draft - barton & loguidiceold.bartonandloguidice.com/portals/22/assets/ontario county...

Ontario County Landfill Expansion

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

December 2011

Lead Agency:

Ontario County Board of Supervisors 20 Ontario Street

Canandaigua, New York 14424

Lead Agency Contact: Ms. Karen DeMay

Prepared By:

Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Engineers • Environmental Scientists • Planners • Landscape Architects

290 Elwood Davis Road Box 3107

Syracuse, New York 13220

State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement For

Ontario County Landfill EIS Type: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Action: The Ontario County Landfill is proposing to expand their current landfill facility. The project includes an expansion of the existing Phase III landfill and associated support facilities, including soil borrow area. The proposed expansion project will require additional land acquisition to the existing property in support of borrow area operations. The proposed expansion project will be primarily located within the 389 acres currently owned by Ontario County with the exception of soil borrow activities which will require the acquisition of an additional land parcel situated south of the landfill property. An expansion of the existing Phase III landfill is proposed in accordance with the Operations Management Lease (OML) Agreement between Ontario County and site operator Casella. The Stage VIII (Wrap-around) expansion will include the construction of new cells totaling approximately 16.0 acres around the northern and western boundaries of the Phase III landfill. The Stage IX (Eastern) expansion will be located as named, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Phase III landfill, covering approximately 27.5 acres including the area currently approved as a borrow area for soils. Additional site modifications include the relocation or modification of two stormwater ponds, the leachate storage lagoon, Ontario County Landfill’s maintenance facility, and site access roads. Location of Action: Town of Seneca, Ontario County, New York SEQR Lead Agency: Ontario County Contact Person: Ms. Karen DeMay, Ontario County Board of Supervisors Prepared By: Barton & Loguidice, P.C. 290 Elwood Davis Road, Box 3107 Syracuse, New York 13220 DEIS Accepted by SEQRA Lead Agency On: December 22, 2011 DEIS Public Hearing Date and Location: Thursday, January 26, 2012 at Ontario County Court House, 3rd Floor, Sessions Room, Canandaigua, New York DEIS Available for Review: Ontario County Planning Department (20 Ontario Street, Canandaigua, New York), Ontario County libraries, and Ontario County website (http://www.co.ontario.ny.us) Deadline for Submittal of Written Comments on the DEIS: February 21, 2012 Any written comments should be addressed to the Ontario County Board of Supervisors, located at 20 Ontario Street, Canandaigua, New York 14424. The submission of non-anonymous electronic comments may be completed using the website referenced above.

Ontario County Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement

574.119.001/12.11 - iii - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Table of Contents

Summary ...................................................................................................................... S-1 Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................... G-1 1.0 Project Background and Description ....................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Description .................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Existing Facility .............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1.1 Phase I Landfill ....................................................................................... 3 1.2.1.2 Phase II Landfill ...................................................................................... 3 1.2.1.3 Phase III Landfill ..................................................................................... 3 1.2.1.4 Liner System .......................................................................................... 5 1.2.1.5 Leachate Storage, Treatment, and Disposal .......................................... 7 1.2.1.6 Landfill Gas Collection System ............................................................... 8 1.2.1.7 Landfill Gas to Energy Facility ................................................................ 9 1.2.1.8 Recycling Programs and Facilities ....................................................... 10 1.2.1.9 Acceptable Wastes for Disposal and Waste Quantities Received ........ 10 1.2.1.10 Existing Site Capacity and Expected Site Life ...................................... 11

1.2.2 Landfill Master Plan and Future Site Developments .................................... 12 1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................. 12 1.4 State Environmental Quality Review Act Process .............................................. 14 1.5 Project Purpose .................................................................................................. 15 1.6 Public Needs and Benefits.................................................................................. 16 1.7 Consistency with Local and State Solid Waste Management Plans ................... 16 1.8 Regulatory Reviews and Approvals for Landfill Expansion ................................. 17

2.0 Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 19 2.1 General Project Description ................................................................................ 19 2.2 Definition of Service Area, Waste, and Site ........................................................ 20

2.2.1 Service Area ................................................................................................ 20 2.2.2 Types and Quantities of Waste ................................................................... 21 2.2.3 Site Location ................................................................................................ 22 2.2.4 Horizontal and Vertical Setbacks ................................................................. 22 2.2.5 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination ................................. 22

2.3 Property Ownership and Control ........................................................................ 23 2.4 Project Design .................................................................................................... 23

2.4.1 Conceptual Nature of Proposed Facility Design and Layout ....................... 24 2.4.1.1 Stage VIII (Wrap Around) Expansion ................................................... 24 2.4.1.2 Stage IX (Eastern) Expansion .............................................................. 25

2.4.2 Liner System ............................................................................................... 26 2.4.3 Leachate Storage, Treatment, and Disposal ............................................... 28 2.4.4 Landfill Gas Collection System .................................................................... 30 2.4.5 Landfill Gas to Energy Facility ..................................................................... 31 2.4.6 Site Capacity and Expected Site Life .......................................................... 32

2.5 Landfill Construction ........................................................................................... 32 2.5.1 Landfill Development ................................................................................... 32 2.5.2 Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) ............................................. 32 2.5.3 Soil Management ........................................................................................ 34


574.119.001/12.11 - iv - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

2.5.4 Noise Control ............................................................................................... 35 2.6 Landfill Operation ............................................................................................... 36

2.6.1 Hours of Operation and Site Access ........................................................... 36 2.6.2 Waste Inspections ....................................................................................... 36 2.6.3 Waste Placement ........................................................................................ 37 2.6.4 Landfill Operation Equipment and Personnel .............................................. 38 2.6.5 Site Contingencies and Controls ................................................................. 39

2.6.5.1 Contingency Plan ................................................................................. 39 2.6.5.2 Liner System Performance Monitoring ................................................. 39 2.6.5.3 Odor Control ......................................................................................... 41 2.6.5.4 Dust Control ......................................................................................... 41 2.6.5.5 Litter Control ......................................................................................... 42 2.6.5.6 Pest Control ......................................................................................... 42 2.6.5.7 Fire Control .......................................................................................... 42

2.7 Landfill Closure Preparation and Process .......................................................... 43 2.8 Landfill Post-Closure Monitoring and Site Uses.................................................. 44 2.9 Regulatory Reviews and Approvals for Landfill Expansion ................................. 45

3.0 Existing Environmental Setting, Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed .... Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 46

3.1 Natural Resource Characteristics ....................................................................... 46 3.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................. 46

3.1.1.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 46 3.1.1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 46 3.1.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 46

3.1.2 Geologic Subsurface Conditions ................................................................. 47 3.1.2.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 48 3.1.2.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 52 3.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 53

3.1.3 Surface Water ............................................................................................. 54 3.1.3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 54 3.1.3.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 59 3.1.3.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 59

3.1.4 Groundwater Resources.............................................................................. 60 3.1.4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 60 3.1.4.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 65 3.1.4.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 65

3.1.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 67 3.1.5.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 67 3.1.5.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 68 3.1.5.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 71

3.1.6 Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................................... 73 3.1.6.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 73 3.1.6.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 74 3.1.6.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 75

3.1.7 Site Ecology ................................................................................................ 79 3.1.7.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 79 3.1.7.2 Proposed Impacts ................................................................................ 81


574.119.001/12.11 - v - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

3.1.7.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 83 3.2 Local Community Characteristics ....................................................................... 85

3.2.1 Community Character: Land Use and Zoning, Agricultural Resources and Open Space and Recreation ....................................................................... 85

3.2.1.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 85 3.2.1.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 88 3.2.1.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 89

3.2.2 Population Data and Environmental Justice ................................................ 89 3.2.2.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 89 3.2.2.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 91 3.2.2.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 91

3.2.3 Public Services ............................................................................................ 91 3.2.3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 91 3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 92 3.2.3.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 92

3.2.4 Public Health ............................................................................................... 92 3.2.4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 92 3.2.4.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 93 3.2.4.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 93

3.2.5 Property Values ........................................................................................... 93 3.2.5.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 93 3.2.5.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 93 3.2.5.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 93

3.2.6 Utilities ......................................................................................................... 94 3.2.6.1 Setting .................................................................................................. 94 3.2.6.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 95 3.2.6.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 95

3.2.7 Transportation Facilities and Traffic ............................................................ 96 3.2.7.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 96 3.2.7.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 96 3.2.7.3 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 98

3.2.8 Historic and Archeological Resources ......................................................... 98 3.2.8.1 Environmental Setting and Potential Impacts ....................................... 98 3.2.8.2 Mitigative Measures ............................................................................. 99

3.2.9 Visual Setting .............................................................................................. 99 3.2.9.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 99 3.2.9.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................. 99 3.2.9.3 Mitigative Measures ........................................................................... 101

3.2.10 Noise Analysis ....................................................................................... 101 3.2.10.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 101 3.2.10.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................ 102 3.2.10.3 Mitigative Measures ........................................................................... 105

3.2.11 Fiscal Analysis ....................................................................................... 105 3.2.11.1 Setting ................................................................................................ 105 3.2.11.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................ 106 3.2.11.3 Mitigative Measures ........................................................................... 107

3.2.12 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 107 3.2.12.1 Setting ................................................................................................ 107


574.119.001/12.11 - vi - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

3.2.12.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................ 108 3.2.12.3 Mitigative Measures ........................................................................... 108

3.3 Energy Conservation ........................................................................................ 108 3.3.1 Fuel Use and Conservation ....................................................................... 108 3.3.2 Electricity Use ............................................................................................ 109 3.3.3 Solid Waste Production ............................................................................. 109

4.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 111 4.1 Topography ...................................................................................................... 111 4.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................................................... 111 4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 111 4.4 Site Ecology...................................................................................................... 112 4.5 Agricultural Resources ..................................................................................... 112 4.6 Visual Setting.................................................................................................... 113

5.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................... 114 5.1 Geologic Resources ......................................................................................... 114 5.2 Land Use and Zoning, Agricultural Resources and Open Space and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 114

6.0 Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................... 115 6.1 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 115 6.2 Noise ................................................................................................................ 115 6.3 Air ..................................................................................................................... 115 6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts .................................................................................. 117

7.0 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 118 7.1 Objectives and Capabilities of Ontario County Landfill ..................................... 118 7.2 Waste Exportation ............................................................................................ 119 7.3 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................. 120 7.4 Alternative Landfill Sites ................................................................................... 121 7.5 Alternative Soil Borrow Site .............................................................................. 123 7.6 Alternative Expansion Scenarios ...................................................................... 124

7.6.1 Conceptual Design Considerations ........................................................... 124 7.6.2 Alternative Scale or Magnitude .................................................................. 125

7.7 Alternative Implementations Schedule ............................................................. 126 7.8 Alternative Use of Site ...................................................................................... 126 7.9 Alternative Waste Disposal Technologies ........................................................ 127

7.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 127 7.9.2 Gasification ................................................................................................ 127 7.9.3 Waste to Energy (Combustion/Incineration) .............................................. 128 7.9.4 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Composting................................................. 128 7.9.5 Plasma Arc Gasification ............................................................................ 129 7.9.6 Mechanical/Biological Treatment ............................................................... 129 7.9.7 Anaerobic Digestion .................................................................................. 129 7.9.8 Ethanol Production .................................................................................... 130

8.0 References .......................................................................................................... 131


574.119.001/12.11 - vii - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Tables Table 1 - Top Ten Geographic Origins of Waste Delivered to Ontario County Landfill, 2008 ............................................................................................................... 21 Table 2 - BUD Materials ................................................................................................ 22 Table 3 - Runoff for Existing and Proposed Conditions With Ponds ............................. 58 Table 4 - Annual Average Rochester, NY Climatological Data ...................................... 68 Table 5 - Peak Methane Generation & Emission Estimates .......................................... 78 Table 6 - Existing Town of Seneca Land Use, 2002...................................................... 86 Table 7 - Population By Municipality, 2000 and 2010.................................................... 89 Table 8 - Population Projections in Ontario County ....................................................... 90 Figures 1. Site Location Map 2. Existing Site Conditions 3. Double Composite Liner System 4. Leachate Management Schematic 5. Landfill Gas Collection Schematic 6. Overall Site Development 7. Proposed Final Conditions 8. Proposed Subgrade Plan 9. Leachate Management Plan 10. Leachate Generation Estimate 11. Landfill Gas Collection Plan 12. Proposed Cell Development Sequence 13. Proposed Soil Borrow Area 14. Capping Detail 15. Stream Location/Classification 16. Stormwater Runoff and Drainage Areas 17. Land Use Plan 18. Zoning 19. Project Site & Surrounding Properties Attachments Attachment A - FAA Correspondence Attachment B - Threatened and Endangered Species Correspondence Attachment C - EAF and Public Notice Attachment D - State Historic Preservation Correspondence Attachment E - Phase 1A/1B Archaeological Investigation Report Attachment F- Visual Impact Assessment Attachment G - Air Quality Review Attachment H - Comprehensive Wetland Delineation Report Attachment I - Ecological Wetland Assessment Baseline Report Attachment J - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Attachment K - Initial Hydrologic Study Attachment L - Hydrogeologic Investigation Report


574.119.001/12.11 S-1 Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Summary

Overview of Proposed Project

Ontario County, as the owner, and Casella Waste Services of Ontario, LLC (Casella), as the lessee and operator, propose an expansion of the currently permitted landfill footprint at the Ontario County Landfill, located on Routes 5 & 20 in the Town of Seneca, NY. The project includes an expansion of the existing Phase III landfill and associated support facilities, including soil borrow area. The proposed expansion project will be primarily located within the 389 acres currently owned by Ontario County with the exception of soil borrow activities which will require the acquisition of an additional land parcel situated south of the landfill property.

An expansion of the existing Phase III landfill is proposed in accordance with the

Operations Management Lease (OML) Agreement between Ontario County and site operator Casella. The Stage VIII (Wrap-around) expansion will include the construction of new cells totaling approximately 16.0 acres around the northern and western slopes of the Phase III landfill. The Stage IX (Eastern) expansion will be located as named, adjacent to the eastern slope of the Phase III landfill, covering about 27.5 acres including the area currently approved as a borrow area for soils. Both expansion areas will require the liner system to be connected to the adjacent cells to provide a continuous liner system. The ultimate height of the proposed expansion is 1025 MSL, which is approximately 28 feet higher than the existing permit maximum elevation as contemplated in the OML.

Additional site modifications include the relocation or modification of two

stormwater ponds, the leachate storage lagoon, Ontario County Landfill’s maintenance facility, and site access roads. In order to accommodate the Wrap-around expansion, the facility must relocate the two stormwater storage ponds elsewhere to maintain adequate capacity and to maintain compliance with the site specific SPDES permit and construct two additional ponds. The proposed leachate storage area will allow for greater storage volume due to the proposed additional lined area and corresponding increases in leachate generation. Modifications to the Stage I and II leachate collections systems will be required to maintain leachate collection and maintenance access following construction of Stage VIII. The Eastern expansion will require the relocation of the site’s maintenance facility, utility lines and the removal of a site access road, as all lie directly within the proposed construction area. Purpose of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the proposed landfill expansion is to continue to ensure that local residents and businesses will be provided with long-term, environmentally sound disposal capacity within Ontario County, and to guard against uncontrollable costs and liabilities that would be associated with long-term reliance on waste transportation and



disposal. Continued revenue from the landfill will also serve to offset the operational and maintenance costs of the landfill that would otherwise be incurred by local residents through higher tipping fees and also to fund the local environmental programs offered by the County. Alternatives Considered

A number of alternatives have been evaluated with regard to the proposed development of a landfill expansion at the Site. The alternatives analysis includes a summary of the capabilities of the Ontario County Landfill to perform the proposed actions including consideration of alternatives to development of the landfill expansion. As part of the completion of this DEIS, the Ontario County Landfill has evaluated a number of alternatives with regard to the proposed expansion of the regional landfill located in the Town of Seneca, and more generally in regard to waste management in Ontario County. These alternatives include waste exportation; the no-action alternative; alternative landfill sites; alternative expansion scenarios; alternative implementation schedule; alternative uses of site; and alternative waste disposal technologies. Alternatives to the proposed soil borrow area are discussed as well. Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Topography and Subsurface Geologic Conditions

Based on the existing elevations within the proposed expansion area, the majority of the landfill expansion area would involve the excavation of soils to establish subgrade at the proposed depths. The perimeter berm on the outside of the proposed expansion area would require the placement of soil to establish the proposed grades. Ultimately, the proposed landfill expansion area would have a maximum permitted elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL, approximately 28 feet higher than the existing maximum permitted elevation of the operational landfill. Overall, the proposed maximum height of the landfill will be approximately 155 to 195 feet above the existing ground surface surrounding the facility; which is less than other landfills in the region.

The overlying surficial soil deposits of the area include surficial sediments such

as glacial till, glacio-lacustrine silt and clay, and glacial outwash sand and gravel. The regional bedrock geology for Ontario County can be broken down into three different groups based on the physical characteristics of each rock formation. Working from south to north (youngest to oldest) these groups are the Devonian Shale and Siltstone, Carbonate Rocks, and Silurian Shale. The surface of the bedrock varies from a ground surface elevation of 822 feet above MSL in the northwestern portion of Stage VIII to 761 feet above MSL along the southeastern portion of the Stage IX expansion. Surface Water Conditions

Development of the landfill expansion, stormwater ponds, soil borrow area and associated perimeter roads will disturb approximately 103.0 acres of which approximately 43.5 acres are additional lined area. This change in land use will increase the amount of stormwater runoff that occurs from the site, necessitating the



need for the construction of two (2) new stormwater detention ponds and the relocation and modification of two others to offset the increased stormwater runoff rates from the new landfill cells. Accurate sizing of the proposed stormwater detention ponds will provide no increase in peak discharge exiting the site following construction of the landfill expansion and soil borrow area.

Groundwater Conditions

Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the site will be significantly minimized by the proposed landfill expansion design and hydrogeologic setting of the site location, and by 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations regarding design standards, siting criteria, and groundwater monitoring requirements. In regards to the proposed southern borrow area south of the existing Phase III landfill, there are no significant impacts to groundwater anticipated based on the current design. The ablation and lodgement till units proposed to be excavated are not significant sources of groundwater and the borrow area excavation depth will not intersect the water-bearing zone on the top of the weathered bedrock or adversely impact groundwater recharge to the Phase III landfill footprint. Recharge to this water-bearing zone may be enhanced in the immediate vicinity of the borrow area as the till overburden units are removed.

The landfill design and operational features that will be implemented to

significantly minimize the potential for impacts to groundwater quality and the monitoring programs proposed to detect a release from the landfill are briefly summarized below.

Dual Composite Liner System

The first line of defense for groundwater protection is the landfill liner system. The liner system contains two separate leachate collection systems (primary and secondary), and two separate composite low-permeability protective barrier layers. Leachate will be collected by a series of perforated pipes and a collection zone placed above the sloped liner surface. Downward migration of leachate into the liner will be minimized by the runoff-inducing slope and high conductivity of the leachate drain materials, which will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic head on the liner. In the unlikely event of a failure of the primary liner system, the secondary leachate collection system (leachate detection system) also serves as a collection system for leachate. Both the primary leachate collection system and leachate detection system (secondary leachate collection system) will be monitored during the operational and post-closure periods pursuant to the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. Pore Water Collection and Drainage System

Individual cell designs within the proposed Stage VIII and IX expansion areas will incorporate Groundwater Suppression Systems (GWSS) to alleviate pressure upon the landfill liner system from the surrounding groundwater. Collected groundwater will be routed to surface discharge points, similar to the existing Phase III GWSS. The expansion area GWSS will be monitored on a quarterly basis, with sampling and collection procedures performed in accordance with the site’s leachate sampling procedures.



On-site Low Permeability Soils

The low permeability in-situ soils on-site would restrict the vertical and horizontal movement of a release from the landfill area. The in-situ vertical soil permeability over a majority of the footprint area is very low. Furthermore, the post-landfill construction thickness of the low permeability glacial till soils between the liner system bottom and top of bedrock will be more than 10 feet throughout the footprint area. Soil Borrow Area

No significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated in the proposed southern

soil borrow area. The ablation and lodgment till units proposed to be excavated are not significant sources of groundwater and the borrow area excavation depth will not intersect the water-bearing zone on the top of the weathered bedrock or produce a significantly adverse impact on groundwater recharge to the Phase III landfill footprint. Recharge to this water-bearing zone may be enhanced in the immediate vicinity of the borrow area as the till overburden units are removed.

Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases

Over time, decomposition of solid waste in the landfill will produce landfill gas. Methane, carbon dioxide, and non-methane organic compounds are some of the landfill gas constituents. Landfill gas is currently mitigated through the use of an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), where it is sent to fuel internal combustion (IC) engines at the landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) facility for electricity generation, or flared onsite through enclosed flares. The benefits of LFG recovery for energy include reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through direct reductions from the avoided methane emissions, and the displacement of fossil fuel use from the generation of electricity from landfill gas. Methane mitigation through collection and control is generally affected by two main factors: GCCS collection efficiency and methane oxidation in cover materials. Wetland Resources

There are no wetland resources located within the proposed landfill expansion footprint and the proposed soil borrow area. Areas adjacent to the proposed expansions contain wetlands as depicted in the Comprehensive Wetland Delineation Report (B&L, 2010). Incidental work such as stormwater swale construction, silt fence installation, and vegetation planting will be required within the 100-foot adjacent area to regulated wetland ST-6, a Class 2 wetland, and, therefore, an Article 24 permit application will be necessary. Landfill activities have been performed in the areas adjacent to these wetlands for almost twenty years with no impacts observed. The proposed expansions have been designed to provide ample surface and groundwater discharge to the existing wetlands. No net loss of hydrology will occur. Onsite proposed stormwater pollution prevention infrastructure will continue to protect the existing resources found on the property.



Agricultural Resources

Approximately 25.0 acres (15.5 acres of actual borrow area) of agricultural land south of the landfill will be transitioned to soil borrow area activities over the course of the project. This agricultural land would likely not be reclaimed as agricultural land in the future, due to final contours of the borrow area following completion of the proposed soil mining activities. The land proposed as the borrow area is located within Ontario County Agricultural District Number 6. By utilizing this property as a borrow area, it would eliminate the need for use of public highways for transport of soils and thereby avoid potential adverse impacts that would be associated with transporting soil along public roads to the proposed landfill expansion. Acquisition and use of the proposed soil borrow area will only occur should the facility receive the permit modification for the landfill expansion. Property Values

Statistics kept by the Ontario County Real Property Office indicate that there have not been any negative town-wide impacts on total assessed values in the Town of Seneca during the period from 2007 to 2011, when compared to other Towns in Ontario County. The average increase in total assessed values during the time period of 2007 to 2011 in Ontario County was 12 percent (%). Seneca, where the landfill is located, saw an increase in total assessed value of 16 percent (%) during that period, exceeding the County average. Although the presence of the landfill is not expected to impact the property values near the project site, Casella has implemented a Property Protection Plan in order to protect the surrounding residences from declining property values as a result of the landfill.

Historical and Archaeological Correspondence was initiated with SHPO in order to determine the potential for the presence of historical and archaeological resources within the project area. With the exception of the proposed soil borrow area, all portions of the site affected by the proposed landfill expansion have been included in previous archaeological investigations performed at the site or have been determined to have been previously disturbed and were included in No Impact determinations by SHPO. A Phase IA/IB Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Report was performed by the Rochester Museum & Science Center for the soil borrow area and concluded that there will be no impact on archaeological or historical resources within the borrow area. Visibility

The proposed landfill expansion area would have a maximum permitted elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL, approximately 28 feet higher than the existing maximum permitted elevation of the operational landfill. Visual simulations of the proposed project indicate that the visibility, impact, and view reaction to the proposed expansion will vary based on landscape and geographical setting, extent of screening and structural obstructions, viewer sensitivity, and distance of the respective viewer from the proposed project site. The project’s overall impact on the visual character of



the area is considered to be very low to moderate, depending on the distance of the view to the proposed landfill site. The greatest visual impacts of the proposed landfill expansion project are similar to the existing permitted landfill and are primarily located immediately adjacent to the landfill site along the NYS State Route 5 and 20 corridor. This highway is primarily used for transportation and is not considered a scenic highway which minimizes potential impacts. Given that the existing landfill is currently visible from the historical structures and/or natural resources identified, the project’s overall impact on the visual character from these locations is considered to be very low to moderate. Significant visual impacts from these locations are not expected as a result of the proposed landfill expansion.

The site has already constructed screening berms with planted vegetation.

Existing screening mechanisms will be utilized to decrease the visual impact of the proposed project. The natural colors of the landfill were demonstrated by the visual simulation to generally minimize contrast with the sky and background under most conditions. Typical landfill covers will be utilized in this project. The landscape surrounding this project will retain its open space character and overall spatial organization, even at the time in which the landfill expansion has been fully constructed. Although there are intrusions to the vertical and overhead planes in the landscape within the expansion boundary, these intrusions will be minimal and mitigative measures to decrease the levels of these intrusions will be employed, as needed. Noise

Sound associated with the operation of the proposed landfill expansion will be produced by the same types and quantities of engine-powered equipment as are currently operating at the landfill. In addition, the approved design capacity of the landfill will not change as a result of the expansion. Therefore, the sound levels produced from operation of the expansion landfill are not anticipated to change from the existing facility operation sound levels.

The predominant change in sound levels experienced at offsite locations will be due to the closer proximity of landfill operations to certain nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed landfill expansion site design will bring landfill operations closer to properties to the north and east of the existing landfill site. In addition, proposed borrow area operations will extend the site to the south, closer to those properties that border the landfill site to the south. It is primarily this difference that will cause a change in sound levels experienced by offsite properties when operations are closest to offsite locations in the proximity of operating areas.

For all locations assessed, the increase above the existing sound levels

experienced from landfill operations was less than 6 dBA, with the majority of sensitive receptor locations experiencing an increase between 0 and 3 dBA. These levels are less than significant increase thresholds provided in the NYSDEC Noise Policy guidance.


574.119.001/12.11 G-1 Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Glossary of Terms Ablation Till – Heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders ranging in size and shape, deposited in place during the loss of snow or ice from a glacier during processes including melting, evaporation, wind erosion and calving. The ablation till unit at the site consists of a brown, loose mixture of un-stratified sediment, ranging from clay to boulders, that is generally non-plastic and includes discontinuous lenses of gravel, sand and silt. The ablation till unit is the less dense of the two till units encountered at the site. Airspace – The amount of capacity available in the solid waste management facility available for the disposal of waste. Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) – A material, other than soil, which performs the necessary functions of soil cover. The use of ADC must be approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “upon a demonstration that the alternative daily cover material will adequately control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging, without presenting a threat to human health and the environment: (6 NYCRR Part 360.2.17 (c)). Approved Design Capacity – The approved design capacity for this landfill is 2,999 tons/day. This threshold is a daily average and is based on the quantity of solid wastes accepted at the landfill during a calendar year; however during no calendar quarter shall the daily average exceed 4,499 tons per day. Solid wastes that have been approved for use as alternate daily cover or other approved beneficial uses are not included in this limit as long as they are actually being used as approved. Aquifer – A consolidated or unconsolidated geologic formation, a group of formations or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of groundwater to wells or springs. Two types of highly productive aquifers in unconsolidated (non-bedrock) formations are defined below. The ultimate determination of the presence and extent of these aquifers rests with the NYSDEC. A “primary water supply aquifer” or “primary aquifer” means a highly productive aquifer which is presently used as a source of public water supply by major municipal water supply systems. A “principal aquifer” means a formation or formations known to be highly productive or deposits whose geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but which is not intensively used as a source of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time. Some water supply development has taken place in some of these areas, but it is generally not as intensive as in the primary aquifer areas. Ash – Incinerator residue. Buffer Area Properties – Land which may be purchased by the County, pending negotiations with the involved landowners. No construction activities are currently proposed for these properties. Buffer areas provide additional distances between existing and proposed landfill operations and adjacent sensitive receptors (residential properties).



Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) Materials – Waste materials that are approved by the NYSDEC for use as daily cover materials. BUD materials are not included under the daily permit limit. Bypass Wastes – Non-recycled wastes which are diverted from a recycling center or non-processible wastes which are diverted from a waste processing facility. C&D Debris – Waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and/or demolition of buildings or roads. This waste includes, but is not limited to bricks, concrete, masonry, soil, rock, wood, land clearing debris, wall coverings, roof coverings, glass, pipes, and plumbing and electrical fixtures. Cell – Individual waste disposal area which is underlain by a landfill liner system. Cfm – Cubic feet per minute. Cfs – Cubic feet per second. Contaminated Soil – Soils contaminated with spilled petroleum, solvents, or other liquid matter that is not classified as a hazardous waste. Cultural Resource – Historic or prehistoric site, structure, or district. dBA – A-weighted decibel scale which is weighted towards those portions of the frequency spectrum, between 20 and 20,000 Hertz, to which the human ear is most sensitive. DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Double Composite Liner System – A liner system which is constructed below a landfill that serves as containment for waste and leachate. A composite liner system consists of a soil component overlain by a manufactured geosynthetic. The landfill liner system consists of a two composite liner system typically referred to as double composite liner system. The double composite liner on the landfill floor region (slope less than 25 percent) consists of a secondary composite liner system overlain by a primary composite liner system. The liner system on the landfill’s side slopes (slopes between 25 and 33 percent) is similar, but does not include a soil component in the primary system. Each composite liner also has a leachate collection component. FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement. Footprint – A portion of a landfill site where solid waste will be disposed of within a liner system. Also referred to as a fill area or potential fill area. Full Service Landfill – A landfill site which can be used for the long-term disposal of raw waste, construction and demolition debris, sludge, bypass waste, and any residues from recycling, composting, incineration, or other waste processing technologies.



Green Waste – Leaves, grass clippings, garden debris, and brush/branches. Groundwater – Water below the land surface in a saturated zone of the soil or rock. This includes perched water separated from the main body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone (6 NYCRR 360-1.2(b)(81)). Groundwater Table – Groundwater table means the surface of a body of unconfined groundwater between the zone of saturation and zone of aeration at which the pressure is equal to that of the atmosphere. Groundwater table does not include the potentiometric head level in a confined aquifer (6 NYCRR 360-1.2(b)(82)). HDPE – High Density Polyethylene. Historic Resource – Building, district, structure, structural remain or feature, object, or archeological site dating to the historic period (in New York, usually post-dating A.D. 1600) and generally 50 years or older. Hydric Soils – Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. Initial Five Foot Lift – The first five feet of waste placed above the completed liner system. The lift is typically constructed of waste that is free from debris that may damage the liner system such as pipes, timber or large metal items. Lessee – In an agreement between Ontario County and Casella Waste Services of Ontario, LLC (Casella), took full responsibility for landfill operations for a 25-year period. Casella operates the landfill on behalf of Ontario County. Casella will be referred to as the lessee. Level of Service – A rating of highway operating conditions described by six letter designations, from A to F, with Level of Service “A” representing the best operating conditions and Level of Service “F” the worst. LFG – Landfill gas. LFGTE – Landfill Gas to Energy Lodgement (Basal) Till – Heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders ranging in size and shape, deposited at the base of a moving glacier. Due to the basal depositional setting, this till unit is typically very dense. The lodgment till unit at the site consists of a gray, dense mixture of clay, silt and fine sand with varying percentages of larger-grained sediments and is slightly more plastic than the overlying ablation till. Mil – One thousandth (0.001) of an inch. MSL – Mean Sea Level. MSW – Municipal solid waste.



MW – Megawatt. National Register – A listing of historic properties maintained by the Keeper of the Register (United States Department of the Interior). NYCRR – New York Compilation of Rules and Regulations. NYSDEC – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NYSDOT – New York State Department of Transportation. OML – Operations, Maintenance, and Lease (OML) Agreement in effect between Casella and Ontario County through 2028. Ontario County Landfill – The landfill facility and/or the Owner and/or the Lessee. Owner – Ontario County is the owner of approximately 389 acres, which includes one active landfill area, two closed landfills, and associated support facilities. Part 360 – DEC’s solid waste management regulations, codified at 6 NYCRR Part 360 (Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York), effective May 12, 2006. Pore Water Drainage System – Also known as a groundwater suppression system. Permeability – The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid. It is a measure of the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure. Potentiometric Surface – a surface representing the total head of groundwater and defined by the levels to which groundwater will rise in a cased well. PPM – Parts per million. Proposed Expansion Area – The area on which landfill and related facilities construction, operation and maintenance activities are proposed to occur (see Figure 1). SEQRA – State Environmental Quality Review Act, codified in Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office Sludge – Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility (6 NYCRR 360-1.2(b)(155)).



