Waste Transfer Stations

FactPack – P135

Center for Health, Environment & Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 [email protected] www.chej.org

Center for Health, Environment & Justice FactPack - PUB 135 +VMZ

P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 [email protected] www.chej.org Center for Health, Environment & Justice P. O. B o x 6 8 0 6 l Falls Church, VA 22040 l Phone: 703.237.2249 l Fax: 703.237.8389 l www.chej.org

Mentoring a Movement Empowering People Preventing Harm

About the Center for Health, Environment & Justice

CHEJ mentors a movement building healthier communities by empowering people to prevent harm caused by chemical and toxic threats. We accomplish our work through programs focusing on diﬀerent types of environmental health threats. CHEJ also works with communities to empower groups by providing the tools, direction, and encouragement they need to advocate for human health, to prevent harm and to work towards environmental integrity.

Following her successful eﬀort to prevent further harm for families living in contaminated Love Canal, Lois Gibbs founded CHEJ in 1981 to continue the journey. To date, CHEJ has assisted over groups nationwide. Details on CHEJ’s efforts to help families and communities prevent harm can be found on www.chej.org. Introduction

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice has developed this fact pack on Waste Transfer Stations in response to the numerous requests for information that we have had on this topic. This fact pack includes three types of information:

• Selections from articles and papers describing the operations and design of Waste Transfer Stations. • Selections from articles and summaries on how placements of these waste stations are an environmental justice issue. • Community organizations and programs in place to address the over whelming volume of trash that typically goes into a waste transfer stations. • News clips describing community struggles to address problems posed by waste transfer stations

We have included materials from nonprofit organizations, government agencies, consulting companies, newspapers, and journals in an effort to provide a thorough introduction to the issues. We have included the executive summary of an U.S.EPA report that high light what we believe is important information.

We intend this fact pack to be a tool to assist you in educating yourself and others. We do not endorse the conclusions of the government and consulting reports in this fact-pack. We’ve included them because they provide valuable information describing waste transfer station and how these stations impact the surrounding community.

Our hope is that reading this fact pack will be the first step in the process of empowering your community to protect itself from environmental health threats. CHEJ can help with this process. Through experience, we’ve learned that there are four basic steps you’ll need to take:

1. Form a democratic organization that is open to everyone in the community facing the problem. 2. Define your organizational goals and objectives. 3. Identify who can give you what you need to achieve your goals and objectives. Who has the power to shut down the facility? Do a health study? Get more testing done? It might be the head of the state regulating agency, city council members, or other elected officials. 4. Develop strategies that focus your activities on the decision makers, the people or person who has the power to give you what you are asking for.

CHEJ can help with each of these steps. Our mission is to help communities join together to achieve their goals. We can provide guidance on forming a group, mobilizing a community, defining a strategic plan, and making your case through the media. We can refer you to other groups that are fighting the same problems and can provide technical assistance to help you understand scientific and engineering data and show you how you can use this information to help achieve your goals.

If you want to protect yourself, your family, and your community, you need information, but equally important is the need to organize your community efforts.

Thank you for contacting us.

Waste Transfer Station FP 1 Waste Transfer Station FP 2 Waste Transfer Station FP 3 Waste Transfer Station FP 4 Waste Transfer Station FP 5 Waste Transfer Station FP 6 Waste Transfer Station FP 7 Waste Transfer Station FP 8

Waste Transfer Stations: AManual for Decision-Making Waste Transfer Station FP 9 Contents

Acknowledgments ...... i

Introduction ...... 1 What Are Waste Transfer Stations?...... 1 Why Are Waste Transfer Stations Needed?...... 2 Why Use Waste Transfer Stations? ...... 3 Is a Transfer Station Right for Your Community? ...... 4

