20@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:10 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: OPPOSED TO COLONIE LANDFILL EXPANSION

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Rick & Crystal Bruno <rickncrystal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:29 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: 5185732555@vzwpix.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:37 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Linda Knightes <knightes.linda@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:02 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
We are requesting an adjudicatory hearing and we oppose the expansion of the Colonie Landfill.

Dan & Linda Knightes
Rotterdam, NY

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: David Engel <DEngel@nolanandheller.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:16 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Erin Doran <edoran@riverkeeper.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:30 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development Comments
Attachments: 2016_11_01 Colonie Landfill Expansion Comments.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: george harris <geowhjr@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:13 PM
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
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (DEIS) - Comments
Attachments: FinalDEIS Comments CHHD.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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. 
  
Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications. 
  
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns. 
 
George W. Harris 
Church Hill Historic District 
66 Church Hill Road 
Waterford, New York 12188 

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(
Waterford, New York 12188
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
SUMMARY DEIS Issues/Comments
Backup documentation/substantiation is provided in 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.

Reasons to deny the Application;

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
SUMMARY DEIS Issues/Comments
Backup documentation/substantiation is provided in Section II

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.

Reasons to deny the Application;

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
SUMMARY DEIS Issues/Comments
Backup documentation/substantiation is provided in 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.

Reasons to deny the Application;

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
SUMMARY DEIS Issues/Comments
Backup documentation/substantiation is provided in Section II

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 Backup Documentation/Substantiation
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 Backup Documentation/Substantiation
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 Backup Documentation/Substantiation
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.

Reasons to deny the Application;

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 Backup Documentation/Substantiation

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.

4.5.2.2 General Chemistry

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.

4.5.3.2 General Chemistry

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.

4.5.4.2 General Chemistry

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

I

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

I

I

I COvrS
rc
dRs t) sEE FtGURg 3-l FOR

Pgsss s,
44"
eru
REFEREI{CES

I

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
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov

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
Campus Recyclables cubic yard 70 7
Commingled Recyclables cubic yard 67 4
Commercial Recyclables cubic yard 113 8
Containers (Cans, Plastic) - No glass
Campus Recyclables cubic yard 32 7
Containers (Cans, Plastic) and Paper - No glass
Residential Recyclables cubic yard 260 2
Containers (Food/beverage, Glass) Corrugated Containers and Paper
Commercial Recyclables cubic yard 88 2
Commercial Recyclables cubic yard 58 21
Multifamily Recyclables cubic yard 96 2
Multifamily Recyclables cubic yard 51 21

2

Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Category Recyclable Materials Volume Weight (lbs) Source
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
Commercial Recyclables cubic yard 155 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
Category Recyclable Materials Volume Weight (lbs) Source
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
Baled cubic yard 750-1,000 10
Books - paperback, loose cubic yard 428 23
Old Corrugated Containers
Flattened cubic yard 106 4
Baled cubic yard 700-1,100 10
Old Corrugated Containers and Chip Board
Uncompacted cubic yard 74.54 4
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Loose cubic yard 375-465 1
Compacted/Baled cubic yard 755-925 1
Mixed
Loose cubic yard 110-380 1
Loose cubic yard 323 4
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
Loose cubic yard 32 7
Mixed Bottles/Containers #1 - #7
Loose cubic yard 40.4 4
Mixed Bottles/Containers #3 - #7

4
Attachment 5a-1
Estimated
Category Recyclable Materials Volume Weight (lbs) Source
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
Loose cubic yard 125-175 10
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
Category Recyclable Materials Volume Weight (lbs) Source
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Harry Kornblau <harrykornblau@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 7:03 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: sweber2@nycap.rr.com; tnichols@nycap.rr.com
Subject: RE: 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.
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: JAMES BOLD <abold2@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:44 PM
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
STATEMENT (DEIS) - Comments

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:13 PM
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. 
 
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. 
  
Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications. 
  
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns. 
 
George W. Harris 
Church Hill Historic District 
66 Church Hill Road 
Waterford, New York 12188 
1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Janet Levine <syncodestiny@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:18 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us;
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
November 1, 2016

Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
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 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 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 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.

