ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HELENE GOLDBERGER: (Introduces hearing, including formal notices.) I would like to begin this meeting by calling upon the Applicant's representative Mr. Lochbrunner.

MR. LOCHBRUNNER: Thank you Administrative Law Judge Goldberger.

My name is Phil Lochbrunner. I am Vice President of St. Lawrence Cement and manager of the Greenport Project.

The St. Lawrence Cement Greenport Project has been designed to replace most of our existing facility at Catskill. When we began assembling the project team, we established three primary environmental objectives for ourselves: One was to replace old technology with new, more efficient, cleaner technologies. The second was to use a brownfield site, preferably one that had a history of cement production, and the third was to reduce the impact of our operations on the Hudson River.

We have achieved these objectives. So the plant we propose will significantly reduces emissions and impacts to the river while producing over 2 million metric tons per year of cement to serve our markets in the northeast United States. This market now depends upon cement imported from offshore to meet its needs. Our current facility, that meets sulphur and environmental requirements, currently provides about 600 thousand tons of cement per year.

The project will bring important environmental and economic benefits to Columbia County and to nearby Greenport. These include the following: Location on the existing site that has been used to produce cement starting in 1902.

Overall emissions will be reduced including reduction of emissions that are important to this area when comparing actual Catskill operations to what we anticipate the actual Greenport operations. Sulphur dioxide emissions will be reduced by approximately 85%, nitrogen oxides emissions will be reduced by approximately 25%. Lead or mercury emissions by approximately 95%. Formation of PM2.5 will be reduced by approximately 7,500 tons per year as a result of the decreases in sulphur dioxide and offset of nitrogen oxide. This more than offsets the small increase in PM10 and particulate matter.

Reduced impact to Hudson River, including Greenport, will initially take water from the north, discharge water to the Hudson River. Catskill currently uses 2 and a half million gallons of water a day from the river. This will be reduced with ongoing operations to 15,000 gallons a day. Catskill has discharges on non-contact water cooling water and storm water to the river. Non-contact cooling water discharges will be reduced to 15,000 gallons per day.

Visual improvements include: The existing silos on the Catskill jetty will be removed, the existing loading silo at the present Hudson dock will be removed, the silos and stack on the old manufacturing site will also be demolished, the stockhouse at the dock and the power house at the old site will be rehabilitated. The dock area will be extensively landscaped, and this will include a public bike and walking path. And in addition to that this path will connect in a park which will be created at the southern end of our property. This public path will provide excellent views of the Athens-Hudson Lighthouse and provide public access to an area of the river that has not had such access for over a hundred years.

Economic benefits are part of the project as well, and will include direct and indirect jobs 406 jobs and 274 respectively during a construction period of 2 years. Local spending during construction estimated at 187 million dollars. Additional jobs will be available when the plant goes into operation. It includes preserving of those jobs already in Catskill. We have a total of 155 employees, mostly in Greenport. Local spending during ongoing operations is estimated at 48 million dollars each year. And it will be taxed by the municipality at 564,000 each year.

SLC has assembled a most impressive project team at the facility. This team has pushed itself continuously always asking the question what can we do better? As a result, the plant design has been transformed into one that responds to the issues that we have heard in the community, and we've listened. We listened to concerns about visual impact and we moved the plant into the quarry behind the ridge line of Beecroft Mountain. We also further rearranged the plant to minimize its profile. We brought in other experts when the need was recognized. For instance, we brought in a team for the Lighting Research Center from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who taught us about lighting and about how to reduce the impacts. We also listened to concerns about conveyor design. Materials handling expert were brought in to help us select a conveyor that minimizes the visual impact and also allows us to use an existing roadway. This will leave nearby wetlands completely undisturbed.

And we listened to concerns from waterfront planners. Silos at the dock were eliminated and we added a public park, again, on the bank of the Hudson River for river access. And there are many, many other examples.

SLC also took the project to the public for review. This began with the DEIS scoping process which was opened to the public at our specific request. In addition, a series of 14 public forums was held. This is paneled by a group representative of the local community. We not only brought in our own experts but provided funding for the forum to bring in other consultants of their selection. And in addition, a series of informational sessions has been held in various public areas around the county. We have also made the DEIS and permit applications available in over 22 public locations, and we have provided many copies of the documents to interested parties. In short, if someone had an interest in the project, they could easily review the information at their local public library or public office.

In summary, the SLC Greenport project is important to the Hudson Valley and Columbia County. It will provide a much needed product in the northeast, a product that is vital to the rehabilitation and improvement of the infrastructure of our area, and much of which must now be imported from offshore. We are providing a stable and significant economic base for manufacturing while bringing forth important environmental benefits.

It also meets the criteria put forth by former Riverkeeper, John Cronin, in an op/ed article published in the New York Times in 1999 which set the criteria virtually the same as we established for our project. Namely, it replaces an older facility with one using new, more, efficient cleaner technologies. The second, the utilization of an existing site. Greenport has been used for cement manufacturing since the early days of the last century. And third, it reduces the impacts to the river while we provide increased and enhanced public access.

As a result of the open and collaborative process in which this project was developed, we believe the Greenport project is a project worthy of public acceptance.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thank you.

Robert Leslie.

ROBERT LESLIE: Good afternoon.

My name is Robert Leslie. I'm the Regional Attorney for the Regional 4 Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Here with me this afternoon is Mike Higgins, a Permit Analyst for the department, and Rick Georgeson who is our Regional Citizen Participation Specialist. Mr. Higgins is the department's Project Manager to the St. Lawrence plant's application.

The department serves as lead agency for the SEQR review of the cement project proposed by St. Lawrence. On February 18th of 1999 the Applicant submitted a long form Environmnetal Assessment Form. The department staff issued a positive declaration on April 8th, 1999. On June 24, 1999 the department staff held a scoping session to determine which issues are be included as part of the environmental impact study to be prepared.

After scoking was completed in November of 1999, St. Lawrence Cement submitted the initial Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the department on March 7th of 2000. The department staff reviewed and commented on several revisions to the DEIS submitted by SLC until after more than 13 months of review and revisions the department staff deemed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement acceptable and adequate for public review and comment on May 2nd, 2001.

Throughout this process the department has had many staff members involved in the project review. The staff members reviewed each of the various applications, and the draft DEIS, and have strived to do as thorough a job as possible. The department regulations provide for public comment at this Legislative Hearing to allow the department or the department to seek input from the public and from other agencies. The department staff have received numerous letters both in opposition and in support of this project. And staff welcomes comments through the end of the comment period.

Thank you very much.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Senator Nuciforo.

SENATOR NUCIFORO: Thank you very much.

My name is Andy Nuciforo, and I am the State Senator from Massachusetts. I represent 45 cities and towns in the western portion of Massachusetts. And I would like to say, first of all, thank you very much for taking my testimony.

I am here to reflect the views of the people that I represent in Massachusetts. And I will tell you that I'm concerned. I'm a life long resident of Pittsfield. I represent communities like North Adams, and Lenox, and Great Barrington. And I have heard from many constituents and I myself are concerned about the impact that this proposal may have in the Berkshires., and I have concerned in particular with the impact it may have on water quality, air quality, and any health impact it might have on the citizens there in Massachusetts.

I'm not a scientist. I have had an opportunity to review a lot of the different documents that have been submitted by the various parties in this case, and frankly I lack the technical expertise to analyze all these documents. But what I do have, are some facts that I know. I know there is a proposal that if built will be about 23 miles from the Massachusetts border. I know from looking at some of the weather studies and some of the other scientific material that those of us that live in the Berkshires are directly downwind from this proposal. And those things concern me.

I also had an opportunity to review some of the environmental records that St. Lawrence has accumulated in the United States and Canada over the last several years. And frankly they trouble me.

So I did not come here to say I'm absolutely positively opposed to this. But what I have done, is I have come here to say that I'm concerned that if what has happened with St. Lawrence Cement happens in the future the people that I represent would be adversely impacted.