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station...... 7 Types of Waste Accepted...... 7 Unacceptable Wastes ...... 7 Public Versus Commercial Use ...... 8 Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity ...... 8 Number and Sizing of Transfer Stations ...... 10 Future Expansion ...... 11 Site Selection ...... 11 Environmental Justice Considerations ...... 11 The Siting Process and Public Involvement ...... 11 Siting Criteria...... 14 Exclusionary Siting Criteria ...... 14 Technical Siting Criteria...... 15 Developing Community-Specific Criteria ...... 17 Applying the Committee’s Criteria ...... 18 Host Community Agreements...... 18

Transfer Station Design and Operation ...... 21 Transfer Station Design ...... 21 How Will the Transfer Station Be Used? ...... 21 Site Design Plan ...... 21 Main Transfer Area Design...... 22 Types of Vehicles That Use a Transfer Station ...... 23 Transfer Technology ...... 25 Transfer Station Operations...... 27 Operations and Maintenance Plans...... 27 Facility Operating Hours...... 32 Interacting With the Public ...... 33 Waste Screening ...... 33 Emergency Situations ...... 34 Recordkeeping...... 35 Environmental Issues...... 37 Traffic ...... 38 Noise ...... 39 Odors...... 40

Contents iii Waste Transfer Station FP 10

Air Emissions ...... 41 Storm Water Quality...... 41 Vectors...... 43 Litter ...... 43 Safety Issues ...... 44 Exposure to Potentially Hazardous Equipment...... 45 Personal Protective Equipment ...... 45 Exposure to Extreme Temperatures ...... 45 Traffic ...... 45 Falls ...... 46 Noise ...... 47 Air Quality ...... 47 Hazardous Wastes and Materials ...... 48 Ergonomics...... 48

Facility Oversight ...... 49 Applicable Regulations...... 49 Federal Regulations ...... 49 State Regulations ...... 49 Local Regulations...... 49 Common Regulatory Compliance Methods ...... 50 Compliance Inspections ...... 50 Reporting ...... 50

Resources ...... 51

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ...... 53

Appendix...... A-1

iv Contents Waste Transfer Station FP 11 Planning and Siting a Tra n s fe r S t at i o n

variety of issues must be taken multiple utility connections, traffic control into account during the planning systems, office space, and administration. and siting stages of transfer sta- This approach also eliminates the cost and tion development. This section complexity of multiple siting and permit- discusses the types of waste trans- ting efforts. Afer stations typically accept, factors affecting a transfer station’s size and capacity, and issues Unacceptable Wastes regarding facility siting, including process Certain wastes might be unacceptable at a issues and public involvement. While the transfer station for a variety of reasons, planning and siting phases of facility develop- including: ment might involve a significant investment of resources, this initial investment is crucial to •They are prohibited by state or federal reg- ensuring an appropriate project outcome sen- ulations (e.g., PCBs, lead acid batteries, sitive to the host community. radioactive materials).

Types of Waste Accepted In addition to processing mixed municipal solid waste (MSW), some transfer stations Wastes Commonly Handled at Transfer Stations offer programs that manage specific materials he following types of waste are commonly handled at transfer stations. separately to divert waste from disposal and TSpecific definitions of these wastes vary locally. to achieve recycling objectives. These materials could include construction and demolition Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated by households, businesses, debris, yard waste, household hazardous institutions, and industry. MSW typically contains a wide variety of materials waste, or recyclables. The types of materials including discarded containers, packaging, food wastes, and paper products. processed often vary depending on where the MSW includes a mixture of putrescible (easily degradable) and nonputresci- facility is located (urban, suburban, rural) and ble (inert) materials. Three types of MSW are commonly diverted and handled separately: who owns and operates the transfer station (public entity or private industry). Yard waste (green waste) commonly includes leaves, grass clippings, Types of waste that transfer stations com- tree trimmings, and brush. Yard waste is often diverted so that it may be composted or mulched instead of going for disposal. monly handle are described in the adjacent box. Household hazardous waste (HHW) includes hazardous materials If a community offers programs that man- generated by households, such as cleaning products; pesticides; herbi- cides; used automotive products such as motor oil, brake fluid, and age parts of the waste stream separately, it antifreeze; and paint. might reduce expenses by locating the materi- al management programs at the transfer sta- Recyclables include discarded materials that can be reprocessed for tion. Savings might result by: manufacture into new products. Common recyclables include paper, newsprint, ferrous metals, plastic, glass containers, aluminum cans, motor •Using dual-collection vehicles for refuse oil, and tires. and source-separated waste streams and delivering all waste to the transfer station Construction and demolition (C&D) debris results from demolition or in one vehicle. construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. It typically consists of concrete, brick, wood, masonry, roofing materials, sheetrock, plaster, metals, •Continuing to use separate collections for and tree stumps. Sometimes C&D debris is managed separately from refuse and source-separated waste streams, MSW; other times it is mixed with MSW. but having all processing facilities located at one site, thus minimizing the cost of