Statement of Findings – A written statement adopted by the Lead Agency or an Involved Agency after reviewing a Final Environmental Impact Statement, summarizing the basis for the agency’s decision whether to approve or proceed with the proposed action described in the FEIS. Stratigraphy – A geologic term – stratigraphic data are formational designations, age, thickness, areal extent, composition, sequence, and correlations. SWMP – Solid Waste Management Plan recently completed by Ontario County. µg/m3 – Micrograms per cubic meter. USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). USGS – United States Geological Survey. USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency. Variance – An exemption from one or more specific provisions of Part 360 that is granted to an applicant by the NYSDEC. View Shed – The geographic area within a defined distance surrounding a landfill site from which the landfill footprint would be visible. Waste Shed – The geographic area to be served by a solid waste management facility.


574.119.001/12.11 - 1 - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

1.0 Project Background and Description

1.1 Project Background

Ontario County, as the owner, and Casella Waste Services of Ontario, LLC (Casella), as the lessee, propose an expansion of the currently permitted landfill footprint at the Ontario County Landfill, located on Routes 5 & 20 in the Town of Seneca, NY.

The approximate 389 acres owned by Ontario County includes one active

landfill area, two closed landfills, and associated support facilities for the disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) from households and commercial and institutional entities. It also accepts selected industrial wastes, sludge, ash, asbestos, petroleum-contaminated soils, and construction and demolition (C&D) debris. This waste comes from communities within Ontario County and surrounding areas, including Canada. The site is also improved with a landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) facility which is owned and operated by Seneca Energy II, LLC. The LFGTE facility commenced operation in 2003. The facility is located on a leased parcel of land adjacent to the Ontario County Landfill.

Landfilling operations at the site commenced in 1974 with the now closed

Phase I landfill, located west of County Road 49. The County obtained a 6 NYCRR Part 360 operating permit for the Phase III landfill in 1992. Since that time, the County has obtained several modifications to its Part 360 landfill permit including increases in waste acceptance rates to the current approved design capacity of 2,999 tons per day. All modifications were approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The last Part 360 permit modification was applied for by the County and issued by the NYSDEC in 2010 for the addition of the on-site borrow area located east of the Phase III landfill.

The most recent expansions of the landfill were designed after SEQRA

went into effect, requiring two previous EIS documents in 1987 and 2002. The NYSDEC approved and permitted the Phase III landfill and its expansions through Stage VII-B under this process in these respective years. This Draft EIS aims to similarly evaluate and address all potential significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposed landfill expansion and proposed soil borrow area.

In a 2003 agreement between Ontario County and Casella, Casella took

full responsibility for landfill operations including maintenance and monitoring of the closed sites for a 25-year period. This Operations, Maintenance, and Lease (OML) Agreement is in effect through 2028. While Ontario County owns the landfill site and property, Casella operates all landfill and support activities. In order to secure an economical option to the community for solid waste disposal and ensure disposal capacity for the in-county waste, Casella agreed to expand the current limits of waste to include approximately 42 additional acres for waste disposal surrounding the current active landfill.



1.2 Site Description

Acquisition of farmland by the County from back taxes and the need for a local solid waste handling and disposal facility led to its subsequent conversion into a landfill property upon construction of the first landfill cell (Phase I). Currently, landfill operations are occurring in the Phase III landfill, which is the third area permitted by the NYSDEC for disposal at the site. Inactive Phases I and II, covering 17 and 26 acres respectively, are closed and capped. Upon completion of construction of the permitted area on Phase III, landfill will cover a total area of approximately 128 acres within the approximately 389-acre landfill property. A general site location map with existing cells is found in Figure 1.

1.2.1 Existing Facility

Generally, the landfill consists of one active disposal area, two

inactive disposal areas, a maintenance facility, weigh scales, landfill gas collection systems, leachate collection and storage facilities, a materials recovery facility, and an office building for landfill personnel, as well as a separately owned and operated LFGTE facility. A summary of the main facilities and support systems included in the current landfill development is described in detail below and are shown in Figure 2.

Waste is currently transported to the landfill directly by individuals,

municipalities or private haulers. The main haul routes include the use of NYS Route 5 & 20 to County Road 49 (Post Lane Road). The landfill entrance is located off of County Route 49, approximately 0.2 mile from NYS Route 5 & 20. Recycling traffic uses an entrance off of County Route 49. Office and maintenance personnel typically utilize the office entrance off of NYS Route 5 & 20 near Post Manor. The Post Road entrance into the facility off of County Route 5 is currently not in use except for periodic maintenance activities.

Upon taking over operational responsibility of the facility, Casella

paid for the design and construction of new turning lanes on NYS Route 5 & 20 at the County Route 49 intersection in 2005. In addition, a waste truck queuing lane was constructed off of County Route 49 to provide a greater queuing distance for the waste hauling vehicles prior to entering the landfill access road.

The landfill entrance road located off of County Road 49 is

equipped with scales to register the weights of the incoming and outgoing waste delivery vehicles. A network of paved and gravel access roads serves to direct landfill and operational traffic once within the site. The main waste traffic access road runs east to west following the scales and then turns south/north once on the eastern end of the site. This road proceeds north/south to the south side of Phase III Stage V where the



access road begins to enter the waste mass. Additional access roads serve the leachate storage area, main office building and maintenance facility area.

1.2.1.1 Phase I Landfill

Located to the west of Post Lane Road (County Route 49),

near the main landfill entrance, the Phase I landfill commenced in 1974 as an unlined landfill area. Disposal in the Phase I landfill went on from 1974 through 1979 and covered approximately 17 acres. Leachate collected from the Phase I landfill travels through a collection trench located along the western edge of the landfill. The trench drains the collected leachate north to a collection manhole where a tanker truck periodically pumps and collects leachate for disposal with the other leachate collected at the site.

1.2.1.2 Phase II Landfill

The Phase II landfill, located almost centrally on the site,

commenced waste acceptance in 1979. It consists of the initial Phase II landfill as well as the adjoining Phase II-A landfill for a total footprint of 26 acres. The Phase II landfill is an unlined landfill facility. The Phase II-A landfill is a lined landfill constructed of compacted clay. The landfill’s perimeter leachate collection piping system conveys collected leachate to the Phase II submersible pump station located off the northeast corner of the landfill. The pump station then conveys the collected Phase II leachate via a dual-contained force main (double-walled pipe) to the on-site leachate storage facility located on the western side of the Phase III Landfill.

1.2.1.3 Phase III Landfill

The eastern portion of the site houses the Phase III landfill,

the first landfill footprint on-site constructed with a double liner. The first cells of the Phase III landfill, known collectively as Stage I, consist of 13 acres of liner prepared in 1991 with the first waste placement in 1992. Subsequent Stages II-A and II-B, adjacent to Stage I, totals 16.4 acres. These stages of the landfill share a common leachate collection and conveyance system subdivided into five separate leachate drainage areas. Leachate from the primary and secondary liner systems of each cell gravity drains to a series of primary and secondary leachate collection manholes along the western edge of the liner system. A perforated leachate lateral running down the center of each valley conveys the leachate to each of these manholes. The leachate then gravity drains to the southernmost manholes via the primary and secondary leachate conveyance headers located at the toe of the western perimeter



berm, which connect all of the primary and secondary manholes respectively. Submersible pumps then transfer the leachate to the leachate storage lagoon.

Construction of the Stage III-A and III-B cells began in 1999 and 2000, respectively, immediately south of the Stages I, II-A, and II-B. This development utilized a sideriser leachate pumping system where leachate drains from the center valley via gravity to a sump within the liner system. A submersible pump then pumps the leachate up the side of the landfill cell to the leachate conveyance system. The leachate is then collected in a sump which is then pumped via sideriser pumping system to a gravity conveyance header which drains to the on-site lined leachate storage area. Stages III-A and III-B both have separate sideriser pumping systems.

The Phase III landfill expanded to Stage IV in 2004. This stage encompassed a new leachate collection system, independent of the previous Phase III cells. This development also utilized a sideriser leachate pumping system where leachate drains via gravity to a sump within the liner system and is then pumped up the side of the landfill cell to the leachate conveyance system. The next constructed Stages V-A, V-B, VI-A, and VI-B all share a common sump and sideriser pumping station with Stage IV. In total, approximately 36 acres of dual composite liner system comprise these cells. In 2010, Stage VII-A was constructed which included the removal of the south sideriser building of Stage III. This stage also has an independent sump and sideriser pumping system, which will be shared with the future Stage VII-B landfill. In order to establish the minimum slope requirements and to allow leachate to flow from the existing Stage III into the newly constructed Stage VII-A, waste excavation within the existing Stage III area was necessary. Waste was excavated and disposed of in other active areas of the landfill footprint to expose the existing leachate collection system and allow for tie-in. Additionally, bedrock excavation was necessary to establish the landfill subgrade. The bedrock material was a highly weathered shale and was replaced with soil to meet current regulations. The removal of the Stage III-B sideriser pumping system, required as part of the Stage VII-A construction, now allows leachate from Stage III-B to be collected and monitored in the newly constructed leachate collection system of Stage VII-A.

Dual-contained piping conveys all leachate collected by the

primary and secondary liner systems of Phase III to the on-site leachate storage lagoon. The individual manholes associated with



Stage I, II, and II-A and sideriser buildings associated with Stage III-A, Stage IV and Stage VII-A allow for individual leak detection within the individual subcells of Phase III.

1.2.1.4 Liner System

In general, the double composite liner system consists of two

separate composite liner systems, one constructed above the other. Each composite liner system consists of a leachate collection and removal system underlain by a composite of low permeability natural soil or geosynthetic clay liner, and high-density polyethylene geomembrane. A cross-sectional detail of the double composite liner system required by NYSDEC regulations is included as Figure 3.

The following is a general cross section of the liner system

for the Phase III landfill from top to bottom.

Stages I and II 12” Primary Leachate Collection Material Woven Geotextile Geonet 80 mil textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane 18” Compacted Clay 20 mil textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane Geonet 80 mil textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane Geonet Woven geotextile

Stages II-A and III

6” crushed stone 10 oz/sy cushioning geotextile 18” Primary Collection Stone 16 oz/sy cushioning geotextile 60 mil smooth or textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

geomembrane 6” Secondary Soil Liner (Slopes less than 25 percent) 12” Structural Fill Layer (On-site Till) (Slopes less than 25

percent) Bi-planar composite geonet 60 mil smooth or textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

geomembrane 24” Secondary Soil Liner 4 oz/sy geotextile (Slopes less than 25 percent)



12” Groundwater Suppression Stone (Slopes less than 25 percent)

4 oz/sy geotextile (Slopes less than 25 percent) Bi-planar composite geonet (Slopes between 25 and 33

percent)

Stages IV through Stage VII 24” Primary Collection Stone 24 oz/sy cushioning geotextile 60 mil textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane Geosynthetic Clay Liner (Slopes less than 25 percent) 12” Structural Fill Layer (On-site Till) (Slopes less than 25 percent) Bi-planar composite geonet 60 mil textured High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane 24” Secondary Soil Liner 8 oz/sy geotextile (Slopes less than 25 percent) 12” Groundwater Suppression Stone (Slopes less than 25 percent) 8 oz/sy geotextile (Slopes less than 25 percent) Bi-planar composite geonet (Slopes between 25 and 33 percent)

A pore water drainage system is constructed below the

double composite liner system of the existing Phase III landfill to remove any groundwater which might come in contact with the lower liner system. The pore water drainage system consists of a granular soil drainage layer and/or composite geonet with perforated collection pipes. In Stages I and II, the collection pipes convey the collected groundwater via gravity for final discharge into the existing stormwater pond situated on the west side of Phase III for ultimate discharge to surface water. In Stages III through VII-A, the collection pipes convey the collected groundwater to the sideriser pump station for final discharge into the surrounding surface waters. In the unlikely event leachate contamination is detected in the samples collected from the groundwater suppression system discharge, such groundwater can be contained and transferred into the leachate collection system. This has not been necessary to date.

The Phase III landfill has an extensive liner system

monitoring network to meter the secondary leachate collection system flow rates for various landfill areas. The existing liner systems maintain secondary flow rates well below the 20 gallons per acre per day maximum required by 6 NYCRR Part 360, based on a 30-day average. Laboratory analytical data also indicates that the water collected in pore water drainage layer beneath the landfill is not impacted by landfill leachate.



Prior to 2003 and more recently in 2009, the secondary flows of Stages I and II were elevated and were determined to be the result of clean stormwater intrusion and/or faulty flow meter configuration. The NYSDEC was notified by the landfill facility of these occurrences and the monitoring system was corrected.

1.2.1.5 Leachate Storage, Treatment, and Disposal

Leachate is generated within a landfill when incident

precipitation such as rain and snow or liquid from the disposed waste percolates down through the waste mass. Leachate is contained within the landfill by the liner system and is conveyed for collection and treatment by the leachate collection and conveyance system. Leachate generated within the existing active and inactive landfills is collected by pumping or gravity conveyance headers from the landfill to the lined leachate storage lagoon situated on the west side of the Phase III landfill for Phase II/II-A and III. Leachate from the Phase I unlined portion is pumped periodically directly to a tanker truck as deemed necessary.

Leachate storage for the site is provided via a dual lined

leachate storage lagoon. The dual composite liner system for the lagoon is compliant with current NYCRR Part 360 regulations for leachate storage impoundments. The leachate storage lagoon is capable of storing approximately 400,000 gallons of leachate.

Approximately 16,288,500 gallons of leachate were collected

and disposed of in 2010. Per the landfill’s annual reports, the total leachate quantities for the site over the last 4 years are summarized below. The quantity of leachate generated and collected varies greatly from year to year depending on the annual precipitation as well as the stage of landfill development.

Leachate Quantity Summary Year Gallons 2010 16,288,500 2009 10,344,400 2008 17,756,400 2007 10,260,900

Currently, leachate is pumped from the leachate storage

lagoon into tanker trucks via a dedicated pumping system. The tanker trucks transport the leachate primarily to the wastewater treatment facility in Canandaigua for treatment with additional minor amounts being transported to the City of Geneva wastewater treatment facility. The Ontario County Landfill contracts with a hauling company for transport of the leachate and must also pay



disposal fees at the wastewater treatment plant(s). The current leachate management plan at the site is shown as a flow chart schematic in Figure 4 and includes the final disposal destination of the leachate. 1.2.1.6 Landfill Gas Collection System

Landfill gas is a naturally occurring byproduct resulting from

the anaerobic decomposition of the waste deposited in the landfill. The gas is mainly comprised of methane and carbon dioxide. Additional minor constituents include oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide and non-methane organic compounds. To control emissions of landfill gas, the landfill is required to install and operate a landfill gas collection system. The landfill emissions and gas collection system operations for the Ontario County Landfill are regulated through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Title V program, which is overseen and enforced by the NYSDEC. As such, the landfill is required to track and report landfill related emissions to the NYSDEC on a quarterly basis to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. The facility is currently operating under a Title V Air Facility Permit (ID 8-3244-00004/00007) that became effective on May 25, 2007 and expires on May 24, 2012. The existing landfill facility permit requires modification to permit the proposed landfill expansion.

Landfill gas is collected from the closed Phase II/IIA landfill

and the active Phase III landfill. Landfill gas collection systems consisting of vertical collection wells, horizontal collection trenches, wellheads, conveyance piping, and condensate knockouts have been constructed in order to collect gas from the Phase II and III landfills. As portions of the landfill continue to be filled, additional landfill gas collection infrastructure is installed in an effort to capture as much landfill gas as possible to control emissions as well as for beneficial use and odor control. The landfill gas collection infrastructure is connected to a series of landfill gas blowers which apply a vacuum to the entire system, greatly increasing landfill gas collection efficiency. Landfill gas is then conveyed via the vacuum and conveyance piping to a central location for destruction. At the time of this report, the landfill gas is destructed in one of the following main control devices:

Phase II Enclosed Flare – This 500 cfm flare is located on

the northeast corner of the Phase II/IIA landfill. This flare was originally installed to handle the collected gas from the Phase II/IIA landfill and is now mainly a backup flare. The gas collected from the Phase II/IIA landfill is now typically utilized at the LFGTE facility.



Phase III Enclosed Flare – This 1,750 cfm flare was originally located on the east side of the Phase III landfill near the maintenance building but was relocated to the north end of the site near the landfill gas to energy facility. This flare was originally installed to handle the collected gas from the Phase III landfill prior to the LFGTE facility and is now mainly a backup flare or to burn excess gas that the LFGTE facility cannot handle.

LFGTE Facility – The landfill LFGTE facility is located to the north of the Phase III landfill and handles the majority of the collected gas flows. Refer to Section 1.2.1.7 for more information on the facility.

Minor quantities of landfill gas are also utilized as a fuel

source for the landfill office building (Post Manor). The landfill gas is piped from the LFGTE facility to the manor where it is used to fuel the boilers.

An application for the modification to the landfill’s Title V air

permit was submitted to the NYSDEC in January 2011. This application sought permission to replace an existing 1,200 cfm open flare with a 1,200 cfm, more efficient enclosed flare. The permit modification has been approved; however, the enclosed flare has not yet been installed.

A schematic of the gas flows through the site including the

conveyance to the flare and LFGTE facility is shown in Figure 5.

1.2.1.7 Landfill Gas to Energy Facility

The LFGTE facility is owned and operated by Seneca Energy II, LLC, which is affiliated with Innovative Energy Systems, LLC of Oakfield, New York. The facility is located north of the Phase III landfill and operates on a parcel of land leased to Seneca Energy II, LLC by the County. The agreement between Seneca Energy II, LLC and the County provides for the transmission, sale, and purchase of landfill gas from Ontario County Landfill to the LFGTE facility.

The facility, which began operation in 2003, produces

electricity from the collected landfill gas through the use of internal combustion engines. The LFGTE facility currently operates under a Title V Permit (Permit ID: 83244-00040/00002), which was issued on June 22, 2005. The facility has grown over the years as landfill gas production has increased. The most recent plant addition was completed in 2010 with the addition of an eighth engine. All the engines at the facility are 16 cylinder Caterpillar 3516 engines.



Each engine is capable of producing 800 kW of electricity per hour with current plant production maximized at 6.4 MW/hr. The electricity generated by the facility is exported at 34.5 kV and sold into the electrical distribution grid owned by NYSEG/Energy East. With the collection and destruction of the landfill gas, the resulting greenhouse gas offsets, based on EPA estimates, are equivalent to the carbon sequestered annually by nearly 60,000 acres of pine or fir forests, annual greenhouse gas emissions from 48,000 passenger vehicles, or carbon dioxide emissions from 612,000 barrels of oil consumed. The current facility size generates enough electricity to power over 4,000 homes.

There is currently no beneficial use of the waste heat from

the LFGTE operation.

1.2.1.8 Recycling Programs and Facilities

The County operated a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) at the landfill site prior to the OML agreement with Casella in 2003. The County’s original MRF was a timber framed barn type structure which is now dormant.

In 2005, Casella constructed a new state of the art single

stream recycling facility to the east of the County’s original operation. The facility, operated by Casella, utilizes mechanical sorting of recyclables for eventual redistribution of the sorted materials back into the market for re-use. The approximately 68,000 square feet (sf) facility handles various types of commingled recyclables including paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, plastics No. 1 through 7, aseptic packaging, bottles, tin cans, and glass bottles.

The active MRF facility is operated as a centralized recycling

facility where recyclables from the County as well as outside Ontario County are hauled to the MRF for sorting and distribution. The facility currently processes approximately 40,000 tons of recyclables per year and employs 31 people. 1.2.1.9 Acceptable Wastes for Disposal and Waste Quantities

Received

The Ontario County Landfill is the only active landfill facility located in Ontario County. Both wastes generated within the County and outside the County are accepted at the facility. The following municipalities in Ontario County transport waste directly to the facility:



City of Canandaigua Town of Canandaigua Town of Geneva Town of Gorham Town of Hopewell Town of Manchester

Town of South Bristol Town of Victor Town of West Bloomfield Town/Village of Phelps Village of Victor

The following municipalities in Ontario County have transfer stations operated by private companies that dispose of waste at the Ontario County Landfill:

Town of Bristol – Pratt Disposal Town of East Bloomfield – Pratt Disposal (via Town of

Bristol Transfer Station) Town of Canadice – K&D Disposal (via Town of Richmond

Transfer Station) Town of East Bloomfield – Pratt Disposal Town of Naples – Finger Lakes Disposal Town of Richmond – K&D Disposal Town of Seneca – Casella

The landfill accepts mixed municipal solid waste (MSW)

generated by residents, institutions, and commercial entities. It also accepts selected industrial wastes, sludge, ash, asbestos, petroleum contaminated soils, and construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Alternate daily cover materials, in the form of materials which have been assigned a “beneficial use determination” (BUD) by the NYSDEC, such as petroleum contaminated soils, are used at the landfill as a cost saving and revenue generating measure.

The landfill does not accept septic tank pump effluent,

regulated radioactive wastes, liquid wastes (<20% solids), junked vehicles, hot ashes, regulated hazardous waste, whole tires, separated recyclable materials, untreated regulated medical waste, vehicle batteries, waste oils, scrap metal, sealed containers, explosives, pesticides and other chemicals.

1.2.1.10 Existing Site Capacity and Expected Site Life

The existing Phase III permitted landfill footprint

encompasses approximately 84.6 acres of lined area, of which 80.1 acres have been constructed through the end of 2010. Based on the landfill’s current 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit, the landfill has a tonnage limit of 2,999 tons of municipal solid waste per day, which is not inclusive of materials that are approved as BUD materials. Based on a recent aerial survey performed on November 3, 2010,



the remaining constructed site capacity is estimated to be approximately 3,106,000 cubic yards. An additional 2,750,000 cubic yards of permitted capacity remains to be constructed which yields approximately 5,856,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity under the currently permitted landfill footprint. Based on historical waste acceptance rates and in-place waste densities, it is projected that the site has approximately 5 years of capacity remaining from November, 2010.

1.2.2 Landfill Master Plan and Future Site Developments

The County is currently in the process of developing a landfill

property Master Plan to aid in the future planning and development at the Ontario County Landfill. When completed, the Master Plan may include various concepts for future landfill developments beyond the proposed expansion described herein that are functionally independent. At this time, because the Master Plan has not been completed, it is impossible to detail any potential action(s) that may be developed based on the Master Plan, or to evaluate their potential environmental impacts. Until such time as the Master Plan is subjected to public comment and formally adopted, any future projects are entirely speculative. Furthermore, even after finalization, the County may or may not choose to develop any of the various proposals contained in the final Master Plan, since they will depend greatly on a number of variables, including, but not limited to, future funding and the ability to attract industrial development to the site. In any case, should the County elect to proceed with any future landfill developments detailed in the final Master Plan, they will be subject to SEQRA review, permitting, final design and implementation at the time of development.

1.3 Project Description

The project includes an expansion of the existing Phase III landfill and associated support facilities, including soil borrow area. Overall the project is expected to encompass approximately 43.5 additional acres of lined landfill to the north, east and west of the existing Phase III landfill, 25 acres of disturbance associated with the soil borrow area (15.5 acres of the 25 acres are associated with the actual excavation of borrow material) and approximately 22 acres associated with support infrastructure for the operation of the landfill. The proposed expansion project will be located primarily within the 389 acres currently owned by Ontario County with the exception of soil borrow activities which will require the acquisition of an additional land parcel situated south of the landfill property.

An expansion of the existing Phase III landfill is proposed in accordance

with the OML Agreement between Ontario County and site operator Casella. The Stage VIII (Wrap-around) expansion will include the construction of new cells totaling approximately 16.0 acres around the northern and western slopes of the



Phase III landfill. The Stage IX (Eastern) expansion will be located as named, adjacent to the eastern slope of the Phase III landfill, covering about 27.5 acres including the area currently approved as a borrow area for soils. Both expansion areas will require the liner system to be connected to the adjacent cells to provide a continuous liner system. The ultimate height of the proposed expansion is 1025 MSL which is approximately 28 feet higher than the existing permit maximum elevation. The expansion areas will also require modification to the existing leachate collection and conveyance system to effectively collect leachate. Figure 6 displays the proposed expansion around the existing landfill.

Additional site modifications include the relocation or modification of two stormwater ponds, the leachate storage lagoon, Ontario County Landfill’s maintenance facility, and site access roads. In order to accommodate the Wrap-around expansion, the County must relocate two stormwater storage ponds elsewhere to maintain adequate capacity and to maintain compliance with the site SPDES permit and construct two additional ponds. The proposed leachate storage area will allow for greater storage volume due to the proposed additional lined area and corresponding increases in leachate generation. Modifications to the Stage I and II leachate collections systems will be required to maintain leachate collection and maintenance access following construction of Stage VIII. The Eastern expansion will require the relocation of the site’s maintenance facility, utility lines and the removal of a site access road, as all lie directly within the proposed construction area. These modifications are included in the Proposed Final Conditions shown in Figure 7.

Waste quantities for disposal vary according to economic conditions, waste processing procedures, recycling and waste reduction measures, legal issues, and population changes. However, the landfill can only accept a limited amount of waste based on the permitted design capacity, regardless of waste quantities generated. The current landfill has an approved design capacity for the acceptance of up to 2,999 tons per day, not inclusive of BUD material. A change to this tonnage limit is not proposed as part of this expansion.

According to an aerial survey performed on November 3, 2010, the historical in-place waste density and the current approved design capacity, it is anticipated that the current landfill will no longer have usable airspace for waste placement beyond 2015. The proposed expansion will increase the available airspace by approximately 11,504,800 cubic yards which is anticipated to provide adequate airspace through 2028 depending on waste acceptance rates and effective airspace utilization. No increase to the approved design capacity is being proposed.

To provide adequate soils for construction and operations of the landfill expansion, a soil borrow area is proposed to the south of the Phase III landfill adjacent to the existing County landfill property. The borrow area excavation area is approximately 15.5 acres in size and will yield approximately 922,850



cubic yards of soil. Access to the borrow area will be from the existing landfill property thereby eliminating traffic and potential adverse environmental impacts related to the transport of soils to the proposed landfill expansion on the public roadway.

Although not directly part of the proposed landfill expansion, an expansion to the LFGTE facility is also proposed by Seneca Energy II, LLC. The project is defined as the addition of three (3) Caterpillar G3520C landfill gas internal combustion (IC) engine generator sets including ancillary equipment for electricity generation as a landfill gas beneficial use project. The proposed LFG fueled IC engines will be housed in a separate building constructed in an area immediately adjacent to the existing LFGTE Facility, which currently consists of eight (8) Caterpillar G3516 landfill gas IC engine generator sets. A gas transmission pipe will be connected to the header of the existing landfill gas (LFG) collection system and a dedicated blower/compressor will be used to draw LFG from the existing collection system to the engines generator sets.

Additional details related to the proposed project are included in Section 2.0 of this DEIS. 1.4 State Environmental Quality Review Act Process

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) satisfies the requirements set forth by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for the environmental impact assessment of proposed projects and activities. This document is also consistent with the requirements of 6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 617 to execute SEQRA requirements, adopted following Section 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). The issues addressed in this Draft EIS will cover the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of this proposed project. Beyond this scope, the document is meant for regulatory and public review to facilitate for discussion, public and agency comments and decision-making with regards to the proposed action.

This project is early in the process of fulfilling SEQRA requirements. Ontario County accepted the role of Lead Agency for the project and issued a Positive Declaration on July 6, 2011. The NYSDEC agreed in a June 22, 2011 letter to Ontario County that Ontario County should serve as lead agency for the purpose of environmental review pursuant to SEQR. Together Ontario County and Casella have concluded that a public scoping session will not be conducted since an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Fagan Engineers, February 2003) was previously developed for the existing landfill at the proposed project location. This Draft EIS has been generated for the proposed landfill expansion project utilizing a similar scope as the previous EIS. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS once it is complete. Any additional topics necessary to respond to comments will be analyzed and included in the Final EIS prepared for the proposed project. As of November 2011, the following steps in the SEQRA review process require completion:



The public and involved agencies will review and comment on the Draft EIS once the Lead Agency approves the document and releases it to the public.

The Lead Agency will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the approved Draft EIS. They will also accept written comments on the Draft EIS for a specified period of time.

The Lead Agency will prepare written responses to relevant, non-anonymous comments received on the Draft EIS and revise the document following a review of the public and agency comments received. They will present these written responses in the Final EIS, along with any revisions made to the Draft EIS.

Following the acceptance of the Final EIS, the Lead Agency and all Involved Agencies will prepare and file their Statements of Findings noting all considerations leading up to the decision to proceed with the project, the last step in the SEQRA review process.

1.5 Project Purpose

The purpose of the project described herein is to extend the life of the

Ontario County Landfill. Prolonging the use of the current landfill will provide a long-term source of revenue to the local economy and protect against the unreliability of transporting waste to other locations if the landfill were to close. Although there are landfills located in the surrounding counties, the Ontario County Landfill services the majority of the county. Closing the landfill could subject residents to increased waste disposal prices from associated transportation costs and the liability of transporting solid wastes to another landfill. While prominent foci of Ontario County’s solid waste management plan are overall waste reduction and local recycling/reuse and composting programs, the region will still require a local, dependable facility for the disposal of all non-recyclable and non-hazardous waste. This expansion will extend the life of the current landfill and provide economic and environmental security to the surrounding area in the form of preserving existing jobs, affordable waste disposal, maintenance of a local economy income, and built-in environmental safeguards.



1.6 Public Needs and Benefits

Public needs and benefits for the landfill expansion can be described by the following environmental and economic factors:

Economic Viability – Expansion of the Ontario County Landfill would ensure that economically secure long-term disposal capacity would be available to Ontario County.

Environmental Security – Expansion of the Ontario County Landfill would provide the County with the highest level of long-term security because of the certainty and control over the design, construction, and operation of the expansion’s environmental protection system. Economic Security – Prices in the solid waste disposal marketplace can fluctuate significantly. Expansion of the Ontario County Landfill would continue to ensure that Ontario County has a local disposal facility that is cost-based rather than market driven. This would help to insulate local disposal prices from market influences such as industry consolidation, reduction in available disposal capacity outside of the County, and changes in laws governing the interstate transport of solid waste.

Local Economic Benefits – Exporting waste from Ontario County would result in less money in the local economy. Tipping fees would be paid to disposal facilities located outside the County, meaning that money as well as waste would be exported out of the local economy. By exporting waste, the County would not receive revenue from tipping fees and the local economy would not benefit from construction revenue. Generally, together the Town of Seneca and Ontario County currently receive approximately $2 million annually as a result of the operation of the landfill. Waste exportation would result in the payment of fees to an out-of-County facility which is neither a local employer nor a local taxpayer. Development of the landfill expansion would also involve economic spin-offs from the local expenditure of construction money and annual landfill operating money, substantial portions of which would stay in the local economy. Additional economic benefits are discussed in Section 3.2.11.

Local Environmental Infrastructure – Development of the proposed landfill expansion would provide a long-term economic, environmentally sound disposal facility that could be relied upon by local residents and businesses as an integral component of the County’s environmental infrastructure.

1.7 Consistency with Local and State Solid Waste Management Plans

In 1992, Ontario County established its first Integrated Solid Waste

Management Plan, though this had little drive as a policy. Ontario County recently prepared a Draft Local Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to provide the Ontario County constituency with a comprehensive, integrated



program for managing solid waste, which is consistent with the New York State Hierarchy for Solid Waste Management, in an economically sound and environmentally safe manner. The plan will also establish countywide solid waste goals and objectives in accordance with state law requiring the development of a waste reduction plan. Significant goals include the continued use of the landfill as the primary disposal option for non-recyclable/recoverable waste, consideration of mandated recycling programs for county owned facilities, and countywide programs for composting and recycling. Explicitly stated in this plan is the expansion of the Ontario County Landfill to provide long-term disposal for Ontario County. This expansion is consistent with the plan’s objective to extend the life of the current landfill. The Draft SWMP is currently in the process of regulatory and public review. The SWMP will be finalized and approved by the County and the NYSDEC prior to permit issuance.

The New York State Solid Waste Management Plan (State Plan)

emphasizes the State’s solid waste management hierarchy, which places a priority on waste reduction and recycling followed by energy recovery from waste, where feasible, with landfilling for the remaining waste materials. The State Plan recognizes the primacy of local planning units in the development of local solid waste management plans, which are reviewed by the NYSDEC to ensure consistency with State solid waste management policies that are embodied in the State Plan. The integration of State policies into the current updates and the explicit inclusion of the landfill’s expansion in the plan are consistent with both solid waste management plans.