Now, I know that a lot of people here want to speak so I'm not going to be long. But let me tell you what I have done and what I intend to do in the future. What I have done so far is I motivated the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, which is, I guess, your version of DEC. I have motivated our DEP to get involved for the very first time on this permit process. I have worked with the DEP in Massachusetts and with the DEC here in New York to try to get that connection so that those of us that are interested have an opportunity to have a seat at the table.

And lastly, what I am going to do is consider filing for full party status. I know that is something that is before the body right now. I have urged the Massachusetts DEP to file for full party status, to give services, to see all the material that will be available to any party to the permitting process here in New York so that we in Massachusetts have a chance to take a look at this and exercise whatever comments in the event that it is going to be harmful to the environment or the citizens that I represent.

So thank you very much for your hospitality. I must say that when I look at this crowd -- the last time we had a crowd of this size in Pittsfield was for a baseball game.

So, I hope you have as much fun today as we do over there.

Thank you very much for hearing my testimony. (Applause.)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thank you. Andrea Smallwood.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm a trustee representing the Village of Athens who has filed for amicus party status with the Applicant.

In reviewing the DEIS we have a couple of concerns, and one is that the local LWRP for the Village of Athens is not mentioned in the DEIS, although Catskill and Hudson's is. The Village of Athens LWRP is about to be adopted by the Secretary of State. And in one of the questions in a survey for this LWRP, when asked, the main question was enjoying the view. Now, we're the village right across from where these dock facilities will be placed. And there are many interpretations of State and coastal zone management policies. And one of them is bringing people to the water where a national and state recognized area and river front park is under restoration. And next year for about a million dollars the village is going to be renovating that, And hopefully it will be our doorway to increased tourism to this area. So our concern is what the dock facilities will be in connection with this.

I see they are going to be removing 100 foot tall cement silos, 200 foot tall stacks and 140 foot tall stool tank and a barge loading tower. But what is going in will be an 82 foot tall power house, this conveyor system, traveling hoppers, loading ramps, and a 400 foot loading 72 foot wide barge receiving cement 70 times a day.

Our questions are, although it doesn't seem that this -- basically lighting -- there is nothing that is lit there now from our viewshed. And it appears to me this dock facility is going to be lit.

And our other question is stockpile operations. Will there be stockpile operations and if so how high.

So we are very concerned about our viewshed and we feel that, you know, that Olana isn't the only area. That the State should be concerned about this whole scenic part of the Hudson River is taking a heavy industrial hit in my view. State Route 385 goes through our village, and as a state historic highway it will also be affected.

Are other concern is noise. Looking at some of the charts on baseline ambient sound, and again I'm no expert as the Senator mentioned, but does this take into affect the acoustical affect of the river. Because noise on water does travel. And I'm wondering if these trucks take that into the consideration.

And air quality. Now the modeling analysis results from emissions -- they say downsizing the Catskill Plant. Do these take into consideration the cumulative affect of the Athens Generating Plant and Iroquois new compressor that is going in? And that is something we'd really like to know; if they were included in these models.

Basically this process does not make it easy for small villages to afford the type of objective review needed for a facility of this size without having to rely on the Applicant's data. Intensive experts on air quality and noise are a luxury outside of our reach.

So in closing, we would really like to be more informed about these noise, air, cumulative impacts. We'd like our LWRP to be reviewed and be part of the DEIS, and we'd like to know when there are balloons tests. I mean we just wake up one day, and some balloons -- not being informed when we are going to be directly affected by view. We'd like to see more balloon tests and when they are.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thank you. Daniel Goodwin and after him Patrick Nolan.

DANIEL GOODWIN: Judge Goldberger, Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Daniel Goodwin, a resident of Hudson and a long time resident of Columbia County.

First, I'd like to welcome you to our community, Judge Goldberger. This is one of the most beautiful and vibrant parts of the nation. And I hope your visit here is memorable.

I'm sure you are aware, everybody here, this is a very sensitive and contentious debate. We're faced with a decision that could dramatically alter the dynamics of our community for many years to come. It is for this very reason that we have such a vigorous opposition.

Columbia County is located in the heart of the Hudson Valley, an area which has been declared one of the nation's most endangered historic regions. This is an extremely important distinction -- one that can not be dismissed while debating this St. Lawrence Cement project. Considering the disproportionate, if not utterly gargantuan size of this proposal, it is worth noting that Olana, a New York State historical landmark, is located within only a few minutes from this facility. It is safe to say from this facet alone that the viewshed, the historical viewshed, of this area will be marred forever.

If SLC passes these visual criteria, we can then address the environmental concerns of this proposal, which are far reaching. The St. Lawrence Cement representatives have repeatedly used the term "state of the art" when referring to this technology, even though they plan to use dirty coal as their main fuel, a fuel which I believe they probably used at the turn of the century. Traditionally the term "state of the art" has come to mean virtually untested, unknown. This is disconcerting, specifically because of the frightening environmental track record that St. Lawrence Cement has.

In 1999 Holnan/SLC was fined in the neighbor of $500,000 for their Dundee, Michigan plant. Allegedly that plant had been operated at more than 7 times the legal emissions for 20 years. In addition, in 1999 their Devil's Slide facility was cited for exceeding air permit limits. And this list goes on and on, mind you.

I shouldn't fail to mention that St. Lawrence representatives have stated time and again that they will not sign a promise to never burn hazardous waste in this facility. They've argue that we are safe because the process to apply for burning hazardous waste is long, time consuming and very expensive. They failed to mention, however, that at least 9 of their facilities in our country have either applied or are already burning hazardous waste. Needless to say this sounds suspicious.

As if that's not enough to raise a few eyebrows, St. Lawrence Cement continuously used falsehoods to propagate support for this plan. Not only have they lied in print about their tax assessment, they have resorted to the use of suspiciously outdated census data such as the 1996 Department of Labor New York State Income Report. They have always used dubious semantics in print and in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, some of which have even raised the concern of many elected bodies. These aggravated tactics have won marginal public support based on misinformation and falsehood.

Track record aside, this plant will emit up to 12 times more carbon monoxide than the current Catskill facility. Try wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe and see how long you survive. This stuff is poison. We also know that the level of particulate matter, extremely dangerous, yet unregulated by our government, will increase by nearly 200%. Once again, the list goes on and on and on.

There's a lot of talk about experts this, experts that. I can stand here and talk about statistics until I'm blue in the face, but you know, it doesn't take a great chef to judge the work of a great chef. And rather than sit here and throw out numbers and statistics, I'd like to talk about something we are all experts on, being American. Its the implicit distinction of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that binds us all, inside this room and outside this room. We must remember that without the pursuit of happiness that binds us all we have nothing. We are no longer Americans bound by freedom, bound by the right to control what is happening in our communities. We must also remember that without our health we have no life. Without our life, without the right to breathe clean air, we have no liberty. And without life and liberty we can no longer pursue happiness. We are stripped of what constitutes being American. This cannot be allowed.

In our defense we have democracy. But what else? While St. Lawrence Cement pays its fines for emissions negligence we are left with the perpetual wounds of sickness. Who pays our medical bills when SLC disastrously exceeds air permit levels? How will they be held accountable to their innocent victims? This is not sensationalism people; this has happened before. And it may happen again. The people who they have wounded struggle with the reality that their government has failed to protect their right to live a healthy life in the name of America and in the name of democracy. We must protect ourselves and our environment, for soon there will be nothing left to protect and nothing left to cherish.

Can we possibly justify selling our collective health, our river, our environment? Can we do this for a small amount of money? You know, it is an interesting statistic -- it would cost each Hudson City School District taxpayer 10 cents a day, 10 cents a day, to equal the amount that St. Lawrence Cement will provide to our school district. 10 cents a day for each of us in this room for the entire year. That is a pretty small price to pay to protect our children.

Jobs you ask? One job opening when this facility opens. One highly skilled job opening. We're one of the fastest growing counties in the state. So it seems to me that this job opening is fairly insignificant.

