Time for cooperation to protect our children

[Mary3]

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/niagaracounty/story/566455.html

My letter to the Editor. Current Approved Design has 2.0' of compacted clay, HDPE Geomembrane, Geocoposite, 2.5' of General Soil fill, .5' of topsoil and vegitation. My recommendation is keep the currently approved design AND add the geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) which will not add additonal 160,000 tons of toxic waste but add additional protection.

The proposed design by CWM will allow additional 160,000 tons of toxic waste while keeping their overall topographical size of the RMU-1 landfill keep it's currently permitted limits. It will make the total final cover consist of .5' of general soil fill instead of 2.0', GCL liner, HDPE geomembrane, Geocoposite, only 1.5' of general soil fill instead of 2.5', and .5' of topsoil and vegetation.
The community can not accept the proposed design by CWM, but should demand the GCL liner added to the currently approved design.

DEC could have made this decision since they make the rules for New York State. But, we have a situation now of legal fight between Niagara County and DEC. More taxpayer money being wasted once again not just in legal fees but also in time and effort that could have gone into more constructive use of taxpayer monies!

Judith Mokhiber
Member New York State Advisory Council on Children's Environmental Health and Safety

[Mary3]

http://www.niagara-gazette.com...story_031232753.html (http://www.niagara-gazette.com...story_031232753.html)

Eventhough I sent out the Letter to the editor on January 22, 2009 it ended up in today's paper.

Here is the complete letter I sent out.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM, > >

People in the community have a choice and so does CWM. What is needed is cooperation between our businesses and the community. The community doesn't want any more toxic waste trucks driving near our schools and CWM does have a new proposal for 21st century solution for securing the toxic waste with a liner which has several engineers' approval. Many states already require such lining on all landfills.

Here is the compromise that I suggest for the NYS DEC and the community and CWM to consider. Since the clay cap is required but over time will be
compromised, DEC should keep the current clay cap requirement AND have the new liner.

DEC has an obligation and mandate to protect the community and the
environment, especially our children who are more vulnerable to toxins than adults with more mature immune system. DEC must make the new liner a mandate for all landfills toxic or municipal that exists today for closure.

Again, I see NYS DEC incapable of thinking of the community and safety
first. Many scientists have statistics showing how our children living near
toxic waste landfills around the country and the truck traffic have shown long term health risks.

Why must we constantly have costly legal fight over a simple solution that
requires cooperation with unified understanding of protecting our community and our children? The time and effort by the employees of the NYS DEC, precious time and energy of the community need not be wasted.

It's time for change and new ideas. Let's work together and make our
community safer and not follow the old ways of wasteful procedures. Demand the new liner AND the current clay cap requirement. This will not allow additional toxic waste to be hauled by our schools and have additional security of the 21st century liner for protecting our environment and our children's future.

Please write to NYS DEC by January 30th to Molly T. McBride, Administrative Law Judge, NYS DEC, Office of Hearing and Mediation Services, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233 and a copy to Bidjan Rostami, NYS DEC, 270 Michigan Ave., Buffalo NY 14203. Subject line should be "Permit modification request by CWM on RMU-1". If you want to go further, contact our Governor Patterson at the
website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/556.html (http://webmail.roadrunner.com/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.dec.ny.gov%252 Fabout%252F556.html)

Judith Mokhiber, Member NYS Advisory Council on Children's Environmental
Health and Safety

[Mary3]

First of all, I DO NOT accept the PROPOSED DESIGN MODIFICATION.

I repeat, I DO NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSED DESIGN MODIFICATION.

Why am I venting here? I want to make it perfectly clear where I stand, on the side of our children and make it public.

Will CWM accept my proposal to keep the currently approved design AND add the new GCL liner? We will see. The legal fight is just a waste of time in my view. NYS DEC should work with the governor and make an executive decision to keep the current approved design and ADD the GCL liner also.

Judith Mokhber
Member New York State Advisory Council on Children's Environmental Health and Safety

[Mary3]

Here is the letter I received this AM which was distributed to various people. (My resonse in RED in public and not to "select list" of people to read in their e-mail box, but publically and in fully my thoughts)



CWM will save perhaps millions of dollars on the new cap system according to
> industry papers, so there is no need to swap them more capacity for it.
>
(My response: If the business wants to cut costs, that's not a bad thing, but, if business has a new 21st century solution to old 20th century problem, CWM can ADD the GCL liner to the CURRENTLY APPROVED DESIGN. Constant fighting instead of real talks is desperately needed for us to go forward)>
>
> If this application is denied or defeated in court, CWM will reapply just
> for the redesign to save money.

(My response: Fist of all, why go to the courts when DEC should have made it a mandate for the GCL liner AND keep the current approved design?)
>
> As we would expect of any landfill, EPA has identified problems in this
> system which should be fully evaluated in an EIS before opining to slopes
> and amounts of material above and below the geomembrane. No one is fighting
> the cap design at this juncture, other than to require a full and
> independent assessment from other than CWM paid consultants or institutes
> which WM funds and manages.
(My response: Let's see, we currently have a system approved that has possible problem in the future and the engineers have said the new liner will "secure" it better than just clay cap, if we add BOTH the currently approved clay cap AND the GCL liner, I would think that would be additional protection, just common sense)
>
>
> Many are fighting the extra year of capacity with this application because
> of its negative impact and because it may be a critical bridge to complete
> CWM's RMU-2 application, which is now five years behind schedule.
>
(My resonse: No one wants ADDITIONAL toxic waste to be landfilled, and yes, we know it's negative impact which has been well documented by many scientists. We don't want a new commercial toxic waste landfill (RMU-2).
>
> Why compromise to get a redesign CWM will install, anyway, while helping
> their RMU-2 application?
(My response: First of all, we as citizens are NOT compramising when we demand the currently approved design AND additional protection of the GCL liner, and your assumtion that it will help the possible new landfill RMU-2 is just out of context of this discussion)

[Mary3]

Anyone that tells you the only course was to take legal action is not forward thinker. Maybe its the people involved that needs to change to get results around here in WNY.

[Mary3]

http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/02/08/11/0208billgrph.source.prod_affiliate.50.pdf

6.8 Million dollars in stimulus package for Lewiston Porter?