Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-10-20'r I 1 . • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 20, 1992 N The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Ithaca, October 20, New York, at 7:30 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, Herbert Finch, William Lesser, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), Richard Eiken (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Chris Marcella, Helen Sundell, Julia Fletcher, Frank Shipe, Mark Wysocki, Jim O'Sullivan, Dr. Larry Thompson, Nina Weiland, Gregory Weiland, Carl Sundell, Gregg Travis, Steve Little, Town of Ithaca Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger, Danielle Stanek, Stan Seltzer, Nancy Brcak,' Isabel Peard, Paul McIsaac, Lou McIsaac, Virginia Lance, Dick Lance, Eva Hoffmann, Karen Baum, Doug Brittain, Bruce Brittain, Douglas SpenceWay, Nancy Ostman, John Gutenberger, David Stewart, William Anderson. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m. Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 4, 1992 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Candace Cornell: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 4, 1992, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Lesser, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared,to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 6, 1992 .• MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by James Baker: 'Planning Board -2- October 20, 1992 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board • Meeting of October 6, 1992, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Lesser, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF THE INCINERATOR AT THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING A PROPOSED 200 + /- FOOT SMOKESTACK ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 67 -1 -10921 24.2 + /- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF ROUTE 366, WEST OF CALDWELL ROAD, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R -30. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Information Meeting in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:45 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as posted and as' noted above. Mr. Chris Marcella from the state University Construction Fund at Albany, New York, addressed the Planning Board concerning the proposed replacement of the incinerator at the NYS Vet College at • Cornell University. Mr. Marcella center of the_ stated that the existing incinerator located in Vet College was installed in 1958 and noted that the the present smokestack said that the is 52 to present incinerator 56 feet above ground level. does not meet the Mr. Marcella new laws of the Department of Environmental the SUCF has Robeson and Lowe consultants!' of Syracuse, Conservation. Mr. Marcella that they work with. The N.Y. and Ducente -Maka stated consultants from New that are York City. Dr. Larry Thompson of Cornell University addressed the Board and stated that a total of 550,000 pounds of material were burned in the present incinerator in the calendar year of 1991, adding that approximately 200,000 pounds were animal carcasses which were animals that had died while at the Vet School or in the mission of teaching, research, and service. Dr. Thompson stated that the Vet School also serves the veterinarians in New York with large and small animals for post mortem examination and some of these animals are incinerated that had the possibility of an infectious disease. Dr. Thompson mentioned the bedding of research animals, laboratory waste, and regulated medical wastes, which is a very defined term by the DEC; basically, needles and syringes. Dr. Thompson said that the Vet College does not currently incinerate regulated medical wastes such as needles and syringes as their license was revoked as of January 1, • 1992, because of not meeting the new emissions standards. Dr. Thompson stated that those regulations came into effect in 1989, and, with the new incinerator all requirements by the DEC would be met. 'Planning Board -3- October 20, 1992 • Dr. Thompson stated that on a day -to -day operation the incinerator is fired up at '7:30 a.m. and certain shavings are burned at that time. Dr. Thompson said that the incinerator is loaded with different batches during the day, perhaps three to eight times during the day, then at 4:30 p.m. the incinerator operator goes home, adding that the incinerator is then on an automatic burn -down cycle until approximately 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Dr. Thompson noted that the incinerator then shuts itself off and the next day the operator removes the ash' and the process starts all over again. Dr. Thompson said that the Vet College burned about 275 days out of 365 days in 1991, adding that they also burn on an emergency basis. Dr. Thompson noted that if a large animal like