To the Editor:

Raymond D’Hollander’s letter (“Engineer: No need to drag out Micron decision after environmental review comes out,” May 28, 2025) asserts that the public doesn’t deserve more than 45 days to review and comment on the soon-to-be released environmental impact statement for the Micron project in Clay. I beg to differ.

The public, which is spending over $20 billion in tax dollars to help finance the chip factory, deserves time to weigh in on what they’re getting. The outcome is not set in stone. The draft EIS has already gone through several revisions since December based on input from county, state and federal agencies. It will undergo further revision in response to comments from the public. This is not a simple yes/no decision; there are many shades of gray.

SustainCNY is a coalition of 14 groups calling for an extension of the comment period to 120 days, and for the lead agencies to conduct at least five public hearings. We have gathered over 1,500 signatures in support on our petition, which we urge you, the reader, to sign at SustainCNY.org.

The EIS is vitally important because it outlines the environmental controls placed on the project. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Chips Program Office (CPO), which is awarding $6.14 billion in grants to Micron, has stated that “The EIS will evaluate the environmental effects of the New York projects and will be made available to the public for comment. As a condition of its award, CPO is requiring Micron to commit to implement any mitigation measures identified in the [federal EIS] process…”

So, the environmental protections laid out in the final EIS can make a real difference. Here’s what we already know from the draft document:

1. The chip factory’s enormous energy requirements will collide with New York state’s Climate Law; Micron would have to get a waiver.

2. Traffic in the northern part of the county will be a mess without major modification of roads and/or expansion of public transportation. Micron seems to assume that public agencies will take care of this.

3. The plant will be releasing hazardous “forever” chemicals, collectively known as PFAS, into the environment, contaminating the air and water in Clay, Cicero and beyond. Unfortunately, current regulation of PFAS in New York state is limited to two substances — PFOA and PFOS — which are no longer used. The state is not focused on the hundreds of PFAS compounds currently used and released by the semiconductor industry.

4. Micron will be using incineration to reduce its emission of another group of chemicals — PFCs — which are potent, long-lived greenhouse gases. Incineration is only partly effective; 40% of some gases simply pass through unscathed. Moreover, incineration releases toxic byproducts which will not be monitored. The Department of Defense moved away from incinerating PFAS because of this.

D’Hollander is correct that political action is important. “If we don’t like what the regulations require Micron and other companies to do, then we citizens need to push our legislators to change the laws and regulations.” But that is a fraught process. For example, it took many years of lobbying to convince the New York state Legislature to pass the Birds and Bees Protection Act, a law limiting the use of neonicotinoids, which are toxic to honeybees. How long will it take to convince the state to limit the release of PFAS from semiconductor factories?

Don Hughes, Ph.D.

Environmental Consultant

Adjunct Professor at Le Moyne College

Syracuse