In conclusion, Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen at large, I'd like to ask you a very personal yet rhetorical question. What price tag can you place on the lives of our children? How about your husband, your wife, your parents? This really is about an economic trade off. Would $300,000 in school taxes be enough to buy the health of your family? Perhaps one single highly skilled job opening would be enough to suffice.

Judge Goldberger, when considering these and other comments please remember that the well-being of thousands of people are at your whim. These numbers don't add up. St. Lawrence Cement Greenport will not be cleaner and will not be the economic miracle that they claim. Our future is in your hands, and while this large foreign giant can always pack up and go else, we are largely left with the only defense we have -- the common language of democracy.

I call on you, Your Honor, in the name of democracy to defend us and to deliver us from the dark days that loom before use. I call on you, Your Honor, in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of the happiness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Excuse me. If you have your comments in writing, if you could please submit them to us it will make the transcript much easier.

Mr. Nolan, and Patti Tagliavia.

PATRICK NOLAN: My name is Patrick Nolan. I represent 5,234 people who signed this petition that I have in my hands that I'd like to present to you after I speak. In this petition, the most important thing there is that 75 percent of the people that signed it live here in Columbia County. The reason I am here is to make the statement that we, myself and these other people, believe that the plant will be cleaner. All you have to do is go over to Catskill and look at it. There is a plant there now. The air that you breathe right now is clean. When they put the new plant in it will be cleaner. But when you hear the claims that you won't be able to breathe when they build the new plant, I find that hard to believe being that there's a plant operating right now as you're sitting in this meeting hall.

I believe the economic impacts will affect the county. I do believe it will be positive, and I believe it will be long lasting.

As I stated earlier, I do live here in the Town of Greenport. I live right up the road between the college and the plant. So this hits close to home. I'll probably be able to see the plant from my house. And that's why I'm strongly in favor of the plant. I have three children who live in the town with me, and I would like to see them have a good future. They won't have a decent future in Columbia County if we don't have the cement plant built here. It will be better for the environment. It will be cleaner, and I believe that my children will be able to work here in Columbia County as opposed to driving out of the county to work like I had to do. I had to do that for 12 years. I would hope that my children can live and work in Columbia County as they grow up.

So I just hope that you, the Administrative Law Judge, will put this into the hands of the regulatory agencies. Let them do their job so that we will have a safer cleaner plant.

Thank you. (Applause).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Patti Tagliavia and then Warren Collins.

PATTI TAGLIAVIA: I'm Patti Tagliavia, and I live at 521 Union Street, Hudson, New York. I've lived here for 40 years in Upstate New York. When we get to be the age of 50 years old, and doctors want you to lose weight, watch your weight and watch your cholesterol. So I have here a bag of potato chips here, which says low in calories, 350 calories. Then I have another bag of potato chips that says 700 calories. So this is half of this. If you eat 4 times that amount it is 1400 calories. They say light, but they're not light because they are 1400 calories versus 700 calories.

When St. Lawrence Cement advertises that they are going to have a cleaner plant they advertise the same size plant to the same size plant. And they're not advertising an apple orchard. Its the same size plant to the same size plant. And also, they are not -- Sorry. What they're doing is they're not telling you what the size they're really going to have. They're going to have a plant that is 4 times the size, and their net analysis is particulate matter 700,000 versus 1,476,000. Its 2.1 times more pollution. You have volatile organic 76,000, and over here you have 260,000. It is 3.4 times more pollution. Over here you have carbon monoxide which is 634,000 and this will be 8 million. So it is 12.6 times more pollution. Over here you have nitrous oxide 8,172,000, and over here you have 8,244,000. It is 1% increased. Over here fluoride you have 520, and over here you have 2740. Its 5.27 more times pollution. Altogether about 33% important pollution. It is not including trucks, barge, deliveries, cars going back and forth, and any other buildings that they want to place.

In summation, SLC will destroy my life. SLC will destroy my job because I depend on an organic garden. SLC will destroy the value of my property, and SLC the destroy my retirement because I invested in Hudson. I'm too old to start all over again, and I am a native New Yorker.

And I pray to you, Judge, to deny SLC any permits. And I thank your for your time.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Warren Collins and then Jeff Baker.

WARREN COLLINS: My name is Warren Collins, and I live in the Town of Kinderhook with my family. In 1979 when my husband and I were looking for a place to buy a home and start a family we looked in both Greene and Columbia Counties. And in 1979, as he is now, my husband was an elementary school teacher in Catskill. Maybe some of you folks had him as a teacher; Lenny Collins.

I was a microbiologist employed by a company in Albany. As we looked at towns and houses it became obvious to us that Greene County was not nearly as desirable a place for us to raise our family. Why? Catskill was a community on the down slide, lacking a vital Main Street. And we felt the communities in Columbia County, especially Hudson, were on their way up.

The cement plant in Cementon polluting the air and water with its ugliness had nothing by negative effects on the Village of Catskill and its surroundings. Incidentally, I have not heard anyone in Catskill lamenting St. Lawrence's move across the river.

Now we have 2 sons ages 16 and 19 born and raised in Columbia County. We have deep roots in our community in many areas. My family and I are involved in community theatre, local politics, Columbia County Cooperative Extension, 4H and Youth Force.

My opposition to the building of this plant is multiple; our house, our quality of air, our way of live, and also its effect on tourism.

On a final note, let me add I have worked for a Swiss company right here in Columbia County; one that has holdings right here in Columbia County and the Town of Livingston. I found the Swiss to be condescending and arrogant to lower level workers. I was a technician. I was a technician as a microbiologist in this company. They use American workers only to support their lavish lifestyles back in Switzerland. And I mean it. Live styles with 6 week paid vacation, expansive 3 hour lunches with vintage wine, and salaries much higher than comparable paying jobs here in the United States.

St. Lawrence Cement does not want to help Hudson. The company wants to exploit the city's economy and the environment. Considering this plant will, by St. Lawrence's own admission, provide only one new job to this region I cannot find any reason to support it in any fashion. I oppose the proposal with all my heart. (Applause).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mr. Baker and then Peter Jung.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Jeff Baker. I'm Counsel to Friends of Hudson.

I'm going to keep my comments brief. We are going to be applying for full party status and submitting extensive written comments and issues for adjudication, but I want to make a few points that are relevant to this group.

DEC has been noted as lead agency for the SEQR process and has an obligation to the agencies and the community to use its expertise to determine that this project does what it says it is going to, and evaluate the reasonable alternatives, and chose from among those alternatives the one that minimizes and avoids the adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Unfortunately as one reviews the DEIS as accepted by the Department and the draft permits that have been issued to date, those people who have relied on the expertise of staff are going to be sorely disappointed. The staff has abdicated its responsibility to require the necessary hard look at the alternatives analysis and the documentary evidence necessary to issue the permits which it purports to have approved.

Let me give a few examples of the draft air permit that has been issued. This means as a matter of law that the Department feels that the permit can be issued as written. The permit as written is facially illegal. Despite the statement of St. Lawrence it will be a clean plant that will improve the environment, the air permit for inapplicable reasons omits emission limitations for a large number of contaminants. There are no emission limits in the permit for particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, and limited emission limitations for sulphur dioxide.

As written, this permit can not be enforced either by the State, or more importantly, by the citizens through the Clean Air Act. So the assurances that this plant will do what its suppose to do are simply not there.

On the substantive point of view, the argument by St.Lawrence is that they can burn coal because for the issues of noxs submission to avoid ozone creation in the operation of the cement kiln coal is as clean as gas is simply untrue. Technology exists in place. Gas fired plants operate which have as same or lower levels of nitrogen oxide production as proposed here.

Similarly, in regards to volatile organic chemicals SLC has fraudulently misrepresented the facts about the available technology to reduce volatile organic chemicals to the low achievement limits as required by law. They hide the fact that such technology is currently in place in its own plants elsewhere in the country and can reduce the volatile organics by at least 50%. Again, that was not brought forward to the department.