a horse or a cow should contract rabies, the incinerator operator comes in on an emergency basis to burn the carcass of that animal, but if it is a small animal such as a raccoon or cat, the carcass is stored until morning in a safe place. Dr. Thompson offered that the incinerator will burn on natural gas and will have four burners; there are two burners on the lower chamber where the material °is loaded in, and these are rated at 800,000 BTU's per hour. The temperature is between 1,400 °F and 1,750 °F in the lower chamber. The emissions then go up to the second chamber where the temperature is kept at 1,800OF and 2,000OF and that also has two burners, both rated at 1,000,000 BTU's per hour. Chairperson Grigorov asked Dr. Thompson if any other material was . brought in outside of the Vet School. Dr. Thompson stated that veterinarians bring euthanized animals in and these are disposed of. Dr. Thompson said that 114,500 pounds of carcasses of euthanized animals were from the S.P.C.A. With respect to nuisance wildlife trappers, Cornell has a "vaccinate and release" raccoon rabies project. They are cooperating with the City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights as far as their police and public works when they have nuisance animals which are "also brought to the University. Carcasses of dogs from the surrounding Townships of Danby and Dryden are brought in either euthanized or not and then burned. Carcasses of rats from Ithaca College that are used in some of their courses are also brought to the Vet College. Cazenovia College brings in horses used in their teaching programs, and Cortland State College. Robert Kenerson asked Dr. Thompson about the capacity, and whether it was up or if it was down. Dr. Thompson stated that the capacity at the present time, because he is not under any guidelines as to how much tonnage per hour, can go up to about 800,000 pounds per year with the present incinerator. In 1989 the records indicate that 460,000 pounds were burned; in 1990 it was 650,000 pounds, and in 1991 it was 550,000 pounds. Dr. Thompson stated that, thus far this year, at the rate it is going, Cornell will burn 563,000 pounds of material. Dr. Thompson stated that at the beginning of the year Cornell was informed by the;DEC that they are not allowed to burn any regulated medical wastes because the DEC has very specific regulated • medical waste tracking laws that have to be followed. Dr. Thompson stated he shipped off -site 70,000 pounds of regulated medical waste last year, adding that with the new incinerator, he will be licensed Planning Board -4- October 20, 1992 • to burn regulated medical Dr. Thompson offered that he new incinerator a capacity which the permit specifies., wastes in addition to the 550,000 pounds. put forth to the engineers designing the of approximately 700,000 pounds per year, Dr. Thompson noted, as a further example, that in 1991, 320 of waste was carcasses, 51% was bedding, 5% was glass, 2% was paper and 20% was miscellaneous, so, carcasses are not the majority, most of it is woodchip bedding from research animals. Dr. Thompson stated that they try to go typically over and above DEC standards. The secondary chamber is where the gases from the primary chamber go and, in essence, they get burned again. It is only a one second detention time that is required with a permit; they doubled that and put a two second detention time so it will further alleviate any potential of any odors and anything else going up that stack and going out. Retention time as far as the secondary chamber goes is the amount of time any one particular particle will remain at that 2,000 °F temperature, so, any one particle that comes out of the burning chamber below enters that secondary chamber and will remain at that 1,800OF to 2,0000 F temperature for two seconds. Mr. Kenerson asked Dr. Thompson how many years this sort of burning has been done. Dr. Thompson stated that the original incinerator was sited in 1958, and it is 30 feet off the autopsy floor, adding that it was designed to burn pathological wastes, meaning the wastes of carcasses and things like that. Carcasses are • one of the major items that are burned, but other things are burned now: the carcasses, the shavings or bedding of animals, as well as needles and syringes, the regulated medical wastes. Dr. Thompson noted that at one point, the University was accepting waste from several different institutions: Tompkins Community Hospital, the Reconstruction Home, different places like that, however, they have ceased those activities for about a year and a half since they have been accepting from any outside sources. Any outside non - University sources have to go through him (Dr. Thompson) to get approval and many things, the S.P.C.A. for example, have requested that he (Dr. Thompson) take care of their needles and syringes for them, and he has to