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 7 Waste Transfer Station FP 12

•They are difficult or costly to process (e.g., for using the transfer station. The general pub- tires). lic usually is allowed to use a transfer station for any of several reasons: waste collection is •They might pose a health or fire hazard. not universally provided in the area; some •They might be prohibited at the disposal wastes, such as bulky items or remodeling facility to which the transfer station delivers. debris, are not collected; or public access is •They might be prohibited (within a mixed part of a strategy to prevent illegal dumping waste load destined for disposal) because by providing a convenient, cost-effective place local regulations require they be recycled. for people to deposit waste. Public unloading areas and traffic patterns are usually kept sep- •They might be so large that they could arate from commercial vehicles for safety and damage trucks or equipment during waste efficiency. loading operations. Determining Transfer Station Size The following types of wastes are typically not and Capacity accepted at transfer stations: large bulky The physical size of a planned transfer station objects such as tree stumps, mattresses, or fur- is typically determined based on the following niture; infectious medical waste; hazardous factors: waste; explosives; radioactive materials; fuel tanks (even if empty); appliances; dead ani- •The definition of the service area. mals; asbestos; liquids and sludges; and dust- Sometimes this is relatively simple, such as prone materials. This is a general list; some “all waste generated by Anytown, USA,” or transfer stations might be set up to process “all waste collected by Acme Hauling these wastes, while others might have a longer Company.” Other times, the service area is list of unacceptable materials. While these and more difficult to define because of varying other unacceptable wastes represent a small public and private roles in solid waste man- fraction of the solid waste stream, properly agement and the changing availability of managing them can require significant effort existing disposal facilities. by the transfer station operator and the local •The amount of waste generated within the solid waste management authority. The sec- service area, including projected changes tion on waste screening in the Transfer Station such as population growth and recycling Design and Operation chapter further discuss- programs. es how to properly manage and reduce the •The types of vehicles delivering waste (such frequency of unacceptable waste at a transfer as car or pickup truck versus a specially station. designed waste-hauling truck used by a waste collection company). Public Versus Commercial Use •The types of materials to be transferred Some transfer stations provide public access to (e.g., compacted versus loose MSW, yard the facility rather than restricting access only waste, C&D), including seasonal variations. to waste collection vehicles. The types of customers accommodated vary depending on •Daily and hourly arrival patterns of cus- where the facility is located and who owns tomers delivering waste. Hourly arrivals and operates the transfer station. Publicly tend to cluster in the middle of the day, operated transfer stations are more likely to be with typical peaks just before and after open to public use. Private transfer stations lunchtime. Peak hourly arrivals tend to might not be open to the public because resi- dictate a facility’s design more than average dents deliver relatively small amounts of daily arrivals. waste with each visit, require more direction •The availability of transfer trailers, inter- for safe and efficient use of the transfer sta- modal containers, barges, or railcars, and tion, and generally pay relatively small fees how fast these can be loaded.