In order to get this air permit as currently written the Applicant must provide emissions offsets, also knowns as emissions reduction credits. It is required as a matter of law that those emissions reduction credits be identified at the time the permit is issued. Those credits have not been identified. And as written, despite the proto stations of the Catskill plant will be turned down, the plant that will close down, the plant can legally operate at the same time as this kiln in Catskill leaves the real possibility that both plants will still be operating. As a matter of law, the ERC's must be identified now, and in filing and identifying the ERC's an extensive filing is required to demonstrate compliance of the Catskill plant, the actual emissions and a demonstration of what the effects will be.

Also, in regard to air, there is no requirements in there in terms of fugitive dust controls from both the plant operation, the stockpiles, and most importantly from the mine operations. What is provided is completely conclusionary and technically insufficient basis to control the fugitive emissions and the particulate matter that will come forward.

The air analysis itself is also probably significantly skewed by the fact that St. Lawrence has not used the meterlogical tower data which it itself constructed almost 2 years in Greenport. The Clean Air Act requires for a major new source undergoing review one year of localized air data be used to determine the actual local conditions. For reasons which are inexplicable to us, the EPA has apparently granted a waiver to allow St. Lawrence to use meterlogical data from Albany Airport, which is in a different geographical location, different wind conditions, and is not as accurate as this. When the data does exist, although it has not been provided either to the State or to the public, it is in excusable. And the fact that the EPA has granted a waiver is no excuse for the department to avoid the hard look and hold the stricter standards required to require the production of this localized data to assure that the air impact will not be significant.

The mining permit -- there is virtually no SEQR analysis in the permit, in the EIS, or in the permit regarding the expanded operations of the mine. Although the mine itself preexists this application, St. Lawrence proposes to increase the rate of extraction from that mine by three times, increasing the amount of blasting, and air emissions and associated impacts from that.

As recently as a few weeks ago St. Lawrence undertook some blast tests and put sensors in the area to determine the impacts from their increased blasting operations. Again, for unknown reasons, those were not included in the EIS. They have not been made available. The Department staff has recognized that this should be an issue for SEQR analysis, and have disagreed with St. Lawrence that the SEQR -- the Environmental Impact Statements of the mining are relevant. However, while the department staff disagrees, they did not require St. Lawrence Cement to provide this information that is required. Instead they simply bowed to St. Lawrence's aggressive tactics and said well if you don't think it has to be there we won't require that analysis. That is wrong. This is the department's document. This is a State document to assess the impacts, and it is not the Applicant's document. And it requires an independent analysis by this department of those impacts.

And this goes to one of the most fundamental flaws of the whole document, the alternatives analysis in which EIS elicits alternatives. All the alternatives studied by St. Lawrence are completely conclusionary. They don't honestly look at issues of alternative sites, alternative technologies, and alternative sizes of the plant.

When we're talking about the issues of the Hudson Valley, they are -- of course industrial uses are a current use in the Hudson Valley. And they have cited in the cement industry in the area south of Catskill. There has not been a cement plant on the eastern shore of the Hudson for more than a quarter of a century. There's never been anything of this size that is going to be looming over the landscape changing the fundamental nature of the visual and community character of this important area of the Hudson.

The Department must carefully look at and have it be proven to them that an alternative such as the Catskill site, and the lower size with the best technology, is the one to be done.

And on a final point, despite the statements that this will on a per run basis possibly cleaner than the Catskill plant, that begs the question. The only reason the Catskill plant has been allowed to operate at its current levels is because it was grandfathered under the Clean Air Act under the presumption that it would become obsolete and would have to be replaced and have to be rebuilt.

So what they are giving us simply is nothing more than they should have given us 25 years ago. And this is no better. They had to replace it any way. It was obsolete and needed cleaner technology. And this doesn't satisfy the obligation.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mr. Jung, and after him Ruth Piwonka.

PETER JUNG: Good afternoon, Judge Goldberger. My name is Peter Jung. I serve on the Board of Director of Friends of Hudson and also I'm one of the trustees at Olana State Historic Site.

First off, I'd like to thank you, Judge Goldberger, for your very fair and sensible decision to extend the filing date for party status. There's a lot of interest in this project. (Applause). There are an awful lot of parties who want to be at the table. And I can speak on behalf of all the parties and say we were not looking just for a little bit of delay. We were looking for an opportunity to give you our best presentation. So thanks very much.

St. Lawrence would like very much for you not to take a good look at the mining aspects. If you look at the mining and geology Section 8.3.1, you will see that. They are asking for a permit to extract 3 to 4 times the material that was extracted in the hay day of the cement industry between 1950 and 1975.

I happen to live on Rossman Avenue. Rossman Avenue is the rather steep hill that goes up from the hospital. There is a current blasting activity by Colarussa, a gravel mining operation. That firm blasts approximately twice a week. Those of us on the hill have our houses rocked every time they blast. The hospital shakes when they blast. And St. Lawrence is asking for a permit to extract 3 to 4 times as much material.

Now, I think that its an absolutely outrageous proposition that we should expect our hospital to be shaken 10 to 12 times a month for the next 50 years. (Applause).

If you look in the mining application, Judge Goldberger, you will find that St. Lawrence is desperate to not have those extraction rates looked at. They continuously say oh, its grandfathered, its a done deal. We don't want to talk about it. It doesn't come under SEQR. They don't want you to take a good look at that mining application, and I am asking you to do it on behalf of the citizens.

It is my understanding, Judge Goldberger, that you will be making a site visit as part of your review of this project.

If you do, I would encourage you to forget the rhetoric. Don't listen to their glorious and rosy economic predictions but rather go across the river and visit the place where the cement industry is already in existence. Take a look at the plants. Take a look at the communities that are next to the plants, and better yet, take a look at the 3 abandon plants that the industry has stuck us with. We have Lone Star. We have Atlas, and we have the old Alston Plant all within 5 miles of where we're standing now. The industry has walked away from the mess and left them standing for decades. I think that speaks -- that reality and that history has a lot more weight than the fantasies and the romantic predictions that St. Lawrence is offering you. Look at the real evidence.

One more issue, and I then will give the mike to the next speaker. One of the aspects of this proposition that has not received a lot of scrutiny is the dust dump on the other side of the river. The cement making process generates what is called CKD, cement kiln dust. St. Lawrence is proposing to load it up, truck it across the Rip Van Winkle Bridge, and take it down Route 9W and dump it on their old site. The Hudson was declared a National Heritage River by the President of the United States sometime in the last couple years. I would suggest, Judge Goldberger, that there's a higher purpose for the banks of the Hudson River than to use it as a dust dump for a Canadian cement company.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Ruth Piwonka. Christine Callander.

RUTH PIWONKA: Can I ask a question? I would be able to give sworn testimony later if I give something today? Can I give sworn testimony later if I give something today.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: No. You have one opportunity to speak today; either this afternoon or this evening. That's your choice.

RUTH PIWONKA: But if I want to give sworn testimony I should or should not speak.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: This isn't sworn testimony. This is a public hearing. You're just provide comment.

RUTH PIWONKA: Okay. I have comments. Thank you.

My name is Ruth Riwonka. I have lived in Kinderhook, New York for 32 years, and I'm a historian with extensive experience in the history of Columbia County, and particularly the Colonial Dutch era in the Hudson Valley. I have complied several national register nominations for properties identified in the Applicant's Environmental Impact Statement and I have also conducted some specialized architectural studies in the area.

I represent Clover Reach, a nonprofit historic preservation organization, whose purpose is to preserve and enhance Claverack's heritage, charm and vitality. The organization has been active in numerous educational, zoning, planning and siting issues; and it has organized historic house tours, receptions, and has nominated Claverack historic properties to the national register of historic places.

Construction and operation of the proposed cement facility will create significant adverse impacts on the communities of Hudson, Greenport, Athens and Claverack, and likely communities beyond these towns as well which are unique places with prehistoric, historic and aesthetic values that dominate their community character.