1.8 Regulatory Reviews and Approvals for Landfill Expansion

The currently operating Ontario County Landfill has been approved and

permitted by the NYSDEC. This project proposes to expand Phase III, and therefore requests a modification to existing permits. Ontario County is the Lead Agency and has SEQRA responsibilities to assess the environmental impacts of this project and to issue appropriate findings. In addition to the Part 360 solid waste permit, the landfill facility also maintains other permits for Federal and State program compliance requirements including a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges related to Industrial Activities, Title V air permit (Federal regulations - Subpart WWW of 40 CFR 60), NYSDEC recycling facility registration, and Spill Pollution Control and Countermeasures Plan. Further specifics related to permit requirements are discussed below.

Title V Air Permit The Ontario County Landfill and the LFGTE facility currently operate under separate Title V Air Permits in accordance with NYSDEC and federal EPA regulations. Each facility had previously been determined to be a separate



facility from the other, due to separate operation and ownership, and therefore each facility was permitted individually without need for evaluation of combined facility emissions. The Ontario County Landfill Title V Air Permit will require modification prior to construction of the proposed expansion facility. Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit During the permitting of the eastern borrow area, the NYSDEC reviewed the Federal wetland (wetland ST-6) located along County Road 5 and determined that the State would take jurisdiction over the wetland area. Incidental work such as stormwater swale construction, silt fence installation, and vegetation planting will be required within the 100-foot adjacent area to regulated wetland ST-6, a Class 2 wetland, and, therefore, an Article 24 permit application will be necessary. No disturbance of NYSDEC or Federal wetlands will occur as part of the project.



2.0 Proposed Action This section describes the proposed Stage VIII and Stage IX Expansion at

Ontario County Landfill. It identifies the general features of the expansion and describes how the expansion will be implemented in relation to the existing, permitted Phase III landfill. Sufficient detail is included to provide the reader an overall understanding of the existing and proposed design, construction and operation of the facility.

2.1 General Project Description

Currently, landfill operations are occurring in the Phase III landfill, which is the third area permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for disposal at the site. Inactive Phases I and II, covering 17 and 26 acres respectively, are closed and capped. Upon completion of construction of the permitted area on Phase III, landfill will cover a total area of approximately 128 acres within the 389-acre landfill property.

The proposed Stage VIII and IX Expansion will be designed in accordance

with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-Solid Waste Management Facilities (Part 360), as administered by the NYSDEC. A multi-layer double composite liner system, including low-permeable soil and geomembrane layers, will be constructed beneath all areas that will receive waste, including the landfill areas that will overlay the existing landfill. The liner system will be installed over a prepared subgrade that will be designed to provide adequate support for the liner system and waste materials.

Primary and secondary leachate collection systems will be integrated with

the double-composite liner systems. The primary leachate collection system will be used to collect liquids which drain to the base of the waste materials; the secondary leachate collection system will be used to rapidly collect and remove any liquids which may move through the primary liner system and be contained by the underlying secondary liner system.

Leachate removal from the primary and secondary leachate collection

systems will be directed to an on-site storage area through a dual contained piping network where it will be stored until transferred to on-road haul trucks for ultimate disposal at a regional wastewater treatment facility. This leachate management process is consistent with current leachate collection, storage and disposal techniques.

As the waste materials are placed to the final elevations, a multi-layer final cover system will be constructed. The final cover system will provide isolation of the waste material and minimize infiltration of stormwater into the landfill. The top layer of the final cover system will include a vegetated topsoil layer, which will help prevent erosion of the final cover system.



Ontario County Landfill’s existing active landfill gas collection system consists of an extensive network of vertical extraction wells and horizontal collection trenches that are connected to a series of varying size HDPE laterals and headers. This piping network conveys the gas to the landfill gas combustion devices for destruction (including on-site flares and off-site to the LFGTE facility operated by Seneca Energy II). Future gas collection systems will continue to be constructed in the proposed landfill expansion in order to maintain collection of landfill gas and combustion/destruction as required by the facility’s Title V permit.

A comprehensive series of temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control features will be provided throughout construction and operation of the expanded landfill. These measures will be designed and implemented to ensure that surface water discharges from the site will be controlled to prevent off-site sedimentation and impacts to downstream users. As part of this control program, the site will continue its on-going Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the facility.

In the sub-sections that follow, the project site is defined along with its design features, facility operation, environmental monitoring, and post closure care.

2.2 Definition of Service Area, Waste, and Site

This section identifies the areas that are expected to dispose wastes

within the Stage VIII and Stage IX expansion, types of waste to be managed in the expanded facility, and provides a specific site description.

2.2.1 Service Area

The Ontario County Landfill is the only active MSW landfill in

Ontario County. Nearby MSW landfills in adjacent counties to Ontario include: High Acres Western Expansion and Mill Seat (Monroe County), Seneca Meadows (Seneca County), and Steuben County Sanitary Landfill (Steuben County).

There is a regional component to the flow of waste, which is not

confined to a single county. The Ontario County Landfill currently accepts waste from outside Ontario County and anticipates continued outside waste acceptance. Table 1 displays the top ten geographic origins to the Ontario County Landfill in 2008. As indicated in the table, Ontario County waste accounts for approximately 14.3 percent of the total amount of waste accepted at the Ontario County Landfill. While Ontario County is the largest contributor of waste, several other solid waste planning units rely heavily on the Ontario County Landfill for the responsible disposal of solid waste remaining after reduction, reuse and recycling. These percentages do not include BUD material.



Table 1 - Top Ten Geographic Origins of Waste Delivered to Ontario County Landfill, 2008

Geographic Origins Percentage Ontario 14.3

Rockland 11.9 Canada (Country) 11.6

Tompkins 6.9 Wayne 6.5 Monroe 5.6

Montgomery 5.2 Chemung 3.8

Massachusetts (State) 3.7

Connecticut (State) 3.4 Total 72.9

Source: NYSDEC, Facility Annual Reports, 2008

The proposed Stage VIII and Stage IX expansion area will continue

to serve the same customer base, including Ontario County, as is served by the operating Phase III.

2.2.2 Types and Quantities of Waste

Solid wastes accepted will consist of municipal solid wastes and

NYSDEC-authorized non-hazardous commercial and industrial wastes including C&D debris and friable and non-friable asbestos as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 360. Waste types that will not be accepted at the facility include hazardous and regulated radioactive wastes, bulk liquids, untreated medical wastes, and any other waste types not meeting the Part 360 definition of acceptable wastes. The facility will accept industrial and commercial wastes under a special waste program in accordance with the requirements of Part 364 New York Waste Transporter Permit Regulations, and in accordance with its Part 360 permit. Wastes to be accepted by Ontario County Landfill in the expanded landfill will be identical to the waste stream presently authorized by the NYSDEC for the existing operations.

A listing of the materials currently permitted for disposal at the

Ontario County Landfill can be found in Section 6.0 of the Operations and Maintenance Manual and the site’s Part 360 permit.

During operation of the Stage VIII and Stage IX, Ontario County

Landfill will continue to accept Beneficially Used Materials (BUD), which will typically account for 25% or greater of the incoming waste stream. These materials are waste materials that the Ontario County Landfill can



reuse in their landfilling operations. Examples of BUD materials and their beneficial use include the following:

Table 2 - BUD Materials

Examples of BUD Materials Beneficial Use Incinerator Ash Daily Cover

Petroleum Impacted Soils Daily Cover Construction and Debris Materials

Daily Cover

The quantities of solid wastes to be accepted at the landfill will

fluctuate according to regional waste generation rates, economic conditions, weather and season. The County initially obtained a 6 NYCRR Part 360 operating permit for the Phase III landfill in 1992. Since that time, the County has received NYSDEC approval for several modifications to its Part 360 landfill permit including multiple increases in waste acceptance rates to its current approved design capacity of 2,999 tons per day.

2.2.3 Site Location

The location of the primary site parcel is shown on Figure 1. The

proposed expansion is situated on west, north and east sides of the currently permitted Phase III landfill footprint at the Ontario County Landfill, located on Routes 5 & 20 in the Town of Seneca, NY. The proposed soil borrow area is located south of the permitted Phase III landfill footprint. The existing LFGTE facility (which are separately owned, operated and permitted) is located on a separately leased parcel of land north of the Phase III landfill.

2.2.4 Horizontal and Vertical Setbacks

The proposed expansion limits is offset a minimum of 100 feet from

the County’s property line. The expansion will also maintain a minimum of 100 foot offset from the Flint Creek tributary on the west side of the landfill and from the NYSDEC listed wetland on the east side. Incidental work such as stormwater swale construction, silt fence installation, and vegetation planting will be required within the 100-foot adjacent area to regulated wetland ST-6, a Class 2 wetland, and, therefore, an Article 24 permit application will be necessary.

2.2.5 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination

A FAA determination was requested for the landfill expansion

project to insure that the landfill would not adversely affect aircraft in the vicinity of the landfill at the proposed final elevation of 1025-feet above



MSL. The FAA conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 44718 and on August 19, 2011 issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation based on the final proposed landfill elevation. The determination also stated that marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. The FAA determination is included as Attachment A.

2.3 Property Ownership and Control

The Ontario County Landfill property is owned by Ontario County and is

currently operated by Casella Waste Services of Ontario, LLC (Casella) as part of a 25 year lease agreement with Ontario County that commenced in December 2003. Figure 2 depicts the site boundaries and adjacent land ownership.

The property proposed for development of the borrow area is currently

private property. Acquisition and use of the proposed soil borrow area will only occur should the facility receive the permit modification for the landfill expansion.

2.4 Project Design

This section summarizes the design of the proposed Phase III expansion

project. The Ontario County Landfill is regulated primarily by 6 NYCRR Part 360, and has an existing permit to operate. In order to modify this permit to expand beyond the currently permitted Phase III limits, the Owner must demonstrate compliance with the design, construction, operation, and closure requirements of Part 360. In support of this permit application, the following plans and reports will be submitted as part of the Part 360 permit application to demonstrate that the proposed expansion meets the current regulations:

Construction and Operation Plans (Part 360-2.4, 2.5 and 2.6); Engineering Report (Part 360-2.7); Construction Quality Assurance/Construction Quality Control Manual and

Specifications (Part 360-2.8); Operation and Maintenance Manual (Part 360-2.9); Environmental Monitoring Plan (Part 360-2.11); Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; Contingency Plan (Part 360-2.10);

Mined Land Use Plan for soil borrow activities; and Hydrogeologic Report (Part 360-2.11).



These documents will be submitted to the NYSDEC under separate cover as part of the 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit application. A brief summary of the conceptual design and layout is provided in the section below. Further information related to the plans referenced above will be discussed in the sections following.

2.4.1 Conceptual Nature of Proposed Facility Design and Layout

As part of the Operations, Maintenance and Lease (OML) Agreement, expansion of the existing Phase III landfill is proposed. The proposed expansion is divided into two different stages as described in the following sections. The proposed lateral extent subgrade elevations, and final grading plan described herein are conceptual at this time until the 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit application is approved by the NYSDEC. The lateral extent, subgrade elevations and final grades may be subject to change based on comments provided by reviewing entities.

The generalized layout of the proposed expansion, the proposed subgrade elevations, and the final grading plan are shown on Figure 6, Figure 8, and Figure 7, respectively. Final grades for the proposed expansion include developing the landfill side slopes at 33% (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) per 6 NYCRR Part 360 to an elevation of 997 feet above MSL. Landfill top slopes will be developed at the regulatory minimum slope of 4% to a maximum elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL to promote proper surface water collection and drainage in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. At a final elevation of 1025 feet above MSL, the landfill grades will range from approximately 155 to 195 feet above the existing ground surface surrounding the facility.

Development of these expansion scenarios will require, at a minimum, a 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit modification, Title V air permit modification, Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit, stormwater SDPES permit update, and SEQRA compliance.

2.4.1.1 Stage VIII (Wrap Around) Expansion

This development area encompasses approximately 16.0 acres immediately west and north of the existing Phase III landfill between the Tributary to Flint Creek on the west, existing LFGTE facility on the north, and the existing landfill boundary. The development of this option would have minimal impacts to the surrounding community as no wetlands or historical areas would be impacted. Additionally, it would be a development of an area that is currently utilized in landfill related activities.

A 6 NYCRR Part 360 compliant double composite liner

system (Figure 3) will be constructed in the proposed Stage VIII area, as in the existing Phase III landfill. The liner system from the



Stage VIII area will be connected directly to the existing double composite liner system of Stage I, II, and VII to allow for a continuous liner system. Areas adjacent to the Stage IX (Eastern) expansion will tie into the proposed Stage IX liner, to create a continuous primary and secondary liners for leachate containment and collection. Leachate will be collected from the proposed Stage VIII area via the use of a sideriser leachate pumping system similar to the existing system implemented in the Stage IV and Stage VII development areas. Once collected, the leachate will be transferred to on-site leachate storage for handling and disposal at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. Leachate conveyance and storage outside the lined landfill limits will consist of dual contained systems in compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. In order to effectively collect leachate generated within Stage I and II, a portion of the exterior perimeter berm of the existing Phase III landfill will be excavated at the low point (valley) of each cell (5 total). The excavation of the berm will allow leachate to effectively drain into the proposed Stage VIII development. Similar berm excavations have been successfully implemented on the Stage III area during the development of Stage VII.

The existing leachate collection system for Stages I and II of the landfill will require modification to allow for continued leachate collection. The modification will include removal of the existing leachate collection manholes and extension of the collection piping into Stage VIII to maintain leachate collection and maintenance access for annual pipe cleanings.

The development of this option will require two of the existing stormwater ponds and the existing leachate lagoon to be relocated/modified. The relocated leachate storage will require upgrading to include additional capacity, unless an alternative method of disposal is implemented. The relocated leachate storage is anticipated to be located to the north of the Phase III landfill, just west of the existing LFGTE facility. See Figure 7 for further details on the proposed leachate storage location.

Operation of this stage will require the removal of the existing capping system installed on the west and north portions of Stages I & II. The capping system will require removal in an incremental manner as waste placement advances.

2.4.1.2 Stage IX (Eastern) Expansion

This development area encompasses approximately 27.5

acres immediately east of the existing Phase III landfill in the area currently permitted as the eastern borrow area. The development of this option would have minimal impacts to the surrounding



community as no wetlands or historical areas would be impacted. Additionally, it would be development of an area that is currently utilized as a soil borrow area and maintenance area in landfill related activities. The development of this expansion would require the relocation of the maintenance facility and utilities located along Old Post Road as well as the existing borrow area.

A 6 NYCRR Part 360 compliant double composite liner system (Figure 3) will be constructed in the proposed Stage IX area. The liner system from the Stage IX area will be connected directly to the existing double composite liner system of the Stages II-A, II, III, IV and VIII to create a continuous liner system for effective leachate containment and collection. Leachate will be collected from the proposed Stage VIII area via the use of a sideriser leachate pumping system similar to the existing system implemented in the Stage IV and Stage VII development areas. Once collected, the leachate will be transferred to on-site leachate storage for handling and disposal at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. Leachate conveyance and storage outside the lined landfill limits will consist of dual contained systems in compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360.

Operation of this stage will require the removal of the existing capping system installed on the eastern portions of Stages II & II-A. The capping system will require removal in an incremental method as waste placement advances.

2.4.2 Liner System

Water percolating down from the landfill surface will create leachate as it interacts with disposed wastes. The leachate will be contained within the leachate collection and removal system, which will be constructed as an integral component of two separate composite liner systems, one built overlying the other. Each liner system consists of low permeability soil or geosynthetic clay liner and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane. The leachate collection and removal system is situated immediately above each HDPE geomembrane and serves to direct the flow of leachate to the removal system and ultimately the on-site leachate storage area.

The proposed expansion liner system (Figure 3) will be compliant with 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations and similar in design to the existing Phase III liner system of Stages IV through VII. The lower, or secondary, liner system will be constructed utilizing a two-foot thick soil layer with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10-7 cm/s with an overlying 60 mil (0.060 inch) HDPE geomembrane. The secondary leachate collection system will be constructed over the secondary liner system and will consist of a composite geonet and perforated collection pipes. The upper,



or primary liner system will consist of a 12” soil layer and a geosynthetic clay liner overlaid with a 60 mil HDPE geomembrane. The primary leachate collection system is situated above the upper composite liner system and consists of a two-foot thick granular soil drainage layer with perforated collection pipes.

As part of the anticipated first stage of development, the liner systems of the expansions will tie into the existing liner system of Phase III Stages II, II-A, III and IV as well as to each other where adjacent. The tie-in will occur in a similar fashion to the connection of newly constructed cell developments to existing landfill cells. The landfill personnel or contractor will excavate the cover soils to expose the different layers of the liner system to allow for a direct connection between the geosynthetics and soil layers resulting in a continuous double composite liner system beneath the waste disposal area. Construction of the tie-in in this fashion will allow for waste placement to overlay the in-place waste mass of Stages I and II, forming a continuous waste mass. The placement of waste over portions of the existing Phase III landfill will require the removal of the existing capping system. It is anticipated that the capping system will be removed in a systematic manner as waste placement progresses.

Upon completion of construction, the landfill liner system within each landfill cell will resemble a ridge and valley. The sloped sides of the liner system will facilitate leachate flow towards the low end of the cell for leachate collection and pumping from the cell using a sump and a sideriser pumping station. The liner system shall maintain a minimum slope of two percent and a maximum slope of 33 percent. The sideriser pumping stations will be located along the perimeter road of the landfill footprint. Once metered in the sideriser pump stations, leachate will travel via double walled pipe gravity conveyance header to a main pump station which will transfer the leachate to the leachate storage area. This double-walled pipe configuration will allow for leak detection in the main inner carrier pipe. Figure 9 outlines the proposed locations of the sideriser pump stations, main pump station, and leachate piping.

A pore water drainage system will be constructed below the double composite liner system to minimize the upward buoyancy forces associated with groundwater. This layer will consist of a composite geonet on slopes greater than 25 percent or a 12-inch granular fill layer encompassed between two layers of nonwoven geotextile on the remaining areas which will convey groundwater to collection trenches located at the low point of each cell. Collection pipes within these trenches will convey the collected groundwater to the low end of the cells where the groundwater will be pumped out via a separate pumping system within the sideriser pump station for final discharge into the surrounding



surface waters. In the unlikely event that the groundwater is found to be contaminated by the sampling required by Part 360, the piping within the sideriser building will be modified to allow the water to be collected within the leachate collection system.

The NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations that govern siting, construction, operation, and closure of the proposed landfill expansion are designed to provide maximum protection to the environment including groundwater and surface water resources. The installation of a double composite landfill liner system over relatively low permeability soils, along with a leachate collection and containment system, and an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells, will ensure protection of groundwater resources.

There are currently 27 double-lined landfills with leak detection operating in New York State, some for over 20 years. The NYSDEC has evaluated on-site groundwater monitoring well analytical data and liner system performance data at such landfills. Of the facilities evaluated, none indicated groundwater impacts attributed to liner system leakage from a double composite lined landfill (Phaneuf and Becker, 2001).1

For the expansion area, the leachate collection system for each cell area will be equipped with metering systems to continuously monitor secondary flow rates and primary liner system performance. Monitoring results will be provided to the NYSDEC in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360, based on a 30-day rolling average.

In addition, NYSDEC Part 360 regulations require the landfill to provide financial assurance to maintain and monitor the integrity of the landfill for a minimum of thirty-years post closure. The landfill will continue to implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring program for the current landfill as well as the proposed expansions. The Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) will further ensure environmental protection. 2.4.3 Leachate Storage, Treatment, and Disposal

The leachate storage system will consist of two double composite

lined lagoons in compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 capable of storing approximately 1,200,000 gallons in order to minimize storage area and meet the storage requirements of the applicable regulations. The proposed location of this storage area is situated immediately north of the existing Phase III landfill and west of the existing LFGTE facility. The

1 Phaneuf, Robert J., and Becker, Dale A., “Proper Environmental Containment System Design and Performance Monitoring, Can It Lead to Increased Regulatory Flexibility?,” Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations Solid Waste/Recycling Conference & Trade Show, May 2001.



existing 400,000-gallon capacity storage lagoon will likely be utilized until adequate storage capacity is no longer available or the Stage VIII liner



system is constructed. The storage area will be constructed with a load out for trucks to pump the leachate for transportation to a wastewater treatment facility.

The leachate storage lagoons will temporarily store leachate prior to disposal via truck hauling or piping to a permitted wastewater treatment plant for final treatment and disposal. As with current operations the primary disposal facility for the leachate will be the Canandaigua wastewater treatment facility, with a backup disposal option in the City of Geneva for smaller volumes of leachate. Both permitted facilities have adequate capacity and processes to properly treat the landfill leachate prior to discharge from the plant. Each treatment facility is required to meet strict discharge standards set forth by the NYSDEC.

A preliminary site wide leachate generation estimate has been completed through the use of historical leachate collection data. Figure 10 shows the anticipated leachate generation from the overall facility over time. Based on the preliminary estimate, the total site leachate generation would peak at over 21 million gallons of leachate per year. The estimates were performed assuming a worst case condition of no final cover system installation on the Phase III landfill and therefore the peak year for generation would occur in approximately 2028. 2.4.4 Landfill Gas Collection System

The facility is currently operating under a Title V Air Facility Permit (ID 8-3244-00004/00007) that became effective on May 25, 2007 and expires on May 24, 2012. The existing landfill facility permit requires modification to permit the proposed landfill expansion.

The landfill facility has a design capacity exceeding 2.5 x 106 megagrams (Mg) of solid waste, making it subject to the requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW. In addition, the facility has a modeled, uncontrolled non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate greater than 50 Mg per year based on NSPS NMOC calculation procedures. This required the facility to install a landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) to capture and destroy landfill gas in accordance with NSPS regulations.

An active landfill gas (LFG) collection system is currently installed in the existing landfill and is proposed as part of the expansion area. The LFG collection system will be designed with a series of horizontal collection trenches for collection of landfill gas during operations and vertical extraction wells for the collection of gas from areas that have reached final grades.



The construction of the horizontal collection trenches will utilize perforated piping encapsulated in a stone-lined trench. The dimensions will be approximately three feet wide by three feet deep. The perforated pipe will transition to solid pipe prior to penetrating the side slope of the landfill to minimize oxygen intrusion. Typical spacing between trenches will be 10-30 feet vertically and 75-100 feet horizontally. The landfill operator will install horizontal collection trenches during waste placement operations and put trenches in operation as soon as the placement of adequate waste cover prevents air infiltration.

Once the waste reaches final elevation, vertical gas extraction wells installed to a depth sufficient to penetrate a minimum of three-fourths the depth of the waste will be installed to augment the horizontal trenches. The typical vertical extraction well will be approximately three feet in diameter and contain a perforated pipe that is backfilled with stone. The vertical well piping will extend through the surface of the landfill and connect to a conveyance header.

This active LFG collection system will include a combination of vertical extraction wells and horizontal collection trenches which are connected to a network of header pipes used to convey the gas to the flare or LFGTE facility. An enclosed flare is also located adjacent to the LFGTE facility to increase the current control capacity and to serve as a backup device if the facility is shut down for an extended period of time. Figure 11 outlines the proposed locations of the collection trenches, extraction wells, flares, and LFGTE tie-ins. 2.4.5 Landfill Gas to Energy Facility

The Ontario County Landfill and LFGTE Facility currently operate

under separate Title V Air permits in accordance with NYSDEC and federal EPA regulations. Each facility had previously been determined to be a separate facility from the other, due to separate operation and ownership, and therefore each facility was permitted individually without need for evaluation of combined facility emissions.

The LFGTE facility currently operates under a Title V Permit

(Permit ID: 83244-00040/00002), which was issued on June 22, 2005. The currently permitted facility consists of eight (8) identical Caterpillar® G3516C, lean burn, landfill gas fueled reciprocating IC engines, and ancillary equipment to support electricity generation. The facility has the potential to generate approximately 6.4 megawatts (MW) of electricity under base load operating conditions. Based on landfill gas model estimates, the existing landfill has the potential to generate sufficient quantities of landfill gas to supply the existing and proposed LFGTE facilities, and landfill gas generated from the expansion landfill is not required for LFGTE to operate.



2.4.6 Site Capacity and Expected Site Life

The Stage VIII expansion will encompass approximately 16.0 acres and increase disposal capacity by approximately 4,987,100 million cubic yards (CY). The Eastern expansion encompasses approximately 27.5 acres and increases the disposal capacity by 6,517,700 CY. Combined, the proposed stages will increase the available airspace by approximately 11,504,800 cubic yards which is anticipated to provide adequate airspace through 2028 depending on waste acceptance rates and effective airspace utilization. No increase to the approved design capacity is being proposed.

2.5 Landfill Construction

2.5.1 Landfill Development

Figure 12 outlines each of the proposed cells, or waste disposal

areas, in proposed development sequence. Construction plans include four cells built over the life of the proposed expansion, totaling approximately 43.5 acres. The cell numbers are not intuitive to the order of construction and waste placement, which the following paragraphs will clarify, but may vary according to final regulatory approvals.

Based on the proposed development sequence, the initial

development will consist of Stage VIII-B and Stage IX-B (14.4 acres) which will be followed by Stage IX-A (17.3 acres). Stage VIII-A will begin upon the completion of Stage IX-B. Again two cells will complete the entirety of Stage VIII. This construction is secondary since the first cell in Stage VIII, the 4.2 acres north of Phase III, will drain into the Stage IX-A leachate collection system for removal. This cell will be denoted Stage VIII-B. The last cell for construction, Stage VIII-A, encompasses approximately 11.8 acres on the western slope of the current Phase III landfill.

The construction of the landfill expansion is a substantial undertaking requiring several different types of construction equipment. Construction workers will use bulldozers, front-end bucket loaders, dump trucks, scrapers, graders, hydraulic excavators, rollers, and other heavy equipment to accomplish the work. The cells may take one or more construction seasons to complete.

2.5.2 Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC)

Trained quality control representatives vigilantly supervise and

inspect the installation of the double composite liner systems. QA/QC tests for soil placement, soil liners, drainage media, geosynthetic materials, and synthetic geomembrane seams will verify that the material is installed to the required specifications to ensure compliance with



applicable regulations. Construction documents containing detailed discussions of the QA/QC procedures planned, including construction specifications and detailed drawings will be submitted to the NYSDEC for approval prior to each phase of the landfill expansion’s build out containing detailed discussions of the quality assurance and quality control procedures planned, including construction specifications and detailed drawings.

Construction certification reports will be prepared for each landfill development project which summarizes construction activities and the testing results. These construction certification reports will be submitted to the NYSDEC for review and approval prior to any waste placement in a newly constructed landfill cell.

The NYSDEC Part 360 permit application engineering report requires the preparation of a Construction Quality Assurance/Construction Quality Control (CQA/CQC) Manual. This CQA/CQC Manual details the procedures to ensure that the materials and methods used to construct the landfill meet the design criteria and specifications set forth in the Part 360 Regulations. While the landfill is under construction, a CQA Inspector(s) will be onsite at all times to document and verify that all installation and construction activities meet contract specifications.

Laboratory and field tests conducted at specified intervals on materials used to construct the landfill liner system will ensure quality throughout landfill construction. Certified laboratories and technicians will conduct soil tests to verify that all liner system materials are placed with the proper moisture content, thickness, density, and permeability. Inspection and testing of the geomembrane liners will ensure that the liner meets the minimum thickness required, and to ensure that the seams between overlapping panels of geomembrane are in accordance with contract specifications. Tests on the material used for the leachate collection layer will confirm that this material placement meets the specified minimum permeability and thickness. A more detailed explanation of the rigorous testing, inspection, and analyses during landfill construction will be contained in the CQA/ CQC Manual. Upon completion of each layer of the liner system, on-site QA/QC personnel will ensure that the placed material is maintained in the appropriate condition until the next overlying layer is placed. QA/QC personnel will permit only essential traffic over completed areas of liner system to prevent damage to the placed materials.

Geosynthetic materials will be stockpiled in a manner that will sufficiently protect the materials from dust, dirt, and other potential sources of damage. Appropriate placement procedures will also be utilized during placement to prevent damage from the placement of overlying materials, vehicle traffic, and leakage of hydrocarbons (e.g.



fluids from construction vehicles). Traffic over the geotextile and geomembrane shall be minimized to prevent any damage following placement. In areas of concentrated traffic additional material shall be installed to offer a buffer between the vehicles and liner system. Additionally a cushioning geotextile will be placed over the primary geomembrane prior to the placement of the primary leachate collection layer to minimize the risk of damage.

Following completion of the liner system, trained landfill personnel will visually inspect waste placement procedures during the placement of the initial five foot lift of waste above the liner system, to ensure the removal of materials such as pipe, timbers, and large metal items, which have the potential to damage the underlying liner. Compaction of only the top portion of the first full lift of waste will further protect the underlying liner. 2.5.3 Soil Management

Both on- and off-site soils will comprise subgrade and landfill liner

construction, operational cover soil application, and final cover system construction. Where possible, on-site soil will be removed from the proposed future landfill cell expansion areas in an effort to bring such areas to their proposed subgrade elevations prior to cell construction. Cap removal from Stages I and II will be necessary prior to waste placement overlying the eastern, northern and western slopes of Stage I, II, and II-A. It will be necessary to segregate on- and off-site borrow as topsoil, soils for liner and final cover construction, and for operational cover soil. Final capping and other applications will require stockpiled topsoil. Landfill liner systems, capping, and general operations require finer-grained materials that have a low permeability. Operational soil cover application or construction of roadways or embankments typically requires coarser-grained materials.

There are not sufficient soils on-site within the proposed expansion area for use in subgrade construction, perimeter berm and roadway construction, and operational soil placement. Early estimates anticipate the necessity of additional borrow areas outside the proposed landfill footprint; however, not all of the soil requirements will come from off-site sources. On-site soils will be supplemented by a soil borrow area proposed on a contiguous property to the south of the existing landfill property. The proposed borrow area encompasses approximately 15.5 acres and is expected to yield approximately 922,850 CY of soil. The proposed extent of soil borrow activities on the adjacent property is depicted on Figure 13. Below is the estimated general soil balance for the project:

I. Total Net Subgrade Excavation: 1,468,700 cubic yards II. Soil Utilization:



a. Construction (i.e., roads, ponds, liner system, bedrock replacement): (37,800) cubic yards

b. Landfill Operations (i.e., cover excluding alternate materials): (1,150,500) cubic yards at 10 percent cover excluding BUD

c. Landfill Closure: (620,000) cubic yards III. Soil Balance: 339,600 cubic yards deficit (i.e., required from

borrow area)

Other soils for construction require hauling to the facility from offsite, similar to previous and current construction projects at the landfill. Additional anticipated soils from offsite for construction include secondary soil liner and granular drainage soils such as stone and sand.

It should be noted that BUD material usage can be upwards of

25%; however, for the purposes of this soil balance analysis the percent of BUD utilized for cover was lowered to 10% to provide a conservative estimate associated with the soil balance.

Operational personnel or contractors will perform only necessary clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation in advance of the landfill, in an effort to minimize disturbed areas and prevent erosion. The construction stage activities will comply with the requirements of the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Industrial Activity (GP-0-06-002). The SPDES permit requires the site to maintain a stormwater pollution prevention plan which outlines the stormwater management requirements during construction activities, which will minimize construction stormwater impacts. Stone-lined ditches, sediment traps, stormwater ponds, and aggressive reseeding of disturbed areas as soon as practical will provide siltation and erosion control measures down-slope of the fill and borrow areas. Temporary erosion control methods such as silt fences, stone check dams, and hay bales will also control any particular erosion problem areas that occur during landfill construction. 2.5.4 Noise Control

Noise generated from construction activities will be limited in duration. Implementation of noise control practices during construction is as follows:

Installation of proper mufflers on all construction equipment will limit noise. In the event that noise levels are ever higher than desired during landfill operations, trained personnel will check the mufflers on the heavy equipment and retrofit if necessary and where feasible.



Heavy equipment operation, except when necessary for liner preparation and placement, is forbidden between sunset and sunrise. Extended construction hours of 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. may be necessary to conduct liner preparation and placement operations to take advantage of appropriate weather conditions, which would be approved by the NYSDEC.

In the event that construction hours need extension beyond daylight hours, the NYSDEC must approve the extension.