deny that request because he does not have the permits DEC requires for him to do that. Dr. Thompson stated that he would have to have another application as a regulated medical waste transfer station, which is $500.00 and a lot more paper work. Dr. Thompson stated he did not intend to use the facilities to take care of wastes for others, but he thought he will be forced to get the other application due to some of the changes in research that are happening with Cornell and because the regulations are becoming more stringent and different areas of research are being explored, for example, lyme disease, which is a disease that can be either in humans or dogs. Dr. Thompson offered that once they get into that, he thought he will need more permits in order to handle the wastes. Dr. Thompson stated that what he is concerned about is infectious agents, diseases that can be transferred from animals to man, so, there is no organism that • can survive 2,000° F at one to two seconds retention time. The new incinerator will take care of odors and smoke. 'Planning Board -5- October 20, 1992 Chairperson Grigorov asked Dr. Thompson what kind of scrubber will be installed. Dr. Thompson stated that he did not know exactly, but there are two major 'ones that are included in a bag house which basically removes the fine particulates from there and, secondarily, a wet scrubber which will neutralize the acidic emissions. In addition, there is a waste heat recovery boiler which, as the emissions come out, will lower the temperature of the flue gases from approximately 1,200 °F to 1,,400° F down to probably 400° F. If it goes higher than that, there is the risk of the possibility of a fire in some of the bag house and a malfunctioning of the other equipment, so the in -line waste boiler is very important and it also lowers the heavy metal concentration in the flue gases which will be taken out by the neutralizer. Dr. Thompson stated that there are failsafes involved; if the system shuts down, the DEC has to come and inspect the incinerator. William Lesser asked° Dr. Thompson what the alternatives are to incineration. Dr. Thompson replied that the alternatives would be either landfill or some other type of disposal. Dr. Thompson pointed out that Cornell is the only facility in the State of New York that will burn large 'animal carcasses. Veterinarians and other private people, Humane Societies, etc., will have crematoriums, small ones that they can cremate dogs in, but again, that size magnitudes is less than this. Dr. Thompson noted again that Cornell has the only facility of this type in °the State of New York, and also stated that he believed in the entire northeast corridor that can take an entire animal carcass in and put it in the incinerator, and that is very important if you are in some infectious disease process. An alternative to an incineration process is landfilling, depending upon the local conditions, and is the other thing nationwide; that is the only other alternative for these carcasses. Dr. Thompson stated that he received a survey taken in 1986 of State diagnostic laboratories for New York, one of which is located here also. Of the 29 state diagnostic labs, 22 of them had incinerators. The bedding is from either research animals or animals that are rabies suspect that are kept in the clinic. No radioactivity from research animals go into the incinerator. If there 'is radioactive bedding, the researcher has to hold that bedding in a specified place until the radioactivity has decayed, usually ten times the half life. Town Planner Floyd Forman asked Dr. Thompson what actually does emanate from the stack. Dr. Thompson stated that actually what comes out of the smokestack is smoke. The incinerator is old and there are problems with smoke. There will be no black smoke with the new incinerator because there, is higher efficiency for the burners, longer retention time, and there are the scrubbers. There should be no odor in the smoke. 11 odors are associated with the incomplete destruction of organic molecules and, with the new incinerator, there will be complete destruction. Mark Wysocki of Cornell • area in conjunction with air that are being built. Dr. to the company that is doing asked Dr. Thompson about the surrounding quality and the additional buildings Thompson stated the information was given the air quality analysis, plus the USGS Planning Board -6- October 20, 1992 • maps. The report from the company will be available for those who wish to look at it. Dr. Wysocki also asked Dr. Thompson about, in a problem where the incinerator shuts itself down and the temperatures inside the boilers start decreasing, what happens to the gases if they are not burned completely at the lower temperatures - -do they get emitted through the dump stacks? Dr. Thompson replied yes. Dr. Wysocki asked what happens in the event the incinerator shuts