I'm extremely concerned with the level of accuracy and quality of historic representation given in Chapters 6 and 7 of the current Draft EIS. For example, a figure, a map, in the draft EIS and referred to in its text is entitled Historic Resources of Greenport Study Area, but the map shown will depict not the Greenport Study Area, but the Hudson River community of Germantown and Cementon.

I wish to communicate a message I received recently from an associate, Roger Kennedy, who is a long time New York resident but now retired and living in New Mexico. In recently decades he has been the Director of the Smithsonian, American Museum of American History, and Director of the National Park Service. He is the author of several important books on American Architecture. And the Hudson Valley, and particularly Hudson, Claverack and Athens play an important part in some of his studies. He was also the author of "Rediscovering American" and an editor of a series of books under that title, and the originator and host of the television series also of the same title. When I told him about the proposed cement plant he was very concerned about our area, and sent the following statement which focuses on the (unintelligible) in our region's landscape.

Nobody but a person foreign to American history and indifferent to American values would build a cement plant on the shore of the nation's most culturally important river smack where it would be most offensive. The view from Olana is important. That is why better I than most of ours, that of Mr. Church picked that place. Only appalling arrogance would think of supervening his aesthetic sense and his reverence for the natural wonders of the Hudson. This isn't a matter of interest only to New Yorkers. Those of us who live in the west are as proud of the view from Olana as we are proud of the view from the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Bring forth the tar and feathers that no public official who would connive in such a desecration escape the people's rath.

Needless to say, Clover Reach and myself oppose the construction and operation of this facility.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Christine Callander and then Sam Pratt.

CHRISTINE CALLANDER: Hello, my name is Christine Callander, and I would probably rather (unintelligible) my whole body than public speak. But I just felt it was so important to come out today. I didn't prepare anything, but I just wanted to sort of be here and sort of maybe bring a different point of view.

I'm a local bumpkin. I'm married to Fred Callander, who was born in the Hudson Hospital, and has a garden center in Chatham. He employees about 35 to 40 people.

And if you ask a lot of business owners in Columbia County, they will tell you that there really does seem to be more jobs than there are people to fill the jobs. So -- (applause) we unfortunately have to go outside the county to get employees sometimes, which is sad. I always try to shop in Columbia County, stay in Columbia County.

But I do understand that in a community it can only be viable if new business is constantly starting up, if there is new interest, new business to keep a community healthy financially. But one really has to consider what that business is and what that business does for or against the community.

Gravel mines. I know there's going to be a lot of red shirt people that would not agree with me here, but I love gravel mines. I think they're organic. I don't care if there's a gravel mine next door to my house. It is dust. So there's a little dust on your coffee table, you know. But its a very necessary product. We need it. So, I'm for the type of business in the communities, and that is something that we have to have.

What confuses me, is we are also a little skeptical of outsiders in the community, but at the same time when a company like St. Lawrence, which is not local, its Canadian owned by a Swiss company, who by the way the Swiss would not allow this kind of plant in their country. I know. I worked for Ursula of Switzerland, if any of you have ever heard of her. She's Swiss, and she has told me that. But they also employed -- G.E. did this too by the way -- a very slick New York City advertising agency to manipulate us into believing that they will clean the air. While I commend St. Lawrence for picking a brownfield, a place that has already been desecrated by a cement company, which you know, was viable in its time but then sort of left everything you know there sort of like dead dinosaurs. And I do believe that this plant will be a little cleaner than the other plant. You are not cleaning the air; this is still a cement plant. This is not an air purification plant.

That is about all I have to say. I mean I just wanted to throw it out there. I love Columbia County. And I love the people of Columbia County. I love the blue shirts as well as the red shirts.

So I hope we can all come together on this.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sam Pratt and then Tim Dunleavy.

SAM PRATT: Good afternoon, Judge Goldberger. My name is Sam Pratt. I'm the Director of Friends of Hudson.

Friends of Hudson is a 2100 member dues paying membership organization based here in Hudson. We have also gathered, and I will present to you in a minute, over 5600 signatures against this project. And we will continue to do so until it is stopped. (Applause).

3 minutes isn't a lot of time, and I could go on forever. Let me just hit some high points.

First of all, Friends of Hudson does sympathize, and we have many people in our group who want higher wage jobs, better jobs, more jobs in this county. However, if you read St. Lawrence's own application, you will find that this is not a job creation project. It is explicitly stated in there over, and over, and over again, in direct contradiction of the radio, television, print ads, and direct mailings that St. Lawrence has been polluting the air waves of our county with at a rate of about $25,000 a month or more for the past few months.

Let me cite a few of their own words in their own application, if you will bear with me. Section 3.4.2 page 3-15. "The proposed project would result in little net change to SLC employment". Why is that? Because they are transferring the workers from another plant. Their own words; "little net change" to their own employment.

Section 3.4.2 page 3-15. Again, talking about the spending in the region. We've heard a lot about all this giant spin off we're going to get from their investing in our community; here's what St. Lawrence says. "In total there is no new net spending in the regional economy in the future". That is their own words, folks. The guys sitting right here in their application are telling the state that they're not going to be spending more money. Why? Because they have one plant; they're closing it, and they are starting another plant, much bigger plant, by the way. But not with more workers.

Section 3.4.4 page 3-18. "There will be no appreciable change in the workforce necessary to accommodate the new facility". If you look at their numbers they now have 154 people working between Greenport and Catskill. If they shut down Catskill, apart from the dump operation, and open Greenport, the 2 facilities combined will be 155. 154 now; 155 after. One job. All this controversy over one measly job. Its insane folks. One job. Its their numbers. If you're laughing, sir, ask St. Lawrence Cement because these are their own statements.

Clearly however, most of our members concern is about the health of the community, about the air pollution. And again, contrary to their ad campaign, if you look in the air permit application there is more pollution in total coming out of this plant on an annual basis. It is in their own numbers.

According to their baseline for Catskill right now they're putting out just short of 16 million pounds per year of pollution, regulated pollutants that is. According to the new application, they'll be putting out just short of 20 million. That's a 24% increase. It is dirtier by their own numbers. And if you go through the specific pollutants as the speaker before me did you will find huge increases in some cases from an allegedly state of the art plant putting out 2.1 times more PM 10, over 12 times more carbon monoxide. These are their own numbers. If you doubt me go to the application. It is in there.

My final point; I'll try to wrap it up. The track record of this company; others have mentioned it. I'm about to present to you, Judge Goldberger, a copy of our 25 page report stack test which just came out this week. It is a comprehensive look at every St. Lawrence Cement and Holman Plant that we could find information in the public record on over the past 10 years in North America. And what you will find is that at plant, after plant, after plant, this company has been fined for polluting air, for polluting the water, for price fixing, and for resisting regulators efforts to police their plants. This is not Green Peace talking. This is not some Mooney leftist organization. This is the EPA, this is the Iowa D & R, this is Mississauga elected officials. It goes on, and on, and on. I want you as we listen to both pro and con, and I do hope that people will listen respectfully to each other as they have so far. We have to remember that when St. Lawrence is talking, it is like a criminal testifying in a courtroom. You need to know who is making these claims. They have been fined. It is on the record. It is indisputable, and I will give you the evidence in just a second.

I'd like to highlight one very interesting case, speaking of their track record. In 1996, DEC, the attorney's name I will give you in a second. Acting General Counsel DEC Frank Bifera issued a declaratory ruling regarding the Catskill plant, then going under the name ICC, but owned by St. Lawrence. What St. Lawrence was doing in Catskill, and a guy named Charles Klotz, was representing them. Who I don't know if he still works for Catskill, but he was until recently I guess. He was -- Mr. Klotz on behalf of the Catskill plant threatened DEC with a class action lawsuit. Why? They wanted the Catskill plant to be exempted from required compliance fees you have to pay in as a polluter under federal law. And they said to DEC if you don't let us out of these fees we are going to bring a class action lawsuit, along with other polluters in the valley. DEC roundly rejected this. I will give you Mr. Bifera's memorandum. There is also a preliminary ruling by Judge O'Connor, I believe it was. St. Lawrence Cement is a bad actor, and we don't need them here in Columbia County.

