How Green Is Our City (Part 1):How Clean Is Our Water?

How Green is Your City? (2007), written by Warren Karlenzig, features the “SustainLane US City Rankings” for “urban sustainability” of the 50 largest cities in the country. The City of Geneva is not on the list, but we felt Geneva ought to conduct its own assessment of just how green we are.

Karlenzig defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the quality of life of future generations.” (p. 1) There are 15 factors used to generate the City Rankings: city commuting, metro public transit, air quality, tap water quality, solid waste diversion, planning/land use, city innovation, housing affordability, natural disaster risk, energy/climate change policy, local food and agriculture, green economy, knowledge base, and LEED (green) buildings.

In light of all the discussion about leachate and gasification, we thought a ‘green assessment’ should take up the tap water quality issue first. The Karlenzig report relies on the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) December 2005 US city drinking water database. The EWG, in turn, relies on tap water testing data from state water offices, which ‘collects it from drinking water utilities,” as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (1974/1986/1996).

We checked out data for our own City of Geneva, and you can, too. (click here for site)

Here’s what it says about the City of Geneva tap water: A total of 14 contaminants were detected (arsenic, barium, chromium, mercury, nitrate, selenium, antimony, thallium, chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, dibrromochchloromethane, total trihalomethanes, alpha particle activity).

Breaking down the 14 by their source-- where they come from-- the largest category of pollutants was “industrial pollutants” (9), followed by “naturally occurring” (6), and “water treatment and distribution byproducts” (5), and other categories. (A contaminant may appear in more than one category.)

The EWG then looked at these contaminants from a health perspective, assessing “health based limits,” which “include enforceable drinking water limits (called Maximum Contaminant Limits, or MCLs) as well as governmental, non-enforceable health guidelines, such as Maximum Contaminant Limit Goals (MCLGs), lifetime health advisory levels, one-day and ten-day advisory levels to protect children from non-cancer health endpoints, and other government-established health guidelines for tap water contaminants.”

The EWG health summary identified “health effects or target organs of contaminants found: Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicity, Cancer, Developmental Toxicity, Endocrine Toxicity, Immunotoxicity, Kidney Toxicity, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicity, Neurotoxicity, Reproductive Toxicity, Respiratory Toxicity, and Skin Sensitivity.”

About arsenic, the EPA says:

“Arsenic is a semi-metal element in the periodic table. It is odorless and tasteless. It enters drinking water supplies from natural deposits in the earth or from agricultural and industrial practices.

Non-cancer effects can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.

EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic. Water systems must comply with this standard by January 23, 2006, providing additional protection to an estimated 13 million Americans.

Sources of contamination
Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards, runoff from glass & electronic production wastes”

Ironically, the percentage of pollutants over “health based limits” was highest for the water treatment category; 4 out of 5 pollutants in the water treatment category were over EWG health based limits. Is what we add to the water to keep it clean itself a health risk?

From the EWG perspective, “The top contaminants of concern for the City of Geneva are: arsenic, bromodichloromethane, and thallium.” For all three, levels exceeded EWG health limits but not legal limits. According to EWG, across the nation, they found “over 90% compliance with enforceable health standards,” but, unfortunately, the problem is “the EPA’s failure to establish health standards and monitoring requirements.” Combining all nationwide data, EWG finds 260 contaminants in the drinking water, with 141 of the 260 unregulated, i.e., without any safety standards, by the EPA.

Here is EWG summary of the situation in Geneva:

“An Environmental Working Group analysis of tap water tests from 2001 through 2002 shows that customers of Geneva City drank water containing up to 14 pollutants. Geneva City is one of 65,000 water suppliers across the country wrestling with treating water polluted by sprawl, sewage, factory.”

The EPA maintains a “Consumer Confidence Report” website with annual drinking water quality reports from water suppliers who voluntarily list themselves. The City of Geneva is not on the list.

Before you run out and buy water from another source, know that most bottled water, for example, is not legally required to be tested, and when it has been tested, it has been shown to be not necessarily safer than tap water. Instead, we point out that the conclusion of the Assessment of National Tap Water Quality is “utilities need more money to monitor for contaminants and protect source waters.” In the context of the leachate discussion, where the nature and quantity of pollutants entering our treatment plant and exiting into our source of drinking water is not clearly understood, this seems wise counsel for the City Council.

Setting the Table For a 'No' Vote:25 Unanswered Questions About the Leachate Contract

Last week, a motion was brought forward for Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with Casella for a possible leachate line from the Ontario County Landfill to the City of Geneva Waste Water Treatment Plant. In our previous post, we had called for a tabling of the motion, and, Wednesday night, it was tabled.