down and the operator leaves at 4:30 p.m. Dr. Thompson stated that they are directly hooked into Life Safety and Public Safety lines and this is what will be done with the monitoring as far as emergency shutdown to get into that same system for monitoring. Dr. Wysocki asked Dr. Thompson if chemicals will be put into the incinerator. Dr. Thompson stated that any chemicals that come in are only trace waste and the Life Safety Department at Cornell makes that decision, for example, no bottles of chemicals go through the incinerator. There are trace wastes associated with normal laboratory operations, mopped up spills, things like that, that come through the incinerator. Each and every bag or box of waste that comes to the facility is labelled indicating the laboratory where it was generated, what is in the material, the amount of glass, plastic, burnable material, as well as any other comments. The person delivering from that laboratory also has to sign and date that. Dr. Thompson stated that, by law, the Regulated Medical Waste Tracking Law, he has to be able to trace the bag of waste back to the laboratory where it was generated, and he currently receives wastes from 77 different points on Campus. Ninety plus percent of that waste is generated in the Veterinary College. Dr. Thompson stated that, by law, he must keep these tracking records for three years. At this time, there are written guidelines as how to handle regulated medical wastes. There are also some informal guidelines as far as the disposal of carcasses. There are some unwritten guidelines as far as disposal of research project bedding materials. All of the research projects that are funded at the College of Veterinary Medicine go through a bio- safety committee. Dr. Thompson stated that as far as hazardous chemicals go, again, hazardous chemicals are not kept on site, adding that they do have a waste solvent building located 150 feet away from the incinerator facility. In the incinerator facility itself, they do not have any hazardous chemicals. The big„ hazard is fire and explosion, but there are several safeguards, including automatic remote shutoffs to the natural gas line in the case of an emergency. Dr. Wysocki mentioned to Mr. Marcella that the DEC regulations do change, in fact, that is why a new incinerator is needed. Dr. Wysocki noted that the present incinerator has been in operation for eight years and the new incinerator is supposed to last about fifteen years adding that, with these changes, Mr. Marcella had stated that he built in some safeguards to anticipate changes in terms of structural emission control. Mr. Marcella .stated that this was correct and noted the longer retention in the secondary chamber. Mr. • Marcella stated that they try to burn most carcasses as quickly as possible for obvious reasons; they start to decompose and smell. Currently there is on -site one refrigerated tractor trailer, also a Planning Board -7- October 20, 1992 • smaller two -ton in the area. size refrigerated trailer and several walk -in coolers Dr. Wysocki Dr. Wysocki asked Mr. Marcella if he was possibly looking for a host of possible emission types of chemicals other than CO2 and the FO2. Dr. Wysocki asked if there was a list. Mr. Marcella stated that there is a list and this will be made available to people. The list is in the DEC standards, would be the section 219.3. type of Dr. Wysocki asked Mr. Marcella if there would be any sampling of water or soil to see if they are being inhibited by any of the emissions. Mr. Marcella stated they do not foresee any type of testing. The DEC would be the one that would pursue this type of testing since they are the ones that provide the permit; they license the operator. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the staff had any further questions. Town Planner Floyd Forman asked Mr. Marcella about the stack that Mr. Forman had heard was rather narrow, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 8 feet in diameter. Mr. Forman asked Mr. Marcella if he could give some information about the diameter of the stack. Mr. Marcella stated that the diameter is going to be a function of a number of things. The main funtion is going to be the height. With a stack of approximately 200 feet you are not looking at much larger than 2 feet in diameter at the top. At the present • time, it is designed for no guy wires. The base of the chimney would be approximately 8 feet. Mr. Forman asked Mr. Marcella what kinds of lights are planned for the stack for airplanes. Mr. Marcella stated that they are currently trying to find that information out. Mr. Forman asked what kind of visual assessment will be done, noting that one of the questions the EAF asked about was scenic views important to the community, and the comment that came back was that there are none in the area. Mr. Forman stated that if you go to the Plantations, which