BillHustonBlog: Notes from "Stop the Stink Trucks" call tonight

Call notes. Please send corrections or additions to WilliamAHuston@gmail.com.
These notes are just for the presentations and not the full Q+A.

Click here if you don't see the embedded player below:
https://archive.org/details/StopTheStinkTrucksConferenceCall7-13-16

MANY THANKS to Rachel, Ron, and everyone for participating!

On the call:

Bill Huston
Rachel Treichler
Joan McKiernan
Chris Burger
Ron Bishop
Fred Sinclair CCAC
Jim Little
Scott Lauffer
James Betley
Betsy Norton
Gerry Wiley
Ron Bishop
Gudrun Scott
... maybe a couple of others....?

Bill Huston's intro comments--

Contamination History--

Everyone knows Love Canal... but how many people realize Endicott is another Superfund site?
IBM corp got it's start in Endicott in 1911
History of contamination due neglect, accidents, and intentional dumping
In 1979 IBM Endicott reported a spill 4,100 gallons of TCE (methyl chloroform) a commonly used VOC solvent used in electronics manufacturing.
A report prepared by IBM indicated that the plume was larger than expected and contained other industrial solvents.
All of these VOCs and industrial solvents seeped into the groundwater.
Dozens of homes were demolished in downtown Endicott and are now a giant parking lot.
Since the discovery of the spill groundwater remediation and monitoring has been in effect and continuous to this day.
Many homes, including the one where I live, have sub-slab ventilation systems installed.
In 2002 IBM found that the VOCs had in fact moved into the air in buildings on and around the spill site and in 2004 Endicott was classified as a class-2 Superfund site. -- "significant threat to public health and/or the environment and requiring action"

EIT

In 2002, IBM transferred ownership to the buildings and assets to Endicott Interconnect, Inc. / Huron Campus, which is owned by a pair of local wealthy families (Maines -- food distribution, Matthews-- auto dealership)
EIT promised to retain jobs, in return for $30M in tax deferments
EIT failed to retain these jobs, and in fact had massive layoffs,
Declared Bankruptcy July 2013 -- > became i3 Electronics

The waste treatment plant

IBM built a waste treatment plant in the 1970s(??) to treat and dispose of their process wastes created during manufacturing.
Very course processes,

organic bio-treatment,
heavy metal removal
pH equalization
dilution

As manufacturing dwindled, the facility processed less wastes.
The site has 2 state-administered Clean Water Act permits, in NY called SPDES
We have heard reports from people that work there, the facility needs to process a minimum volume to keep the facility running.
Managers at EIT hatched a plan to turn the waste treatment facility into a commercial operation to handle imported industrial wastes.
In April 2011 they began a Pilot program under DEC approval under their existing SPDES permit to treat landfill leachate.
As far as we have been able to determine, this was done in secret, there was no public notice, no public hearings, and no environmental review under SEQRA!
In Feb 2013, 2 local citizens with WBESC saw a massive cleanup operation going on. After some investigation, they discovered a valve on a rusty tank broke and dumped the entire contents of raw unprocessed leachate into the storm drains, which dump directly into the Susquehanna River.
They made a FOIL to DEC, and confirmed the Pilot program for leachate processing.

WBESC

WBESC had it's first meeting on this 2-26-14 with DEC officials. The said the permit was up for renewal
Second meeting 5-3-16 to announce the permit was nearly ready.
Videos of these are online.
DEC printed a public notice of the availability of the permit on Friday July 1. "News Dump Day"
DEC DOES NOT provide key documents relating to this permit online, and requires that you FOIL them.
I have posted these docs on my website, but have not received all the docs requested.

Status of the permit

DEC says it does not have the regulatory authority to stop i3 Electronics from turning Endicott into a commerical waste dump.

DEC never denies a permit (if it seems to be filled out correctly).

DEC never performs safety inspections to check the integrity of the tanks or other plant facilities -- which have already leaked 17,000 gal of raw leachate in Feb 2013!

DEC almost never assesses fines for non-compliance.

DEC says there are "no limits" to how much effluent i3 Electronics can dump into the Susquehanna River, as long as it meets "Clean Water Standards" -- BUT NEVER CHECKS!

DEC never performs independent testing of the influent or effluent

ALL reporting is "self-reporting".... It's the HONOR SYSTEM!

DEC does not have staff to check all permitted sites.

DEC says a public hearing is "highly unusual"

Bill's Document Collection is here: TinyURL.com/StopTheStinkTrucks

Rachel Treichler:

CWA -> state administered permit SPDES
NY SEQRA --> permit requires environment review
GOAL: get the state to examine the environmental impact
So far -- DEC has not given this much attention
The don't have staff
DEC @ May 3 meeting: "To get DEC to take action, there must be a lot of concern"
60-70 people at May 3 meeting => GOOD! Public hearing is possible
Rachel introduces Ron Bishop, early activist in Fracking fight going back to meeting in Bath in 2008.
Ron in 2008: "We're all going to have to learn about fracking"
We have to do the same thing with these wastewater treatment systems
NOT just in Endicott, although RO Concentrate is concerning
Other NY landfills taking drilling waste (Hyland, Chemung)
Issuance of a permit or renewal triggers SEQRA
What is the impact on the Susquehanna River
Region-7-- Environment notice bulletin, June 29, proposed renewal and modification (extended under SAPA)
Many SPDES permits are issued for 5 years, then must be renewed.
SAPA says, if applicant files timely renewal, and DEC fails to act, the original permit is deemed continued. --> scandal
Indian Point Nuke plant -> permit extended for 10 years
DEC issued a "negative declaration" under SEQRA. This is an "Unlisted Action", no significant environemtal impacts.
SEQRA: Type-1 => full review, Unlisted => may require review, Type-2 => no review
"Withdrawing Groundwater in excess of 2M gallons per day" may be criteria for type-1
Treatment facility has capacity for 3M gpd. http://www.srbc.net/newsroom/NewsRelease.aspx?NewsReleaseID=81
If we can demonstrate will have environmental impact --> may get EIS
DEC decided "no impact" with little support using a SEQRA short form
DEC filled out the form, which it looks like the Applicant should have!!
Rachel has questions about SEQR assessment form.