8 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 13

•Expected increases in tonnage delivered waste per day, a tipping floor space of 6,000 during the life of the facility. For example, square feet would be required (i.e., 4,000 ft2 + in a region with annual population growth (100 TPD x 20 ft2/ton) = 6,000 ft2) “Chapter 4: of 3 to 4 percent, a facility anticipating a 20- Collection and Transfer” in EPA’s Decision year operating life would typically be Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management also designed for about twice the capacity that it provides a series of formulas for helping deter- uses in its first year of operation. mine transfer station capacity These formulas are presented in the box below. •The relationship to other existing and proposed solid waste management facilities such as landfills, recycling facilities, and waste-to-energy facilities. Formulas for Determining Transfer Station Capacity Stations with Surge Pits The same factors are used to determine the Based on rate at which wastes can be unloaded from collection vehicles: size of the following transfer station features: C = PC x (L / W) x (60 x HW / TC) x F •Amount of off-street vehicle queuing (wait- Based on rate at which transfer trailers are loaded: ing) space. At peak times, vehicles must C = (Pt x N x 60 x Ht) / (Tt + B) often wait to check in at a facility’s “gate- Direct Dump Stations house” or “scale house.” It is important that C = N x P x F x 60 x H / [(P /P ) x (W/L ) x T ] + B the queue (line) not block public streets or n t W t c n c impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Hopper Compaction Stations C = (N x P x F x 60 x H ) / (P /P x T ) + B •Number and size of unloading stalls, and n t W t c c corresponding number of transfer trailer Push Pit Compaction Stations loading positions. C = (Np x Pt x F x 60 x HW) / [(Pt/Pc) x (W/Lp) x Tc] + Bc + B

•Short-term waste processing and storage Where: areas (for holding waste until it can be CStation capacity (tons/day) reloaded into transfer vehicles). PC Collection vehicle payloads (tons) LTotal length of dumping space (feet) WWidth of each dumping space (feet) Present and projected daily, weekly, and annu- H Hours per day that waste is delivered al waste volumes (including seasonal varia- W TC Time to unload each collection vehicle (minutes) tions) are important in planning facility size to FPeaking factor (ratio of number of collection vehicles received during accommodate waste deliveries. The maximum an average 30-minute period to the number received during a peak rate at which waste is delivered is a crucial 30-minute period) consideration as well. In general, it is best to Pt Transfer trailer payload (tons) build a facility to accommodate present and NNumber of transfer trailers loading simultaneously projected maximum volumes and peak flows, Ht Hours per day used to load trailers (empty trailers must be available) with a preplanned footprint for facility expan- BTime to remove and replace each loaded trailer (minutes) sion. A useful exercise is calculating how much Tt Time to load each transfer trailer (minutes) tipping floor space a facility would require to Nn Number of hoppers L Length of each hopper store a full day’s waste in case of extreme n L Length of each push pit (feet) emergency. One approach to estimating the p N Number of push pits required tipping floor space is to begin with a p Bc Total cycle time for clearing each push pit and compacting waste into base area of 4,000 square feet and add to it 20 trailer square feet for each ton of waste received in a day (assuming the waste will be temporarily Source: Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management, Secon Edition piled 6 feet high on the tipping floor).1 For (EPA530-R-95-023), p. 4-23. example, if the facility receives 100 tons of

1Solid Waste Association of North America. 2001. Transfer Systems Management Training Course. SWANA. Washington, DC.

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 9 Waste Transfer Station FP 14