are very important to Cornell and the people in the area, you can see that there are a number of places where the stack is going to have an impact on the area. Mr. Marcella told Mr. Forman where they stood in the SEQR review, noting that there are three parts to the SEQR review. The first part has been completed; the first part establishes a lead agency. A notice goes out to parties of concern that would have any bearing on the project, such as the County, City, Town, the schools, and it has been established that the State University Construction Fund is the lead agency and no objection was given. This is the only thing that has been completed on the SEQR review. The other two parts, 2 and 3, will go out to the parties concerned; if there is another major concern then this will evoke another full blown environmental impact. Mr. Forman stated that just for the record, some of the questions were left unanswered because Mr. Marcella did not have adequate information. Approval for the • construction will have to be given by the State and hopefully, that will be in April. When parts 2 and 3 of the SEQR review are complete, the Planning Board will get a copy. Planning Board -8- October 20, 1992 William Lesser asked Mr. Marcella what the ramifications would be if the stack were 100 feet instead of 200 feet high. Dr. Thompson stated that the stack should be one - and - one -half to two times larger than the nearest structure, otherwise, the winds going over those buildings will influence what comes out of the stack. The existing stack is lower than a number of the buildings surrounding it. With the new stack being about 200 feet tall and some of the new buildings being 100 feet tall, the new stack will be higher and thus, any emissions of smoke from the new stack will not be drawn directly into the air filtering systems of those buildings. Dr. Thompson stated that at the current time, the ash is under no further guidelines and is sent to a landfill. Currently, about 1,200 to 1,400 pounds of ash are produced each week. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions. Nancy Brcak of 228 Forest Home Drive asked Mr. Marcella about visual impact. Ms. Brcak asked what Mr. Marcella thought the visual impact of this project would be at 200 feet and at 300 feet. Mr. Marcella stated that naturally the visual impact at 300 feet would be greater than 200 feet. Mr. Marcella stated that what they are trying to do is a number of things. this stack is corten steel which corrodes to a certain extent and then that corrosion, the rust around it, protects it for the life of the steel. The existing stacks at the Cornell Heating Plant are 225 feet and that diameter is at least • 8 feet, but they are not at the same ground level. Mr. Carl Sundell of 310 Forest Home Drive asked Mr. Marcella how high the stacks were at Crouse Irving Hospital in Syracuse. Mr. Marcella stated the stacks were approximately 200 feet. The stack goes up adjacent to a building at Crouse Irving, and for the height of the building the stack is secured to the building and the height of the building is five to six stories high, then the stack goes on unsupported. Mr. Sundell stated that a 200 -foot stack in a 60 mph wind could exist without guys. Mr. Marcella answered that the foundation is quite monumental for holding this stack up. Paul McIsaac of 107 Forest Home Drive stated that there is a University committee that is supposed to give guidance on the subject matter. Mr. McIsaac asked Mr. Marcella if this particular committee had been contacted. Mr. Marcella stated that this committee was brought up and they asked to be informed as the design progressed. Julia Fletcher of 300 Forest Home Drive asked Dr. Thompson if any other consideration had been given to any other location. Dr. Thompson stated yes, but some of the drawbacks would be that the carcasses would be hauled °all hours of the night, during all weather conditions to remote locations over public highways, adding, again, when they are hauling these carcasses after the post mortem examinations, they are not nice intact animals; they are pieces of • animals with blood and body fluids and gut contents and everything like that. Any accident or''leakage from that vehicle would have a major impact, again, a concern about infectious diseases. The *Planning Board -9- October 20, 1992 • original incinerator was sited 20 feet for obvious reasons, it is the shortest path that they have to travel. Town Planner Floyd Forman asked Dr. Thompson what the permit is for the amount of waste that can be put in the present incinerator and the future incinerator. Dr. Thompson stated that currently he is under no guidelines from the DEC as to the top end of what can be burned. Dr. Thompson stated that the greatest capacity would be approximately 800,000 pounds with the current incinerator, adding, with the new incinerator, it