I'm very glad that we have people like Jeff Baker, like one of the largest engineering firms on the East Coast, Camp, Dresser & McKee, and others who can bring the very technical legal arguments on our group's behalf over the coming weeks. But I appreciate the chance to talk from our my heart, and I look forward to hearing all the rest of your comments.

So, let me bring up the petitions, and the stack test report, and Mr. Bifera's memorandum. And thank you again. (Applause).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Mr. Dunleavy, Robert Richardson.

TIM DUNLEAVY: Good afternoon, Judge Goldberger. I'm Timothy Dunleavy, the President of Historic Hudson, a Non-for-Profit organization founded in 1996 by people who live and work in the City of Hudson and value its unique architecture and history.

In their Draft Environmental Impact Statement St. Lawrence describes the City of Hudson in the following way: The City of Hudson is a small river front city. Hudson contains commercial, industrial and residential areas in addition to a developed industrial waterfront which includes the SLC dock. The city center contains a mix of building 3 to 4 stories it height, many of which are Greek Revival or Federal style. They are largely well kept and many contain active street level antiques stores that the downtown is known for. The older residential structures in this area are mostly 1 to 3 story row houses, duplexes and single family houses. Several colonial and gothic buildings are located in the central Business District near the court house.

This is a very inadequate description of the City of Hudson and its rich architectural heritage. Architectural historians have called Hudson the finest dictionary of architectural history in New York State. Within this small river front city there are 2 state and national registered historic districts, the Hudson Historic District which encompasses most of the city from the water front to Worth Avenue and from Warren Street to the south, and the Rossman-Prospect Avenue Historic District, which is located less than a mile from the major part of this project, the proposed cement manufacturing plant.

More than 720 buildings in Hudson are contributing structures to these historic districts. In addition, there are 5 properties listed for individual significance. Promenade Hill, one of first public spaces set aside in 1875 for the enjoyment of scenic views; the C.H. Evans House on Warren Street, the post office, the Elisha Williams house on Aitken Avenue and the Plumb-Bronson House on the grounds of the Hudson Correctional Facility. The Plumb-Bronson house it should be noted is not only individually listed on the national register of historic places, but it is also being nominated as a national historic landmark for its association with prominent 19 century picturesque design, the architect Alexander Jackson Davis.

In addition to these 5 properties there are more than a dozen other residential and public buildings in Hudson that are eligible for individual listing in the state and the national registers of historic places. Architecturally Hudson is a rare and precious gem, which has in the past suffered abuse and neglect but is now experiencing a vital and exciting rebirth and restoration which began more than a decade ago.

The proposed St. Lawrence plant constitutes a clear threat to the unique and irreplaceable resources of our city. The siting of the facility of such enormous scale, the cement manufacturing plant alone will occupy a site 20% larger than all of Hudson in such a vulnerable location that will have serious and detrimental impact on the historic properties of Hudson. Our concerns include the physical degradation of historic structures from pollution and from the vibration caused by blasting, and increased truck traffic, the conveyor belt, the cranes on the water front. It must be noted that much of Hudson is situated on Clay Hill, and many of Hudson's historic structures were built on hillsides a top this Clay Hill.

It should also be noted that the majority of Hudson's historic structures are constructed of brick, which makes them particularly vulnerable to damage from ground and air borne vibration. The degradation of viewshed and the city's historic context, negative impact on continuing reclamation and restoration of buildings.

Never has a plant of this magnitude been sited in such close proximity to residential areas of a population center, and never has such a plant been sited in an area of such great national historic significance.

The Hudson River Valley, especially the City of Hudson and its environment, is one of America's most hallowed places. Last fall our National Trust for Historic Preservation designated the Hudson River Valley as one of the 11 most endangered historic places in the nation, and specifically cited the proposed St. Lawrence Cement Plant as one of the primary threats to the well-being of our region.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement provides no credible assurance that the impact of the proposed plant on our city, its historic resources, and our quality of live will be minimum or benign.

Thank you.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Mr. Richardson Jo Bredwell.

ROBERT RICHARDSON: Judge Goldberger, my name is Robert Richardson. I first moved into this county with my parents in 1955. I graduated from Lo/Jan in 1957. I have left the county, and I came back. I have lived about 35 years in the county all total.

I'm concerned. I'm against the plant because of the kind of pollution that other more expert people are able to speak to; that is the pollution of the physical environment.

I'm also concerned with the pollution of the social environment. We have been deluged with ads in various media by St. Lawrence telling us that the new plant will give us cleaner air, and more jobs, and so on. Nothing in the Environmental Impact Statement justifies those claims. In fact most of the information contradicts those claims. But apparently St. Lawrence Cement is willing to say just about anything to get what it wants. (Applause).

And this is an ad from the Hudson Valley Environmental Economic Coalition. Its down in the middle of the text. Maybe some of you have seen this. "The new replacement cement plant will result in cleaner air for our families to breathe. 324 new good paying jobs every year, adding 20 million dollars each year to local family incomes, and a yearly boost of 48 million dollars to the county's economy. Unfortunately a group of millionaires from New York City want to deny us good jobs, higher family incomes and cleaner air. They are more interested in keeping parts of Columbia County a playground for the social elite than they are in helping the hard working families to live here". I'm against the plant, and I deeply, deeply resent being called a New Yorker. I have lived in this county; you can ask my wife, you can ask my kids, if they were still alive you could even ask my parents. My father drove a forklift truck in the Canada Dry plant that is now rubble. My mother worked at one point at the training school for girl's that is now the Hudson Correctional Facility. When I moved back to the county with my wife and children, it was a little bit like stepping off an economic cliff. There were no decent jobs for me because I happen to have gone to school and become a fairly specialized kind of person. I have since lived my life as a professional writer, a teacher, and an editor. So I recognize this kind of attempt to mislead without actually lying in some actionable way.

If this is the way St. Lawrence behaves now why should I trust them in the future to alert me to any of their mistakes.

Thank you. (Applause).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Ms Bredwell, Seain Pinkowski.

JO BREDWELL: My name is Jo Bredwell, and I am not a millionaire from New York. I have been a resident of Hudson, New York for the past 16 years, and I thank you, Judge Goldberger, for the opportunity to speak today.

At the Hudson Planning Board meeting on June 13, just a few weeks ago, a very disturbing discussion took place. It concerned the uses of the waterfront for events such as the Flag Day celebration that we all recently enjoyed here in Hudson. The Planning Board is now coming to grips with the fact that the proposed St. Lawrence cement plant throws into question our community's use of our own waterfront.

You should know, Judge, that our waterfront is one of the few places on the Hudson with land west of the railroad tracks offering direct access to the river. For years this area was dominated by industry forcing recreational activities inland off the river. The City of Hudson has aggressively begun to reclaim access to that waterfront, but there is a problem. We want to be there the very seasons that will be the most active for SLC. How can we gather in an area that is in almost constant use with the noise, barge traffic and industrial activity that would be all around us? What good is a park that no one can use.

Our planners have a suggestion. Perhaps, they said, they can ask St. Lawrence to give us some industry free days. Perhaps we can talk St. Lawrence into maybe 25 days a year when they will stop their operations so that we can use our waterfront. Now when asked previously about giving our city occasional industry free access to our dock area, St. Lawrence has committed only to taking it under consideration. So if we lived in a complete fantasy world perhaps SLC would volunteer to stop their operations for a few days a year. But shame on us for even thinking of giving up the right to quiet days in the sun, to bathe on the water, to days when we can gather together.

It strikes me that both the City of Hudson and SLC by even entertaining this notion are both acknowledging something that I believe to be very obvious. They are tacitly admitting that the proposed plant will seriously impact our lives. They are giving voice to the idea we cannot coexist with the plant SLC would like to build.