option, even when the longer driving dis- Queuing in Urban Areas tances are considered. When deciding which approach is best for a community, issues to n extreme situations where adequate queuing space cannot be provided consider include the impacts the transfer sta- Ion the transfer station site, an additional offsite area can be provided as a tion(s) will have on the surrounding area, sit- holding area for waiting trucks. Transfer station staff can dispatch the waiting complications, and the cost to build and ing trucks via radio when the station is ready to receive them. operate the transfer station(s). Each approach offers advantages and disadvantages that Number and Sizing of Transfer Stations must be reconciled with local needs. Design capacity is determined by the maxi- The biggest advantage of constructing large mum distance from which waste can be eco- transfer stations is the economies of scale that nomically delivered to the transfer station. The can significantly reduce capital and operational area that can efficiently reach the waste trans- costs. Centralizing waste transfer operations fer station determines the volume of waste allows communities to reduce equipment, con- that must be managed, which is the facility’s struction, waste handling, and transportation initial design capacity. Beyond a certain dis- costs. The siting of a single facility may often tance, another transfer station might be neces- prove easier than siting multiple facilities. sary, or it might become just as cost-effective Large facilities are also conducive to barge or to direct haul to the disposal facility. rail operations that can further decrease traffic- Transfer stations serving rural or tribal areas related impacts on the community. Along relat- tend to be small. They are optimally located ed lines, however, a major drawback to within a reasonable driving time from the serv- building a single large facility is locating a tract ice area’s largest concentration of homes and of land that adequately meets facility require- businesses. For example, a rural transfer station ments. Large facilities also tend to concentrate could be located near one of the service area’s impacts to a single area, which can create the larger towns and sized to take waste from all perception of inequity, especially when one waste generators within about 30 miles. As an neighborhood is shouldering the burden for example, two 50-ton-per-day transfer stations the entire city. A single facility can result in might each serve six small communities. longer travel times, which leads to increased Alternately, fewer transfer stations could be down time for the collection crew and used, necessitating longer average travel dis- increased wear and tear on collection vehicles. tances. For example, one 100-ton-per-day trans- Another consideration is that a single facility fer station could be used to serve the same 12 cannot divert waste to a backup facility if a small communities, but it would be located far- need arises. The single facility must have addi- ther from the outlying communities. tional equipment in case of equipment failure or other emergencies. In urban or subur- In other situations, multiple smaller sites Addressing Site Size Limitations ban areas, the same situations exist. A might better address a community’s waste hen site size is not adequate to accom- midsize city (popula- management needs. Decentralizing waste Wmodate ideal designs and practices, tion 500,000), for transfer operations spreads lesser impacts additional engineering design features will be example, might over a wider area, which helps address equity needed to mitigate the facility’s potential nega- decide that two 800- issues. Although it is generally more expen- tive impacts. For example, sound barriers might ton-per-day transfer sive to build and operate several small trans- need to be incorporated into the site plan to stations would best fer stations rather than one large station with reduce noise. Another approach is to select serve its community. the same total capacity, savings from reduced multiple, smaller capacity sites if a single parcel This same city could travel times might offset these capital costs of land large enough to accommodate an ideal and result in lower overall system costs. facility does not exist. These separate sites alternately decide Multiple facilities also are better able to serve could be used to hold trucks awaiting delivery, that a single 1,600- or to store transfer trailers. ton-per-day transfer as backups for one another in case of sched- station is its best uled or emergency shutdowns of facilities. The