2.6 Landfill Operation

2.6.1 Hours of Operation and Site Access

Hours of operation for the expansion will be the same as the current facility. Operation, including daily cover placement, at the facility will be Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and Saturdays following holidays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Holidays include New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Construction and operation activities are prohibited on these days. Waste delivery vehicles will access the site and proposed expansions in the same way described in Section 3.2.7, from County Route 49. The previous facility infrastructure will allow access to the scale house for weighing both in and out of the facility. The expansions will likely require the relocation of access roads within the site for transportation to the working face of the landfill, as the current roads pass through the proposed construction zone. Once weighed, traffic will move along the access roads to a temporary access point on the active landfill face. Landfill personnel will direct each waste load to a specific location to unload. Waste delivery vehicles will deposit said waste and return to the scale house to record the outgoing weight and receive a weight receipt prior to departure from the site. If a deliverer utilizes a tare weight, only the incoming weight of the vehicle is necessary, as a previously established outgoing weight standard applies to these vehicles. 2.6.2 Waste Inspections

Waste inspection procedures currently used at the existing Ontario County Landfill will apply to the expansion. Facility personnel are trained in waste screening for prohibited wastes. In the event that landfill personnel observe unauthorized wastes during unloading, they will notify the vehicle driver of the discovery and require said driver to remove the waste. If unauthorized waste is discovered after delivery and the hauler cannot be identified, landfill personnel will segregate the unauthorized



waste from the remainder of the waste stream and arrange for an authorized disposal firm to transport and properly dispose of the waste. Repeat offenses are cause for barring individuals or firms from using the landfill facility. If facility personnel suspect any unauthorized wastes as hazardous, they will immediately notify the NYSDEC. The facility’s annual report submitted to the NYSDEC will include a record of each incident, which identifies the type and final disposition of the unauthorized waste. In addition to the constant waste screening during typical operations, random waste inspections at the landfill will be conducted once per week or more frequently at the discretion of the landfill supervisor. Trucks selected at random for waste inspection will unload waste while moving forward to create a thin layer of waste for spot checking. The inspector will visually examine the wastes for the presence of unauthorized materials. Any unauthorized wastes will be returned to the vehicle and in the event of illegal activity, the NYSDEC will be notified. Facility personnel will maintain records as to daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly tonnage totals with waste type recorded for each incoming truck. As per the facility’s Part 360 permit, these records shall be maintained for the life of the facility. Waste inspections will be recorded on special forms and with photographs if necessary. The facility’s annual report to the NYSDEC will also include a summary of this information. 2.6.3 Waste Placement

Facility personnel will place only waste materials which do not have the potential to penetrate the landfill liner or compromise its integrity in the initial lift of waste overlying the liner system. Visual inspection of this initial lift will ensure that potentially damaging materials such as pipes, timbers, large metal items, or pointed objects are removed prior to disposal. The completed first lift will be approximately five to ten feet thick with compaction only on the top layer of the lift. A steel wheel compacter will typically spread and compact waste placed above this first lift in two-foot thick layers. A maximum thickness of two feet will allow for more compaction and decrease waste settling later on. Both the top and the sloped face of each lift will undergo compaction. Daily and intermediate cover soil applications will consist of borrow soil, soil reclaimed from cap removal, BUD soils or an approved alternative cover material. Daily cover of six-inch thickness will be applied to the operating landfill face at the end of each workday. Landfill surfaces where no additional waste is to be placed for at least thirty days will receive intermediate cover of one-foot thickness. For additional erosion control, the intermediate cover will be seeded with temporary cover crops when applicable. To the extent practicable, the intermediate and daily cover will be removed to facilitate the migration of leachate through the



waste mass down to the leachate collection system and to conserve soil material. Removal will occur before the placement of the next lift of waste to the greatest extent possible. The facility plans to utilize alternative daily and intermediate cover materials when applicable as approved by the NYSDEC. This action will maximize operational flexibility and improve overall project economics. The site currently uses many alternate covers including petroleum-contaminated soils, ash, stabilized sludges, and C&D debris on its operational cells. Use of these alternate covers and others approved by the NYSDEC will continue on the proposed landfill expansion. The Ontario County Landfill will seek the approval of additional alternative materials on a case-by-case basis, utilizing detailed information that is specific to the alternative cover of interest. 2.6.4 Landfill Operation Equipment and Personnel

A variety of mobile heavy equipment is necessary to operate the landfill. This equipment must be adequate to operate the landfill on a daily basis with any one unit decommissioned for service or repair. The following is a list of landfill equipment and their functions currently used at Ontario County landfill and which will also be used for the proposed expansion:

Landfill Compactor – Spread and compact solid waste as well as spread daily cover. The compactor is restricted to the working face when above the landfill liner system or where a minimum of five feet of selected refuse has been placed over the liner.

Excavator – Excavate and load cover material, construct diversion berms and drainage swales, miscellaneous site maintenance, and heavy loading and lifting.

Bulldozers – Spread cover material for daily, intermediate, and final cover, loosen soil in borrow areas prior to loading, spread solid waste, and compact solid waste if other equipment is temporarily unavailable.

Articulated Haulers and Dump Trucks – Move soil from excavated location to final placement area. Truck access is restricted to portions of the landfill liner system which have a minimum of five feet of selected refuse in place.

Pickup Trucks – Utilized for moving supervisory personnel around the site to perform daily and scheduled checks on the work and condition of the landfill. Also used to provide minor emergency service to mobile equipment and to travel offsite for parts and service materials when necessary.

Water Wagon – Dust control during dry periods and potential line of defense for firefighting.



Snow Plow – Move snow from site access and service roads.

Sweeper – Maintain cleanliness of asphalt roads.

Tractors – Equipped with a brush hog or sweeper for mowing and road maintenance.

Screening Plant – For preparation of daily and intermediate cover.

Mechanic’s Truck – Maintenance for equipment in the field.

Landfill personnel will carry out the day-to-day tasks of soil cover excavation and the compaction and cover of waste. These personnel will generally consist of a landfill general manager, operations manager, environmental compliance manager, landfill equipment operators, mechanics, and a scale operator. The general manager, operations manager and other landfill personnel deemed necessary have been trained in landfill solid waste management procedures at a NYSDEC-approved training course. 2.6.5 Site Contingencies and Controls

2.6.5.1 Contingency Plan

The NYSDEC requires a double composite liner system to underlay all municipal solid waste landfills operating in New York State. These liner systems provide a significant level of environmental protection, as proven by testing and previous performance. Ensuring that the constructed liner system meets the design criteria set forth in the NYSDEC’s Part 360 Regulations, monitoring the flow rates in the leachate collection systems for early detection of potential liner leakage, and monitoring the water quality of the water collected in the pore water (groundwater) drainage system will prevent leachate generated from the proposed landfill from impacting groundwater resources. The following sections provide more detail on the preemptive environmental protection, leachate collection, and leak detection systems, as well as the actions to mitigate potential releases or accidents. Section 3.0 outlines mitigation measures for more severe environmental impacts. 2.6.5.2 Liner System Performance Monitoring Landfill personnel will continually measure the flow rates within the primary and secondary leachate collection systems and the groundwater collection system within each landfill cell by flow meters located in the sideriser buildings. Landfill personnel will take and record the readings from each meter on a daily basis. The USEPA and NYSDEC mandate an allowable operational



secondary flow rate of 20 gallons per acre per day (gpad), based on a 30-day rolling average. If the flow rate monitoring from the secondary leachate collection system indicates a leakage rate of greater than 20 gpad based on the 30-day average, landfill personnel will implement the Response Action Plan. In general, the steps taken if the secondary flow rates for a particular cell exceed 20 gpad based on the 30-day average include:

Notify the NYSDEC Region 8 Solid Waste Office in writing within seven (7) days.

Evaluate operational procedures to determine potential liner damaging operations or occurrences.

Within 14 days, submit in writing a preliminary description of the amount of liquid, the suspected source, and how it will be corrected.

Collect samples from the secondary leachate collection riser sump (LCRS) of that cell for NYSDEC Part 360 Baseline Water Quality Analyses. A review of these analyses may assist in determining where the leak may be in the double composite liner system.

Include the secondary LCRS as sampling points for NYSDEC Part 360 Routine Water Quality Analyses.

Monitor quality and quantity of the pore water collection (groundwater suppression) system flow.

Evaluate all feasible corrective actions, including whether the filling process should be changed and whether any waste should be removed for cell inspection.

Implement the appropriate corrective action as determined through the evaluation conducted above.

Monitor remedial actions implemented for a period of 30 days and submit a report to the NYSDEC outlining the results of the remedial actions.

If secondary LCRS leakage rates remain above 20 gal/acre/day, submit monthly reports to the NYSDEC describing the remedial actions implemented, the results of those actions and any new actions that need to be addressed or taken.



In the event that the implementation of corrective measures does not reduce the secondary flow rates to within acceptable levels, landfill personnel will initiate immediate closure of the landfill cell areas with unacceptable leakage rates.

2.6.5.3 Odor Control

Landfill personnel will remediate any odors discovered through inspection or complaint by surrounding residents as soon as possible. Several techniques and procedures will ensure minimization of odor both on- and off-site. Such odor control practices are as follows:

Strictly regulated placement of daily and intermediate covers to the correct depth above the waste to contain LFG and scrub the gas as it passes through soil bacteria.

Prioritization of waste placement, to expedite the placement of particularly odorous waste and eliminate stockpiles or extended exposure of such wastes. If certain wastes continue to cause odor problems over time, even with special handing, facility acceptance of the waste shall cease.

Aggressive approaches to leachate outbreak remediation. Exposed leachate in the environment will present both an environmental hazard and strong odor problem.

Coverage of primary LFG collection stone, which presents a preferential pathway for the gas to escape into the atmosphere and cause odor problems.

Maintenance of LFG collection systems to ensure proper operation for the collection and elimination of LFG, including flares and collection points such as vertical wells.

Installation of additional vertical and horizontal collection infrastructure as warranted based on the fill sequence.

2.6.5.4 Dust Control

Landfill operators will implement the following measures to control dust: keeping soil borrow areas and other areas with earth-working activities to the minimum practicable size; re-vegetating exposed areas as quickly as possible; and using a water truck to water down haul roads during dry periods. No chemical methods are permitted or proposed as dust control.



2.6.5.5 Litter Control

Litter control will include manually picking up windblown items and bringing them to the working face of the landfill. The construction of permanent or portable fences where necessary will prevent litter from blowing away from the working face of the landfill. The selection of lower landfill levels for daily waste placement during extremely windy conditions, when practicable, will reduce the need for litter control. The requirement of covering all waste loads delivered to the landfill will also control litter.

2.6.5.6 Pest Control

The landfill currently employs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to assist in controlling birds and vectors on the landfill property. The representative is on-site daily implementing a program designed to deter vector activity at the landfill. These programs include pyrotechnics, trapping and lethal control measures. This program will be continued through the life of the proposed expansion.

To aid on-site personnel in controlling pests the landfill must implement proper operational and maintenance measures. Measures to control pests include adequately compacting wastes, minimizing the landfill’s working face area, covering the working face with at least six inches of daily cover material, and properly applying intermediate cover materials to inactive areas of the landfill. Any materials used as alternative daily cover must demonstrate effectiveness as both cover soil and as a vector deterrent to be approved by the NYSDEC for use. If periodic inspections identify rodent activity, the existing USDA program will be modified to reduce the rodent population.

2.6.5.7 Fire Control

The primary risk of fires at the site results from small amounts of smoking or smoldering waste which is mixed with other waste shipped to the landfill. Proper inspection of waste loads at the transfer stations by trained personnel prior to delivery at the landfill as well as at the landfill working face will reduce this risk.

In the event that smoking or smoldering waste is delivered to the landfill, it will be pushed aside and covered with soil to extinguish any fires. The waste would not be placed in the landfill until it is cool. The hauler or transfer station supervisor responsible will be notified to review and implement corrective procedures as necessary for prevention.



Small fires which occur in an upper lift, at depths of less than twenty feet, of an active cell after waste placement will be extinguished by excavating and spreading the waste to cover with soil and cool. Landfill personnel will handle these fires with onsite equipment. Small fires may also be combated with onsite fire extinguishers or the water wagon when appropriate. The facility will maintain a fire prevention and control plan in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Manual. Landfill personnel will be properly trained in fire prevention and control.

Larger subsurface landfill fires, at depths of greater than twenty feet, will not be handled by landfill personnel. Excessive surface settlement and the venting of smoke through cover soils are common subsurface fire indicators. If a deep-seated fire occurs within the waste mass and is identified by these indicators, landfill personnel will immediately notify NYSDEC Region 8. Subsurface fires may require specialized landfill fire contractors for extinguishment. Possible fire control techniques include water or inert gas injection. Additional borings may be necessary to analyze the waste mass and provide more injection points.

Other fires, including those in any of the facility’s structures, will be called into the Ontario County emergency response system (911).

2.7 Landfill Closure Preparation and Process

Closure of the site will be progressive as the landfill operation proceeds to completion. As with current operations, facility personnel will close and cap some sections of landfill while others may still be operational. The top and side slope capping systems are detailed further in Figure 14.

Prior to constructing the landfill capping system, the final waste lift and intermediate cover soil grading will bring the closure area as close as possible to 100 percent capacity. The 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit outlines the maximum capacity, shown by the grades in the final design plans. Any vegetative growth established on the intermediate cover will require removal prior to final cap construction.

Construction of a top slope cap system will cover slopes which are graded between 4 and 25 percent. The main hydraulic barrier for this system is a composite compliant with 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(s) consisting of a 40 mil textured linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane which directly overlays an 18-inch thick low permeability soil layer or geosynthetic clay liner. A drainage layer consisting of a composite geonet placed above the composite



barrier will precede the placement of a 24-inch thick protective soil layer on top. An additional 6-inch layer of topsoil installed over the protection layer will encourage sustained vegetative growth.

A side slope capping system will cover slopes graded between 25 and 33 percent. The main hydraulic barrier for this system is a 40 mil textured LLDPE geomembrane. A drainage layer consisting of a composite geonet placed above the barrier will precede the placement of a 24-inch thick protective soil layer. An additional 6-inch layer of topsoil installed over the protection layer to encourage sustained vegetative growth.

2.8 Landfill Post-Closure Monitoring and Site Uses

Working order maintenance of the landfill capping system and landfill support systems including leachate collection and storage, landfill gas collection and control, and surface water collection and control, will continue after closure of the landfill for the duration of the post-closure period. This duration is generally thirty years after construction on the last cell is complete, unless otherwise approved by the NYSDEC. Surface water, groundwater, and explosive gas monitoring will occur during the post-closure period as required by the NYSDEC’s Part 360 regulations.

Restrictions exist for the future uses of a closed landfill. The NYSDEC must review any future use of the landfill after closure and capping so that uses comply with site characteristics and do not interfere with post-closure monitoring. The NYSDEC also reviews environmental exposures and safety concerns at this time, including any ways in which the integrity of environmental protection measures such as the landfill cover, drainage, liners, monitoring system, or leachate and stormwater controls may be compromised. Due to such environmental restrictions, other closed landfills fulfill uses as open spaces, nature preserves, recreational trails, bird sanctuaries, golf courses, and other conservation and/or recreational areas. Closed landfill sites also accommodate the construction of development projects, including shopping malls, office parks, hotels, drive-in theaters, auto dealerships, and airfields. These more intensive uses of closed landfill sites pose many technical challenges that developers must address, including building in protections from the potential hazards of methane explosion, landfill settlement, and leachate management. The landfill disposal area itself is not generally suitable for building any structures for a number of years after closure due to the potential for subsidence (settling) and the need to ensure the integrity of the capping system.

The County is currently in the process of developing a landfill property

Master Plan to aid in the future planning and development at the Ontario County Landfill. When completed, the Master Plan may include an in depth feasibility study of leachate treatment and disposal alternatives, potential local domestic wastewater collection, potential recreational uses (nature trails, educational centers) and industrial co-location to stimulate economic development. Until



such time as the Master Plan is subjected to public comment and formally adopted, any future projects are entirely speculative. Furthermore, even after finalization, the County may or may not choose to develop any of the various proposals contained in the final Master Plan, since they will depend greatly on a number of variables, including, but not limited to, future funding and the ability to attract industrial development to the site.

2.9 Regulatory Reviews and Approvals for Landfill Expansion

The following permits, reviews and approvals have been identified as being applicable to the proposed project:

Compliance with the requirements of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

A NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 360 Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate a solid waste management facility including a mined land use plan for soil borrow activities;

An update to the site’s existing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for compliance with the site’s existing NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities (GP-0-06-002). For landfill facilities, General Permit GP-0-06-002 also includes procedures for management of stormwater discharges from Construction Activities;

Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit for work in the area adjacent to the NYSDEC wetland along County Road 5;

An air permit for landfill gas emissions, pursuant to the requirements of Federal regulations found at Subpart WWW of 40 CFR 60.

The landfill facility will be submitting permit applications for development of the landfill expansion over time. The NYSDEC Part 360 permit applications will contain a detailed engineering report and permit application drawings. The engineering reports will provide an engineering analysis of the landfill development, will demonstrate compliance with the applicable regulatory criteria, and will contain the following appendices: a contingency plan, an operations and maintenance manual, a construction quality assurance/construction quality control (CQA/CQC) manual, stormwater pollution prevention plan, supporting landfill design calculations and data, and permit application forms and related documents. The permit application drawings will show the landfill’s location, existing site conditions and the conceptual landfill support facilities design.



3.0 Existing Environmental Setting, Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures

3.1 Natural Resource Characteristics

3.1.1 Topography

3.1.1.1 Environmental Setting

The landfill site and surrounding areas are generally flat with

gently rolling topography. Natural elevations on the landfill property range from 870 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the south west corner of the property to a height of approximately 832 feet above MSL at a low point near the County Road 5 and NYS Route 5 & 20 intersection. The maximum elevation of the capped and closed Phase II/IIA landfill in the central part of the site is approximately 940 feet above mean sea level. The existing topography of the Ontario County Landfill property is included as Figure 2. 3.1.1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts

Based on the existing elevations within the proposed

expansion area, the majority of the landfill expansion area would involve the excavation of soils to establish subgrade at the proposed depths. The perimeter berm on the outside of the proposed expansion area would require the placement of soil to establish the proposed grades. Excess soils obtained from these cuts will be stockpiled and utilized by the landfill during waste placement operations.

Final grades for the proposed expansion include developing

the landfill side slopes at 33% (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) per 6 NYCRR Part 360 to an elevation of 997 feet above MSL. Landfill top slopes will be developed at the regulatory minimum slope of 4% to an elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL to promote proper surface water collection and drainage in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. Ultimately, the proposed landfill expansion area would have a maximum permitted elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL, approximately 28 feet higher than the existing maximum permitted elevation of the operational landfill. The topography of the proposed expansion along with the existing topographic features is included as Figure 2.

3.1.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Similar to the existing permitted grades, a land surface of a

more uniform slope will result from the proposed expansion with a



3:1 (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) slope on all sides of the landfill. Topographic changes to the proposed landfill footprint are fundamental to the project. The visual setting and visibility viewshed analysis, Section 3.2.9, discusses the character of the surrounding landscape and assess such topographic changes to the site with regard to local landscape aesthetics. No additional mitigation measures are required.

3.1.2 Geologic Subsurface Conditions

Attachment L consists of the Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for

the Stage VIII and IX expansion areas, which includes a summary of the hydrogeologic studies conducted specific to the expansion areas. Previous hydrogeologic studies conducted at the Ontario Landfill facility date back to July 1986 with the initial Hydrogeologic Investigation prepared by Wehran Engineers, P.C. Subsequent investigations were performed for each expansion stage and have been well documented in the Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Report prepared by Barton & Loguidice, P.C. dated April 2004 (B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004). Each of the projects resulted in the abandonment of previously active monitoring wells and the installation of an updated permanent monitoring well network around the landfill site.

Separate investigations at the landfill have included identifying the depth to bedrock within the previous expansion areas. Borings were conducted to obtain the actual bedrock surface elevation. Soil samples were collected at various depths at each boring location. Considerable data on the subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater conditions has thus been established.

Important findings from these previous studies include:

Definition of the surficial and bedrock deposits that comprise the critical stratigraphic section of the landfill site.

The previous reports indicated that the direction of groundwater

flow prior to landfill development, in both the overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones, was generally to the west, toward the unnamed stream that separates Phase III from Phase II and Phase IIA. The Stage VIII expansion wells demonstrate a similar groundwater flow direction, consistent with the previous findings. With the addition of the Stage IX expansion wells, however, an easterly component of flow has also now been identified in both water-bearing zones, with the direction of flow generally towards the wetland area adjacent to Post Road.




The regional geologic setting discussion provided below is based in part on the initial discussion presented in the B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004, with additional information provided from the Ground-Water Resources of the Western Oswego River Basin, New York, Basin Planning Report ORB-5 (Crain, 1974).

According to the Basin Planning Report, the region

surrounding the site is in the Western Oswego River Basin. This basin is expansive, covering approximately 2,600 square miles, and includes all or part of the following counties: Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Cayuga, Yates, Steuben, Schuyler, and Tompkins. The basin includes all of the groundwater drainage into the four largest Finger Lakes, including Cayuga, Seneca, Keuka, and Canandaigua.

The basin is set within two physiographic provinces, the

Central Lowlands to the north and the Appalachian Plateau to the south. The Central Lowlands extend from the northern edge of the basin to the northern ends of Canandaigua, Seneca, and Cayuga lakes. The province is generally flat, ranging from an altitude of 600 feet at the northern ends of the Finger Lakes to 400 feet at the northern limit of the basin, although there is a field of drumlins that rises upwards of 300 feet above the surface. Drainage is generally poor, with frequent swampy areas and meandering streams. The topography gradually rises to the south to form the Appalachian Plateau. The Plateau consists of rolling hills reaching a maximum altitude of 2,100 feet with broad valleys in-between. The deep valleys that comprise the Finger Lakes are also located within this province and are a result of pre-existing stream valleys being deepened by glacial movement (Crain, 1974).

Overburden The surficial overburden deposits of the area (Attachment L Figure 4) were formed during the Pleistocene epoch (Crain, 1974; B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004). During this time, advancing and retreating ice sheets reworked the pre-existing soils and bedrock to form a range of surficial sediments such as glacial till, glacio-lacustrine silt and clay, and glacial outwash sand and gravel. A brief discussion of each of these deposits is presented below:

As the ice sheets advanced in the southerly direction, the majority of the pre-existing unconsolidated deposits and the upper portions of the bedrock were stripped away and transported within the base or sole of the ice sheet. This basal sediment load was ultimately deposited as an unsorted mixture of rock and soil termed glacial till.



Glacial till is generally defined as heterogeneous, non-stratified sediment deposited directly by the action of glacial ice, and typically includes particle sizes in the range from clay to boulders.

There are several different types of glacial tills that can be found in the area. Two such tills include lodgment (or basal) till and ablation till. As noted above, lodgment or basal tills are derived from the basal sediment load of the glacier and are highly compacted by the massive weight of the overlying ice sheet. Ablation till, on the other hand, is typically associated with a down-wasting ice margin and represents largely non-sorted, ice-contact debris derived from within the ice or debris “let down” from the surface of the ice as it melted. Ablation till is typically coarser-grained than lodgment till, and is usually much less dense. Ablation till is often intimately associated with stratified, ice-contact, meltwater deposits such as kames. Areas of ablation till are often recognized by their deranged drainage and topographic patterns, derived from the collapse of supporting ice, a feature shared with stratified ice-contact deposits. The southern half of Ontario County is comprised predominantly of lodgment till (Attachment L Figure 4).

As the climate warmed, melting of the glaciers increased, and the glacial front began to retreat northward. The meltwater from the retreating glacier formed streams and glacial lakes. Streams emerged from the melting glacier front, transporting high volumes of sediment to the downstream areas. These glacially-derived stream sediments are termed glaciofluvial deposits and include glacial outwash sand and gravel. Lakes formed in areas where the meltwater could be trapped, such as in the valleys that were scoured out during glacial advancement. From these lakes several different types of sediments were deposited, including relatively well-sorted coarse- to fine-grained deltaic sand to layers of fine silts and clays that settled out in calm, standing bodies of water. These types of deposits can be found predominantly in the northern part of the county between the Appalachian Plateau and the Central Lowland physiographic provinces (Attachment L - Figure 4).

Glacial till is the predominant overburden material beneath the existing and proposed expansion area. Two distinct till units are encountered at the site. The uppermost unit is generally described as a brown, loose ablation till composed of medium to fine sand , and clayey silt, little gravel, with cobbles and boulders in the Modified Burmister soil classification system. Based on available gradation analyses, the ablation till is typically described as a ML or CL soil in the Unified Soil Classification System, with varying plasticity dependent on the clay content.



The underlying unit is generally described as a gray, very dense lodgment till typically described as a clayey silt, some to little sand, and trace to some Gravel in the Modified Burmister soil classification system. Based on available gradation analyses, the lodgment till would typically be described as a CL-ML soil in the Unified Soil Classification System and is slightly more plastic than the ablation till unit.

Over the proposed Stage VIII and IX expansion area, the overburden ranges in thickness from approximately 10 feet in the northwestern portion of the Stage VIII expansion, to greater than 100 feet in the southern portion of Stage IX. The overburden thickness in the proposed southern borrow area ranges upwards of 120 feet.

The brown ablation till is described as being the less dense of the two tills that exist at the site. It is generally relatively non-plastic and contains numerous discontinuous gravel, sand and silt lenses. The brown till has been identified at all boring locations in the expansion area. On average, the till has a relatively uniform thickness of five to twenty feet, and roughly mimics the surface topography. This unit has a moderate permeability and has been identified to be the first water-bearing unit of the site. All of the shallow wells with the “S” designation for the Stage VIII/IX expansion have been installed at the interface between this unit and the underlying gray lodgment till.

The gray lodgment till is described as being the more dense of the two tills that exist at the site. Generally, it is described as being very dense and slightly plastic, with a more uniform composition of silty and very fine sand with trace clay. The gray till has also been identified at all boring locations and ranges in thickness from approximately two to seventy-five feet thick. The material has a very low permeability (5.0x10-6 cm/s or less) and acts as a confining layer that restricts the vertical migration of groundwater. Monitoring wells with the “D” designation have been installed at the interface between this dense till and the underlying weathered and fractured bedrock. Bedrock The bedrock of the region is composed of a series of sedimentary rocks that were deposited during the Devonian and Silurian periods, approximately 350 to 430 million years ago (Crain, 1974). These sedimentary rocks, comprised of shales, siltstones, sandstones, limestones, and dolomites, all dip to the south at approximately 50 feet per mile and are gently folded. As a result of the existing topography, the older Silurian-aged rocks can be found



in the northern part of Ontario County, while the younger, Devonian-aged rocks can be found to the south and are encountered within the landfill area.

The regional bedrock geology for Ontario County can be subdivided into three different groups based on the physical characteristics of each rock formation. Working from south to north (youngest to oldest) these groups are the Devonian Shale and Siltstone, Carbonate Rocks, and Silurian Shale (Attachment L - Figure 6). The formations that comprise each group are listed below with a description of the physical characteristics.

The Devonian Shale and Siltstone group is comprised of the following formations (working from the southern part of the county to the north): the Sonyea Formation, the Genesee Formation, the Tully Limestone, and the Hamilton Group, with this latter group encountered at the landfill site. These formations are composed primarily of shales, siltstones, and sandstones and an occasional limestone. These formations are massively to thinly bedded and have very small water-bearing fractures along bedding planes and joints.

The Carbonate Rock group is comprised of the following formations (working from the middle of the county to the north): the Onondaga Limestone, including the Helderberg Group and Oriskany Sandstone, and the Silurian Carbonate rock including the Cobleskill Limestone; the Bertie Limestone; and the Arkon Dolomite. These formations consist primarily of limestone with siliceous interbeds, and dolomite, gypsum, and shale. These formations are massively bedded, and where exposed near the land surface, may display bedding plane and other fracture sets that have been enlarged by solution. This Carbonate Rock group sequence has not been identified at the site.

The Silurian Shale group is comprised of the following formations (working from the northern part of the county and beyond): the Camillus Shale and the Vernon Shale. These formations are composed of shales with thin beds of limestone, gypsum, and salt. These formations are thinly bedded and may be associated with enlarged solution fractures. Also, these formations can be highly fractured due to the collapse of solution cavities. These Silurian Shale group members have not been encountered at the site.

The bedrock of the site has been characterized as a gray to black weathered shale and has been mapped as the Moscow Formation within the Devonian-age Hamilton Group. The Moscow Formation is divided into three members, which are briefly described below:



The Windom Shale (uppermost member) is described as dark gray calcareous shale that is more argillaceous and contains fewer fossils than the other Moscow Formation members. This member is less than 20 feet thick and is only mapped to be present in the western portion of the site.

The Kashong Shale (middle member) is described as soft gray calcareous shale with concretionary layers and frequent agglomerations of fossils. This member varies in thickness from 10 to 40 feet and is mapped across the entire site.

The Menteth Limestone (lower member) is described as a very thin limestone bed with heavy concentrations of fossil shells. This member is less than 10 feet thick and is inferred to underlie the Kashong across the entire site, marking the lower extent of the Moscow Formation.

The Stage VIII and IX expansion “D”-series wells have been installed within the Windom and/or Kashong Shale. The upper five to ten feet of the shale is highly fractured and weathered. The deep monitoring wells typically have been installed across the interface between this weathered zone and the overlying gray till.

The surface of the bedrock varies from a ground surface elevation of 822 feet above MSL in the northwestern portion of Stage VIII to 761 feet above MSL along the southeastern portion of the Stage IX expansion. The bedrock surface was the subject of historic test pit and boring investigations and has been further defined in the area of the Stage IV expansion. In the Stage IV area, to the south and southeast of the expansion area, the bedrock surface was found to plateau at an elevation of approximately 800 feet above MSL and then drop off steeply to the south, forming a second flat lying area at an elevation of approximately 725 feet above MSL.

3.1.2.2 Potential Impacts

Potential impacts to subsurface geologic conditions will

involve the disturbance of soils through the excavation, filling and stockpiling activities during construction and operation of the landfill. The potential for instability of constructed slopes during construction of the landfill has also been analyzed for appropriate engineering design consideration.



3.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures

To prevent and/or minimize the potential for impacts related to these activities, a number of engineering design controls and mitigation measures, as discussed below, will be implemented to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Construction of the landfill will involve both filling of low areas and excavation of overburden soils and bedrock from within the proposed development area, as well as the excavation of soils from a proposed borrow area to the south of the Phase III landfill. The excavated soils will be compacted and re-graded, as necessary, for construction as well as operations. Soils may also require wetting and drying to meet compaction requirements. Laboratory geotechnical testing of soil samples will be conducted during construction to ensure that soil properties meet specifications.

Excavation and stockpiling of soils on site will create

exposed soil areas. However, landfill construction will occur in phases, thereby limiting the area of exposed soils and reducing the potential for erosion. Stockpiled soils that will not be in use for extended periods of time will be temporarily re-vegetated to reduce the potential for erosion. In addition, temporary stabilization and silt fences will be used to control sediment from runoff that occurs in areas of excavation and stockpiling of soils.

Excavated soils will be reused for construction of the landfill liner and as daily and intermediate cover. The use of on-site soils for landfill construction and operation will preclude the use of these soils for other purposes.

The alteration of site drainage due to construction and

excavation will be mitigated by redirecting runoff to the sediment control system and stormwater detention basins, in accordance with the proposed stormwater runoff management plan. Soil Stability Excavation of soils and construction of the landfill subgrade and other landfill slopes will be performed in a manner that will create stable slopes. Engineered slopes would be constructed no steeper than 3 horizontal: 1 vertical. The landfill bottom will have a minimum grade of 2% to prevent ponding and infiltration of surface water. The groundwater suppression system will reduce hydrostatic pressure on the landfill liner system and subgrade soils by draining groundwater before it comes in contact with the liner



system. The top of the landfill will have a minimum grade of 4% to promote drainage and prevent stormwater infiltration. The Ontario County Landfill facility is not located within a Seismic Impact Zone as defined by the USGS.

3.1.3 Surface Water


The proposed landfill expansion area is located within the

Finger Lakes Drainage Basin (6 NYCRR Part 898), and more specifically, the Seneca Lake Watershed, and Geneva Direct Discharge Sub-watershed (Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, 1999). The entire proposed expansion area ultimately drains into Flint Creek (NYSDEC Water Index No. Ont. 66-12-52-40). Flint Creek originates in the Town of Prattsburg, Steuben County, where runoff from higher elevations combines and becomes channelized. Flint Creek flows northeast through Italy Valley in Yates County, and empties into the Canandaigua Outlet in the Village of Phelps, Ontario County, located approximately 7-miles north/northeast of the proposed landfill expansion area.

Three perennial streams are mapped adjacent to existing

phases of the Ontario County Landfill; none are located within the proposed expansion limits. Figure 15 depicts the stream locations. Unnamed Tributary 4 to Flint Creek (Ont. 66-12-52-40-4) flows north between Phase II and Phase III of the landfill facility, discharging into Flint Creek north of US Route 20/County Route 5 and south of Vogt Road. A sub-tributary flows into Tributary 4 (Ont. 66-12-52-40-4-1) just south of Phase III of the existing landfill. Unnamed Tributary 4a to Flint Creek (Ont. 66-12-52-40-4a) originates adjacent to closed Phase I of the existing landfill, flows northwest across US 20/CR 5, and empties into Flint Creek. The majority of the landfill property drains into these three streams. Tributary 4 of Flint Creek receives most of the stormwater from the proposed expansion area. Aside from the landfill facility, agricultural land uses are most common within the catchments of these mapped tributaries.