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
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
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,

Janet L Levine
58 Mallards Landing South
Waterford, NY 12188

Cc: Mr. John Lawler, Supervisor
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Kathleen A. Marchiione
John T. McDonald
Congressman Paul Tonko
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
2
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: joanne mack <joannemack56@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:55 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie NY Landfill Opposition

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: joanne mack <joannemack56@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:55 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie NY Landfill Opposition

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Karin Kennett White <kmkennett@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:20 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comments to the Proposed Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
Attachments: doc20161101073440.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: ktollisen <ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:46 PM
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
Subject: Re: Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (DEIS) - Comments

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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. 
 
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. 
1
  
Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications. 
  
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns. 
 
George W. Harris 
Church Hill Historic District 
66 Church Hill Road 
Waterford, New York 12188 

2
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: K Tollisen <ktollisen@cbtlawfirm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:38 PM
To: David Engel; dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: ktollisen@townofhalfmoon.org; lmurphy@townofhalfmoon.org
Subject: RE: Town of Colonie Landfill Proposed Area 7 Development

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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)
To: R4DEP@dec.ny.gov
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Lisa Barron <lisaloudonville@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:49 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Maribeth dooley <mbdooley2@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:13 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonies Ladfill Proposed Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
NYS DEC Region 4 Office
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

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
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Angelo Marcuccio
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Angelo Marcuccio
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Angelo Marcuccio
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Angelo Marcuccio
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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,
MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, LLC

Mark Schachner

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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
File No. 1653 Geotechnical Review of Area 7 Development Application, Colonie Landfill page 3

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.
File No. 1653 Geotechnical Review of Area 7 Development Application, Colonie Landfill page 4

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.

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 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

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 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.

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 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

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 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.

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 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

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 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

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
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).
Mr. Mark Millspaugh, P.E.
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.
Mr. Mark Millspaugh, P.E.
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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 2
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 3
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 4
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 5
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.”

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 6
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
• 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).

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 7
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 8
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 9
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 10
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 11
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 12
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 13
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
• 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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 14
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 15
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 16
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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.

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 17
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
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

Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion Project Page 18
Permit Application Comments – 11/1/16 #2014-38
© 2016, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Martine Male <mmale53@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:24 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Land fill should be stopped now!

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Martine Male <mmale53@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:23 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
Land Fill should never have been sold and now it is going out of control!

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Meg Murad <meg.murad@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:26 AM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Opposition to Expansion of Landfill in Colonie

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Raya Ioffe <raya13@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:26 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
To whom it may concern,
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Ron Moraski <ron.moraski@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:09 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Fwd: Landfill Opposition
Attachments: Landfill Opposition 11_1_2016.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Sheila Kiehle <skiehle@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:37 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Expansion of landfill

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: sleden@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:53 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Cc: lawlerj@town.waterford.ny.us; citizensconcernedaboutlandfill@gmail.com
Subject: Colonie Landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Susan Laurilliard <sklauril@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:39 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Adjudicatory Hearing Colonie Landfill Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Suzanne Maloney <suzannemm10@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:14 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Dump

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Barnard, Sylvia <sbarnard@albany.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:00 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
I'm writing to request an adjudicatory hearing on the expansion of Colonie's landfill. Sylvia Barnard, Professor 
Emerita, UAlbany 

1
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tom Pickett <tpickett@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:19 PM
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
Attached is a letter to the DEC documenting my opposition to the Colonie Landfill Expansion. 
 
    Tom Pickett 
    46 Mallards Landing South 
    Waterford, NY 12188 
 

1
46 Mallards Landing South
Waterford, New York 12188
November 1, 2016
Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
NYSDEC, Region 4 Office
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Tim Truscott <empirestate@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:56 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Public Comment: Colonie Landfill Proposal

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links
from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: timothy nichols <timnichols99@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:56 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Comments - Colonie Landfill
Attachments: decpubcomments.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Rd
Schenectady NY 12306

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: William Lockhart <luckylocky@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 5:21 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie Dump Expansion

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
unexpected emails.
To Whom It May Concern,

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
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

From: Magicviewr@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:56 PM
To: dec.sm.DEP.R4
Subject: Colonie landfill
Attachments: Gentlemen.doc

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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.
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
Public Comment Letters (2017)
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

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 
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
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 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
NYS DEC Region 4 Office
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
Re: Town of Colonie Landfill Expansion
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,
MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, LLC

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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Marcuccio, Andy (DEC)

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)
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.
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
Mr. Angelo Marcuccio
NYSDEC – Div. of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

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.
Church Hill Historic District
66 Church Hill Road
Waterford, New York 12188

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