10 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 15

major disadvantage to building multiple facili- Environmental Justice Considerations ties is that the difficulties encountered in siting During the site selection process, steps should a single facility can become multiplied. be taken to ensure that siting decisions are not imposing a disproportionate burden upon low-income or minority communities. Future Expansion Overburdening a community with negative Transfer stations are frequently designed to impact facilities can create health, environ- accommodate future expansion. Often, this is mental, and quality of living concerns. It can accomplished by siting the facility on a larger also have a negative economic impact by low- parcel of land than would otherwise be neces- ering property values and hindering commu- sary and preplanning the site and buildings so nity revitalization plans. These are just a few expansion can occur without negatively affect- of the reasons environmental justice concerns ing other functions on the site or the sur- need to be addressed when selecting a site for rounding community. Although expansion of a waste transfer station. effective capacity can sometimes be accomplished simply by expanding the hours of operation, this approach is not always effec- The Siting Process and Public tive because the transfer station must accom- Involvement modate the collection schedules of vehicles Asiting process that includes continuous pub- delivering waste to the facility. In addition, lic participation is integral to developing a increased operating hours might not be com- transfer station. The public must be a legiti- patible with the surrounding community. mate partner in the facility siting process to integrate community needs and concerns and Site Selection to influence the decision-making process. Addressing public concerns is also essential to Identifying a suitable site for a waste transfer building integrity and instituting good com- station can be a challenging process. Site suit- munications with the community. Establishing ability depends on numerous technical, envi- credibility and trust with the public is as ronmental, economic, social, and political criteria. When selecting a site, a balance needs to be achieved among the multiple criteria Maximizing Public Committee Participation that might have competing objectives. For example, a site large enough to accommodate ublic committees are often convened to assist with developing public all required functions and possibly future Ppolicy. To maximize participation, the process should: expansion, might not be centrally located in •Give committee members a chance to be actively involved. the area where waste is generated. Likewise, in densely developed urban areas, ideal sites •Allow the committee to remove the selected facilitator if concerns that include effective natural buffers simply about objectivity exist. might not be available. Less than ideal sites •Encourage members to discuss relevant concerns and to raise questions may still present the best option due to trans- or objections freely. Criticisms or challenges should be directed toward portation, environmental, and economic con- the issues; the facilitator should swiftly mitigate personal criticisms. siderations. Yet another set of issues that must be addressed relates to public concern or •Agree on a means to resolve disagreements before they arise. opposition, particularly from people living or working near the proposed site. The relative •Allow members to discuss the results of each meeting with their con- stituents. weight given to each criteria used in selecting a suitable site will vary by the community’s •Provide technical experts to educate participants. needs and concerns. Whether the site is in an urban, suburban, or rural setting will also play •Distribute literature about upcoming issues before meetings. a role in final site selection.

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 11 Waste Transfer Station FP 16

examples of how to integrate public participa- Informing the Community tion into the waste management facility siting and development process. Following are some hen initiating a siting process, education must be extended beyond general guidelines for developing and imple- Wthe siting committee and include a communitywide outreach initia- menting a siting process that is open to and tive. Components of this type of public outreach typically include: integrates meaningful public input. •Special public meetings. For publicly developed transfer stations, a •Interviews with local newspapers for feature stories. good first step by public officials in the site selection process is establishing a siting com- •Interviews with media editorial boards. mittee. The committee’s main responsibility includes developing criteria to identify and •Interviews with broadcast media. evaluate potential sites. The committee should •News conferences, press releases, and press kits. consist of key individuals who represent various stakeholder interests. These stakeholders •Paid advertising. might include: •Internet sites. •Community and neighborhood groups.

•Informational literature. •Industry and business representatives.

•Direct mail with project updates. •Civic and public interest groups. •Environmental organizations. •City council/county commission presentations. •Local- and state-elected officials. •Presentations to civic, environmental, religious, and professional groups. •Public officials, such as public works •Presentations to neighborhood groups. employees and solid waste professionals. •Community education programs and workshops. •Academic institutions.

•Reading files located in public libraries or community centers that document the process. Committee members should be selected to ensure broad geographical representation Beyond communitywide outreach, initiate specific and targeted contact from across the area to be served by the trans- with key members of potential host communities, and identify community- fer station. In addition, committee representa- specific conditions that need to be considered. Individuals might become proponents of the proposed facility if contacted directly for input, rather tion should seek gender balance and racial than opposing it based on misleading secondhand information. diversity. Volunteer participation should also be solicited. The committee’s meeting times and dates important as addressing environmental, social, must be planned and scheduled to facilitate and economic concerns about the solid waste attendance by all committee members and facility.2 Acompanion document to this manu- other members of the public. Therefore, meet- al, Waste Transfer Stations: Involved Citizens ing schedules should avoid conflicts with Make the Difference (EPA530-K-01-003), pro- other major community, cultural, or religious vides key information citizens require to be events. To encourage active public participa- effectively involved in the siting and develop- tion, meetings should be prominently adver- ment process. Two other EPA documents, Sites tised in the media in a timely manner and be for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective held in facilities accessible to the disabled and Public Involvement (EPA 530-SW-90-019) and located on public transportation routes. RCRA Public Participation Manual (EPA530-R- Frequently, a facilitator is hired or appointed 96-007), provide further information and to keep the meetings focused, to minimize the

2McMaster Institute of Environment and Health, “Psychological Impacts of the Landfill Siting Process in Two Southern Ontario Communities.”