would be licensed by the DEC and there would be a top end that could be burned, and further adding that there would be very stringent guidelines as to how many pounds could be burned per hour, per day. Dr. Thompson stated that what he has asked for as far as permitting is 700,000 pounds per year. Dr. Wysocki pointed out that Dr. Thompson had stated earlier that this would be a state -of =the -art facility, the only one in the northeast. Dr. Wysocki stated that, with the state of garbage these days, people are looking for incineration, so, it is very tempting for someone in New Jersey to see that Dr. Thompson or Cornell has an ,incinerator that they could use. Dr. Wysocki wondered whether, if someone were to contact'4Dr. Thompson and say that for "x" amount of dollars, I'll ship'the stuff up and you get rid of it, there was a policy that would state'" "yes" or "no" to something— like that. Dr. Thompson stated that he will be operating pretty much at,capacity and his number one priority is within Cornell. Dr. Thompson stated that • there are regulations governing the transport of regulated medical wastes, very stringent requirements, so, no, he would not be interested in taking from other States, however, from talking with people informally from the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service, if they have a foreign animal disease outbreak, they have requested the use of Cornell's facilities to help incinerate the animals. Dr. Thompson stated this would be out of his hands basically, because they would deem the best way to dispose, say a herd with hoof and mouth or something like that, public health and DEC would decide the best way to handle that particular outbreak. This would not be a regional incineration type of thing. The Department of Environmental; Conservation has the final say. Steve Little of 204 „Eastern Heights Drive mentioned that he travels to the Syracuse area almost weekly. Mr. Little stated that for the last several weeks, he has observed the incinerator operations of the various hospitals in the area and thinks the Ithaca community should know which one is which . The tall skinny pipe at Crouse Irving operation si than the norm dirty smokes of the Upstat of the exact has. If you • differentiate lower one is trouble.with. is the new incinerator, and he has been watching that ice it started up and he has not seen any problems other i1 steaming that comes from that smokestack. The low :ack, very small in diameter, attached to the south wing Medical Center, is scheduled for replacement because kind of problems that our current veterinary incinerator Drive by and see an incinerator blowing black smoke, as to which one is which. Mr. Little stated that the :he old technology; the upper one he has not seen any •Planning Board -10- October 20, 1992 • Helen Sundell of 310 Forest Home Drive asked Dr. Thompson what landfill the ash will be put in. Dr. Thompson stated that the ash will go to the Ithaca landfill. Karen Baum of 237 Forest Home Drive asked Dr. Thompson what will trigger a'full Environmental Impact study. Dr. Thompson responded if, to one interested party, it is a major concern. If there is legitimate concern and the ''DEC would concur with that as a legitimate concern, then a full blown Environmental Impact study would have to be done. Ms. Baum stated that another concern she has is that the current incinerator is not doing an adequate job of incinerating things safely. On the other hand, it is running 18 hours or more a day, in the middle of the Vet School, next to a very populated area. This does not raise her trust in what Dr. Thompson is proposing to do which, they are told, is a state -of- the -art replacement. Ms. Baum asked, if what we have now is unsafe, then why are we continuing to burn 18 hours a day, five days a week and what should lead us to believe, 5 years from now or 10 years from now, when the regulations change and this facility becomes outdated, that we will be able to stop this new facility from burning. Dr. Thompson responded that, first of all it is not an unsafe incinerator; it is an inadequate incinerator. Dr. Thompson stated. that there are obvious inadequacies: as far as emission control, yes, they have no emission control, but it has not been deemed unsafe. Dr. Thompson stated that • it has some operational defects also; it is eight years old now, but it was not adequate when it' was first sited there for the job that it was asked to do. With the current incinerator, there have been some complaints, smoke, odor,' and again this is part of Cornell's addressing of this, butthe incinerator has not been deemed unsafe. There are health concerns and these have.been addressed a number of times and Public Health has come in, looked at it, Cornell has done a number of reviews of that entire complex also and indicated that the incinerator should be upgraded. Cornell has