The eastern extent of the landfill property (east of the Post

Farm site access road) is the only area of the proposed expansion, and of the property, that drains east from the site instead of north. Figure 16 depicts the general site drainage patterns. The NYSDEC recently asserted jurisdiction over a wetland located in the northeast section of the property. This wetland has been delineated and will be added to the NYSDEC’s freshwater wetland mapping for Ontario County. Jurisdiction was extended because



this wetland area drains east underneath County Road 5, and into mapped NYSDEC freshwater Wetland ST-6. This denotes a direct hydrologic connection between these two wetland areas. The outlet of Wetland ST-6 represents a direct Tributary to Flint Creek (Tributary 1 - Ont. 66-12-52-40-1-1). Tributary 1 drains east across Number 9 Road and then flows north, eventually combining with flow from the Newark Reservoir and discharging into Flint Creek, where Flint Creek crosses Wheat Road in the Town of Phelps.

The existing landfill site and surrounding surface water

bodies are denoted with the letters “Ont.” because these waters eventually discharge into Lake Ontario. Flint Creek represents the 40th Tributary to the Canandaigua Outlet, which is the 52nd Tributary to the Seneca River, which is the 12th Tributary to the Oswego River. The Oswego River empties into Lake Ontario within the City of Oswego municipal boundaries, Oswego County. The Seneca River, the Oswego River, and Lake Ontario are recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW). The EPA and USACE exert jurisdiction over waters that currently, historically, or potentially could allow for the movement or trade of goods, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the ocean. These waters are defined as TNWs. RPWs are defined as waters that usually flow year round, but have the potential to periodically go dry during drought years. In order for a water to be classified as a RPW, it must contribute its contents to a TNW either directly or indirectly. The Canandaigua Outlet, Flint Creek, and their listed Tributaries, represent Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW) due to their hydrologic connection to the Seneca River, a listed TNW by the USACE Buffalo Regional office. Impacts to waters that are determined to be either TNWs or RPWs are subject to regulation under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as potentially under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Flint Creek and its Tributaries 4, including sub-tributary 1,

4a, and 1 are classified as Class C waters with C Standards (6 NYCRR Part 898). Waters classified as such are not included in the definition of a protected stream according to 6 NYCRR Part 701 Classifications-Surface Waters and Groundwaters. According to the NYSDEC, the best usage of Class C fresh surface waters is for fishing. These waters are suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife survival and may also be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation (6 NYCRR Part 701.8). Class C waters are not used for drinking water supply systems and do not meet the New York State Department of Health drinking water standards.



There are two designated surface water sampling locations along the Unnamed Tributary 4 to Flint Creek (Ont. 66-12-52-40-4), which have been sampled for operational water quality since 1987. These locations are located upstream of landfill operations, where the tributary enters the site, just south of the Phase III Landfill and downstream of landfill operations, where the tributary exits the site, just north of the Phase III Landfill. Analytical data compiled from these sampling locations is included in the monitoring reports submitted to the NYSDEC. To date, no impacts to the unnamed tributary have been detected through the analysis of the data.

Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater detention ponds, or basins, have been constructed at the site to handle stormwater runoff for the various developments. The design of the ponds allow for the runoff to be attenuated and then released to the existing waterways. Existing stormwater ponds include:

MRF Stormwater Pond – is located east of the active MRF and handles flows from the MRF paved areas and discharges to the unnamed tributary to Flint Creek north of the Phase II/IIA landfill.

Phase II/IIA Pond – is located east of the Phase II/IIA landfill and handles runoff from the closed Phase II/IIA landfill. The pond discharges to the unnamed tributary to Flint Creek adjacent to the Phase II/IIA landfill.

Phase III Pond #1 – is located on the northwest corner of the Phase III landfill and handles runoff from sections of the northern, western and eastern slopes of the Phase III landfill. The pond discharges to the unnamed tributary of Flint Creek immediately south of the landfill access road.

Phase III Pond #2 – is located on the west side of the Phase III landfill and handles runoff from the western and southern slopes of the Phase III landfill. The pond discharges to the unnamed tributary of Flint Creek.

Phase III Pond #3 – is located on the southeast corner of the Phase III landfill. Construction of this pond was completed in the spring of 2011. This pond handles flows from the southern and eastern slopes of the landfill and discharge into the unnamed subtributary of Flint Creek.

Borrow Area Pond – The permitted eastern borrow area excavation will result in a stormwater pond which will contain runoff from within the soil borrow area. This pond will be



pumped periodically in a controlled manner to the site’s surface water drainage system for discharge in the wetland along County Road 5.

Drainage Patterns – SPDES and Stormwater Management Requirements

Four drainage areas within the Flint Creek drainage basin direct site runoff under existing conditions. Three of these drainage areas flow generally to the north and west, into a tributary of Flint Creek. The fourth area drains in a more easterly direction, across County Road 5 and into a separate tributary to Flint Creek. Analysis of both existing and proposed runoff was performed at the discharge point identified for each drainage area and designated as Discharge Points 1 through 4. These represent the locations of assessment for compliance with the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requirements.

Drainage Area 1 (DA-1), northernmost on the landfill property includes a total area of approximately 74 acres and consists primarily of a mixture of grass, shrubby wetlands, and young forest, as well as developed landfill areas. Under currently permitted conditions, runoff from approximately 32 acres of Stages I, II, II-A, III, and IV, flow into this drainage area and the existing stormwater detention pond. The existing pond and additional runoff from this area ultimately discharge into the tributary to Flint Creek at Discharge Point 1 (DP-1). Under proposed conditions, approximately 29 acres of the landfill will drain into DA-1, to DP-1. The expansion will overlie the existing stormwater pond for DA-1; accommodation for the change in runoff will necessitate its resizing and relocation.

Drainage Area 2 (DA-2) (42 acres) abuts the western portion of DA-1’s southern border. Discharge Point 2 (DP-2) is located upstream from DP-1 along the same northerly-flowing tributary to Flint Creek. DA-2 almost entirely consists of landfill cells (35.4 acres), with the remaining being a wooded, brushy wetland, and the landfill access road backslopes. The most recent landfill stages, Stages VI and VII and parts of Stage V, drain to the pond located in DA-2, which discharged to DP- 2. As the landfill is expanded, runoff from approximately 32 acres of Stages I, II, and III, and the proposed Stage VIII expansion will flow from DA-2 to DP-2. The existing pond located within the drainage area will remain, but will need to be modified due to the encroachment of the proposed Stage VIII expansion.



Drainage Area 3 (DA-3), located in the south eastern corner of the landfill property, is approximately 65 acres and includes 22 acres of landfill Stages IV and V. This area also contains the entire area of the proposed soil mining area, which is currently active agricultural fields, the gravel perimeter road, and a small stormwater pond. After the proposed expansion, approximately 36 acres of the landfill, as well as the entire soil borrow area will drain to ponds located within DA-3. Assessment of stormwater runoff from DA-3 occurs at Discharge Point 3 (DP-3), at the south-central region of the property, where the existing stormwater pond discharges into the tributary of Flint Creek, upstream from both DP-1 and DP-2.

The last area, Drainage Area 4 (DA-4), borders the eastern edge of the existing landfill, to the west of County Road 5. Runoff from this 48-acre area, which does not include any landfill cells under existing conditions, flows into a wetland along County Road 5. This wetland discharges to the east side of County Road 5 through a culvert. The entrance to this culvert is considered Discharge Point 4 (DP-4). An isolated 9.9 –acre soil borrow area drains into a separate pond, which is pumped out as necessary to the wetland. The NYSDEC previously determined that this discharge was in accordance with the facility’s stormwater pollution prevention plan, so that no sediments would be discharged. Further, the NYSDEC also concluded that the borrow area would not have an impact on the wetland so that no Article 24 permit was required. DA-4 consists primarily of open grassy areas and wooded wetlands, with some developed areas and roads. After the proposed expansion, approximately 27 acres of the Phase IX expansion area will drain into this wetland. A new stormwater detention pond will be necessary in this area to accommodate the addition of landfill runoff and to attenuate flows to the wetland.

Detailed hydrologic analysis is provided in the Initial Hydrologic Study (Attachment K). The following Table 3 summarizes the results of proposed stormwater management measures.

Table 3 - Runoff for Existing and Proposed Conditions With Ponds

Storm Frequency

Rainfall quantity (inches)

Peak Flow Rate (cfs)

Pre Post Drainage Area 1

1-yr 2.20 9.80 9.60 10-yr 3.70 45.97 39.93 25-yr 4.30 61.51 54.60

100-yr 5.00 80.70 80.70



Storm Frequency

Rainfall quantity (inches)

Peak Flow Rate (cfs)

Pre Post Drainage Area 2

1-yr 2.20 1.43 1.09 10-yr 3.70 16.67 16.63 25-yr 4.30 19.96 19.48

100-yr 5.00 25.09 23.83 Drainage Area 3

1-yr 2.20 29.11 26.85 10-yr 3.70 90.36 75.11 25-yr 4.30 120.81 96.83

100-yr 5.00 158.25 125.28 Drainage Area 4

1-yr 2.20 3.00 2.87 10-yr 3.70 19.14 18.29 25-yr 4.30 27.89 26.85

100-yr 5.00 39.01 36.42


Clearing of vegetation, excavation of soil for liner installation, re-grading of soils and stockpiling of soils all create the potential for erosion. Surface water runoff carrying sediment-laden water could, if left unmitigated, cause siltation and flooding of receiving surface water resources. Thus, if mitigative action is not taken, surface water resources adjacent to the project limits could potentially be impacted by activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed landfill expansion.

Construction and operation of the proposed landfill

expansion project would include a number of mitigative measures to prevent and/or minimize the potential for impacts to surface water resources. The proposed mitigating measures and design parameters implemented to reduce the potential impacts to surface water resources, to less than significant levels, are described in the following section regarding stormwater and drainage patterns. These measures would mitigate potential adverse effects that activities in the expansion area may otherwise have on surface water quality and clarity, and subsequently stream health and function.

3.1.3.3 Mitigative Measures

Development of the landfill expansion, stormwater ponds,

soil borrow area and associated perimeter roads will disturb



approximately 103.0 acres of which approximately 43.5 acres is additional lined area. This change in land use will increase the amount of stormwater runoff that occurs from the site, necessitating the need for the construction of two (2) new stormwater detention ponds and the relocation and modification of two others as shown in Figure 7 to offset the increased stormwater runoff rates from the new landfill cells. Accurate sizing of the proposed stormwater detention ponds will provide no increase in peak discharge exiting the site following construction of the landfill expansion.

The design of the stormwater detention ponds complies with

the requirements of the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activity (GP-0-06-002), which mandates use of the standards documented in the New York Stormwater Management Design Manual, and the 6 NYCRR Part 360 Regulations. As such, the ponds must provide treatment of the Water Quality Volume (the 90 percent runoff event as described in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual), the Channel Protection Volume (24-hour extended detention of the 1-year, 24-hour storm), Overbank Flood Control (attenuation of the peak discharge from the 10-year, 24-hour storm), and the Extreme Flood Control (attenuation of the peak discharge from the 100-year, 24 hour storm). The Part 360 requirements also require attenuation of the peak discharge from the 25-year, 24-hour storm.

The site operates under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges related to Industrial Activities. The various outfalls described above are sampled in accordance with the permit and results are submitted to the NYSDEC. Sampling results indicate the stormwater detention ponds are functioning well.

The SPDES permit requires the site to maintain a

stormwater pollution prevention plan which outlines the stormwater management requirements. The site stormwater system is maintained by the landfill Operator. Maintenance includes an annual cleaning of stormwater ponds and installation and maintenance of stormwater controls such as silt fence, check dams, swales etc, both for operations and construction.

3.1.4 Groundwater Resources


The groundwater resources of the region are well defined in the regional literature (Mack and Digman, 1962; USGS, 1974) as well as in the previous investigations (Wehran Engineering, 1986; B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004). As a result of the different



bedrock types and the type and thickness of surficial soil deposits that occur in the two physiographic provinces (Central Lowlands and Appalachian Plateau), a discussion of the groundwater resources of each province is appropriate.

In the Central Lowlands province in the northern portion of

the County, both the unconsolidated deposits and bedrock are often capable of providing an adequate water supply for domestic residential purposes. The sand and gravel deposits may, depending on their thickness, be very productive. The finer-grained deposits that surround and are interlayered with the sand and gravel, however, limit the available recharge and the yields that can be obtained. The bedrock of this province is composed mainly of the Silurian Shale group of formations. As previously described, these rocks tend to have larger solution fractures and as a result higher yields can typically be obtained.

In the southern Appalachian Plateau province, both the

overburden and bedrock are much less reliable groundwater resources. The unconsolidated deposits are predominantly composed of dense lodgment tills that typically do not yield adequate water supplies, even for single-household domestic consumption. Adequate well yields in the unconsolidated deposits can typically only be found in the isolated sand and gravel deposits found in the valley bottoms. On occasion sand and gravel deposits can be found in the uplands; however, the deposits are sparse and often quite limited in size, saturated thickness, and/or available recharge. Bedrock of this area is composed of the Devonian Shale and Siltstone group of formations that have been described as containing very small fractures along bedding planes and joints. As a result, the supply is highly dependent on the number of fractures a well penetrates. It has been observed that the yields from this formation can be obtained near the bedrock surface where there is a higher frequency of fractures due to weathering. Generally, this bedrock unit can provide supplies sufficient for a home or farm supply, but it is also noted that many wells drilled in this unit have been unsuccessful (Wehran Engineering, 1986; B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004).

The literature also identifies the presence of “artesian”

conditions in valley deposits whereby bedrock groundwater levels are higher than the overlying overburden groundwater levels (Wehran Engineering, 1986; B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004). This phenomenon is common in the area and is the result of the very dense lodgment type tills confining or isolating the groundwater levels in bedrock from the shallow, near surface groundwater levels. Where this occurs, the resulting bedrock groundwater water level (piezometric) surface rises above the



position of the water table in the overburden and may even rise above the land surface. Wells encountering this latter condition are termed flowing artesian wells.

Top of Bedrock Groundwater Flow Zone The interface between the gray till and the upper portion of the black weathered shale bedrock is monitored by the deep monitoring wells identified by the “D” suffix. The water level data collected in December 2010 for the deep monitoring wells located within the Stage VIII and IX expansion areas is plotted in Attachment L - Figure 13.

The potentiometric surface contours are plotted in 10-foot intervals and are dashed where the water level data is inferred. The potentiometric surface generally demonstrates a southwesterly flow that is directly influenced by the Phase III – Stage IV groundwater suppression system. Prior to the installation of the suppression system in 2004, the bedrock groundwater flow direction was more westerly, as described in the B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004.

The potentiometric surface is highest at MW-23D, with an elevation of approximately 857 feet above MSL, and at MW-20D, also with an elevation of approximately 857 above MSL (Attachment L – Figure 13).

Based on the water level data from the D-series expansion wells, the potentiometric surface decreases to approximately 825-826 feet above MSL at monitoring well locations MW-25D and MW-26D along the northwestern edge of Stage VIII, which provides an indication of the westerly groundwater flow direction consistent with B&L Hydrogeologic Report - 2004. As shown in Attachment L - Figure 13, the overall Phase III bedrock interface groundwater flow direction also indicates an influence from the active Phase III groundwater suppression system, resulting in an inferred southwesterly flow direction, particularly in the southern portions of the Stage VIII and IX expansion areas. All of the expansion “D-series” wells are constructed with screened intervals within the water-bearing transition zone between the lodgment till and the top of the weathered bedrock. The following discussion on hydraulic conductivities is specific to this transition zone and the results should not be considered representative of the actual lodgment till. Lodgment till conductivities routinely have been determined to possess hydraulic conductivities of 5.0x10-6

cm/s or less via geotechnical testing from the original hydrogeologic investigations at the site and numerous re-compacted in-place Shelby tube samples during construction of the landfill subgrade.



Hydraulic conductivity values for this top-of-bedrock groundwater flow zone, based upon seven (7) in-situ slug testing locations, ranged from 9.6 x 10-7 cm/sec at MW-21D to 4.34 x 10-3 cm/sec at MW-25D with a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 1.37 x 10-

4 cm/sec. This mean value is somewhat higher than the 2.9 x 10-5 cm/sec determination made in the 1986 Wehran Engineering report. This difference in mean values may indicate a more intense weathering of the bedrock interface in the expansion areas, which has been confirmed in the vicinity of MW-26D and MW-27D, both of which have shallow bedrock depths within 10 feet of the ground surface and yielded hydraulic conductivities in the 10-4 cm/sec range. A summary of the hydraulic conductivity testing on the D-series wells is provided in Attachment L - Table 1.

Overburden Groundwater Flow Zone The uppermost water-bearing unit at the site has been described as a brown ablation till. This unit is monitored by the shallow monitoring wells identified by the “S” suffix.

The December 2010 static water level elevation for each shallow well location within the general Stage VIII and IX expansion area is plotted on the groundwater table mapping presented on Attachment L – Figure 12. The shallow well groundwater table generally mimics the original topographic surface, and demonstrates both a westerly flow direction, which is consistent with the earlier reporting, as well as an easterly flow direction in the proposed Stage IX area. The groundwater contours are plotted in 10-foot intervals and are dashed where there is no water level data information.

Based on the December 2010 water table data, the groundwater table exhibits two high zones in the ablation till; MW-23S at approximately 866 feet above MSL and MW-20S also at 866 feet above MSL. MW-25S exhibits the lowest water level elevation during the December 2010 monitoring event at 837 feet above MSL, which indicates a westerly groundwater flow direction consistent with previous shallow overburden groundwater mapping results. However; monitoring wells MW-21S and MW-22S also exhibit lower water level elevations (approximately 840 feet above MSL) that are consistent with the surface topography along the eastern side of the Stage IX expansion area, resulting in an easterly groundwater flow component as shown on Attachment L – Figure 12. This apparent groundwater ridge oriented north/south along the Stage IX expansion area appears to be directly influenced by the surface topography.



The overall geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of the overburden unit calculated from in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests is 1.28 x 10-5 cm/sec and ranged from 9.29 x 10-7 cm/sec at MW-20S to 7.56 x 10-4 cm/sec at MW-23S, which compares favorably to the historic mean hydraulic conductivity value of 2.9 x 10-5 presented in the original 1986 Wehran Engineering hydrogeologic report.

Groundwater Use The geologic materials in the site vicinity (particularly the upper weathered bedrock zone) are capable of providing limited yields suitable for individual residential wells or small farms. However, the area surrounding the landfill is served by the Town of Seneca’s public water system. A residential well survey was completed in March 2011 and a total of 86 properties were included in the survey, with 67 responses received. Attachment L - Appendix E provides an overview of the residential well survey area and includes designations for inferred gradient direction from the landfill. Only one property owner (located on Number Nine Road to the east of the landfill) was identified with a residential water well in use as a potable source. Two residents who were on the Town system indicated they used a well on their property for non-potable uses (residential agriculture).

Groundwater Quality There are twenty-seven (27) active monitoring wells that monitor the existing Phase III landfill; an additional sixteen (16) wells have been constructed around the perimeter of the proposed Stage VIII and Stage IX expansion areas as shown on Attachment L – Figure 2. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360, the prerequisite four quarters of background water quality data have been collected from these expansion wells to establish baseline water quality and trigger values prior to the deposition of waste in the new cells. The current Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) for the Ontario County Phase I, II, IIA & III Landfill (revised December 2010) will be updated to incorporate these expansion wells and to establish a sampling schedule. Over the course of the life of landfill operations, the wells will be sampled on a quarterly basis and the groundwater analyzed for 6 NYCRR Part 360 baseline and routine parameters. Groundwater monitoring will also be performed during the 30-year post-closure period.

The laboratory analytical results of samples collected from selected monitoring wells at the site indicate that the concentrations of detected parameters are typical of background groundwater quality. Concentrations of total dissolved solids, total and dissolved iron,



and total and dissolved magnesium exceed the ambient Part 703 water quality standards from monitoring wells screened in both the overburden and bedrock interface. Concentrations of sodium also exceed the Part 703 standard at a number of locations. The observed concentrations of total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, and sodium are naturally-occurring and /or are unrelated to existing landfill operations. These parameters have been observed at similar concentrations in the existing landfill monitoring well network at both up-gradient and down-gradient locations. The background data for the 16 expansion wells has been compiled and included in Attachment L - Appendix D. Primary and Principal Aquifers The proposed landfill expansion site is not located over or near a primary or principal aquifer. Nor does groundwater or surface water from the site serve as direct recharge to a primary or principal aquifer. Aquifer potential in the site vicinity is depicted in Attachment L- Figure 3, which indicates that a potential unconfined aquifer area capable of producing groundwater yields in the range of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) is located approximately one (1) mile southwest and upgradient of the site. 3.1.4.2 Potential Impacts

Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the site will be

significantly minimized by the proposed landfill expansion design and hydrogeologic setting of the site location, and by 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations regarding design standards, siting criteria, and groundwater monitoring requirements. In regards to the proposed southern borrow area, no significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated. The ablation and lodgment till units proposed to be excavated are not significant sources of groundwater and the borrow area excavation depth will not intersect the water-bearing zone on the top of the weathered bedrock or produce a significantly adverse impact on groundwater recharge to the Phase III landfill footprint. Recharge to this water-bearing zone may be enhanced in the immediate vicinity of the borrow area as the till overburden units are removed.


The proposed landfill design and operational measures will

significantly minimize the potential for impacts to groundwater beneath the site. The landfill design components and methods have been developed in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations. The proposed landfill design includes a double



composite liner system and a third collection layer beneath the entire footprint of the landfill (the groundwater suppression system). Together with the proposed stormwater management plan and low-permeability soils on-site, the probability of a landfill release (or leak) occurring and impacting groundwater is highly unlikely. Moreover, in the unlikely event of such an occurrence, monitoring of the primary and secondary leachate collection systems and the groundwater suppression system beneath the landfill along with the groundwater monitoring well network around the perimeter of the landfill will allow detection and remediation of such a release before it could enter the environment.

The landfill design and operational features that will be

implemented to significantly minimize the potential for impacts to groundwater quality and the monitoring programs proposed to detect a release from the landfill are briefly summarized below. Dual Composite Liner System The first line of defense for groundwater protection is the landfill liner system. The liner system contains two separate leachate collection systems (primary and secondary), and two separate composite low-permeability protective barrier layers. Leachate will be collected by a series of perforated pipes and a collection zone placed above the sloped liner surface. Downward migration of leachate into the liner will be minimized by the runoff-inducing slope and high conductivity of the leachate drain materials, which will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic head on the liner. In the unlikely event of a failure of the primary liner system, the secondary leachate collection system (leachate detection system) also serves as a collection system for leachate. Both the primary leachate collection system and leachate detection system (secondary leachate collection system) will be monitored during the operational and post-closure periods per 6 NYCRR Part 360.

Pore Water Collection and Drainage System Individual cell designs within the proposed Stage VIII and IX expansion areas will incorporate Groundwater Suppression Systems (GWSS) to alleviate pressure upon the landfill liner system from the surrounding groundwater. Collected groundwater will be routed to surface discharge points, similar to the existing Phase III GWSS. The expansion area GWSS will be monitored with sampling and collection procedures performed in accordance with the site’s leachate sampling procedures.



On-site Low Permeability Soils The low permeability in-situ soils on-site would restrict the vertical and horizontal movement of a release from the landfill area. The in-situ vertical soil permeability over a majority of the footprint area is on the order of 1.26 X 10-5 cm/s (ablation till) to 5.0 X 10-6 cm/s (lodgement till), compared to the required soil liner permeability of 10-7 cm/s. Furthermore, the post-landfill construction thickness of the low permeability glacial till soils will be more than 10 feet throughout the footprint area.

3.1.5 Air Quality


Climate The County lies within a continental climate type. Winters are cold and the summers are warm and humid. The mean average temperature of Ontario County is 45.9 degrees F, ranging from an average low in February of 21.1 degrees to an average high in July of 69.7 degrees. The growing season averages 162 days. Growing degree-days in Ontario County range from 1,800 to 2,500. Growing degree-days is an indirect measure of the heat available to induce growth of crops (Ontario County Agricultural Enhancement Plan). Annual precipitation averages from 33 to 36 inches, with May through September precipitation averaging 16 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the growing season; however, periods of drought during the summer season can often endanger crops (Ontario County Agricultural Enhancement Plan). The County’s lakes, particularly Canandaigua and Seneca Lakes, noticeably affect temperature and air movement on a microclimate scale. Land adjacent to the lakes tends to have an extended growing season, with a moderating influence on warming and cooling trends in the spring and fall (Ontario County Agricultural Enhancement Plan).

New York State commonly experiences the presence of cold, dry air masses that arrive from the northern interior of the continent and prevailing winds that arrive from the south/southwest transporting warm and humid air. Occasionally, air masses and weather systems are maritime, generated from the North Atlantic Ocean.



Throughout the year, New York State experiences a fairly uniform distribution of precipitation. There are no distinctly dry or wet seasons, which are regularly repeated on an annual basis. By late November, snow cover generally begins to develop in and around Ontario County and remains on the ground until various times in April, depending upon late winter snowfall and early spring temperatures (New York State Climate Office, 2008). The general climate of New York State supports many agriculture enterprises within the region, dairying being the largest. Precipitation and temperature conditions favorably support the growth of alfalfa and grasses for hay and corn for silage throughout rural New York (New York State Climate Office, 2008).

Average annual climatological data was obtained for Rochester, New York from the National Weather Service via Weather Underground (NWS, 2011). This data had been retrieved from the Rochester Weather Station (Greater Rochester International Airport) between the years 1971 and 2010. The climatological data obtained from the Rochester weather station included information regarding yearly average temperatures, average rainfall, average number of rain days, average snowfall, and average number of snow days. This data is displayed at the annual level, averaging data from years 1971 to 2000, in Table 4.

Table 4 - Annual Average Rochester, NY Climatological Data

Weather

Data Annual Average

(1971-2000) Average High Temperature (oF) 56.8 Average Low Temperature (oF) 40.0 Average Mean Temperature (oF) 48.5 Average Rainfall per Event (Inches) 0.102 Average Number of Rain Days 51 Average Snowfall per Event (Inches) 3.85 Average Number of Snow Days 55


Local Air Quality

Potential air quality impacts which are likely to be associated with landfill construction and operation involve emissions from waste hauling vehicles and landfill equipment, the temporary and localized generation of dust, and the generation of landfill gas. The



significance of these potential impacts will be limited through the use of proposed mitigation measures, as described in the following sections. A detailed air quality analysis with emission calculations is provided as Attachment G.

Landfill Gas Emissions

Landfill gas is a byproduct of anaerobic decomposition of the waste mass. The gas primarily contains methane, carbon dioxide, and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs). During initial placement of the waste, there is generally enough available oxygen for aerobic decomposition to take place. However, once the available oxygen supply is consumed, the anaerobic decomposition process takes over, and landfill gas is produced. In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency added subpart WWW to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations (40 CFR Part 60). This subpart contains standards of performance for new municipal solid waste landfills. This regulation was issued by the EPA as a means to address its concerns regarding the contribution of landfill gas emissions to air pollution, and the potential adverse effects of these emissions on the public health and welfare. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation incorporated the federal regulations into state rules as 6 NYCRR Part 208. The facility has a design capacity exceeding 2.5x106 megagrams (Mg) of solid waste, making it subject to the requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW. In addition, the facility has a modeled, uncontrolled non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate greater than 50 Mg per year based on NSPS NMOC calculation procedures. This required the facility to install a landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) to capture and destroy landfill gas in accordance with NSPS regulations. Landfills subject to the rule are also required to obtain a Title V air facility permit for any air emissions from the operation. The facility is currently operating under a Title V Air Facility Permit (ID 8-3244-00004/00007) that became effective on May 25, 2007 and expires on May 24, 2012. The proposed landfill expansion will require modification of the existing landfill facility Title V Air Permit .



Vehicle Emissions

During landfill construction, the primary source of vehicular emissions will be from the heavy equipment used. During landfill operation, the primary sources of vehicular emissions will be from the heavy equipment used at the landfill site and waste hauling vehicles. Emissions from the construction equipment, the landfill’s operating equipment, and waste hauling vehicles are not anticipated to have a significant impact on local air quality due to the emission controls installed on such equipment. In addition, since the landfill’s acceptance rate will remain unchanged, waste hauling activities are not expected to increase from existing operations, therefore average vehicle related emissions are not expected to increase with the addition of the proposed landfill expansion.

Dust

Dust generation will occur during initial construction of the proposed landfill expansion. However, these impacts are expected to be short-term in nature and will cease once cell construction is completed. During landfill operation, the potential for dust generation will occur in limited areas of the site, specifically in the soil borrow area, on haul roads, and at the working face of the landfill. With the use of the mitigation measures proposed, no significant adverse impacts are expected to be caused by dust generation. Odors

The odors generated at a landfill site are largely attributed to the production of hydrogen sulfide landfill gas components and organic acids which are byproducts of anaerobic waste decomposition. The potential for odor generation related to landfill gas is the highest during the summer months when temperatures are optimal for microbial activity and the rate of decomposition is at its greatest. During this time, odors are also more noticeable to potential receptors because the level of outdoor activity generally increases and windows in residences are opened more often. During the winter months, the rate of anaerobic decomposition slows considerably, and the upward movement of landfill gas is impeded by frozen soil and waste. Both of these factors tend to reduce the level of odor generation during the colder months.



Leachate Storage Emissions

Leachate is stored in a lined leachate storage pond while awaiting shipment by tanker truck. Leachate typically contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may volatize to the atmosphere. Leachate emissions are conservatively estimated using the total leachate generation assuming that 100 percent of the total VOCs are emitted to the atmosphere. Actual VOC emissions from leachate storage are expected to be closer to 20 percent of total VOCs. Emissions from leachate storage may increase slightly due to the potential for increased leachate generation and storage resulting from the landfill expansion.


Landfill Gas Emissions

Landfill methane emissions are currently controlled through the operation of an active gas collection and control system (GCCS). The system operates in accordance with EPA 40 CFR Subpart WWW New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality. The system consists of gas collection wells and piping which convey landfill gas to landfill gas combustion/control devices (including on-site enclosed flares and off-site to a separately owned and operated landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) facility which beneficially utilizes the landfill gas as a fuel source to power lean burn internal combustion (IC) engines for the generation of electricity.) Enclosed landfill gas flares also provide additional landfill gas control capacity during any planned or unplanned shutdown of the LFGTE facility, or during periods when excess landfill gas is collected that cannot be utilized at the LFGTE facility. The LFGTE facility typically maintains a 98 percent or greater annual up-time. Approximately 100 percent of the methane collected and delivered to the combustion devices is destroyed (USEPA, 1998). A secondary combustion product of methane combustion is carbon dioxide. As with carbon dioxide emissions from waste degradation, carbon dioxide emissions from the destruction of landfill methane are biogenic and are not considered to contribute to the net addition of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere (USEPA, 2004). The GCCS is continuously expanded to collect landfill gas from areas with gas generating waste in place, increasing the overall collection efficiency of the system. Landfill gas generated by waste placed in the proposed expansion landfill will be required to be collected and controlled per NSPS regulation. The GCCS expansions will increase the percentage of landfill gas collected,



thereby increasing the percentage of methane destroyed and decreasing the percentage of methane that is emitted from the facility. The system operation will be monitored in accordance with NSPS requirements for surface emissions to ensure that the GCCS is sufficiently collecting landfill gas and methane. This monitoring provides opportunities for inspection and improvement of the GCCS if needed throughout operation.

Vehicle Emissions

No additional mitigation measures are required. Dust

Dust generation will be minimized by using best management practices. To reduce dust generation from borrow areas and other areas of the site where earth-working activities will take place, these areas will be kept to minimum practicable sizes. Areas where vegetation has been removed will be re-vegetated as quickly as possible. Sections of borrow areas and soil stockpiles which are not expected to be used for extended periods will be temporarily re-vegetated with herbaceous vegetation to prevent wind erosion, and consequently dust generation. A water truck is available at all times to water down haul roads during dry periods to minimize dust generated by vehicles moving over exposed soils. The site entrance road is paved which further minimizes dust generation.