In an area where cement plants were indeed once part of the landscape, but gone for a complete generation, we are talking about a massive industrial installation featuring untested technology, engulfing a densely populated area of great scenic beauty. This is a monstrous dirty experiment that will create a community of slaves to its design. This plant would require us to beg for a day off from its constant assault on all of our senses, so we can have a parade, so we can play on the river. Surely there are better places in the world to build such a huge enterprise, or maybe there is a way to scale down these plans so that SLC becomes one part of our community. Instead, if they have their way, we are being annexed to SLC and they will decide what every day in Hudson sounds and feels like.

I urge you, Judge, to allow us a town that does not need the permission of a cement plant to enjoy our own parade grounds. Building this plant may somehow be legal, but it surely would be a crime.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Seain Pinkowski and then Warner Johnson.

SEAIN PINKOWSKI: Good afternoon. I would like to speak as a resident of this county where I was born here, and raised here, raising a family, and continue to raise a family in this county.

I'm in 100% full support of St. Lawrence Cement. You may ask why that I support the plant. My reason for supporting this plant is not just because it is a cement plant, but I would be in support of any multi million dollar business or corporation that would want to come to this county where my heritage has been imbedded in the earth of Columbia County. We are here to speak on the issue, though many of us are not scientists, engineers or other expert technologists. I truly believe is SLC is here to make money like any other business. I also truly believe their statements are to be correct when they say that air quality and emissions will be better in this county.

You will hear lots of opposition through the day about air quality emissions of the plant. Can we truly speak on these issues with technical opinion or degree? No. I believe the reason we are here today is because of groups and organizations that carry the names that are supposedly to protect our planet.

Let's take a moment to think about these groups that say no to any business or corporation that wants to build in this country. They come up with a small excuse to have something built in their backyard or neighborhood. Well, whose neighborhood will it be if it is not ours? You read in the papers, and see on the news, and has become a daily basis for these groups to fight every business. Where will these groups like my family, who do shopping, by lumber, cement, on a daily basis that we need in other lives. I will sit in my backyard, the place where I will raise my children, then to be grandchildren in years to come. And also I can believe that business and industry can also be here too. New York City is a prime example of combination family and industry.

The way I see it if SLC meets all the criteria by the State of New York and the federal government they should be allowed to build like any other business. This is why the laws were set up.

There was also a statement made about putting our mouths on the tailpipe. I understand that statement. But also that statement can be back and saying you don't mind driving that vehicle. You don't need your mouth on the tail pipe.

There's been talk about children. Do a lot of us have children here? Yes and no. We have talked about jobs. In this county most of them, vast majority of them, at minimal wage or slightly above. How do you expect to raise 2, 3, 4 kids on those jobs? And it doesn't matter where this business is owned or located, as long as they meet all criteria for this state and the country, it shouldn't matter where the money is.

Thank you very much for your time. (Applause).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Mr. Johnson Ned Sullivan.

WARNER JOHNSON: Good afternoon everyone. About a week ago I attended a meeting at State Street AME Zion Church about the plant and the benefits of the plant. And ostensibly this was addressed to the African American community. And I wanted to learn about the details of what was being constructed in the community and the benefits that it would have for the African American community. So the first question I asked the officials are what are the benefits to the African American community the response was an increase in property taxes. And then I asked why move a plant from a rural area and put it in a major metropolitan area? The response was because it was approved. Okay. Insulting my intelligence. Then I asked a question what about the doctors' report; most of the doctors, the vast majority, opposed this. No comments.

And then I asked about what about the increase in truck traffic in the area and the pollution that it is going to cause, and the response was no comment.

And then the thing that really got me because it was something I wanted to give the slight benefit of the doubt. How many new jobs are there? 17. I said you've got to be kidding. 17 jobs. If you count the chairs in this row there's probably 30. We are talking about building a plant in the middle of a major metropolitan area, that has a high number of African Americans who have a strong propensity toward asthma? I think that is outrageous.

I want to hear something. A very personal story for me. I grew up in an asthmatic household. My brother has asthma. When friends call me late at night I answer the phone on the first ring because I'm used to my mother waiting for the doctor to call. I spent not one Thanksgiving but 2 Thanksgivings in the hospital while my brother was in the oxygen tank fighting for his life.

2. I also at the age of 19 I received a phone call from my mother saying please go to church; your brother has less than a 50% chance of surviving.

I am furious that a plant will be considered in an area that is going to cause major damage from a health standpoint. This is a threat to the well-being of the citizens here, and especially the African American community. And I'm not going to tolerate it.

So what am I going to do? The first thing I'm going to do is contact the NAACP and the National Urban League. And I plan to seek a racial bias suit. I have to find out the details about the Camden, New Jersey situation; but this will be a racial bias suit. Okay. That is the first strategy.

The second strategy is I'm going to buy shares in the company so at the next Board meeting I can speak. And I'm encouraging other African Americans to do the same thing. If there's 300 million in value here maybe I can erase 300 million in market cap.

The third thing I am going to do is organize protests. Going to this Swiss Embassy. I'm going to seek private funding to get members of the African American community to protest in front of the Swiss authorities about building a plant in this area.

Your honor, I'm absolutely outraged and furious about this. I want the plant stopped now.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Mr. Sullivan, Thomas Kuolos.

NED SULLIVAN: Good afternoon, Judge Goldberger and other members of the community. I'm Ned Sullivan, President of Scenic Hudson Inc. I would like to join with others who thanked you for extending the filing dateline for seeking party status, and all those today who are listening respectfully to all the speakers.

For over 37 years Scenic Hudson has been a consistent and vocal advocate of the scenic, historic, and cultural resources of the Hudson Valley. We are also very concerned about jobs. We are committed to supporting economic development activities that will build on the fabric of the region and that will preserve the historic and cultural setting that makes this an attractive place to live and work.

We are committed to and actively involved in working with citizens, unions, businesses, people in local and county and State officials to identify economic engines that will enable the Hudson Valley to thrive, and that will enable the people to work in their communities in good paying jobs.

But the St. Lawrence Cement project is not a project that meets those criteria. During the last 37 years Scenic Hudson has investigated significantly to the preserve the very scenic and historic treasures which are threatened by this project. In fact, in a landmark class which protected the Olana viewshed and designated it for protection was a fight by Scenic Hudson and others to prevent a nuclear power plant from being built across the river in Cementon.

Over the past 15 years our preservation program, our land preservation program, has worked long and hard to preserve the Olana viewshed. We've worked closely with the State and the Olana Partnership, and we have purchased over 600 acres of conservation easements in the viewshed of Olana.

In addition, we are working with the National Audubon Society, and we have preserved 480 acres of the RamsHorn-Livingston Sanctuary, the largest title swamp forest in the valley, which also lies in Olana's magnificent view.

Recently, Scenic Hudson has purchased conservation easements on 2000 acres of farmland here in Columbia County. These are active farms where farmers will be able to continue to till the soil in this important agriculture belt of the State.

As others have noted, last year the National Trust for Historic Preservation designated the valley as one of the 11 most endangered historic areas in the country. This designation was based not only on the historic and extraordinary assets the region, but also on the industrial projects such as the St. Lawrence Cement project that would threaten it. As others again have noted, the valley has been designated a National Heritage area, and the Hudson River an American Heritage River. And these distinctions were earned because of the extraordinary beauty, the ecological resources that are here, and because of the people that are here to care about them.

The area lies within the Catskill Olana Scenic Area of Statewide Significance celebrated by some of our most renown artists from the Hudson River School of Painters. And as the State Scenic designation reminds us Olana itself and the surrounding landscape remain a living expression of the subject that preoccupied mid 19 century nationalist artists and writers, the intricate relationship between man and the natural world.