At the time, the table seemed the only responsible vote for Council-- at least in light of the last minute disclosure of a contract between the City and Casella that had been assumed not to exist. The City Attorney and City Manager had told both the public and Councilors that no contract existed in the weeks leading up to the proposed ‘renegotiation’.

Turns out, there are so many unknowns, and so many risks, and so many questionable aspects, for this whole deal that the resolution ought to be simply voted down—defeated. Period. To prove our point, we came up with 25 questions—actually, we stopped at 25- that individually raise enough doubts to call the whole thing off, and collectively warrant calling the whole issue a ‘fiasco’:

1. Why in the world would anyone allow a garbage dump to pour its leachate into the water they drink without knowing for sure what is in it?
2. Does the City have any existing policy for environmental sustainability?
3. Why would the Council, in 2005, authorize the City Manager to “negotiate and execute” a contract, but not hold a discussion of the provisions of the contract?
4. Was the 2005 contract in the City’s best interest?
5. Why did the City never provide the specific “parameters” for the chemical composition of the leachate it received from the landfill, as it said it would in the now-found 2005 contract?
6. What, exactly, are the current parameters, including all substances tested for and amounts?
7. What toxic substances are not tested for?
8. What toxic substances should be tested for, given known composition of landfills?
9. What is the comparative cancer rate for the City of Geneva?
10. Must the City accept leachate from the Casella under any conditions?
11. Does the City have to agree to a sewer line for the leachate if Casella calls for one?
12. Why would the current City Attorney not know of the existence of such a contract?
13. Why would the current City Manager not know of the existence of such a contract?
14. How could anyone be talking about authorizing the current City Manager to enter into negotiations with Casella about a leachate line and have no knowledge of the current contract?
15. Where was the current contract found?
16. Who found it?
17. Why was it not brought forward sooner?
18. What other unknown contracts are there?
19. Why did it take sustained community based inquiries to bring all this to light?
20. Why do citizens appear to be doing more due diligence on these issues than the elected and appointed officials?
21. Why was there so little outrage expressed about the missing contract by Councilors at Wednesday night’s meeting?
22. Who in the administration is accountable for this fiasco?
23. Why is that not one private citizen came forward at the meeting to speak in favor of the leachate deal?
24. Why is that City staff and Casella seem to be the only ones in favor of the leachate deal?
25. What are the exact, net revenue amounts, per year, for the City of Geneva from Casella? (This means taking what’s billed and subtracting the costs of treatment, including chemicals, energy, staff, and administration costs in appropriate, proportional amounts.
    

Councilor Alcock put it well: “No one wants this, so why are we even discussing it?” Given the justifiable public outcry, and the mountain of missing information, there is lots more to discuss in terms of accountability and the leachate itself. Let’s put a moratorium on leachate until these 25 questions, and all others, are answered to the community’s satisfaction.

Contract Garbage and Leachate and Gasification--Oh My! (part II):Rising's 2005 City/Casella Contract Locks Geneva Into Multi-Year Deal

Despite numerous statements that no such contract existed, a 2005 contract (click here to read the contract) signed by former City Manager Rich Rising, released to the public today, locks the City into a 10-year agreement to treat leachate from the Ontario County Landfill.

The contract stipulates that the leachate may be transported to the Doran Avenue (Geneva) treatment plant (WTP) “via truck or sewer line” and that Casella “may elect, at its sole expense, to construct a sewer line to convey leachate directly from the Landfill to the WTP.” It appears that the City is obligated to take the leachate.

The contract goes on to say City may re-negotiate the price, if the City experiences additional operating expenses involved in treating the leachate. The contract also specifies, under the “sampling and monitoring requirements” section, “the leachate will be sampled and analyzed for parameters to be provided by the City.” It would appear that, in light of serious concerns about the composition of leachate directly or indirectly from a new, untested “gasification” process-- also in the works at the landfill—Council ought to take a hard line on those parameters. Specific parameters are not included in the 2005 contract.

Until yesterday, it appears, the City Attorney (David Foster), the City Manager (Matt Horn), and the Director of Public Works (Gordon Eddington), were unaware that such a contract existed. According to local attorney Sam Bonney, Foster’s original response to Bonney’s request for a copy of the contract was that such a contract did not exist. Likewise, an inquiry from Council to the current City Manager turned up no documents. Yet, the day before the Council vote, the contract surfaced on the City’s website.

Where was the contract found and who found it? The public and Council are owed answers. (File that under “TRUST.”) The answers will say much about how well City government is functioning, when in the weeks long build up to a major Council decision related to the leachate, Councilors and staff did not have their hands on a critical document, namely, the current leachate contract.