been responding to this ,inadequacy since 1988, so they recognized this problem a long time ago. Cornell is utilizing the incinerator to the highest degree necessary. Dr. Thompson stated that in the last two years he had initiated some fairly stringent in -house regulations as to what will be burned, what is accepted to be burned, and the amounts burned, ,for example, in 1989, in 'response to the Medical Waste Tracking Act. In the calendar year`1990, ,approximately 5% plastics, again, needles, syringes, things that ar'e regulated, were burned. Dr. Thompson stated that in response to the concerns, the incinerator was not designed for that purpose, adding that there are smoke problems because of the combustiblesl, there. Dr. Thompson stated that when he came in July of 19901 from that point forward, Cornell did not burn any more than 1% plastic within the incinerator. The health studies did not find any direct link between the reported health problems and the incinerator. The incinerator was an obvious target because you can see the black smoke. • Candace Cornell asked Dr. Thompson if, with respect to triggering a full impact statement, the questions would be weighed between the • Planning Board 0`011- October 20, 1992 State University Construction Fund and the DEC. Dr. Thompson stated • that because these are both State agencies, they often do not agree on a lot of the same things. Cornell has an environmental officer and then the gentleman working on the Environmental Assessment, and there are attorneys and',' construction people. They review the Environmental Assessment as a committee and they decide and consult the DEC where needed on those issues. Actually, it is put to a vote if an Environmental Impact Statement should be implemented or not. The SEQR parts 2 and 3 are still to come out. When this information comes out, the public can read it and if there are questions and responses can be made. Stan Seltzer of 228 Forest Home Drive asked Mr. Marcella about the first map that was shown stating that the map does not show houses that are located in the area. Mr. Marcella answered that the map was very outdated. If, a full Environmental Impact Statement needed to be done, someone within a three kilometer distance would be affected. Doug Brittain of 135 Warren Road addressed the Board stating that Mr. Lesser had asked why not take 100 feet off the stack and the answer seemed to be that the research tower had the air intake on the top. Mr. Brittain asked why not move them, adding, you have a blank wall, could you not run the! ducts down and cut a number of feet off? Mr. Marcella stated that actually that had been investigated and it is not economically,, feasible. Mr. Marcella stated that they would • like to reduce the height of they. }stack as much as possible, but within the parameters of the DEC. If, through this modelling, it is shown that a 100' -foot stack is not going to do it, but a 175 -foot stack will, it will be that, no more. Mr. Marcella stated that the height is done by computer modelling which is based upon an enormous amount of information. The aversions go to the consultants, but how this is established is by spending at least five months establishing all of the variables and the parodical in which the computer modelling will be based upon and the DEC has written off and approved just that. A firm is hired that specializes in this, and another firm is hired different from the main consultants just to justify its height, there is not just one consultant. Then there is a third check by having the DEC come in and do the actual testing. The DEC does not only do that testing in the first year, but on an annual basis. Mr. Marcella further stated that while there are visual effects, and there are misoperations, by- passing issues that have to be addressed, there have to be' controls over the amount of materials that are going into the facility and where it is coming from. Most of what is going into this facility makes it like an overgrown woodstove with tremendous,, cleanup equipment on the back. 300,000 pounds of what goes out of that 550,000 is predominately cellulose type of material. Mr. Marcella stated that the time will come when • communities such as ours will be addressing solid fuel, heavy fuels, in the same context as to how high the smoke stack relative to your neighbor's woodstove and what it does when it blows through your • *Planning Board -12- October 20, 1992 kitchen window, and in the context of industrial waste for large -scale incineration of municipal waste, this really does not compare. There are issues that need to be addressed, but in terms of the toxicity, the nature of what is coming out of the smoke stack is an overgrown woodstove with one of the fanciest cleanup devices that can possibly be imagined. Most of this is wood chips. Mr. Marcella stated that this is actually the most uneconomical