12 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 17

Building Reuse: Weighing the Consequences

dapting an existing building for reuse as a waste transfer •Older structures, particularly older warehouse type struc- Astation is usually done as a capital cost savings measure. tures, often fail to meet current structural design codes. In Building reuse saves on new site construction and can avoid the particular, modern seismic and fire code requirements have permitting process if the existing site already has a permit allow- changed considerably in recent years. Retrofitting older struc- ing the waste transfer activity. Building reuse can have some ben- tures might prove more costly than demolishing and replacing efits, including conserving construction materials required for the structure. new structures and facilities; reducing waste from the demolition of existing buildings; recycling unused property for which no •Transfer station structures can experience substantial vibra- other uses were found; and redeveloping contaminated property tions from heavy equipment used to compact and load (brownfields redevelopment). But the negative aspects frequent- waste into the transfer vehicles. Concrete and steel floors, pil- ly outweigh the positives. lars, and other building reinforcements must be designed to accommodate these high levels of vibration. Older buildings Pitfalls and problems associated with adaptation or retrofitting not designed for this heavy use often can not meet these of buildings for waste transfer stations include: requirements.

•Transfer buildings have unique requirements rarely found in •Most transfer stations require some amount of grade separa- structures designed for other uses. These include the need tion so waste can be loaded into open-topped vehicles to for vertical clearances sufficient to accommodate the tipping simplify the waste loading process. Since customer and trans- height of commercial collection vehicles. New facilities are fer vehicles both need to access the structure, but at different usually designed with at least 25 to 30 feet of vertical clear- levels, finding a building that offers this configuration might ance from the tipping floor to the lowest overhead element. prove difficult. Installing additional levels or tunnels can be costly or impractical in some areas (i.e., shallow ground water •Busy transfer stations require adequate onsite space for vehi- or bedrock). cle parking and queuing, something reused buildings often lack. In fact, one of the most common problems with building •Waste transfer stations include more than just the tipping reuse is inadequate queuing space, which leads to vehicles area. While an existing building might be very adaptive to blocking neighborhood streets. Queuing trucks on city streets waste transfer, the overall building site needs to accommo- creates health and safety issues, and can be very disruptive date the supporting activities and requirements including traf- for the surrounding neighborhood. fic queuing, buffer zones, scale facility operations, etc.

•Transfer stations need relatively large, open floor areas suitable for maneuvering large vehicles. Interior building columns and walls might not accommodate the kind of safe traffic movements that are needed, which could pose a hazard and reduce traffic efficiency.

•Enclosed transfer structures also require large, very tall access doors. Doors 24-feet high are not unusual in new transfer buildings. The design must assume that a collection truck will inadvertently exit the transfer station building with its tipping bed extended.

•Heavy-duty, skid-resistant floors are a necessi- ty in transfer stations. Sloped floors with positive drainage are also important. Some Transfer station structures require tall access doors to accomodate collection buildings are not designed with floors that vehicles. meet these essential criteria, and replacing the floors can be costly.

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 13 Waste Transfer Station FP 18

Community Involvement in Privately Developed Facilities n the past, privately developed facilities have not generally develop sound avenues of communication. These programs Iformed siting committees. When private facilities have been should educate the community about the need for the facility, sited, the public’s first—and sometimes only—opportunity for the facility’s design and operations, and provide an opportunity input has come when the permit application is put out for pub- for community input. A public outreach program helps the lic comment. Most states do not require private developers to developer understand community concerns and address them seek public involvement in the site selection or facility design early in the siting and design phases while changes are still readi- and operation decisions. Private companies, however, should ly incorporated. Adopting, with appropriate modifications, the consider establishing siting committees and developing public public involvement process outlined above is one approach to outreach programs to establish credibility, build public trust, and addressing community concerns.