Odors

Once wastes are received at the landfill, best management practices will be used to minimize odors and prevent odors from emanating off-site. At a minimum, daily and intermediate cover soils will be applied to the waste mass in accordance with NYSDEC Part 360. Waste loads having particularly strong odors will be covered immediately after being emptied from the delivery vehicles. On those days when atmospheric conditions are optimal for odor generation (e.g., warm, humid days), wastes will be covered more frequently throughout the day rather than just at the end of each day. To further supplement standard operating practices, the site also operates a misting system that contains a masking agent for landfill odors. The Landfill’s active GCCS will also help reduce odors generated at the facility. The existing system will be expanded throughout the life of the landfill expansion in order to collect landfill gas from developed landfill areas. The gas collection and control system will



significantly reduce odors through the destruction of odor causing components of landfill gas. In addition, future expansion of the LFGTE facility, if any, will provide further means to control the landfill gas and utilize the gas in a beneficial manner.

3.1.6 Greenhouse Gases


Methane from the generation of landfill gas is considered a

primary source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Landfill gas generation is a byproduct of anaerobic decomposition of landfilled waste. The main constituents of landfill gas include methane and carbon dioxide, with the methane concentration of the gas typically ranging from 40 to 60 percent. Additional minor constituents of landfill gas include oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs).

As a GHG, methane has 21 times the global warming

potential of carbon dioxide over 100 years (per 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart A, Table A-1). For this reason, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from MSW landfills occur from landfill generated methane. It should be noted that the carbon dioxide portion of GHG generated through the anaerobic degradation of MSW is not considered to contribute to the net addition of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere (USEPA, 2004). These biogenic emissions have been excluded from the recent EPA GHG Tailoring Rule, and are not currently required to be included in air permitting analyses.

Additional sources of GHG emissions at the facility include

emissions from stationary source fuel combustion, mobile source fuel combustion, and electrical power purchases from utility companies. GHG emissions from these sources are not expected to increase from current levels with the landfill expansion, as supporting landfill facilities, equipment, and general operations regarding waste intake are not expected to increase since the landfill’s acceptance rate will remain unchanged. GHG emissions from these sources may in fact decrease from existing emission levels throughout the life of the expansion as emission control technologies and equipment efficiencies improve. As such, GHG emissions from these additional sources are not included in this discussion.




Methane Generation Estimates The generation of landfill gas is an incremental process, where increasing quantities of landfill gas are generated with subsequent placement of solid waste. Based on this methodology, the maximum rate of methane generation occurs at closure, at which time the maximum amount of waste is in place within the landfill. In order to estimate the expected methane emission increase, the existing and proposed landfill expansion methane generation rates were modeled for comparison purposes. For consistency, methane generation modeling methodology from the air quality analysis was utilized, which includes the estimated “maximum potential to emit” from the existing permitted landfill and proposed expansion landfill.

Methane Generation Modeling

The USEPA’s Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Direct Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling Module (USEPA, 2004) as referenced by the NYSDEC’s policy document Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement (July 15, 2009) was utilized to quantify methane emissions at the landfill. The protocol presents methods for estimating methane emissions from MSW landfills, including the use of mathematical models. The protocol references the use of the USEPA’s Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), version 3.02, May 2005, to estimate landfill gas and methane generation for the facility. The model estimates landfill gas emissions for various landfill gas constituents based on input parameters including: the volume of waste in place at the landfill (or annual waste acceptance rate), the type of waste in the landfill, the landfill design life, a methane generation constant (k), a methane generation potential (Lo), and the volumetric percent of landfill gas that is methane.

The LandGEM model was used to estimate methane generation using historical waste receipts for the facility through 2010. The total actual waste utilized in the model excludes NYSDEC approved BUD materials accepted at the facility. The BUD materials are considered non-putrescible waste, and are not anticipated to contribute to landfill gas generation at the facility.

The projected future annual waste placement estimates used in the landfill gas modeling are based on the maximum permitted annual waste acceptance rate of 920,693 tons per year (2,999 tons per day for 307 operational days per year), until the facility reaches the



maximum design air space capacity. As a conservative approach, the projected annual waste placement is assumed to be 100% putrescible waste contributing to the landfill gas generation. Per actual facility operations, a portion of the waste accepted will be non-putrescible. The maximum waste placement capacity was based on the full build-out of the landfill and a conservative waste mass density of 1.0 tons per cubic yard of waste.

Modeling Results Based on site specific gas generation modeling and collection efficiency estimates, a maximum PTE landfill gas generation rate of 6,805 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) is projected to occur during the permitted landfill closure year.

Based on site specific gas generation modeling and collection efficiency estimates, a maximum PTE landfill gas generation rate for the landfill expansion of 9,618 scfm is projected to occur following the permitted landfill closure year.

3.1.6.3 Mitigation Measures

Methane is currently mitigated through collecting landfill gas

using the active GCCS, where it is sent to fuel IC engines at the off-site LFGTE facility for electricity generation, or flared onsite through enclosed flares. The benefits of LFG recovery for energy include reduction in GHG emissions through direct reductions from the avoided methane emissions, and the displacement of fossil fuel use from the generation of electricity from landfill gas. Methane mitigation through collection and control is generally affected by two main factors: GCCS collection efficiency and methane oxidation in cover materials. The following discussion describes the background for both factors used in calculating the methane emission estimates for the landfill.

GCCS Collection Efficiency

The quantity of methane emitted from the operation of a landfill is proportional to the collection efficiency of the GCCS installed at the facility. EPA’s AP-42 Section 2.4 (11/97) provides a default collection efficiency of 75 percent (as a conservative default value from the range of 60 to 85 percent). This collection efficiency factor is typically used as the default value when more precise estimates are not available (USEPA, October 2004). The EPA’s GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR), 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart HH for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, provides updated collection efficiencies dependent upon the type of cover system over the active GCCS. For example, the collection efficiency default for



active gas collection areas under daily cover is 60 percent. For areas under intermediate cover, the collection efficiency is estimated at 75 percent. For areas under a final soil and geomembrane cover system, the collection efficiency is estimated at 95 percent. This is supported by research findings that closed landfills designed to capture gas and capped with impermeable geomembrane final cover systems are expected to have collection efficiencies of 95% to 99% (SCS Engineers, 2007).

During normal operation of a municipal solid waste landfill, all three cover types are generally employed at any one time. Generally an area of the landfill is utilized for active filling, another area is covered with intermediate cover, and the remainder of the landfill is capped. As the fill progression continues, the acreage of the landfill that is capped increases while the acreage of active landfill area and acreage of intermediate cover generally remains the same. As the landfill progression continues towards the closure year, the GCCS collection efficiency for the site will continually increase as the amount of capped area increases in proportion to areas with soil cover. In order to estimate GHG emissions, we have assumed a site average collection efficiency of 80% during the peak landfill gas generation years for the existing permitted landfill and the proposed expansion landfill for worst case potential emissions, as the facility operates in accordance with NSPS requirements for landfill gas collection and control. This is a conservative assumption as the actual collection efficiency is expected to incrementally increase as areas are capped, and is expected to approach 95% by the closure year, at which time landfill gas generation peaks. After closure and capping of the landfill, the GCCS collection efficiency for the entire site is expected to increase to 95% - 99%.

Methane Oxidation

In addition to the quantity of landfill methane collected and destroyed by the GCCS, methane that is not collected may be oxidized as a result of naturally occurring methane oxidizing bacteria found within landfill cover systems, intermediate soils and alternative daily cover (ADC) systems. Studies have shown that oxidation rates range from 10 percent to over 25 percent. A conservative assumption for the methane oxidation rate is 10 percent of the non-captured landfill methane passing through the cover system or cover soils (USEPA, 2004). Landfill cover systems that incorporate a flexible membrane liner within the final cover system have negligible oxidation rates and are assigned a default oxidation rate of zero (USEPA, 2004).



The LandGEM calculates only methane and carbon dioxide generation without accounting for soil oxidation. Per EPA guidance, it is generally assumed that 10 percent of the methane generated is oxidized near the surface of the landfill, so that methane emissions (with no gas collection present) are 90 percent of methane generation. Cover soil and other approved alternative daily cover materials are currently employed to cover working face operations. The facility also utilizes cover soils as intermediate cover materials until capping occurs. The current capping system includes a 6 NYCRR Part 360 composite barrier consisting of a geomembrane directly overlaying low permeability soil layer. Current operations require all three cover systems at any one time. As such, the overall site percentage of methane generated that is oxidized will vary based on the percentage of landfill area that is under final cover, and the percentage of landfill area that is under daily or intermediate cover systems. For the active working areas under daily cover and landfill areas under intermediate cover, a methane oxidation rate of 10 percent is conservatively assumed. An oxidation rate of zero is assumed for areas that are capped. For existing operations, the peak year of emissions is estimated to occur when the landfill is at capacity, prior to final capping. However, as the landfill expansion progresses, the total capped area for the site will increase, causing the average site oxidation factor to decrease throughout the life of the landfill, nearing zero at closure when the majority of the site will be capped. As such, a zero percent oxidation was conservatively assumed for the year of peak emissions for both the existing permitted and expansion landfill.

GHG Emission Estimates As stated above, a methane collection and control efficiency of 80 percent was utilized for estimating peak emissions from the existing permitted landfill and the proposed expansion landfill. The following table presents the estimated peak methane generation, mitigation, and emission quantities for each.



Table 5 - Peak Methane Generation & Emission Estimates

Project CH4 Modeled Generation 1

(tons/yr)

CH4 Mitigated 2 (tons/yr)

CH4 Fugitively Emitted (tons/yr)

Existing Permitted Landfill 37,230 29,784 7,446

Proposed Expansion Landfill 52,612 42,090 10,522 1 Per LandGEM model for peak methane generation for existing permitted landfill and for proposed expansion landfill. 2 Methane mitigated based on estimated GCCS collection efficiency.

The above table provides the peak “potential to emit” fugitive methane emissions from the facility. Actual fugitive emissions are anticipated to be less, as the actual gas generation is anticipated to be less than the peak modeled for potential to emit scenarios, and the methane mitigated is anticipated to be more based on expected increase collection efficiencies of the NSPS gas collection system, as well as inclusion of methane oxidation from uncollected gas. Emission calculations are provided in Attachment G, Appendix E.

In addition to the methane mitigation outlined above, additional greenhouse gas emission reductions can be attributed to the avoided use of fossil fuels as a result of the piping of landfill gas to the LFGTE facility for operation of combustion engine generator sets. For example, for a 11.2 MW facility, the avoided equivalent emissions reduced (from avoiding use of fossil fuels) from the use of the landfill gas for electricity generation is approximately 55,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (equivalent to 2,619 tons of methane per year), slightly less than the overall increase in estimated fugitive methane emissions from the existing permitted landfill to the proposed expansion landfill. This reduction in emissions equates to approximately 10,600 acres of forests used for carbon sequestration, or carbon dioxide emissions from over 5.6 million gallons of gasoline consumed (USEPA LMOP, 2011).

Future GHG (Methane) Mitigation Measures

Landfill gas collection and control will be the primary methane control method utilized at the site throughout the landfill expansion. As each new cell is constructed and filled, the GCCS will be expanded to collect and control landfill gas as soon as possible after waste placement begins. Additional mitigation measures will include improving the design and construction of the LFG collection system to improve efficiencies, increasing the LFG collection system efficiencies by improved cap and cover systems, and earlier installation of gas collection systems in areas that are not required



to do so by NSPS regulation or permit. The beneficial use of landfill gas reduces the GHG emissions through the generation of renewable “green power” which would replace power generated through traditional fossil fuel combustion methods.

3.1.7 Site Ecology


Ontario County Landfill is located within Major Ecological

Zone B – Great Lakes Plain, and within Minor Ecological Zone – Erie-Ontario Plain, as mapped and defined by the NYSDEC. This portion of New York State spans from Syracuse to Buffalo, along a flat plain that is mostly below 800 feet in elevation. The landfill property is located within the Ontario Lowlands as mapped by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Level IV Ecoregions. Topography surrounding the project area is gently rolling with a mixture of agricultural, forested, and urban/rural land uses. The attached Land Use Plan (Figure 17) illustrates the land use in the general vicinity of the landfill site.

Vegetation The lowest annual temperature can be the determining factor as to what species of plants grow in any given area. Plant species have a minimum temperature that they can survive at, known as the hardiness of the plant. As such, New York State has been divided into hardiness zones based on years of recorded data that depict the lowest annual temperature for that geographical area. The Ontario County Landfill is located within hardiness zone 6a. This hardiness zone is associated with annual minimum temperatures of -5 to -10 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference in hardiness can determine the composition of a landscape due to species not being able to survive extremely cold events. Vegetation in the Great Lake’s Plains consists generally of northern hardwoods like oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Groundcover varies within the region from saplings of the tree species above to a variety of forbs and grasses. The majority of the landscape surrounding the landfill property is agricultural in nature. This results in only small stands of mature forest being present in the area adjacent to the landfill. Native grasslands are very hard to locate in this region due to conversion into agricultural fields.



Wildlife

The expansion area is proposed to be constructed in areas that are already disturbed and consist of maintenance facilities, access roads, closed and active landfill cells, and pre-disturbed maintained grassy areas. None of these areas provide good habitat for wildlife species that inhabit the Finger Lakes Region of New York State, not to mention the current activities within the proposed footprint involve machinery and constant human presence. Animals are more likely to pass thru the proposed expansion area as well as the proposed borrow area at night when existing landfill operations are finished for the day. Critical Environmental Areas Local and State agencies have the right to designate areas of New York State as Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs). In order for an area to be deemed a CEA, it must contain rare or atypical qualities for the immediate area. These qualities include, but are not limited to: a benefit or threat to human health; a natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change (NYSDEC website). The closest CEA to the Ontario County Landfill is all the lands within the village boundaries of East Bloomfield, which is approximately 16-miles away and will not be impacted by the proposed landfill expansion.

Wetland Resources General wetland cover types identified adjacent to the project areas are open water, emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested. A detailed description of wetland cover types is presented below.

Open Water

An unconsolidated bottom, sandy-mucky substrate, open water wetland is located along County Route 5 east of the landfill. The depth of water within this wetland ranges from less than one foot to more than 2.5 feet. Vegetation consists of rooted and floating aquatic species.

Emergent

Erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytic plants characterize emergent wetlands. This vegetation can be observed throughout



the majority of the growing season. These wetlands typically have standing water above the soil surface for a portion of the year and often include fringe communities on open water edges. Emergent wetlands are associated with the unnamed tributary of Flint Creek that flows between the closed Phase II and Phase III landfills, as well as in wetlands identified to the west of the closed Phase I landfill.

Scrub-shrub

This wetland cover type is primarily found in areas that were formerly open or otherwise cleared. Scrub-shrub wetlands are often found in areas of shallow standing water. Woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet in height helps classify these wetlands. Within the project area, scrub-shrub wetlands were observed bordering emergent wetlands or noted as understory growth within larger forested wetland areas.

Forested

Forested wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation taller than 20 feet, where soil is at least periodically saturated or covered by water. Forested wetlands along the unnamed tributary to Flint Creek included deciduous trees with an under story of hydrophytic herbaceous and woody vegetation. The denseness of the understory was observed to vary by location.

A Comprehensive Wetland Delineation Report was issued in September of 2010. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Buffalo District regarding federally regulated wetlands based on information provided within that report. The JD was issued on April 28, 2011 by the USACE under file number 2001-01566. The report and corresponding JD are included as Attachment H and J respectively.

3.1.7.2 Proposed Impacts

Vegetation

The proposed landfill expansion area is located within a pre-disturbed footprint. Currently the proposed expansion area contains gravel access roads, closed/active landfill cells, soil borrow areas, and maintenance facilities. No native grasslands or mature forests are located within the footprint of the proposed expansion.



A preliminary screening letter was sent to the NYSDEC’s Natural Heritage Program (NHP) on October 28, 2008 to determine the potential for the presence of threatened and/or endangered plant species at the site. Additionally a follow up screening letter was sent to the NHP on October 27, 2011. Both responses received from the NHP on November 14, 2008 and November 14, 2011 indicated that there were no known occurrences of such plant species located in the vicinity of the site. In conjunction with the October 27, 2011 follow up to the 2008 screening letter, the NYSDEC’s Nature Explorer was also searched on September 22, 2011 for potential State listed threatened or endangered plant species in the Town of Seneca in Ontario County. The search resulted in no known State listed threatened or endangered species being present. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) website was consulted on September 22, 2011 for potential or known habitat of federally threatened and /or endangered plant species. After researching the website, it was determined that Ontario County does not presently contain any known threatened or endangered plant species. All NHP correspondence and website search results are included in Attachment B.

Wildlife

The USFWS website was also reviewed on September 22, 2011 for potential federally threatened or endangered wildlife species within Ontario County. Two species were identified as having known or likely occurrences in Ontario County. The first reported specie is the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was delisted from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2007, but is still warranted protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As such, any harassment of eagles, their nests, or currently used habitat is prohibited. No removal of trees or encroachment within wetlands or streams will occur as a result of this project. No eagles or their nests were observed on or adjacent to the landfill property. The second species reported by the USFWS was the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii). The website reported potential bog turtle habitat within the Township of Phelps only. Regardless of the landfill being located in the Town of Seneca, care was taken to search for potential bog turtle habitat on and adjacent to the landfill property as well.

No impacts to threatened or endangered species will occur by expanding the existing landfill. Neither bald eagle, nor bog turtle habitat was observed in or adjacent to the project footprint, resulting in no impacts to federally threatened or endangered species. The NHP screening letter and search of the NYSDEC



Nature Explorer performed for the plant species discussed above also revealed that no State-listed wildlife species were reported within the Town of Seneca. All NHP correspondence and website search results are included in Attachment B. The footprints of the proposed expansions are currently used for everyday landfill operations, with no impacts associated with threatened and endangered species being observed as of the writing of this DEIS.

The landfill currently has a contract with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services (USDA APHIS) division to control nuisance wildlife on the landfill property. This valuable service helps to keep wildlife species safe by implementing methods that impede an animal’s ability to feed on the waste accepted by the Ontario County facility.

Critical Environmental Areas The closest CEA to the Ontario County Landfill is all the lands within the village boundaries of East Bloomfield, which is approximately 16-miles away and will not be impacted by the proposed landfill expansion. Wetlands There are no wetland resources located within the proposed landfill expansion footprint. Areas adjacent to the proposed expansions contain wetlands as depicted in the Comprehensive Wetland Delineation Report (B&L, 2010). No direct impacts to existing adjacent, wetland resources is expected due to the landfill expansion. Landfill activities have been performed in the areas adjacent to these wetlands for almost twenty years with no direct impacts observed. The proposed expansions have been designed to provide ample surface and groundwater discharge to the existing wetlands. No net loss of hydrology will occur. Onsite proposed stormwater pollution prevention infrastructure will continue to protect the existing resources found on the property.


Vegetation

No mitigative measures required. Wildlife

No mitigative measures required.



Critical Environmental Areas

No mitigative measures required.

Wetlands No specific mitigation techniques will be employed for wetlands located on or adjacent to the landfill property. However, the landfill’s stormwater management and leachate collection system will prevent potential significant adverse impacts to wetlands, One wetland, Wetland H, is currently required to be monitored yearly for ecological impacts as part of the existing borrow area permit. This wetland has been determined to be hydrologically connected to the NYSDEC mapped Wetland ST-6 by way of culvert beneath County Route 5. The baseline monitoring conducted on September 22, 2010 established conditions of the wetland prior to borrow area activities. Conditions assessed included hydrology, wildlife, amphibians, vegetation, and functions and values. The Ecological Wetland Assessment Baseline Report (B&L, December 2010) also issued subsequent monitoring requirements for Wetland H and are as follows: 1) Water level readings will be recorded monthly for the staff

gauge and piezometer locations within the wetland, in order to illustrate the seasonal water fluctuations of this wetland. Water levels will not be recorded during winter months when surface and ground water are frozen. Water level readings from the overburden monitoring wells around the Phase III Landfill will also be recorded to compare historical pre-borrow operations data versus active borrow operations data. Water levels within the mitigation wetland on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Routes 5 and 20 with County Road 5 will also be recorded for additional information.

2) Wildlife observations within the wetland will be documented twice a year, during the spring and summer. The type of observation and specific species will be recorded, if able to be determined. Direct observations will also be detailed with notes on the general behavior and health of the observed individual(s), if appropriate.

3) In addition to the wildlife surveys, amphibian species will be

monitored within the wetland on two (2) occasions every spring. During these monitoring events, an egg mass survey will be completed within the main part of this wetland and a breeding chorus survey will be completed around dusk to document utilization of this wetland by frog and toad species.



4) A semi-annual photographic survey will take place during the spring and summer monitoring events and will occur at the locations established during the baseline monitoring. A vegetative analysis of the dominant plant species in each stratum will also be completed semi-annually at each of the three locations in order to document vegetative composition and aid in the identification of any changes occurring within the plant communities in this wetland.

The methods incorporated into the Ecological Wetland Assessment Baseline Report will continue to be implemented for Wetland H until the construction of the proposed expansion is complete. Even though no direct impact is proposed to Wetland H, monitoring of this wetland will screen for any potential secondary impacts that could result in an ecological shift within the wetland. The complete Ecological Wetland Assessment Baseline Report, issued in December 2010, is accompanying this DEIS as Attachment I.

3.2 Local Community Characteristics

3.2.1 Community Character: Land Use and Zoning, Agricultural

Resources and Open Space and Recreation

3.2.1.1 Environmental Setting Land Use and Zoning

According to the Town of Seneca’s Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared in 2002 by Peter J. Smith & Company, Inc., the Town of Seneca has an abundance of prime agricultural land that has allowed the area to establish itself as an agrarian community. The open space and rural character of the Town adds to a high quality of life for Town residents. The Plan takes a proactive approach to controlling development and ensuring that the rural character of the Town is preserved. The following table describes the land use by acres and percent in the Town of Seneca followed by a description of each of the land uses.



Table 6 - Existing Town of Seneca Land Use, 2002

Land Use Acres Percentage Agricultural 23,384.1 87.1% Residential with Agriculture 617.9 2.0% Residential 1,518.5 4.8% Vacant 942.8 3.0% Commercial 299 1.0% Recreation & Entertainment 117 0.36% Community Service 116.9 0.37% Industrial 22.7 0.07% Public Service (includes the Ontario County Landfill)

422.6 1.3%

Public Lands 0.0 0% Total 31,441.5 100%

Source: Town of Seneca & Peter J. Smith & Company, Inc. Of the total land in Seneca, 1.3% is used as public service. The Ontario County Landfill comprises the majority of this percentage. Time Warner Communications at the corner of Routes 5 & 20 and Sutton Road, the New York State Electric & Gas substation on Haley Road, the water towers and cell towers are all classified as public service land uses. Based on the Town of Seneca Zoning Map last amended July 15, 2008, the entire Ontario County Landfill property is zoned M-1 Industrial. In general, properties to the south and west of the landfill property are zoned AG – Agricultural. Properties to the east, north and northwest are zoned C-1 Mixed Use. A general description of each of these zones is described below: M-1 Industrial: Provides for the establishment of industrial use

and associated administrative offices essential to an establishment of a balanced economic base and creation of local job opportunities in an industrial environment. Permitted uses include all farm uses as identified in the AG – Agricultural zone, automotive related activities (auto repair, sales, storage), offices (corporate offices, real estate, insurance, doctors), manufacturing, warehouses, mix use facilities, recycling centers, research laboratories and testing facilities, site fills, motels, hotels, sawmills, brewery/wineries, food processing, technical and vocational schools.



AG Agricultural: Provides for agricultural and related uses. Permitted uses and structures include farms and farm related activities, single family dwellings, places of worship, convents, municipal buildings and cemeteries.

C-1 Mixed Use: Provides for a mixture of residential and general retail/business. This district allows for retail stores, offices and retail service. Other commercial or business uses, as determined by the Board of Appeals to be in the same general character, are also permitted in the district.

Refer to Figure 18 for a Town of Seneca’s local zoning map.


According to the Ontario County Agricultural Enhancement Plan, the Town of Seneca has 32,142 acres of agricultural land. Between 1992 and 2009, the percent of agricultural land within the Town of Seneca decreased from 90% to 84%. This is the highest percentage of agricultural land use for any town in Ontario County. Approximately 90% of the Town is in an agricultural district. According to the Town of Seneca Comprehensive Plan, 29,512 acres of the Town were in Agricultural District #6 in 2002. The existing landfill property is not located with the Agricultural District #6; however, the proposed soil borrow area is within the District. Seneca supports a diversity of agricultural operations. Approximately 43% of agricultural acreage is devoted to vegetables, 41% to field crops, and smaller percentages to fruit and other crops and nursery operations. Some of the largest dairy operations in the County are located in Seneca. The expansion area is proposed to be constructed in areas that are already disturbed and consists of maintenance facilities, access roads, closed and active landfill cells, and pre-disturbed maintained grassy areas. The proposed borrow area is located immediately south of the landfill and is situated on lands currently used in agricultural activities. Open Space and Recreation The proposed Ontario County landfill expansion project will not impact any open space priority areas, as determined by the NYSDEC in their 2009 NYS Open Space Conservation Plan (OSCP). No National Forests or Parks, State Forests or Parks, Forest Preserve Lands, or Wildlife Management Areas are located near the existing landfill or the proposed expansion area.



The expansion area and properties immediately adjacent to the expansion area are currently not open to public recreational use. Recreational uses are currently not proposed for these properties in the future and therefore are not included as part of the proposed project plan.


Land Use and Zoning

According to the Town of Seneca Comprehensive Plan, the area of the existing and proposed landfill expansion is identified on the Future Land Use Plan as continuing to be used for public services (i.e., landfill). The proposed project is not expected to impact the existing land use and zoning in the vicinity of the Ontario County Landfill. The existing Landfill and the proposed expansion (including the proposed borrow area) would not be subject to local zoning. Nonetheless, even if considered in the context of existing land use and zoning, the landfill expansion and borrow area are generally consistent with the surrounding industrial, commercial and agricultural zones.


The proposed soil borrow area sits on a 40 acre parcel located within Ontario County Agricultural District Number 6; however, only approximately 25 acres (15.5 acres of actual borrow area) of the agricultural land south of the landfill will be transitioned to soil borrow area activities over the course of the project. It is proposed that the remainder of the property will continue to be available for agricultural purposes. Based on the proposed final contours of the borrow area after all soil mining has been completed, it is anticipated that this current agricultural land within the 25 acre area would likely not be reclaimed as agricultural land in the future. The existing agricultural land does not, however, house the main farm establishment and is currently utilized to grow crops to support dairy cattle. Also, by utilizing this property as borrow area, it would eliminate the need for (and would avoid potential adverse environmental impacts related to) the use of public highways for transport of soils to the proposed landfill expansion area. Acquisition and use of the proposed soil borrow area will only occur should the facility receive the permit modification for the landfill expansion. The project would comply with applicable provisions of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law.




Because the project will have no significant adverse impacts on land use and zoning, agricultural resources and open space and recreation, there is no need to propose mitigation.

3.2.2 Population Data and Environmental Justice


According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Demographic

Profile Data released May 12, 2011, in 2010 there were 107,931 people, 43,019 households, and 28,379 families residing in Ontario County. Total Housing Units are estimated at 48,193.

The New York State Data Center published the following

population estimates for 2010.

Table 7 - Population By Municipality, 2000 and 2010

Sources: 2010 United States Census, New York State Data Center, Ontario County GIS

Municipality 2000 (Census)

2010 (Estimate)

Change 2000 - 2010 % of County

Population

Population Density

(people/sq mi) Number Percent Bristol 2,421 2,315 -106 -4.38% 2.14% 62.9 Canadice 1,846 1,664 -182 -9.86% 1.54% 51.6 Canandaigua (city) 11,264 10,545 -719 -6.38% 9.77% 2,292.4 Canandaigua (town) 7,649 10,020 2371 31.00% 9.28% 160.0 East Bloomfield 3,361 3,634 273 8.12% 3.37% 113.6 Farmington 10,585 11,825 1240 11.71% 10.96% 299.7 Geneva (city) 13,617 13,261 -356 -2.61% 12.29% 3,142.4 Geneva (town) 3,289 3,291 2 0.06% 3.05% 169.9 Gorham 3,776 4,247 471 12.47% 3.93% 80.3 Hopewell 3,346 3,747 401 11.98% 3.47% 104.4 Manchester 9,258 9,395 137 1.48% 8.70% 267.0 Naples 2,441 2,502 61 2.50% 2.32% 64.2 Phelps 7,017 7,072 55 0.78% 6.55% 111.3 Richmond 3,452 3,361 -91 -2.64% 3.11% 75.6 Seneca 2,731 2,721 -10 -0.37% 2.52% 54.4 South Bristol 1,645 1,590 -55 -3.34% 1.47% 38.0 Victor 9,977 14,275 4,298 43.08% 13.22% 411.5 West Bloomfield 2,549 2,466 -83 -3.26% 2.28% 97.5 Ontario County 100,224 107,931 7,707 7.7% 100.00% 167.5



Over the past thirty years, the population of Ontario County increased from 79,000 people in 1970 to over 107,000 in the year 2010 making the county the fastest growing in the nine-county Genesee/Finger Lakes planning region. However, growth is expected to taper off over the next 25 years. Whereas between 1970 and 2010 the population increased by approximately 30 percent, between 2010 and 2035 the population is projected to increase by only about 7 percent.2

Table 8 - Population Projections in Ontario County

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (NYSDEC, 2005). Environmental justice efforts focus on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and low-income communities, and addressing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may exist in those communities.

The NYSDEC established an environmental justice program in March 2003 that aimed to promote greater involvement of minority and low income communities in the NYSDEC permitting and project review process. As part of this NYSDEC project, potential environmental justice areas were mapped to help determine if

2 Cornell Program on Applied Demographics.

Population (Projected)

Change in Population

# % 1990 95,101 - - 2000 100,224 5,123 5.4% 2005 103,299 3,998 4.0% 2010 107,931 2,331 2.2% 2015 (108,869) 2,316 2.2% 2020 (110,996) 2,127 2.0% 2025 (112,635) 1,639 1.5% 2030 (113,648) 1,013 0.9% 2035 (114,092) 444 0.4%

Source: US Census Bureau and Cornell Program on Applied Demographics data



environmental justice concerns were present within a given area. This program was designed to help with initial environmental justice screenings and does not replace qualified professional determinations of the project area.


Population growth should not be affected by the presence of the landfill, since the landfill has been in operation since 1974. The reluctance of people to live near the landfill is mostly based upon the perception that the landfill will not be a good neighbor. Such perceptions can be changed, thereby reducing the impacts upon population growth, by operating the landfill in a manner that minimizes the creation of nuisance conditions.

Environmental Justice

No potential environmental justice areas are mapped within the Town of Seneca. A total of two environmental justice areas are mapped within the City of Geneva in Ontario County. These areas will not be negatively impacted by the expansion of the existing Ontario County Landfill.

During ground truthing activities around the project site, no areas of potential environmental injustice were noted. Throughout the public review process for this project, fair treatment of all people has been and will continue to be achieved. Multiple media avenues have been routinely used throughout the progress of the proposed landfill expansion project, in an effort to reach as many Ontario County residents as possible. The proposed project will not impact any mapped potential environmental justice areas or create additional areas requiring classification as an environmental justice area.


The mitigation measures described throughout this DEIS will

be employed during daily landfill operations to ensure that any impacts to the environment, adjacent properties, and the local community are minimized to the greatest extent practicable.

3.2.3 Public Services


The Town of Seneca provides local road maintenance,

including snow removal, paving, and roadside ditch maintenance, as a community service within their respective boundaries. The Ontario County Highway Department provides these same services



for County-owned roadways and bridges within Seneca. Similar services along nearby State Routes are provided by the NYS Department of Transportation.

Fire protection within the Town is provided by the local

Stanley Fire Department. However, in the event of a fire at the landfill that requires outside fire fighting assistance, the landfill personnel will rely upon the County’s 911 emergency system to dispatch any necessary fire fighting units. Ambulance service is provided by Stanley Hall Gorham Ambulance Corps, Inc. in Gorham. The Ontario County Sheriff provides police services to the Town of Seneca. The closest hospital facilities to the Town are Thompson Health in the City of Canandaigua and Geneva General Hospital in the City of Geneva. Local school districts which children from the Town of Seneca attend are the Marcus Whitman Central School, Phelps-Clifton Springs Central School District (Midlakes), Geneva City Schools, and Penn Yan Central School District.