3: Total acerage: Not applicable. Why?
4: Adjacent Land Uses: Not applicable. Why?

What are the uses? Is there parkland?

Description: Accurate?
Impact assessment? Lots of questions.
11 questions: Every questions answer is "no" or "small impact".
This is not a genuine assessment.
WE MUST MAKE a more accurate assessment
Determination of Significance. "No significance"
Should be filled out by the applicant. This is filled out by DEC! Not right.

GOAL: turn around the negative declaration
Having a hearing is a possibility (DEC in May)
If Assemblywoman Lupardo is supporting us, good sign.
Seneca Lake example:

Negative Declaration was expected to sail through
900 people came to hearing.
Then issues conference
Years of delay

Must keep organizing! Keep showing actual impacts.
Priority Ranking System: "Environmental Benefit Strategy"

They pick certain permits most in need of review.
Does not say ranking on the form.
However-- DEC website has list.
i3 ranking is "up there". Reasons=> Look at them. Accurate or Not? (2015 list)
"Any interested party may provide at any time substantive comments requesting a change in a permit's rank based on the ground newly discovered material info exists, that a material change in environmental conditions have occurred, or that relevent tech or applicable regs have changed the conditions of the existing permit".

Ron Bishop:

Last point Rachel made is critical. "Substantive change"
Very large change!! 6.8x increase in leachate production in one year!
Endicott is the preferred disposers for the SMI (not new)
crunching data from SMI annual reports. (SEE BELOW for links)
total raw leachate 2014 = 6M gallons 2015 = 40 M gallons! much is coming to endicott
2014: 5M gal to Endicott + 133k of RO Concentrate.
2015: 1M gal raw leachate + 2M RO Concentrate 15x increase!
"Mt Trashmore" dramatic increase in productions
This was NOT how the permit was set up. It was set up as "gallons of leachate"
up to 30k gal .... Now up to 2M gal of 10x Concentrated.
Chemistry of how to treat
Inorganic chemicals / Heavy metals + Salts

Precipitate them out, starting with Lime (carbonates)
Sulfur (Sulfides)
Sent to treatment plant in Canada to reclaim metals
Other salts -- don't precp out well. Diluting soluable salts with other stuff

Only effluent data from i3 was 2013/2014.
This was prior to massive scaleup of RO Concentrate
Tough to find out from DEC, because this is "proprietary info"
Other stuff is biological material

Use a digestor for this, chlorine or other biocide to kill it.
This increases biocides going into the river

Additional NOTES:

SRBC! water withdrawal? Bill checks--

IBM Corporation, Endicott Facility, Village of Endicott, Broome County, N.Y., to modify approval to increase total groundwater system withdrawal by an additional 499,000 gpd for a total of 1.509 million gpd (30-day average) (Docket No. 20090329).
Other facts-- very strange.
SRBC Water Resource Portal lists 12 wells. http://gis.srbc.net/wrp/
All say Facility IBM Corp-Endicott / "Approval Number" 20090329
All sites are at same location??? Approx 42.09785, -76.04916
All sites have 0 Mgal/d avg, 0 Mgal/d peak.

EN185 0/0
EN160 0/0
EN154 (decommissioned 2011)
EN133 0/0
EN120 0/0
EN107 (decommissioned 2011)
EN276 0/0
EN253 (decommissioned 2011)
EN222 0/0
EN218 0/0
EN195 0/0
EN194 0/0

This DOES NOT JIVE with other info: http://www.srbc.net/programs/docs/Projects%20Scheduled%20for%20Action%20at%2003-12-09.PDF

Benefit Program-- 2015 ranking-- reasons?
REVIEW per Rachel
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ebps2015.pdf
"zombie permits" paper mentioned on the call is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150913175531/http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=pelr
Gudrun writes:

I looked up the Code of Rules and Regulations of the State of NY 6RR-NY 617.5 were there are many examples of what constitutes a Type II action which is an action that calls for a negative declaration and no further environmental assessments no leader to conduct the environmental issues.
Here is the lengthy list of actions that are Type II and these are the actions that are declared to not require an environmental impact declaration evaluation and the label will stick to the action:

https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I4ec3a767cd1711dda432a117e6e0f345?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
Read the various conditions that qualify for Type II and there are over 30 different briefly described and here is the case of permit renewal :

(26) license, lease and permit renewals, or transfers of ownership thereof, where there will be no material change in permit conditions or the scope of permitted activities;
In the Endicott case there has been material change in the permit and also a change in scope all pointed out by Ron Bishop and so the situation is NOT Type II and that means not a negative environmental declaration.

I used the same law 6RR-NY 617.5 sentence (26) in the Hyland landfill case because they are using a new material (frack waste) and DEC allowed the increase of 49% more daily wastes in 2016-- DEC also warned that this was another no environmental impct case too.
I found the email of Teresa...http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20160629_reg7.html
Teresa Diehsner
NYSDEC Headquarters
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
(518)402-9167
DEPPermitting@dec.ny.gov