Our most recent post on the Ontario County landfill, operated by Casella Waste Systems, began with a reminder to our readers that regional awareness and activism are appropriate and, in fact, necessary, to prevent the deal-making that might well lead to the long term environmental degradation of our city and Finger Lakes area. It is an outrage that our elected officials leave it to activists to do the due diligence that ought to be their own, as the elected representatives of the people.

As we emphasized in that post, overall, the best choice the County could make at this point would be to terminate the lease arrangement with Casella altogether! This would return what has become an international garbage extravaganza to its more humble origins as a local municipal waste repository.

After all, what will we do with our own garbage when the County landfill is full, in part, with “long haul volume from both Eastern and downstate markets” (Casella’s own characterization of their work in Ontario County, as documented in this report to their shareholders, page 8).

Hardly likely they’ll dump Cassella, so, it seems the least the County Supervisors could do as stewards of the public interest is to reject ‘gasification’—a Star Wars garbage plant that would serve only to import more garbage from across the galaxy—and for Casella’s profit, not the common good--- and export potentially toxic emissions (at the County’s, which is to say, the tax payers,’ expense).

Sure, the County could make a quick buck on the project, but at what cost—our long term health and safety? This is not exactly a ‘Sophie’s Choice.’ There is no moral dilemma here. The simple answer is that greed must not triumph over common sense.

Likewise with deliberations at the City level—here in the City of Geneva—about treating the landfill’s leachate, from both Ontario County and Seneca County. For years, leachate treatment has been discussed at the City level along the following lines: How much do we charge per gallon treated? How well are we cleaning it before being discharged into the lake? How do we get it from their site(s) to our plant in the most-efficient, least-dangerous way?

But why are we even talking about the how’s when we haven’t ever dealt with the why’s? Underlying all of these concerns is the implicit assumption— implicit and affirmed on a regular basis by former City Manager, Rich Rising, and the current Director of public Works, that the City was somehow legally obligated to accept the leachate. While that turns out to be true, the terms of the contract were never known to Council members and the public until today: the day of the vote. Current City Manager, Matt Horn, who according to the local paper, supports the sewer line for the leachate, has said that he could find no contract, no agreement, not even a gentlemen’s agreement that Geneva has to take the leachate.

Thus Council waded through truck traffic vs. a dedicated sewer line, the cost to treat vs. the amount charged to the source, etc., hammering on the how the City of Geneva might handle the leachate, rather than the critical question, “Should the City of Geneva handle the leachate?”

This explains why, in 2004, City Council unanimously supported a plan for Casella to construct, at their own expense, a dedicated sewer pipe from the landfill to the City line, complete with City-controlled shut-off valves in case of emergency. The idea was to eliminate additional truck traffic generated by the need to haul the material daily from the landfill to the wastewater treatment plant.

This plan culminated in the March 2, 2005 vote to enter into an agreement to treat leachate coming to the city via a dedicated line. Again, from the presentation made at the beginning of the meeting (detailed in the minutes available here), the primary concern was safety of transport and reduction of truck traffic.

The point was then made that this leachate had been coming to the city for years, and this was a new opportunity to deal with it in a safer, less offensive, more efficient manner. It was presented to Council as a way to modify an existing agreement, not a fundamental decision about whether or not an agreement was a good idea in itself.

To be fair, a case could be made that, if charged at an appropriately high rate, the leachate treatment could prove profitable to the City of Geneva. A steady stream of revenue in hard times to help keep taxes down. And it’s true that the City of Geneva has treated leachate for almost 30 years. But what began as part of a local effort at local municipal waste management has morphed, through contracts with private trash importers, into an industrial operation in support of private enterprise.

The total operation brings in less than $150,000/year (see budget page 82) or about 5% of the sewer fees paid by City residents. Total leachate treatment net revenue for leachate received from Ontario County in 2007 was approximately $80,000; for 2008, approximately $118,000; for 2009, so far, about $48,000.

We think it’s an uncontroversial claim that no contamination of Seneca Lake is the only acceptable position. While household waste, the normal ‘sewage treatment’ that such plants are intended for, is not an entirely ‘clean’ process, we think it is also uncontroversial to say that household sewage + landfill leachate is less environmentally-friendly than household sewage alone.

So the question is this: What price tag, if any, do we put on clean water? Is $150,000 our asking price for potential long term contamination? Is any price worth the risk?

Instead, the obligation Council has is to the health and welfare of the people of Geneva, and to some extent the larger region, and that obligation must remain at the forefront of their decision-making. In light of these new disclosures, Council should hold a public discussion on the issue of leachate, but take no action tonight.