Since there have been landfilling operations on site since

1974, it is not anticipated that continued activity associated with an active landfill would cause any increase in demand on the local public services. By keeping the waste within the County, revenue that is generated from tipping fees that might otherwise go to another facility remains within the County and local communities. Continued landfill operations would retain existing employment opportunities, create new jobs during construction, and help keep money in the local economy that can contribute to the funding of public services. The addition of landfill acreage and support infrastructures may also provide new long-term employment opportunities at the landfill site.


No mitigation measures are necessary.

3.2.4 Public Health


Procedures followed at the landfill site regarding leachate

collection and disposal, landfill gas collection, waste disposal, and environmental monitoring are conducted in accordance with the regulations and policies established by the NYSDEC. The proposed landfill expansion will comply with all established regulations regarding water quality, air quality, noise, odor, vectors and solid waste facility requirements.




As referenced in Section 2.9 of this DEIS, state and federal regulations applicable to the Ontario County landfill have been established to ensure that such projects do not have significant adverse impacts on the health of surrounding communities and populations.


As a result of compliance with these environmental

regulations, the environmental mitigation and compliance measures incorporated into the proposed landfill expansion project will ensure that public health is protected.

3.2.5 Property Values


It is impossible to determine with certainty whether the

operation of the current landfill has affected the value of any particular parcel of land. However, the statistics kept by the Ontario County Real Property Office indicate that there have not been any negative town-wide impacts on total assessed values in the Town of Seneca during the period from 2007 to 2011, when compared to other Towns in Ontario County. The average increase in total assessed values during the time period of 2007 to 2011 in Ontario County was 12 percent (%). Seneca, where the landfill is located, saw an increase in total assessed value of 16 percent (%) during that period, exceeding the average. The Town of Seneca total assessed values during that time period increased from $226,442,442 to $268,862,332. In comparison, nearby Town of Hopewell and Town of Geneva saw an increase in value of only 8 percent (%) and 4 percent (%), respectively, during that same time period.


Experience has shown that the presence of a landfill can

impact property values in the vicinity of the landfill facility. However, the expansion is unlikely to increase the effects on local property values over what is already encountered.


In order to mitigate potential reductions in the surrounding

property values, Casella has implemented a Property Protection Plan in order to protect the surrounding residences from declining



property values as a result of the landfill. The Property Protection Plan will ensure that property values are protected should the proposed landfill expansion project impact property values. This plan currently is in-place for residences that are within ¾ mile of the landfill and assures that the Owner receives fair market value for their property. In order for the plan to be implemented on a specific piece of property, the parcel must be on the market for a period of 9 months. At the end of this period, if no willing purchasers are identified Casella would agree to purchase the property for a price based on the agreed assessment value of the house. If a willing buyer is found at a price below the assessment value, Casella may choose to have the Owner sell the residence and reimburse the Owner the difference between the purchase price and assessment price.

3.2.6 Utilities

3.2.6.1 Setting

Electric

Electric service is provided to the site by New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG)/Energy East. Multiple metered overhead service lines transmit electricity to the landfill facility. The electricity is transmitted through the local NYSEG distribution grid at 3 phase/34.5 kV and is stepped down utilizing transformers. Additional pump stations will be installed which will require additional electric service; however, it is anticipated that there will be ample electric service in the area to handle the proposed expansion.

Water

The Town of Seneca owns and operates a public/municipal water service which currently provides water to the landfill property and the surrounding residents. The Town has a plan to expand the public water system with the overall goal of providing public water service to the entire Town. The Town water supply is purchased from the Town of Geneva.

Multiple water services are fed into the landfill facility including the landfill office, maintenance building, recycling facility, and scale house. Main water distribution lines exist on NYS Route 5 &20, along Old Post Road on the east side of the Phase III landfill and along County Road 49 (Post Lane Road) on the east side of the Phase I Landfill. The water line along Old Post Road will need to be removed/relocated prior to the construction of Stage IX.



Future water needs to the site would most likely be provided from the water main along NYS Route 5 & 20 which is an 8-inch main with ample pressure (110 to 120psi). No changes to the supply or demand to the water service is anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. There is ample water service to handle the proposed expansion.

Sewer/Septic

There is currently no public sewer service in the area of the landfill. The County landfill and the surrounding residents utilize septic systems and holding tanks. No changes to the septic needs are anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion.

The County is analyzing the potential of a local sewer district which could potentially serve the landfill property, residents along NYS Route 5 & 20, including the Hamlet of Flint. The results of the study are in a separate report and this project does not depend on the development of a sewer district.

Natural Gas

A NYSEG natural gas pipeline is located along NYS Route 5 & 20. The pipeline consists of a 6-inch polyethylene pipe with an operating pressure between 40 and 45 psi. There are various distribution pipelines which feed off of the 6-inch line to service the landfill facility operations including the recycling facility, County MRF building, landfill office and landfill maintenance building, as well as the adjacent LFGTE facility. Future natural gas needs to the site would most likely be provided from the existing NYSEG pipeline. No changes to the supply or demand to natural gas is anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. There is ample natural gas service available to handle the proposed expansion.


No impacts to utilities as a result of the proposed expansion

are anticipated.


Because the project will have no significant adverse impacts to the utilities, there is no need to propose mitigation.



3.2.7 Transportation Facilities and Traffic


Waste is currently transported to the landfill directly by individuals, municipalities or private haulers. The main haul routes include the use of NYS Route 5 & 20 to County Road 49 (Post Lane Road). NYS Route 5 & 20 is a major arterial between Geneva and Canandaigua and all of New York State. The landfill entrance is located off of County Route 49 approximately 0.2 mile from NYS Route 5 & 20. Recycling traffic uses an entrance off of County Route 49. Office and maintenance personnel typically utilize the office entrance off of NYS Route 5 & 20 near Post Manor. The Post Road entrance into the facility off of County Route 5 is currently not in use except for periodic maintenance activities.

Upon taking over operational responsibility of the facility,

Casella paid for the design and construction of new turn lanes on NYS Route 5 & 20 at the County Route 49 intersection in 2005, which was approved by the NYSDOT. In addition, a waste truck queuing lane was constructed off of County Route 49 to provide a greater queuing distance for the waste hauling vehicles prior to entering the landfill access road.

The landfill entrance road located off of County Road 49 is

equipped with scales to register the weights of the incoming and outgoing waste delivery vehicles. A network of paved and gravel access roads serves to direct landfill and operational traffic once within the site. The main waste traffic access road runs east to west following the scales and then turns south/north once on the eastern end of the site. This road proceeds north/south to the south side of Phase III Stage IV where the access road begins to enter the waste mass. Additional access roads serve the leachate storage area, main office building and maintenance facility area.


As part of the Part 360 permit modification application in

2007 for an increase in daily disposal capacity, a traffic analysis was completed specifically for NYS Route 5 & 20 to ensure the added truck traffic would not deteriorate the level of service to an unacceptable level at the NYS Route 5 & 20 and County Road 49 intersection. This traffic analysis determined that there would be no significant impact on the level of service (LOS) of the intersection of the entrance road to the site and Route 5 & 20 from the projected peak hour increase in truck traffic. The intersection would continue to operate at an excellent LOS of “A” for traffic entering the facility, and continue to operate at an acceptable LOS of “C” for traffic



leaving the site. Level of service "A" represents free flow, which means that drivers are unaffected by others in the traffic stream. Level of service "C" is considered the limit of stable flow, and maneuvering within the traffic flow now requires significant vigilance.

The proposed expansion does not include an increase in

disposal capacity beyond the current permitted limit. It is envisioned that the local roadways and turning movements into the landfill by the vehicles will remain the same unless factors unrelated to the landfill facility increase traffic on the local roadways. As with current operations, operational soils for the expansion will be from an on-site borrow area thereby eliminating additional traffic on the local roadways.

When a new section of the landfill is being constructed

certain materials are brought on site such as various types of clay, sand, and stone. Additional traffic associated with these construction activities is not a year round occurrence; only on an as needed basis when a new cell is constructed.

As discussed in section 2.4.3, as portions of the proposed

landfill footprint are constructed and operated, leachate generation at the site is expected to incrementally increase above current levels and will be managed through the construction of a new leachate conveyance system and larger leachate storage facilities. This increased generation rate will also require an increased volume of leachate disposal at the wastewater treatment plant. Based on the preliminary leachate generation data included in Figure 10 and current hauling practices at the facility (7,500 gallon tanker truck capacity, hauling six days per week), the peak three month leachate generation quantity from the existing facility and the proposed expansion could be removed from the site in 12 total round trips per day, or approximately 3 total truck trips to/from the site per hour with the increased leachate storage capacity. The added storage capacity allows the additional leachate volumes to be managed within current hauling practices. The traffic analysis performed in 2007 included analysis of a maximum of 9 leachate tanker trucks entering the site and 7 exiting the site during the peak hour. The 3 total truck trips per hour to/from the site is within the peak hour value used in the traffic analysis, therefore, there will be no increase in peak hour truck trips and the LOS determined by the 2007 traffic analysis will not change with the proposed increased leachate generation at the site well within peak hour value used.




Because the project will have no significant impact on the LOS of the intersections, there is no need for mitigation. Additionally, given that an on-site soil borrow area is proposed as opposed to importing soil from off-site, no additional traffic-related to operational activities are expected. In this way, the borrow area incorporates important traffic mitigation into the project design.

3.2.8 Historic and Archeological Resources

3.2.8.1 Environmental Setting and Potential Impacts

On October 28, 2008, B&L conducted an initial historic/cultural information screening of the proposed Ontario County landfill wrap around cell expansion, eastern expansion, and soil mining area. A preliminary review of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) GIS website involved determining if any sites listed on the State or National Historic Registers were located within or adjacent to the proposed expansion limits. This query reported no known historic sites within the referenced search area. The Ontario County Landfill is located within a mapped archeologically sensitive area as depicted on SHPO’s GIS website. A canvas letter was mailed to the SHPO in order to determine if the proposed project would result in an impact to historic or cultural resources in the area. SHPO stated in a response letter dated November 5, 2008, that the wrap around expansion was reviewed in a Phase I archaeological study that was performed in 1986 and was clear of historic and cultural resources. The proposed eastern expansion and soil borrow area were not included in this document, resulting in the need for an archaeological survey of these areas. Based on site conditions and historic documentation, Ontario County Landfill did not agree with the conclusion that the eastern expansion area would require an archaeological survey. The proposed eastern expansion area had been previously disturbed and used as a storage area for daily cover soil. After providing additional information to SHPO, including site photographs, historic aerial photographs, and a copy of the 1999 Engineering Excavation Plan by Fagan Engineering, the eastern borrow area received a No Impact determination from SHPO in a letter dated February 26, 2010. Copies of all SHPO correspondence are included in Attachment D.

It was determined during this review that the proposed soil borrow area had not been included in the previous archaeological surveys completed for the project area. As such, a complete Phase 1A/1B survey and report was performed by the Rochester Museum and Science Center in the late summer of 2011. This report is provided



in Attachment J. The report concludes that there will be no impact on historic or archeological resources as a result of borrow area development. The report has been submitted to SHPO for their review, and based on the conclusions of the report it is anticipated that a letter of “no impact” will be received from them at a later date.


Given that no known historic sites or archeologically

sensitive areas have been identified within the project area, there is no need to propose mitigation.

3.2.9 Visual Setting


The landfill site and surrounding areas are generally flat with

gently rolling topography. Natural elevations on the landfill property range from 870 feet above mean sea level in the south west corner of the property to a height of approximately 832 feet above mean sea level at a low point near the County Road 5 and NYS Route 5 & 20 intersection.


Final grades for the proposed expansion include developing

the landfill side slopes at 33% (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) per 6 NYCRR Part 360 to an elevation of 997 feet above mean sea level. Landfill top slopes will be developed at the regulatory minimum slope of 4% to an elevation of approximately1025 feet above MSL to promote proper surface water collection and drainage in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. Ultimately, the proposed landfill expansion area would have a maximum permitted elevation of approximately 1025 feet above MSL, approximately 28 feet higher than the existing maximum permitted elevation of the operational landfill.

Similar to the existing permitted grades, a land surface of a

more uniform slope will result from the proposed expansion with a 3:1 (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) slope on all sides of the landfill. Topographic changes to the proposed landfill footprint are fundamental to the project.

The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) procedures utilized for the

proposed project are consistent with methodologies developed by the NYSDEC, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Viewshed mapping was completed using United States Geological Survey



(USGS) digital elevation model (DEM) data and the Geographic Information System (GIS) ArcView Spatial Analyst software program. These viewshed maps define the maximum viewable areas from which any portion of the existing and proposed landfill on the project site could potentially be seen within the study area (five (5) mile radius from the landfill site).

Figure 1 in Attachment F compares the viewshed of the

landfill site under currently permitted and proposed conditions with vegetation taken into account. Figure 2 in Attachment F compares the viewshed of the landfill sited under currently permitted and proposed conditions without vegetation. As shown in these figures, the existing permitted landfill expansion will be visible to approximately 20 percent of land areas and the proposed landfill will be visible to approximately 25 percent of land areas within the five mile study area.

In order to confirm the mapping, a field evaluation was

conducted. Three (3) helium-filled balloons were floated at 1052 feet above MSL in height to simulate a potential maximum elevation being considered for the proposal. Following subsequent discussions and analyses, the maximum elevation for the proposed expansion was determined to be 1025-feet above MSL. The simulations were adjusted based on the known diameter of the balloons and existing known land elevations to subsequently reflect the design maximum height. The balloon locations were chosen to represent the maximum elevation points of the proposed landfill expansion area at the geographic center, upper-right corner, and lower-left corner. While the three balloons were elevated in the sky, a field crew traveled along adjacent roadways to ten (10) specific vantage points within the five (5) mile radius study area. At each vantage point documentation was collected to determine whether or not the proposed landfill would be seen from these locations. Photographs were taken at every vantage point location and GPS coordinates were taken. These photographs were used to create visual simulations of the view of the landfill from each vantage point. Points were selected that fell within the five (5) mile radius of the proposed landfill site. The visual simulations can be found in the Visual Impact Assessment, included as Attachment F. As indicated in Attachment F, portions of the landfill expansion area will likely be observed from 8 of the 13 vantage point locations examined. These same vantage points also have visual impacts from the existing permitted landfill.

Visual simulations of the proposed project indicate that the

visibility, impact, and view reaction to the proposed expansion will vary based on landscape and geographical setting, extent of screening and structural obstructions, viewer sensitivity, and



distance of the respective viewer from the proposed project site. The project’s overall impact on the visual character of the area is considered to be very low to moderate, depending on the distance of the view to the proposed landfill site. The greatest visual impacts of the proposed landfill expansion project are similar to the existing permitted landfill and are primarily located immediately adjacent to the landfill site along the NYS State Route 5 and 20 corridor. This highway is primarily used for transportation and is not considered a scenic highway which minimizes potential impacts. Thirteen locations listed on the National Register of Historic Places were identified within the five mile radius study area, most of which were located within the City of Geneva limits. Only three (3) of these locations had a potential visual impact based on the viewshed analysis. However, based on the field survey of these locations, only one (1) had a visual impact from the proposed landfill. Given that the existing landfill is currently visible from the historical structures and/or natural resources identified, the project’s overall impact on the visual character from these locations is considered to be very low to moderate. Significant visual impacts from these locations are not expected as a result of the proposed landfill expansion.


Mitigative measures were considered in accordance with the

NYSDEC Program Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (DEP-00-2). The site already has constructed screening berms with planted vegetation. Existing screening mechanisms will be utilized to decrease the visual impact of the proposed project. The natural colors of the landfill were demonstrated by the visual simulation to generally minimize contrast with the sky and background under most conditions. Typical landfill covers will be utilized in this project. The landscape surrounding this project will retain its open space character and overall spatial organization, even at the time in which the landfill expansion has been fully constructed. Although there are intrusions to the vertical and overhead planes in the landscape within the expansion boundary, mitigative measures to decrease the levels of these intrusions will be employed, as needed.

3.2.10 Noise Analysis


Land uses surrounding the landfill include gently-rolling agricultural and open fields, forested areas, widely spaced single-family one and two story wood-frame residences, and commercial uses which are located along State Route 5 & 20. Local zoning



provides that most areas surrounding the site are available for residential usage. Existing residences are typically setback approximately 50 feet or more from local roads. Figure 19 illustrates the limits of the current and proposed landfill expansion, as well as properties and sensitive receptors surrounding the landfill.

The predominate noise sources at the existing landfill site

are from landfill operations including landfilling and soil mining. Noise generating equipment utilized at the site includes waste compactors, bulldozers, excavators and loaders. Additional noise sources include waste truck, soil haul trucks, leachate haul trucks, site service trucks and periodic bird-control pyrotechnics.


Sound associated with the operation of the proposed landfill

expansion will be produced by the same types and quantities of engine-powered equipment as are currently operating at the landfill. In addition, the approved design capacity of the landfill will not change as a result of the expansion operations. Therefore, the sound levels produced from operation of the expansion landfill are not anticipated to change from the existing facility operation sound levels.

The existing permitted Ontario County Phase III Landfill

located in Stanley, New York is proposing two stages of landfill expansion: the Stage VIII (Wrap-Around Expansion) immediately to the west and north of the existing landfill, and the Stage IX (Eastern) Expansion immediately to the east. The Wrap-Around Expansion area extends the landfill footprint by approximately 200 to 350 feet to the west and north of the existing permitted landfill footprint. The Eastern Expansion is a wedge shaped area that extends the landfill footprint by approximately 850 feet to the east at its northernmost point, down to less than 100 feet as you move south from this point until it meets the edge of the existing permitted landfill footprint.

To provide adequate soils for construction and operations of

the proposed landfill expansion, a soil borrow area is proposed to be operated immediately south of the Phase III landfill, adjacent to the existing County landfill property. The borrow area excavation area footprint is approximately 15.5 acres in size. Access to the borrow area will be provided from the existing landfill property thereby eliminating traffic on public roadways. A purchase agreement has been signed with the willing landowner for the property and the property will be transferred to the County prior to operation.



The predominant change in sound levels experienced at offsite locations will be due to the closer proximity of landfill operations to certain nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed landfill expansion site design will bring landfill operations closer to properties to the north and east of the existing landfill site. In addition, proposed borrow area operations will extend the site to the south, closer to those properties that border the landfill site to the south. It is primarily this difference that will cause a change in sound levels experienced by offsite properties when operations are closest to offsite locations in the proximity of operating areas.

Noise Impact Assessment

The noise impact assessment procedures utilized for the proposed project are consistent with the methodologies developed by the NYSDEC in the NYSDEC Policy Document Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (NYSDEC, 2001).

As a conservative assessment of potential noise impacts from the proposed landfill expansion, source sound levels were projected using the “inverse square law” which relies solely on noise attenuation over distance between the source and receptor of noise, excluding additional attenuation factors such as topography and ground cover which also further reduce noise levels between a source and a receptor. The “inverse square law” predicts that sound levels decrease at an incremental rate with an increase (doubling) in distance from a noise source. This noise law states that 50 feet from a noise source, the noise level decreases by 6 dBA (A-weighted decibels) with the doubling of the distance from the source (NYSDEC, 2001).

The equivalent steady state sound level (Leq) was utilized as the reference sound level in the assessment. The Leq is the average sound energy over time, and is utilized in sound level studies as it is considered to be directly related to the observable effects of sound on people. As expansion operations will not increase source sound levels, the source Leq for both the existing landfill and expansion landfill was assumed to be equal. Using this analysis, potential sensitive receptor locations were chosen to represent the closest boundaries of developed residential properties surrounding the landfill property not under the ownership of Casella. The difference in existing sound levels and the projected sound levels anticipated due to expansion operations were analyzed at these sensitive receptor locations.

Potential impacts for the proposed borrow area were assessed assuming similar equipment and the same level of operations that occur in the existing borrow area. It should be noted the landfill will



not expand to the south towards the proposed borrow area, and that the existing landfill remains the closest landfill operational area to the proposed borrow area site. The proposed borrow area will include the implementation of a soil berm around the area that will extend approximately 20 feet above the starting elevation of the virgin borrow area, which will break the “line of sight” between the nearby receptor locations and the operating equipment. The “line of sight” is defined as an imaginary straight line drawn from a height of 5 feet at receptor locations directly to the noise source. As excavation of borrow soils progresses the equipment will ultimately operate more than 80 feet below the top of the berm providing significant additional noise attenuation. Breaking the line of sight between the source and receptor provides at least a 5 dBA reduction (Source: FHWA). Each additional meter (3.3 feet) of berm height above the line of sight provides an additional 1.5 dBA reduction.

It should be noted that traffic noise is significant at receptor locations along State Route 5 & 20 and County Road 5. Traffic noise is not anticipated to increase as a result of the expansion operations and as such, traffic noise experienced at offsite locations will remain unchanged from those currently experienced.

Conclusions

The determination of the level of impact of noise from the landfill expansion project was based on the NYSDEC Noise Policy guidance. This Noise Policy defines a significant impact as an increase of 6 dBA or more from what is currently experienced; while an increase in noise by 10 dBA is perceived as doubling of the sound level. The policy states that in non-industrial settings, “the sound level should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dBA at the receptor” (NYSDEC, 2001). Smaller increases of 3 dBA or less should have no appreciable effect on receptors, and are generally not perceived by the human ear.

For all locations assessed, the increase above the existing sound levels experienced from landfill operations was less than 6 dBA, with the majority of sensitive receptor locations experiencing an increase between 0 and 3 dBA. The sound levels from the proposed borrow area at nearby sensitive receptors are not anticipated to exceed those experienced due to current landfill operations when operating in the southern part of this landfill. It should be noted that in locations close to busy roads, traffic noise is the predominant noise source experienced by receptors and this will not change with the expansion.




In an effort to reduce noise generation and propagation, the expansion landfill will be designed and operated to minimize potential noise impacts to offsite receptors. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Effective and properly functioning exhaust mufflers will be

maintained on engine-powered equipment at the site. Mufflers observed to be defective will be promptly replaced.

Site speed limits will be enforced for vehicles entering the site, operating on the site, and when leaving the site.

Sound level limits will be included in the bidding and purchase documents for new mobile equipment, when needed for the proposed expansions.

Landfill operations and waste placement will be planned and staged whenever possible such that waste lifts provide additional physical shielding of the landfill working face equipment noise to limit offsite noise propagation.

3.2.11 Fiscal Analysis

3.2.11.1 Setting

According to an aerial survey performed on November 3,

2010, the historical in-place waste density and the current approved design capacity, it is anticipated that the current landfill will no longer have usable airspace for waste placement beyond 2015. The proposed expansion will increase the available disposal capacity by approximately 11,504,800 cubic yards, which is anticipated to provide adequate disposal capacity through 2028 depending on waste acceptance rates and effective airspace utilization.

Both Ontario County and the Town of Seneca receive royalty

payments from Casella through a Host Community Agreement. These payments include:

$2.0 million dollar annual payment to the County over the

course of the 25 year lease; $15.0 million initial payment to the County at the start of the

lease period; Approximately $0.8-1.0 million / yr in excess tonnage

payments (49 percent tonnage increase) to the County; and



Approximately $18 million payment to the County upon receipt of the Stage VIII and IX Part 360 landfill expansion permits. Additionally, Ontario County and/or Town of Seneca

residents receive benefits as well. Some of these benefits include:

No charge for recycling to County residents; Lower in-county tip fees; Town royalty payments help to offset town property taxes.

As a result the Town of Seneca residents currently have no town tax levy and typically enjoy a 30-40% County tax levy “buy down”;

Town of Seneca residents can bring their waste to the Town of Seneca transfer stations, which are operated by Casella, for free;

Ontario County taxes are offset by funds received from the operation of the landfill, which lowers County resident’s taxes;

Town of Seneca receives payments for fire protection and sewer and water development projects; and

Ontario County residents are able to participate in the annual Household Hazardous Waste collection organized by Casella. In addition, the Host Community Agreement (Operations,

Management and Lease Agreement, OML) provides an on-going funding mechanism for remedial impact mitigation, as deemed necessary and appropriate, for every municipality in the County. Landfill operations funding is appropriated at the County’s discretion. The opportunity cost attributable to each municipality with an obligation for sanitary waste disposal is appropriated at the discretion of each municipality. The Host Community Agreements are considered to be separate from the SEQR process and the permitting process.

Additionally, the facility construction and operation,

associated with the proposed landfill expansion and soil borrow area will extend local employment through the lifespan of the expansion.


If the proposed expansion and soil borrow area were not

permitted, it could jeopardize the monetary benefits Ontario County and the Town of Seneca, along with their residents, receive on an annual basis. It is estimated that over $2 million/year is generated



in economic benefits to the community through the Host Community Agreement and employment with the operation of the landfill.

Additionally, local residents and businesses would not have

a local option for environmentally sound solid waste disposal, which could result in disposing of the waste generated within Ontario County elsewhere as soon as 2015. There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in a waste exportation arrangement. Tipping fees charged at landfills are subject to market fluctuations and the County, and County residents and businesses, would be subject to the variability of the market. Waste exportation costs will also be more sensitive to changes in diesel fuel prices which, in the recent history, have risen substantially.


The development of the proposed landfill expansion area will

continue to ensure the availability of environmentally and economically sound long-term waste disposal capacity within Ontario County. The proposed expansion will thus help to extend the economic benefits derived from the Ontario County Landfill and provide additional short-term economic benefits associated with the future construction activities.

3.2.12 Hazardous Materials

3.2.12.1 Setting

Hazardous materials are not accepted at the Ontario County

Landfill. Solid wastes accepted at the Ontario County Landfill consist of municipal solid wastes and NYSDEC-authorized non-hazardous commercial and industrial wastes including C&D debris and friable and non-friable asbestos as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 360. Waste types that will not be accepted at the facility include hazardous and regulated radioactive wastes, bulk liquids, untreated medical wastes, and any other waste types not meeting the Part 360 definition of acceptable wastes. The facility will accept industrial and commercial wastes under a special waste program in accordance with the requirements of Part 364 New York Waste Transporter Permit Regulations, and in accordance with its Part 360 permit. Wastes to be accepted by Ontario County Landfill in the expanded landfill will be identical to the waste stream presently authorized by the NYSDEC for the existing operations.



A listing of the materials currently permitted for disposal at the Ontario County Landfill can be found in Section 6.0 of the Operations and Maintenance Manual and the site’s Part 360 permit. 3.2.12.2 Potential Impacts

In the event that prohibited materials arrive at the site,

procedures are in place to handle them in a safe and effective manner. The waste inspection and unauthorized waste removal program is described below as a mitigative measure.


Waste inspection procedures currently used at the existing

Ontario County Landfill will apply to the expansion. Facility personnel are trained in waste screening for prohibited wastes. In the event that landfill personnel observe unauthorized wastes during unloading, they will notify the vehicle driver of the discovery and require said driver to remove the waste. If unauthorized waste is discovered after delivery and the hauler cannot be identified, landfill personnel will segregate the unauthorized waste from the remainder of the waste stream and arrange for an authorized disposal firm to transport and properly dispose of the waste. Repeat offenses are cause for barring individuals or firms from using the landfill facility. If facility personnel suspect any unauthorized wastes as hazardous, they will immediately notify the NYSDEC. The facility’s annual report submitted to the NYSDEC will include a record of each incident, which identifies the type and final disposition of the unauthorized waste.

In addition to the constant waste screening during typical

operations, random waste inspections at the landfill will be conducted once per week or more frequently at the discretion of the landfill supervisor. Trucks selected at random for waste inspection will unload waste while moving forward to create a thin layer of waste for spot checking. The inspector will visually examine the wastes for the presence of unauthorized materials. Any unauthorized wastes will be returned to the vehicle and in the event of illegal activity, the NYSDEC will be notified.

3.3 Energy Conservation

3.3.1 Fuel Use and Conservation

The development of the proposed expansion of the existing Ontario

County Landfill would not result in a change in the permitted waste acceptance rate. Accordingly, there would not be any significant changes in daily activities of the landfill; there would be no significant change in the



amount of fuel consumed by trucks delivering waste to the landfill or the amount of fuel consumed by operating equipment. Also, the development of the proposed landfill expansion will continue to provide a local waste disposal facility for Ontario County. When considering alternatives such as exporting wastes to another landfill out of the County, it is apparent that the proposed expansion would result in less fuel consumption.

3.3.2 Electricity Use

Beyond the electricity that is already required at the site, the

proposed landfill expansion would require additional electricity to perform normal operating activities at the site; however, the electricity produced by the LFGTE facility greatly outweighs the electrical use at the site.

Additional pumps that would be installed over time as part of the

landfill expansion will gradually increase power usage at the landfill. It is estimated that the landfill’s current annual power consumption rate of approximately 268,300 kilowatt-hours could ultimately be increased to an estimated 662,400 kilowatt-hours annually by the year 2028. As mentioned above, projected increases in electricity use at the proposed landfill expansion is more than offset by the existing landfill gas to energy project at the landfill.

3.3.3 Solid Waste Production

Although some solid waste management issues may have been

discussed elsewhere in the DEIS in conjunction with development infrastructure or public service needs, explicit requirements added to the SEQR statute by the 1990 Legislature require that an EIS include a discussion of the impacts of a proposed action on solid waste management, where applicable and significant.

Ontario County recently prepared a Draft Local Solid Waste

Management Plan (SWMP) to provide the Ontario County constituency with a comprehensive, integrated program for managing solid waste, which is consistent with the New York State Hierarchy for Solid Waste Management, in an economically sound and environmentally safe manner. The Draft SWMP concluded that the Ontario County Landfill is currently an important disposal resource for the residents of Ontario County as well as the municipalities within the County that rely on the landfill for disposal. Additionally, the landfill is an important resource for the region in adhering to their solid waste management efforts. Future expansion of airspace at the Ontario County Landfill was an integral component of the Draft SWMP. The Draft SWMP is currently in the process of regulatory and public review. The SWMP will be finalized and approved by the County and the NYSDEC prior to finalizing the permit process.



The proposed project is located on a property that has a long history of use as a solid waste disposal facility and is currently used for solid waste disposal. The landfill is also adjacent to a waste transfer station and recycling center. The proposed project is compatible with adjoining land uses as property in the vicinity is typically used for agriculture, residential and solid waste activities. The proposed project is not expected to generate a quantity of solid waste that would significantly impact the approved design capacity of 2,999 tons of municipal solid waste per day. Should the project not be permitted, it would result in disposing of the waste generated within Ontario County at other facilities.

There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in

any waste exportation arrangement. Tipping fees charged at landfills are subject to market fluctuations and the County, and County residents and businesses, would be subject to the variability of the market. Waste exportation costs will also be more sensitive to changes in diesel fuel prices which, in the recent history, have risen substantially.

Solid waste disposal is a fundamental need within a community’s

public works infrastructure. The objective of solid waste collection and disposal has traditionally been, and continues to be to protect public health and safety. Over the last 30 years, this objective has expanded to include protection of the environment as well.

These objectives are reflected in the increasingly stringent landfill

construction and operation regulations that have evolved over the last 25 years. The result has been a dramatic reduction in the number of small, unlined municipal landfills, which have been replaced by large, lined municipal and commercial landfills. Despite increased recycling in the past several years, there is still a pressing need for environmentally sound solid waste disposal.

The Ontario County Landfill is dedicated to educating residents

about reuse and waste diversion; and believes that this is best accomplished, and provides the greatest benefit, when practiced in partnership with the community, since impacts and benefits of management decisions reach across property boundaries. However, many educational outreach activities take time to achieve results; therefore, the development of the proposed landfill expansion area will continue to ensure the availability of environmentally and economically sound long-term waste disposal capacity within Ontario County. The proposed expansion will thus help to extend the economic benefits derived from the Ontario County Landfill and provide additional short-term economic benefits associated with the future construction activities.



4.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Impacts of the project will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible as outlined in previously in the above sections. In addition, the proposed engineering design will minimize impacts of the facilities and procedures will be developed to minimize impact during operation. With the implementation of the mitigation measures described above, no significant adverse impacts would be created by the proposed projects.

4.1 Topography

Development of the proposed landfill expansion will unavoidably alter the topography of the landfill footprint area and the area immediately adjacent within the limits of construction. The lowest existing elevation in the proposed expansion area is 997 feet above MSL. The highest elevation of the proposed capped landfill would be 1,025 feet above MSL. This would be approximately 28 feet higher than the final height of the currently permitted landfill. Overall, the proposed maximum height of the landfill will be approximately 155 to 195 -feet above the existing ground surface surrounding the facility; which is less than other landfills in the region. The sides of the cap would have approximately a 33 percent (%) slope. The height and shape of the landfill would be compatible with the existing closed Phase II/IIA landfill on the property as well as the existing Phase III landfill slopes and the gently rolling topography which is characteristic of the area. Upon capping and closure, the landfill footprint would be vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and resemble many of the agricultural fields and open meadows present in the surrounding area.