way, the most expensive way, but it the best way that we know how to dispose of these animals. Mr. Marcella said that he felt that, to accommodate the animals where they centrally occur, at the present site, this is the absolute safest way. To get the State Legislature and the DEC to buy into this, you need to have some good proof as to why you want to do this, and they thought this was the best way to do it. Carl Sundell of 310 Forest Home Drive asked Mr. Marcella if his department designs and makes additions to buildings on other campuses for the State. Mr. Marcella answered yes, 64 campuses, 30 of which are community colleges and they partake in the construction; in -house construction and most of the major designs they hire a consultant. There are different types of designs, for some in -house projects, they use their own architects and engineers that do the design. For other projects of any :magnitude, a consultant is hired. On the Stonybrook project and the Syracuse project, the same consultants were used. Gregory Weiland of 813 Deibler Drive asked Mr. Marcella who did Bradfield and Boyce- Thompson. Mr. Marcella stated that Boyce- Thompson was designed by Olef Frank Consultants and the engineer was K. Levenson. Mr. Marcella stated that in a Vet School you are going to have bedding and carcasses, and asked how are you going to get rid of it'? Some Universities, like Cornell, have an incinerator to take care of these problems. Doug Brittain asked Mr., Marcella if there will be combustion noise from the stack? Mr. Marcella responded, no, adding that the operator will most likely be wearing some kind of ear protection, but when you step out of this concrete building, you should not have any problems at all. There will be lightening protection on the stack and everything is grounded. Another question Mr. Brittain asked concerned the dissipation of steam. Mr. Marcella stated that the steam dissipates very quickly due to the height of the stack. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that at looking at the scrubbing system the sketch made reference to waste to drain or something to that effect. A permit will be required from the Town of Ithaca to discharge the waste to the sanitary sewers. Mr. Walker stated that the Town has certain industrial pretreatment requirements and he assumed this would be acids. • Karen Baum of 237 Forest Home Drive asked how the Town Board will make information available to those who are interested. Town Planner Floyd Forman answered that once the information comes to him, he will Planning Board -13- October 20, 1992 • be in touch with Ms. Baum since she is the President of the Forest Home Improvement Association. Mr. Forman stated that he had spoken to a number of people at Cornell, including the Cornell Plantations, and told them what was going on, and also people of Ithaca. Chairperson Grigorov asked the public and members of the Planning Board if there were any more questions or concerns that needed to be addressed. There appearingl,to be no further discussion or comments, Chairperson Grigorov thanked the public and closed the public information meeting at 9:36p0m. AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THk TOWN PLANNER. Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the Planning Board at 9 :40 p.m. stating that at the next meeting, November 3rd, we will work on Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Hospicare, and on November 17th it will be Final Subdivision Approval, hopefully, if everything comes in on time. The other issue ion the 3rd will be Chase Farm Final Subdivision Approval for their 49 lots. The Comprehensive Plan is on its way, and very early on in January 1993, the Planning Board should receive it. Mr. Forman closed his report at 9:45 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS At 9:46 p.m.,�Chairper'son Grigorov stated that there was no other business at this time. • EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:47 p.m., Chairpersl',on Grigorov MOVED that the Planning Board retire to Executive Session for purposes of discussion of various personnel matters. The MOTION was seconded by Candace Cornell. The Chair called for a vote with the following result. Aye - Grigorov, Cornell, Baker, Kenerson, Finch, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION At 10 :20 p.m., Robert Kenerson MOVED that the Planning Board return to open session having discussed some matters related to personnel. The MOTION was seconded by William Lesser. The Chair called for a vote with the following result. Aye - Grigorov, Cornell, Baker, Kenerson, Finch, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the October 20, 1992 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 :21 p.m. Y • • Planning Board -14- October 20, 1992 Respectfully submitted, Wilma J. Hornback, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.