Facility Siting Board: 'Proposed RMU-2 is not otherwise necessary or in the public interest'

On Monday, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation shared the decision rendered in the matter of an application for a Certificate of Environmental Safety and Public Necessity pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 377 (Siting of Industrial Hazardous Waste Facilities) by CWM Chemical Services, LLC.

The 53-page document states, “The Siting Board has reviewed the remaining exceptions and argument of the parties related to whether the proposed RMU-2 is otherwise necessary or in the public interest and finds them to be without merit. Based on the discussion above, the Siting Board agrees with the ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge) recommendation and concludes that CWM failed to meet its burden of proof that the proposed RMU-2 is otherwise necessary or in the public interest. The Siting Board, however, is compelled to take the ALJ’s recommendation a step further and conclude, based on the discussion above, that the siting of the proposed RMU-2 is not otherwise necessary or in the public interest.

“Accordingly, CWM’s application for a Siting Certificate is denied.”

The document added, “Based upon the foregoing, the Siting Board affirms the ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge) Recommended Decision subject to our comments above and concludes:

“1. There is no current or near-term need for increased capacity for hazardous waste management, such as the proposed RMU-2 landfill, in New York State;

“2. The proposed RMU-2 landfill does not conform to the siting criteria established for such facility pursuant to ECL 27-1103 and 6 NYCRR 377.7;

“3. CWM Chemical Services, LLC failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed siting of the RMU-2 landfill is otherwise necessary or in the public interest; and

“4. The proposed siting of the RMU-2 landfill is not otherwise necessary or in the public interest.

“Based upon the record of this proceeding, CWM Chemical Services, LLC’s application for a Certificate of Environmental Safety and Public Necessity is denied.”

Regarding the CWM RMU-2 Siting Board decision, Waste Management stated, “We are reviewing this decision and are evaluating the next steps.”

Representing party to the decision Residents for Responsible Government, Vincent Agnello said, “It should never have taken this community over 20 years to put an end to the injustice caused by Chemical Waste Management and its parent company, Waste Management. While they were only in it for the money, we remained steadfast in our goal to protect our environment for our neighbors, children and grandchildren. I am thankful for the support of the Town of Lewiston, the villages of Youngstown and Lewiston, Niagara County, the Lewiston-Porter Central School District, the Tuscarora Nation, the Niagara County Farm Bureau, Buffalo Niagara Waterkeepers, the UB Environmental Law Clinic, and resident Amy Witryol for all working together in this fight. I am especially thankful for the support from residents of our community, who have continued to support us throughout this long process.”

Niagara County Legislator Irene Myers said, "While our lawyers are still digesting the specifics of the decision, the bottom line is that CWM is prevented from constructing a new hazardous waste landfill in our community. The health and safety of our residents has carried the day. It has been a long process, but I am so happy how our community never wavered in this long battle. This has always been about protecting our children and grandchildren from the consequences of bad, short-sighted environmental decisions that previous generations have had to live with.”

“We expect the DEC commissioner will now deny all environmental permits, as the hearing officer recommended. But in any case, failure to obtain a siting certificate, as has now happened, prevents RMU-2 from going forward. Instead, CWM must begin final cleanup of the site."

Read the full decision here: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/niagaracounty/Document_center/News/CWM%20Siting%20Board%20FINAL%20Decision.9.29.25.pdf?t=202509291414460.