4.2 Groundwater Resources

Glacial till is the predominant overburden material beneath the existing

and proposed expansion area and it is divided into two distinct types known as the brown till and the gray till. Neither of the till units represents a significant groundwater source and it is not anticipated there will be impacts to the local groundwater table upon removal of these two units from within the expansion areas. There have been no observed significant changes to the groundwater table in the vicinity of Stage IX in association with its use as a borrow area with soil removal extending down into the lodgment till. It is anticipated the interface till/ bedrock groundwater flow direction within the expansion areas will continue to exhibit an influence from the Phase III groundwater suppression system.

4.3 Air Quality

Construction and operation of the proposed landfill expansion would

involve excavating and relocating soils, spreading and compacting soil cover, and the travel of vehicles over unpaved roadways. All of these activities have the potential to create dust. The proposed mitigation measures, which include limiting the landfill working face areas to the minimum practicable sizes, re-vegetating exposed areas as soon as possible, and watering down haul roads, would minimize any potentially significant adverse impacts to local air quality, but



not eliminate the creation of fugitive dust altogether. The minor amounts of fugitive dust created by the proposed project would be temporary in nature, and confined to the proposed development area, with the implementation of the mitigation measures previously discussed.

Construction and operation of the proposed landfill expansion would result

in a continuation of vehicle emissions from waste hauling vehicles and landfill equipment. While these emissions are greater over the long term than if there were to be no future development of the site, they are not expected to have any significant adverse affects on air quality due to the emissions control devices installed on such vehicles, the favorable air pollutant dispersion characteristics of the site, and the fact that no change in design capacity is planned (sot that daily vehicle trips/use are not expected to increase).

Landfill gas will be generated as wastes buried in the landfill decompose.

Without the operation of the active gas collection and control system, landfill gas would be passively vented to the atmosphere. In addition, while the active gas collection and control system is in operation, a fraction of the landfill gas generated could potentially vent to the atmosphere due to the estimated 95% collection efficiency of the system. The emission of this fugitive gas from the landfill would not have a significant adverse affect on the environment since the landfill gas collection and control system would be operated in accordance with federal regulations (40 CFR Subpart WWW), which were designed to protect public health and welfare. Overall, the percentage of controlled landfill gas emissions will be increased, since as part of the landfill expansion, the facility will provide active gas collection and treatment for the entire site including the existing landfill and all future cells constructed as part of the landfill expansion.

4.4 Site Ecology

The expansion area is proposed to be constructed in areas that are

already disturbed and consist of maintenance facilities, access roads, closed and active landfill cells, and pre-disturbed maintained grassy areas. None of these areas provide good habitat for wildlife species that inhabit the Finger Lakes Region of New York State, not to mention the current activities within the proposed footprint involve machinery and constant human presence. Animals are more likely to pass thru the proposed expansion area at night when existing landfill operations are finished for the day. The proposed expansions will provide a similar habitat for wildlife population and will not have a significant impact upon the abundance, population, or distribution of plant, fish, or wildlife resources in the region.

4.5 Agricultural Resources

Development of the proposed soil borrow area will unavoidably alter

portions of the agricultural land south of the landfill. The existing agricultural land does not, however, house the main farm establishment and is currently utilized to grow crops to support dairy cattle. Furthermore, the proposed soil borrow area



sits on a 40 acre parcel located within Ontario County Agricultural District Number 6, with only approximately 25 acres (15.5 acres of actual borrow area) of the agricultural land south of the landfill proposed to be transitioned to soil borrow area activities over the course of the project. It is proposed that the remainder of the property will continue to be available for used for agricultural purposes.

4.6 Visual Setting

Landfill construction and operation would result in additional land areas

being able to view portions of the landfill property (both existing and proposed). Since the proposed expansion will be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing landfill, only a slight visual contrast will result for that area. Screening berms along the northern and eastern portions of the property are currently in-place that provides a visual barrier between offsite locations and the landfill operations. Mitigation measures which would be employed at the landfill to reduce visual impacts include keeping the area of exposed soils to the smallest practicable area, strategically placing soil stockpiles, and re-vegetating areas of exposed soils as soon as possible to minimize the visibility of the expansion area.



5.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

5.1 Geologic Resources

On-site soils would be used in the construction of the landfill liner system, for construction of additional on-site roads, for daily and intermediate cover, and in construction of the landfill cap. The use of soils for these purposes would preclude their use for other purposes. According to the calculated soil balance (Section 2.3.3), there is enough soil on-site within the expansion area and adjacent soil borrow area to support the soil usage needs of the proposed landfill expansion.

5.2 Land Use and Zoning, Agricultural Resources and Open Space and

Recreation

The dedication of the landfill footprint for solid waste disposal purposes and the agricultural land for soil borrow purposes is considered an irreversible commitment of a land use due to the length of time the landfill is proposed to be in operation and the limitations which the presence of the landfill would impose upon future use of the area.



6.0 Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts

6.1 Cumulative Impacts

In addition to environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts to area resources previously discussed may occur as a result of existing, proposed or future projects and activities in the vicinity of the proposed landfill expansion and soil borrow area. Due to the unique nature of the landfill expansion, it is anticipated the cumulative impacts would result from other development of commercial developments or agricultural improvements in the vicinity of the landfill. However at this time, no other developments are proposed in the vicinity of the landfill. Given the lack of other planned developments, cumulative impacts to the surrounding community within the Project area will not occur.

Although initial construction and operation of the proposed landfill expansion will only directly impact a portion of the total acreage, the environmental analyses presented in this document addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the initial cell construction and subsequent development efforts, over an estimated 18 year operating life. 6.2 Noise

The Ontario County Landfill LFG to Energy Facility is identified as an

additional source of noise from the site. The LFGTE facility consists of internal combustion (IC) engine generator sets that are utilized to generate electricity. The engines are housed within a building which significantly attenuates engine noise. A soil berm has been constructed between the LFGTE facility and nearby receptors to reduce the propagation of noise offsite from this location. The sound levels from the plant do to not significantly contribute to the operational sound levels. As such, the LFGTE facility is not a significant contributor of noise propagation offsite.

6.3 Air

Landfill gas is currently mitigated through the use of an active GCCS, where it is sent to fuel internal combustion (IC) engines at the off-site LFGTE facility owned and operated by Seneca Energy II, LLC for electricity generation, or flared onsite through enclosed flares. The LFGTE facility has the potential to control at least 65 percent of the landfill gas collected from the existing permitted landfill based on peak generation estimates. Prior to combustion, the collected landfill gas that is routed to the LFGTE facility is treated through a dewatering, filtration, and compression process. The landfill facility also maintains permitted enclosed flares for landfill gas control during periods when the LFGTE facility is not operational, or when excess gas is available that the LFGTE facility cannot utilize.



The LFGTE facility provides a beneficial control measure of the landfill gas generated at the landfill. Specifically, the operation of the LFGTE facility decreases the amount of landfill gas that would otherwise be flared at the Ontario County Landfill. The result is a significant offset of greenhouse gas emissions, which, based on EPA estimates, are equivalent to the carbon sequestered annually by nearly 60,000 acres of pine or fir forests, annual greenhouse gas emissions from 48,000 passenger vehicles, or carbon dioxide emissions from 612,000 barrels of oil consumed.

Separate and apart from the project, as the existing landfill has the potential to generate sufficient quantities of landfill gas to supply the existing and proposed LFGTE facilities, Seneca Energy II, LLC has applied for a modification to its Title V Air Permit for the LFGTE facility. Specifically, Seneca Energy II, LLC has proposed to expand the LFGTE facility by adding three (3) Caterpillar G3520C landfill gas IC engine generator sets, including ancillary equipment for electricity generation as a landfill gas beneficial use project. The proposed LFG fueled IC engines would be housed in a separate building constructed in an area immediately adjacent to the existing LFGTE Facility, which currently consists of eight (8) Caterpillar G3516 landfill gas IC engine generator sets. A gas transmission pipe would be connected to the header of the existing landfill gas (LFG) collection system and a dedicated blower/compressor would draw LFG from the existing collection system to the engines generator sets.

The emissions analysis provided in this review for the proposed expanded landfill are based on the expanded landfill’s potential to emit (PTE) and assumes that all collected landfill gas is flared onsite as a worst case estimate. Based on conservative landfill gas modeling, the increase in the peak year facility landfill gas generation estimates from the existing landfill to the proposed expansion landfill is approximately 5,770 scfm. This increase in landfill gas generation will increase the PTE emissions of the landfill facility as more landfill gas will be flared onsite for a worst case estimate.

However, as noted above, the LFGTE facility is used as a mitigation measure to decrease the amount of landfill gas that would otherwise be flared at the landfill. The PTE emissions for the proposed LFGTE facility permit modification, therefore, are based on operation of the engines utilizing landfill gas as a fuel source. Under typical operations, the LFGTE engines will be operational and available to control landfill gas generated from the landfill, with the flares operating as backup control devices and for landfill gas generated above the LFGTE facility’s capacity.

In terms of cumulative impacts, there is a finite quantity of landfill gas that will be generated from the proposed expansion landfill. As such, the combined landfill gas emissions from both the proposed expansion landfill and modified LFGTE facility are not additive, will consist of a combination of flared emissions from the landfill and engine emissions from the LFGTE facility, and generally will result in beneficial offsetting of significant greenhouse gas emissions.



6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts

Some proposed actions under the SEQR process have the potential to trigger further development by either attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial growth, or by inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the facility. The proposed landfill expansion and soil borrow area do not require additional permanent work force, and therefore will not lead to significant, permanent growth in local population or housing. The impacts associated with the construction workforce would be temporary in nature. Since the landfill has been in operation (1974), it has not directly induced significant population growth in the Town of Seneca or within Ontario County. Therefore, the proposed landfill expansion is not expected to directly induce population growth within the Town of Seneca, or within Ontario County.



7.0 Alternatives Analysis

A number of alternatives have been evaluated with regard to the proposed landfill expansion. The alternatives analysis includes a summary of the capabilities of the Ontario County Landfill to perform the proposed actions including consideration of alternatives to development of the landfill expansion. As part of the completion of this DEIS, the Ontario County Landfill has evaluated a number of alternatives with regard to the proposed expansion of the regional landfill located in the Town of Seneca, and more generally in regard to waste management in Ontario County. These alternatives include:

Waste exportation; The no-action alternative; Alternative landfill sites; Alternative expansion scenarios; Alternative implementation schedule; Alternative use of site; Alternative waste disposal technologies. These waste disposal technologies

would not eliminate the need for landfill disposal, since process residues and bypass wastes would still require landfilling.

In addition to alternatives related to the landfill expansion, alternatives to the

proposed soil borrow area are also discussed. These alternatives are evaluated in subsections 7.2 through 7.9.

7.1 Objectives and Capabilities of Ontario County Landfill

The Ontario County Landfill is operated by Casella under a 25 year

operation and management lease agreement (OML) with Ontario County that was initiated in 2003. As a condition of the OML, Casella must guarantee disposal for in-county waste either at the landfill or alternate facility through the expiration of the agreement in 2028. The existing Phase III permitted landfill footprint encompasses approximately 84.6 acres of lined area, of which 80.1 acres have been constructed through the end of 2010.

Based on an aerial survey performed on November 3, 2010, the remaining constructed site capacity is estimated to be approximately 3,106,000 cubic yards. An additional 2,750,000 cubic yards of permitted capacity remains to be constructed which yields approximately 5,856,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity under the currently permitted landfill footprint. Based on historical waste acceptance rates and in-place waste densities, it is projected that the site has roughly 5 years of capacity remaining from November 2010, if currently planned expansions of the landfill do not take place.



As part of the OML agreement, Casella is allowed to pursue additional capacity for continued landfill capacity beyond the currently permitted landfill. These alternatives include the Stage VIII and Stage IX expansions. These proposed developments will provide an additional 4.9 million cubic yards and 6.5 million cubic yards of disposal capacity, respectively.

Ontario County recently prepared a Draft Local Solid Waste Management

Plan (SWMP) to provide the Ontario County constituency with a comprehensive, integrated program for managing solid waste, which is consistent with the New York State Hierarchy for Solid Waste Management, in an economically sound and environmentally safe manner. The Draft SWMP concluded that the Ontario County Landfill is currently an important disposal resource for the residents of Ontario County as well as the municipalities within the County that rely on the landfill for disposal. Additionally, the landfill is an important resource for the region in adhering to their solid waste management efforts. Future expansion of airspace at the Ontario County Landfill was an integral component of the Draft SWMP. The Draft SWMP is currently in the process of regulatory and public review. The SWMP will be finalized and approved by the County and the NYSDEC prior to finalizing the permit process. 7.2 Waste Exportation

The waste exportation alternative would require that wastes generated within Ontario County be disposed of at a facility outside of the County. Waste would be received at the local transfer stations and be hauled by local transfer trucks to another disposal facility. Either the municipalities who run the transfer stations or the private transfer station operators would have to pay for the transportation and the tipping fees charged by the out-of-county disposal facility. Although each operator could conceivably choose the disposal location, and by default, the most economical disposal location, it would have no control over the long-term price for waste disposal and would be subject to market fluctuations.

Currently, County residents can transport their own waste to a local transfer station or they may also contract with a private hauler for curbside collection. If the Ontario County Landfill does not expand the County Landfill and thus exports wastes, County residents could still drop off waste at the transfer stations. Residents that contract with private haulers for curbside collection would still have the option of doing so. However, the municipalities or private haulers that use the County landfill would have to find another facility to accept their waste. In both cases, residents of Ontario County would likely have to pay more for waste disposal. The municipalities would likely be forced to charge more for waste received at the transfer stations in order to help cover the costs of higher transportation costs and tipping fees. Private haulers might also charge residents more for curbside service because of increased transport costs. The County might also be forced to explore an increase in taxes on County residents to help defray the costs of waste exportation.



Waste should be exported only if no other solution could be found or if it was an emergency or contingency measure, if needed temporarily once the last permitted landfill cell at the landfill is filled (Stage VII-A), and if the landfill cell (Stage VII-B) is not yet constructed and placed in service.

The costs of exporting waste to out-of-county disposal sites are typically more expensive to Ontario County residents and businesses than disposal at the current in-county regional landfill, or the continued disposal at an expanded in-county regional landfill site.

7.3 The No-Action Alternative

The current landfill permit has an approved design capacity of 2,999 tons

of municipal solid waste per day. At current landfill usage projections, it is estimated that the currently permitted landfill will be out of disposal capacity by the end of 2015. Solutions for waste management for county residents and businesses will be necessary in four years. At that time, no additional waste could be accepted at the landfill site and county wastes would have to be disposed elsewhere. In this respect, the “No-Action” alternative is essentially identical to the “Waste Exportation” alternative described above.

Municipalities or private entities could receive wastes at the transfer station facilities, transport the wastes to another landfill, and pay tipping fees to dispose of the wastes. Municipalities could also choose to provide no disposal services of any kind, thereby leaving it up to the private sector to provide such disposal services.

To implement this “No-Action” alternative requires the long-distance hauling of wastes to existing out-of-county disposal sites. Regional sites that could potentially accept Ontario County wastes include 1) the High Acres Landfill, located in the Town of Perinton, Monroe County NY (25-30 miles from the population centers of Ontario County); 2) the Seneca Meadows Landfill located in Seneca Falls, Seneca County NY (10-15 miles from Ontario County’s population centers); and 3) the Mill Seat Landfill, located in the Town of Riga, Monroe County NY (50-60 miles from the population centers of Ontario County).

There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in a waste exportation arrangement. Tipping fees charged at landfills are subject to market fluctuations and the County, and County residents and businesses, would be subject to the variability of the market. Waste exportation costs will also be more sensitive to changes in diesel fuel prices which, in the recent history, have risen substantially. Based on the information discussed above, other options should be considered and discounted before waste exportation, or the no action alternative, were to be pursued.

The “no action” alternative may be necessary on a limited contingency basis, should the existing landfill be filled before the new landfill expansion has been designed, permitted and constructed.



7.4 Alternative Landfill Sites

Prior to 1970, Ontario County did not manage municipal waste. Waste disposal was largely the responsibility of each local municipality and private haulers. In 1974, after several years of laying out a course of action for solid waste management within the County, Ontario County obtained a permit for Phase I of the landfill located in Flint. The first Phase of the landfill development (Phase I) commenced in 1974 and was completed in 1979. Phase II was started in 1979 and closed in 1991. Phase II-A commenced in 1981 and was built contiguous to the existing Phase II landfill. Utilizing height increases and modifications to Ontario County’s Landfill permit waste placement continued in Phase II-A through 1991, and was closed in 1992.

In 1981, in an effort to find alternatives to continued landfilling in Ontario County, the Towns of East Bloomfield, Farmington, Victor, and West Bloomfield, along with the Finger Lakes Race Track, cooperated in a study performed by RIT Research Corporation to evaluate the feasibility of waste incineration. This study was expanded in 1982 to include all of Ontario County. The study concluded that an incinerator project was feasible, but would require a strong commitment by the County.

During this same period Yates County and Wayne County were experiencing problems with their landfills. Wayne County conducted its own solid waste study during this period. Both Wayne and Yates Counties ultimately expressed interest in joining Ontario County in a cooperative effort to solve the region’s solid waste problem. Shortly afterward, Seneca County also joined the group. In 1985, the four counties created an inter-municipal committee composed of supervisors, legislators, and planners to evaluate the existing and projected solid waste stream generated within the four counties and to examine techniques for controlling and reducing the sizes of that waste stream.

A consultant team was engaged to conduct a Phase I Feasibility Study for the four counties. The Phase I study, completed in 1986, recommended that the counties develop an integrated regional approach to collection and disposal of their municipal solid waste. It stated that the counties’ goals of reducing reliance upon landfilling while disposing of waste in an environmentally safe and cost-effective manner could be accomplished through the cooperative development of an energy recovery facility, together with an effective source-separation/recycling system.

Based on these recommendations, each county voted to move forward with the development and implementation phase of the project. The project would require the construction of a Materials Recycling Center (MRC) and an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF). Also during 1986, the New York State Legislature established the Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Authority (WFL) and authorized the counties to utilize the WFL to develop the



regional project. The counties elected to do so and in the fall of 1986, the WFL assumed responsibilities of the four (4)-county committee and continued the project development.

A siting study was performed as part of the permit application process for construction of the MRC and ERF. Six sites, all within Ontario County, were determined to be the most favorable locations for siting of these facilities. Eventually a site in the Town of Seneca, adjacent to Phase I of the Ontario County Landfill and owned by Ontario County was chosen as the most favorable location.

Selection of the six potential sites was made public in March 1987, with the release of the Draft GEIS. Disclosure of these sites generated such intense public and political opposition, Ontario County refused permission to the WFL to construct the facilities at the Town of Seneca site. Furthermore, the County reevaluated its administrative, financial, and managerial involvement with the WFL. A resolution was passed by the Ontario County Board of Supervisors in February 1988 severing all ties with the WFL. Ontario County subsequently requested to be delisted from the WFL by the New York State Legislature. To date, this action is still pending within the State Legislature. Ontario County now handles its solid waste within a county-wide management structure and is not involved operationally with WFL in any manner.

Throughout this process, landfilling operations continued at the Ontario County Landfill. Based on the fact that alternate solid waste management practices or sites were assessed previously and the ultimate determination of continuing landfill operations at the current facility, the development of an alternative landfill site is not considered to be a practicable alternative to expansion. Additionally the following reasons set forth also support not considering an alternative landfill site.

Developing an alternative site at this time would necessitate a series of expensive and time intensive studies. Site suitability investigations, environmental assessments, impact analysis, geologic investigation, and engineering investigation would all be required to try to locate, purchase and develop an alternative landfill site. Additional costs associated with developing a new site include: costs of constructing maintenance buildings, installing and sampling groundwater monitoring wells, conducting other environmental monitoring tests, and providing financial assurance for future closure and post-closure maintenance costs at the new site. In addition to those costs for a new site, the existing landfill site would require a long-term (minimum of thirty years) environmental monitoring and maintenance obligation after it closes. Development of a new landfill would also take approximately seven to 15 years resulting in exportation of waste in the interim and the inherent issues described above and it would be necessary to balance economic, social, cultural, and environmental issues in the selection process. Additionally, it would be unlikely



that the alternative landfill site would be located adjacent to an existing landfill that maintains the necessary operational utilities and structures to operate a landfill. At this time, and for the reasons delineated above, there are no other sites under consideration.

7.5 Alternative Soil Borrow Site

The design of the proposed soil borrow area is based on the quantity of

soils required and the proximity of the area to the proposed landfill expansion. There are not sufficient soils on-site within the proposed expansion area for use in subgrade construction, perimeter berm and roadway construction, and operational soil placement. Early estimates anticipate the necessity of additional borrow areas outside the proposed landfill footprint; however, not all of the soil requirements will come from off-site sources. As proposed, on-site soils will be supplemented by a soil borrow area on a contiguous property to the south of the existing landfill property. Failure to proceed with the proposed soil borrow area contiguous to the landfill property would require the need to obtain the necessary soils from off-site sources. Although technically feasible, costs would be higher, and transport to the landfill would result in increased impacts associated with road maintenance, traffic impacts, air quality and noise.

The proposed soil borrow area sits on a 40 acre parcel of land located

within Ontario County Agricultural District Number 6; however, only approximately 25 acres (15.5 acres of actual borrow area) of the agricultural land south of the landfill will be transitioned to soil borrow area activities over the course of the project. The remainder of the property will continue to be available for use for agricultural purposes. The mined agricultural land would likely not be reclaimed as agricultural land in the future, due to proposed final contours of the borrow area after soil mining activities have been completed. The existing agricultural land does not house the main farm establishment and is currently utilized to grow crops to support dairy cattle. Based on the situation, the use of this property as the proposed borrow area does not adversely affect the viability of the existing farm operation. By utilizing this property as borrow area, however, it would eliminate the need for use of public highways for transport of soils and would thereby avoid potential adverse environmental impacts related to trucking soils on public roads to the proposed landfill expansion.

Acquisition and use of the proposed soil borrow area will only occur

should the facility receive the permit modification for the landfill expansion. The project would comply with applicable provisions of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law.



7.6 Alternative Expansion Scenarios

7.6.1 Conceptual Design Considerations

The configuration of the proposed landfill expansion area depicted in this DEIS is, at this point in time, preliminary and conceptual in nature. Detailed final design for construction of the landfill cells, stormwater management facilities, leachate storage and conveyance facilities, leachate pump stations, on-site access and perimeter roads, on-site power distribution, auxiliary equipment storage facilities, and other ancillary support facilities has not yet been undertaken; however, confirmatory investigations and calculations have been completed to determine the proposed expansion design is feasible. The general locations and configurations of the landfill cells and related facilities have been identified in this DEIS on a preliminary basis only, and are subject to change in the future as additional environmental permit reviews are undertaken and as more detailed design information is developed for the proposed landfill expansion area.

The preliminary full build-out site plan and layout of the proposed landfill cells has been determined through a conceptual design process that inherently examines alternatives based on factors such as hydrogeologic conditions (e.g., areas with at least ten feet of low permeability soils above bedrock), drainage patterns, avoiding and minimizing potential impacts on wetlands, topography, cost and operational considerations.

The proposed landfill expansion footprint is located contiguous to the existing Ontario County Landfill. This location provides an efficient use of the existing landfill areas and consolidates landfilling activities on the site while providing sufficient disposal capacity to achieve sufficient capacity for the term of the lease agreement at projected tonnage levels. Site topography, drainage patterns and road grades were also taken into consideration when determining the most appropriate location for the proposed landfill expansion.

Siting the landfill expansion adjacent to the existing landfill offers several benefits. The landfill support facilities (i.e., leachate collection system, landfill gas collection system, and electric service) can be built for less money if they are closer to the existing systems and can be connected to existing systems when possible. If a different portion of the site were to be developed, longer and more costly connections for leachate collection system, and landfill gas collection system would have to be built to service the expansion area.



Another benefit of the current landfill expansion footprint design is that it would allow the utilization of an overlay area for waste disposal, gaining capacity without increasing the footprint of the facility. An overlay area takes advantage of the air space in between the contiguous landfill footprints for waste disposal. By utilizing this air space, the available airspace per acre of liner constructed is greatly increased.

The layout of the on-site roads, storm water detention basins, landfill containment berms, leachate management facilities and other ancillary facilities are determined through a design process that inherently examines alternatives based on factors such as the on-site conditions (e.g., drainage patterns, topography, existing landfill facilities), cost, and operational considerations. To varying degrees, these factors limit the number of alternative locations for the landfill and support facilities listed. 7.6.2 Alternative Scale or Magnitude

The preliminary footprint expansion identified for the proposed

landfill expansion area, if it is ultimately permitted and built in stages in general conformance with the conceptual cell configuration presented in this DEIS, would help ensure that the Ontario County Landfill and its customers will have cost effective, environmentally sound waste disposal through 2028.

The proposed footprint expansion area represents a balance between providing for long-term waste disposal for the County and developing cost effective waste disposal. Developing a larger expansion would require additional capital expenditures. Developing a significantly smaller footprint expansion would not justify the expense of development, would provide less long-term waste disposal capacity and would generate less revenue. Following completion of this DEIS and the SEQRA review process, the Ontario County Landfill will be pursuing the development of the proposed landfill expansion area in phases. Each phase of the landfill expansion’s development will be the subject of permit design drawings, engineering reports and additional environmental reports as necessary to further ensure that the landfill expansion area will be built and operated in compliance with all applicable environmental regulations that serve to protect natural resources and public health.

The phased approach that is proposed for the future construction of the proposed landfill expansion will not only provide further assurances that all environmental requirements will be met, but it will also mean that the amount of landfill disposal capacity built and made available at any point in time can be adjusted to match what the projected waste disposal needs are at that point in time. In other words, if major changes in the economy or waste reduction and recycling activities should drastically reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal in the landfill, then fewer



acres of double composite liner system could be built (or the liner acreages already built could last longer, thereby postponing the dates in which additional acres of liner system would need to be built).

The timing for construction of future stages of the proposed landfill expansion is also expected to be different than what is currently envisioned since the amount of waste to be disposed at the landfill is likely to change from year to year based on economic conditions and continuing efforts by the County, the NYSDEC, and others to enhance waste reduction measures, recycling activities, and organics composting. Similarly, if the proposed landfill expansion were to only accept wastes generated within Ontario County but allowed for the acceptance of alternate daily cover materials from outside the County, as needed, then the useful life of the proposed landfill expansion would significantly increase. Other impacts associated with the proposed landfill expansion would ultimately occur under this scenario, but they would take place over a longer period of time due to the slower pace of landfill development and usage.

7.7 Alternative Implementations Schedule

The proposed implementation schedule calls for the proposed expansion to be ready to receive waste by the time the existing permitted Ontario County Landfill has reached capacity. If the proposed expansion were not ready at that time, waste would have to be disposed at a remote location until the landfill expansion area commences waste disposal operations. Any such delay would result in waste exportation on an interim basis, with the costs and other adverse impacts noted above for the waste exportation option.

7.8 Alternative Use of Site

State regulations impose a monitoring responsibility for at least thirty years

after landfill closure so any alternative use of the site must accommodate long-term environmental monitoring. The site has limited alternative uses due to the existing Landfill, the closed Landfill and the LFGTE facility. These areas are not suitable for building structures due to potential settling and the need to monitor the capping system. The area surrounding the landfill is required as a buffer to landfilling and post closure activities. Portions of the site could potentially be used for controlled recreational activities or enhancing wildlife habitat. In addition, portions of the landfill property could potentially be the focus of industrial co-location and or other economic development opportunities.



7.9 Alternative Waste Disposal Technologies

7.9.1 Introduction

A series of alternative waste disposal technologies are available for consideration. The 2011 SWMP reinforced Ontario County Landfill’s course of action to secure long-term landfill capacity in the future. Alternative waste technology options for Ontario County were considered, with landfilling selected as the preferred technology many years ago. Ontario County Landfill has since invested heavily in the development of infrastructure and facilities to support this technology selection.

However, it is worth reviewing available technology alternatives as part of this DEIS process. Note that the byproducts or end products of any of these alternative technologies still require a landfill for disposal. 7.9.2 Gasification

A subsidiary of Casella, Casella Renewable Energy, LLC, had

proposed to construct and operate a pilot facility at the Ontario County Landfill to test and develop an advanced technology system for converting municipal solid waste into liquid motor-vehicle fuels. The main feedstock is planned to be post recycling waste, or components of municipal solid waste which is remaining after recycling. Upon success of the pilot project, the potential would exist for development of a full-scale commercial facility for diverting waste from landfilling to beneficial use, thus conserving remaining landfill capacity.

The proposed gasification project consists of three steps;

preparation of feedstock materials derived from wastes as described above, gasification of the feedstock to produce syngas including cleaning of the syngas, and use of a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst to convert the syngas to liquid fuels. The gasifier proposed to be utilized in the project has been designed by ZeroPoint Clean Tech, Inc.

In 2009, the County retained Environmental Resources

Management (ERM) to perform a technical review and feasibility assessment for the proposed pilot project. The study concluded that the project is feasible.

The project has been on hold over the last year as Casella Renewable Energy has gone through restructuring. Discussions with Casella Renewable Energy indicate that current plans are not to develop the project at one time, but rather in stages. The first stage will include only development of the feedstock, which is planned to be only non-putrescible residuals at this time. Casella has installed feedstock processing equipment which is possible of developing over 1 ton of



feedstock per hour. Developed feedstock could be potentially utilized in various off-site systems including boilers. The final market for the feedstock is still being studied. A timeline for development of the project stages has not been developed at this time. 7.9.3 Waste to Energy (Combustion/Incineration)

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.

Although WTE facilities result in a reduction in waste for disposal, a secondary disposal method, such as landfilling would still be required in conjunction with the facility. This, coupled with very high initial construction costs, high operations and maintenance costs, and the uncertainty of revenues associated with energy sales make the disposal cost per ton for this method higher than that for landfilling.

There are currently 10 active WTE facilities in New York State; however, none have been permitted or constructed in the state in the past 20 years.

7.9.4 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 are landfilled as process residue, from the raw compost which is stored in a maturation area for approximately one month to allow biological decomposition to occur.

Facilities such as this do not have a well established track record in

the United States. There are currently 13 mixed MSW composting facilities in operation in the United States, including one in Delaware County, New York. Issues associated with the reliable and cost effective operation of such facilities include quality of compost, retail/wholesale outlet for compost generated, disposal location for bypass material, and odors.



7.9.5 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.

To date, this technology has not been proven to be economically feasible within the United States for MSW management. 7.9.6 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).

To date, this technology has not been proven to be economically feasible within the United States for MSW management. 7.9.7 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.

To date, this technology has not been proven to be reliable and economically feasible within the United States for MSW management. 7.9.8 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 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.

To date, this technology has not been proven to be reliable and

economically feasible within the United States for MSW management.



8.0 References 6 NYCRR Part 898. Title 6 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Chapter X,

Subchapter B, Part 898 – Finger Lakes Drainage Basin. ECL § 17-0301. 6 NYCRR Part 701. Title 6 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Chapter X,

Subpart A, Article 2, Part 701-Classifications Surface Waters and Groundwaters. ECL § 1-0101, 3-0301 [2][m],15-0313, 17-0101, 17-0301, 17-0303, 17-0809.

Barton & Loguidice, P.C. 2010. Comprehensive Wetland Delineation Report: Ontario

County Sanitary Landfill. EEC Research Associate; SCS Engineers. 2010. The Importance of Landfill Gas

Capture and Utilization in the U.S. Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council. 1999. Setting a Course for Seneca

Lake, the State of the Seneca Lake Watershed. http://www.gflrpc.org/Publications/SenecaLakeWMP.htm.

Ontario County Agricultural Enhancement Plan Ontario County Routes 5 & 20 Corridor Management Study, 2002. Peter J. Smith &

Company, Inc. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009. NYS Open Space

Conservation Plan. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2011. Environmental

Resource Mapper. http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/viewer.htm New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2001. Program Policy

Document – Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. SCS Engineers. July 2007. Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice

on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills. (SCS Engineers’ Project Prepared for Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions, Sacramento, CA.)

Town of Seneca Comprehensive Plan, 2002. Peter J. Smith & Company, Inc. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Jurisdictional Determination. Department of

the Army. Application Number 2001-01566. April 28, 2011. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Section 7 Consultation Process. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/CountyLists/CountySelect.htm



United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Ecoregions of North America. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency. November 1998. Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Vol. I, Chapter 2.3 – Solid Waste Disposal – Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 2004. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance – Direct Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling. United States Environmental Protection Agency – Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

2011. LFGE Benefits Calculator

draft - barton & loguidiceold.bartonandloguidice.com/portals/22/assets/ontario county...

Documents