Solid Waste and Ontario County Landfill
Article originally published in the Finger Lakes
Times, January 18, 2009
Casella Project is Too Risky
Citizens and taxpayers throughout Ontario County and people living in the greater Seneca and Canandaigua Lake watersheds have a very serious issue to consider. This issue involves Ontario County’s consideration of Casella Waste Management’s proposal to not only site a pilot solid waste gasification plant at the Flint landfill, but get the taxpayers of the County to help pay for their research and development. There are a number of reasons why this project must be reconsidered not the least of which is the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has lost its objectivity in dealing with the developer but also because a thorough risk analysis has not been conducted.
Here is the story... Casella has a lease agreement to manage the Flint landfill which is owned by the County. In addition, to making lease payments, Casella agreed to construct a leachate line from the landfill to the City of Geneva’s Wastewater Treatment Plant, build a hydroponics greenhouse, and install a water line. Casella has done none of these things within the time frame allowed. A contingency in the lease agreement says that if it did not complete these projects by December 31, 2008, it would pay the County $2.55 million. Recently, Casella succeeded in getting a 3-month extension passed at the December 18th, 2008 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On January 7th, the Solid Waste Committee of the BOS, by a vote of 4-1, supported a recommendation to allow Casella to take ~$800,000 reserved for the greenhouse and water line and use it instead for their pilot solid waste gasification plant.
Based on my understanding, the risk factors of County involvement in this venture have not been properly assessed. Here is why:
1) The County appointed itself the Lead Agency for conducting the environmental review process and then accepted an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) that relies essentially on Casella’s submissions rather than an independent analysis of their claims. The conclusion of “no significant adverse impacts” from the proposed “Zero Point Technology” is based on sales literature not scientific facts or data. The first step that reduces risk in any new technology project should be the development of an objective fact set. This creates the point of departure for effective analysis of the other aspects of a complex project.
2) The proposed technology, a variant of a WWII pyrolysis process, is considered to be a form of incineration by the Environmental Protection Agency. Actually, in its current form, the system is a collection of subsystems that have not yet been successfully integrated or tested together. This leaves residents largely unprotected from undefined and unquantified emissions from the a system that has no track record.
3) The risk profile of the County and its taxpayers is not compatible with the risk profile of Casella’s project. Counties spend money on vehicles and basic infrastructure (such as pipes, water systems, and roads) – their core services. That is entirely appropriate because these are proven technologies. Contributions toward any research projects on unproven technologies that depend on volatile commodity markets are far outside the collective risk tolerance of County taxpayers.
4) A measure of the County’s true collective risk tolerance is how it manages its contingency funds and operational reserves. These reserve accounts are a combination of checking accounts, money market funds and bonds - all safe financial instruments with a virtual guarantee of return of principal when needed plus modest interest. A contribution to the Casella project far surpasses this risk level. In order for the County to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers, it must stay within this lower risk tolerance level in all its operations, not only the landfill.
Finally, if risk is to be fully appreciated then the BOS needs to consider one more thing: business and public health. Sometimes, on a hot day in the summer, residents and tourists and crops are within the deposition range of the landfill. What if, in addition to smells, undefined and unquantified chemical emissions are sprinkled on residents and the land? By not providing thorough due diligence, the BOS is asking residents to gamble with our future as well as approve a misallocation of County resources.
Robert K. Camera is a Hobart 1972 graduate and has a Masters Degree from the University of Pennsylvania in Energy Management and Policy.
Casella Project is Too Risky
Citizens and taxpayers throughout Ontario County and people living in the greater Seneca and Canandaigua Lake watersheds have a very serious issue to consider. This issue involves Ontario County’s consideration of Casella Waste Management’s proposal to not only site a pilot solid waste gasification plant at the Flint landfill, but get the taxpayers of the County to help pay for their research and development. There are a number of reasons why this project must be reconsidered not the least of which is the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has lost its objectivity in dealing with the developer but also because a thorough risk analysis has not been conducted.
Here is the story... Casella has a lease agreement to manage the Flint landfill which is owned by the County. In addition, to making lease payments, Casella agreed to construct a leachate line from the landfill to the City of Geneva’s Wastewater Treatment Plant, build a hydroponics greenhouse, and install a water line. Casella has done none of these things within the time frame allowed. A contingency in the lease agreement says that if it did not complete these projects by December 31, 2008, it would pay the County $2.55 million. Recently, Casella succeeded in getting a 3-month extension passed at the December 18th, 2008 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On January 7th, the Solid Waste Committee of the BOS, by a vote of 4-1, supported a recommendation to allow Casella to take ~$800,000 reserved for the greenhouse and water line and use it instead for their pilot solid waste gasification plant.
Based on my understanding, the risk factors of County involvement in this venture have not been properly assessed. Here is why:
1) The County appointed itself the Lead Agency for conducting the environmental review process and then accepted an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) that relies essentially on Casella’s submissions rather than an independent analysis of their claims. The conclusion of “no significant adverse impacts” from the proposed “Zero Point Technology” is based on sales literature not scientific facts or data. The first step that reduces risk in any new technology project should be the development of an objective fact set. This creates the point of departure for effective analysis of the other aspects of a complex project.
2) The proposed technology, a variant of a WWII pyrolysis process, is considered to be a form of incineration by the Environmental Protection Agency. Actually, in its current form, the system is a collection of subsystems that have not yet been successfully integrated or tested together. This leaves residents largely unprotected from undefined and unquantified emissions from the a system that has no track record.
3) The risk profile of the County and its taxpayers is not compatible with the risk profile of Casella’s project. Counties spend money on vehicles and basic infrastructure (such as pipes, water systems, and roads) – their core services. That is entirely appropriate because these are proven technologies. Contributions toward any research projects on unproven technologies that depend on volatile commodity markets are far outside the collective risk tolerance of County taxpayers.
4) A measure of the County’s true collective risk tolerance is how it manages its contingency funds and operational reserves. These reserve accounts are a combination of checking accounts, money market funds and bonds - all safe financial instruments with a virtual guarantee of return of principal when needed plus modest interest. A contribution to the Casella project far surpasses this risk level. In order for the County to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers, it must stay within this lower risk tolerance level in all its operations, not only the landfill.
Finally, if risk is to be fully appreciated then the BOS needs to consider one more thing: business and public health. Sometimes, on a hot day in the summer, residents and tourists and crops are within the deposition range of the landfill. What if, in addition to smells, undefined and unquantified chemical emissions are sprinkled on residents and the land? By not providing thorough due diligence, the BOS is asking residents to gamble with our future as well as approve a misallocation of County resources.
Robert K. Camera is a Hobart 1972 graduate and has a Masters Degree from the University of Pennsylvania in Energy Management and Policy.