Garbage, and Leachate, and Gasification-- Oh My! (Part I)

In September 2003, Ontario County was well on its way towards executing a 25 year lease with Casella Waste Systems that would forever alter the character of the landfill in the Town of Seneca. While not officially ‘privatized,’ because title (and environmental permits) for the dump remain in the County’s hands, what was once a 1,000 ton/day (or less) operation has turned into an international waste operation of over double that amount.

While the article in the Finger Lakes Times at the time focused mostly on the heated exchange between then-Mayoral candidates Don Cass and Vince Scalise and County Supervisor, Don Ninestine, the real ‘meat and potatoes’ of the discussion hinged on an examination of Casella’s track record in other communities and the environmental impacts on the immediate and surrounding area that the change would bring.

Augustine was one of the “audience members” that the paper noted brought information concerning Casella’s lawsuits, missed payments, and environmental infractions in the company’s other host communities. But just two days after that meeting, County Supervisors held their public hearing on the transfer of operations, which was approved shortly thereafter.

Much like the ethanol plant discussions of 2008, Augustine was chided for ‘meddling’ in the affairs of communities outside of Geneva’s borders. After all, she was asked, “Isn’t there enough in this City to worry about without trying to tell other people what to do?” In our opinion, regional thinking has been, and will continue to be a sensible, sound, and smart exercise for City Councilors to engage in. And now, six years later, we see all too well the direct, negative impact provincial thinking can have on a community.

As predicted at that 2003 meeting, the landfill has been expanded at a rate that is unsustainable in the long term. A permit modification in 2007 (which some City Councilors also voiced opposition to) raised the annual cap on dumping over 300,000 tons (from 612,000 to 917,000).

Not only will we run out of space to store other people’s garbage (which is the Casella business model), but we will be forced to pursue other avenues for our own trash. So, while the County may be bringing in millions of dollars from the Casella contract at present, there does not appear to be much contingency planning for the future of solid waste in Ontario County.

Although Casella has not made its most recent large payment to the County (to the tune of $850,000), we do not hold out much hope that County supervisors will determine Casella to have breached the terms of the lease and reclaim management of the landfill. And thus the focus of this series of posts is not on that most-prudent of all options, but rather to look at the other matters under consideration with regard to the Casella enterprise.

In the 1980s, the County landfill was a proposed site for an incinerator. An incinerator, as the name suggests, is a facility that burns trash. It was soundly rejected by the community. What Casella is proposing now is not technically an ‘incinerator’, but rather a ‘gasification’ project—which is expected to heat trash to convert it to gas which they allege could be harvested as energy. But whether it’s heated in an oxygen-rich environment (incineration) or oxygen-poor environment (gasification), the environmental concerns are virtually the same: The byproducts of heating streams of trash are toxic emissions and toxic ash. As if that wasn’t enough of a reason not to proceed, Casella is asking the County to help fund this experimental project, by foregoing the previous lease provision that a first-class hydroponics center be developed.

This site, from another gasification firm in Idaho provides an interesting overview of the concept and concerns.

While the Finger Lakes Times has virtually ignored the issue, much has been written in the Canandaigua Messenger about it, and the Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition maintains a robust public information campaign and website with additional information. We will not hold our breath for more local coverage before a decision is made, but in the meantime, check out these links to learn more about the proposed project and the effective, mounting opposition:

Messenger post articles on gasification:
http://www.mpnnow.com/archive/x180634229/Boating-group-opposes-Casella-plan
http://www.mpnnow.com/archive/x549599691/Five-things-you-dont-know-about-the-Ontario-County-landfill
http://www.mpnnow.com/archive/x1092982690/Landfill-operator-will-soon-pay-county


Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition: http://www.fingerlakeszerowaste.org/FLZW/Welcome.html

One explanation for the local paper’s virtual silence on the matter may be that of the Geneva City Council, which has not yet taken a position on the issue. With regard to the ethanol scare, City Council had made its concerns about air and water quality clear well before the project had gotten to the point that the proposed gasification plant finds itself at. One worksession devoted to the topic generated a list of additional unanswered questions and concerns. At that meeting, and a subsequent Regular Council meeting, Supervisor Evangelista fielded questions but did not make clear if and when the City Council would be formally consulted on the project. At the April 1st meeting, Evangelista and Mayor Einstein agreed that a joint meeting between City Council and the County Solid Waste committee was in order. Either that meeting has not yet taken place or it was not reported on, but the next Council meeting at which a formal position might be taken is rapidly approaching (May 6th). In our next post, we will discuss the issue of ‘leachate treatment,’ what it entails and what connection the issue has to both the gasification project and the international waste management operations happening to the east (Seneca Meadows) and west (Casella) of the City’s borders. We will also look at how a Council position on the issue might be framed within the larger context of the City of Geneva’s ‘green’ initiatives, spearheaded by the newly formed Green Geneva Committee.