Scenic Hudson has also been a strong advocate for the environment of the region, and we find unfortunately the advocates Draft Environmental Impact Statement gives short shrift to the importance of these resources and their contribution to the area's economy. At its proposed scale the St. Lawrence Cement plant will have physical dominance over the landscape, and over the people of this region. Because of the visual impact associated with the massive size, its 400 foot 40 story stacks, and 6 and a half mile plume that will be visible for significant portions of winter months and other periods of the year, the project would mar the landscape and detract significantly from the humane nature of this area in Greenport, Claverack, the City of Hudson and other places. It would be visible from the river, visible from Olana's Cozy Cottage, North Meadow, and it will replace the steeples in the City of Hudson as the major landmarks that dominant the landscape.

The DEIS is also inadequate in its analysis of noise, traffic and air quality impact. As projected the air emissions will be significant totaling nearly 20 million pounds of pollutants per year. These impacts have not been thoroughly characterized -- the health impacts on the people of the City of Hudson, and Claverack, and other areas, and down wind states, and the Berkshires, the impacts have not been analyzed carefully and mitigation measures have not been proposed. They could possible alter these impacts.

I'm not going to elaborate on these today, but we will be submitting detailed comments during the SEQR process and we are filing for party status.

As I said earlier, Scenic Hudson is committed to working with citizens, unions, businesses, people, local and county and State officials to identify economic activities that will enable the Hudson Valley to thrive without damaging the people here.

Once again, the St. Lawrence project does not meet these criteria. We opposed the project as proposed by St. Lawrence. We will be applying for party status as part of a coalition of local, regional and historic preservation and national environment organizations.

While we note St. Lawrence Cement has made attempts to mitigate some of the impacts of the project, in the final analysis we strongly hope you will conclude that this massive industrial facility is ill-suited to this area, that it will have adverse environmental impact, and will not meet the permitting requirements and requirements under SEQR, and it should not be permitted.

Thank you very much.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Mr. Koulos, Margaret Ayers.

THOMAS KUOLOS: Thank you, Your Honor. It is indeed fortunate we live in the United States of America where we are given the opportunity to protect our points of view as different as they may be. If you recall we first of all should consider ourselves Americans; not Africans, not Greeks, not any different nationalities or religious (unintelligible) who are trying to take advantage of you. (Applause).

The reason I'm here today is because during the crash my father was in New York City. And during that time people were jumping out windows because the economy went sour. Fortunately he moved us to Hudson. Fortunately in Hudson 4 brothers grew up here. One has passed away recently. But it didn't enter any of our minds to fight anyone who was coming in to create job opportunities for the buildings, for the roads, for the building that we are in right now.

Your Honor, you couldn't cross the bridge if we didn't have cement to put in the concrete. There are so many things that we are talking about here that have relevance and the interdependence of each one of these. And its unfortunate that we took the route of creating fear in order to stop a project that is (unintelligible) to our neighborhood.

Now, I'm sure, Your Honor, that you are going to be diligent and paying attention to what the experts say, which we are not. I'm not. But I am concerned as a parent, as a grandparent, recently had a baby grand daughter, and I'd like to see everybody here -- what are the alternatives? Where are you going to house the people you want to bring into public housing or whatever kind of housing that doesn't require cement and concrete? I want to know how you are going to build any kind of facility, whether its IBM or whatever, if you don't have cement in order to produce it.

Now jobs. Very technical. My son is an ironworker. He lives in Saratoga. He travels all over like the other people who are in the iron working business. How many people in this region are dependent on cement? The construction workers, the people who have a vision to make America a better place to live and work. And, Your Honor, this is what this is all basically about. When these people come in and they give you the differences between one idea and another, how do we work together? Instead of you're no good, I'm no good, we go back and forth accusing one another of things we don't know what we're talking about in the overall scheme.

Today we're not a planet that is just in a City of Hudson or Greenport, we're an international market where there's competition across the spectrum on everything you can conceive of. And human beings are tremendous at coming up with ideas to capitalize on their talents as diversified as they are, whether it be a school teacher or whatever the heck it is.

So, with that I'll leave you in mind why doesn't the community come together with some sound practical ways in order to accommodate something that is going to benefit the whole Hudson River Valley and beyond.

Thank you ever so much, Your Honor. I thank you for listening to me, and you have a good trip home. Its been a hot day.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: After Ms. Ayers, Irma Brownfield.

MARGARET AYERS: Thank you, Your Honor.

Good afternoon. I'm Peggie Ayers. I'm a resident of Claverack, and I am a member of Concerned Women of Claverack. I also work for a charitable foundation, the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation that has worked for more than 20 years on solid waste management issues on trying to help alleviate pollution in the Hudson River and for helping to create solid waste management plans that the city and state are held by in terms of controlling various kinds of solid waste disposal.

I have now gone through all 1200 -- all 17 chapters of this DEIS, and after reviewing the plans to build a plant in the Town of Greenport one can really only conclude the DEIS is incomplete in the following ways: One. The DEIS does not deal with the potential for burning garbage and hazardous wastes. While St. Lawrence Cement has not applied for a permit to burn hazardous waste in the Greenport facility, I feel certain it will do so. Research has revealed that St. Lawrence Cement is one of two North American subsidiaries of the Swiss Company Holderbank. The two cement subsidiaries, Holnam and St. Lawrence Cement, operate 17 cement plants in North America, 13 of which either burn hazardous waste and/or tire-derived fuels, or they have filed for permit applications to do so.

St. Lawrence Cement officials claim they have no intention of burning garbage or hazardous waste at the Greenport facility, but they refused most recently at the hearing of the Greenport Planning Board to agree to a deed restriction to ensure such an outcome. In addition to their track record of burning garbage and hazardous wastes at other facilities, and their unwillingness to exclude the use of hazardous waste as a fuel at the proposed Greenport facility in future permit applications, St. Lawrence Cement plans to build a plant that structurally could burn hazardous waste. Moreover, SLC's proposed use of coal as a fuel in its cement operation would be compatible with burning hazardous waste in proposed plants. In contrast, if SLC were required to use natural gas, a cleaner fuel, it could not burn hazardous waste because the temperatures would not rise to the height that would be required to do so. All this leads me to conclude that SLC hopes to burn hazardous waste in the future, and I believe that the Department of Environmental Conservation would be neglecting its responsibilities to protect the people of Hudson, Greenport and Claverack, and the rest of Columbia County if it doesn't take these factors into consideration in its review of SLC's plant.

2. The DEIS does not deal with the cumulative impact of existing and proposed industrial facilities of the region when considering the various impacts of the SLC facility.

3. The DEIS does not use the measure used by the Environmental Protection Agency when calculating noise impacts.

4. The DEIS does not deal with the impact of blasting on the Hudson water supply or the aquifers underlying Greenport, even though they were requested some 15 months ago to do so by the attorneys for the Greenport Planning Board.

5. The appendix on visual impacts is highly misleading. The photographs are so fuzzy as to be meaningless.

6. The DEIS does not adequately deal with the subject of fugitive emissions, that is the dust and particulates, resulting from blasting, crushing, grinding, truck traffic in and around the quarry, and barge loading at the proposed docks.

7. While the DEIS deals with the proposed plant impacts on Hudson and Greenport, hardly a word is mentioned about the historic hamlet of Claverack, which is located less than a mile and a half from the proposed mining operation and plant just over the Greenport line. One DEC official admitted that the visual and pollution impact on Claverack could not be mitigated. The DEIS simply ignores the issue.

8. The DEIS does not deal with region-wide impacts of the proposed project. With a 1200 acre mine, a 400 foot stack, and we are also talking about 400 foot stack, but remember a large portion of this part of this plant is 373 feet high, just 20 feet short of that. This is not just a stack; this is a 40 acre facility. Its just incomprehensible.

Moreover, by moving the site to the quarry you now have the base of the plant located at a height of 300 foot above the level of river, which would mean that the top of the plant would be 700 feet above the top of the river. This plant will be visible for 50 miles around up and down that river from the Taconic state overlook, by SLC's own -- they have a list in their DEIS, one of the appendices. You will you able to see this from the horse farm down in Clarmont. You will be able to see this from everywhere.

This project is too large and inappropriate for a rural historic scenic area and too dangerous to be built in a ce