potential for certain individuals or interest of the technical information might be groups to dominate the process, and to enhanced by encouraging the committee to encourage active participation by all stake- assist in selecting consultants and technical holders throughout the process. experts, by encouraging committee members to perform their own research, by using a During the siting committee’s first meeting, third party to review technical studies, and by individual duties, group responsibilities, and relying on experts who reside within the com- process issues need to be addressed. munity to provide technical information. Expectations and limitations of the committee Information should be relayed in various for- need to be clearly communicated and might mats and should consider language barriers, be summarized in mission statements. Rules literacy levels, and preferred types of commu- for discourse, and a schedule and procedures nications. For example, committee education for final decision-making, should be deter- might include presentations by technical mined and agreed upon. Technical experts experts and tours of existing transfer stations should be involved early in the process to in addition to written materials. respond to general questions and to resolve common misconceptions about waste transfer. Siting Criteria After establishing general procedures, com- Once the committee completes the education mittee members should be informed of all phase, criteria should be developed for details to further ensure equal participation identifying and evaluating potential sites. All and a means of influencing the decision-mak- siting criteria must be developed before iden- ing process. Committee members should tifying potential transfer station sites. This understand why a transfer station is needed approach ensures siting decisions are based on and the facility’s role within the solid waste objective criteria. Three categories or sets of management system. In addition, committee criteria applied during various stages of the members must be taught the numerous tech- siting process are exclusionary, technical, and nical, environmental, and economic aspects community-specific criteria. It is important to associated with siting, designing, and operat- note that no site may meet all the criteria, in ing a transfer station. This ensures that the sit- which case, each criterion’s relative weight ing criteria the committee develops will result and importance must be considered. in identifying potential sites feasible from engineering and operational perspectives, as well as acceptable to the public. Exclusionary Siting Criteria Siting a waste transfer station, or any type of Educational materials for the siting com- facility, in areas with preclusive siting criteria is mittee should provide useful, objective infor- often prohibited by federal, state, or local laws mation. Mistrust of technical information or regulations, or requires facilities to incorpo- might develop among the committee mem- rate special engineering design and construc- bers and should be anticipated. The credibility tion techniques. Even when siting in excluded

14 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 19

zones is allowed, the added engineering designs or strong public opposition can signifi- Addressing Cluster Zoning cantly increase construction costs. In general, it is best to avoid siting in these areas. Exclusion- iting waste transfer stations exclusively in areas zoned for industrial use ary criteria might include areas such as: Scan lead to a condition known as “cluster zoning.” Especially restrictive zoning frequently forces transfer stations into a few areas. In general, siting •Wetlands and floodplains. transfer stations in industrial zones eliminates permitting agencies’ discretion to deny such use because technically, the transfer station is permitted “as a •Endangered and protected flora and fauna matter of right.” These types of zoning actions also prevent an impacted habitats. community from influencing the zoning decision. Such intensive clustering •Protected sites of historical, archeological, of industrial facilities may have negative impacts on neighboring residents, or cultural significance. such as increased traffic, noise, odors, and litter. Communities need to address clustering and zoning issues at the local level through comprehen- •Prime agricultural land. sive planning that considers the aggregate effects of clustering certain activities and the equity in sharing community burdens. To avoid clustering when •Parks and preserves. siting a new waste transfer station, establish a community stakeholder or advisory panel to participate in the siting process. This advisory panel Some examples of federal laws defining these should consist of representatives from all potentially affected communities; areas include the Endangered Species Act; the state, local, and/or tribal regulatory agencies; public and private waste trade Migratory Bird Conservation Act; the Coastal groups; local community development organizations; and any other con- Zone Management Act; the Wild and Scenic cerned community, environmental, or environmental justice organizations. Rivers Act; the Marine Protection, Research, To prevent disproportionate facility siting: and Sanctuaries Act; and the National Historic Preservation Act. •Zoning must not be presumed to prevent significant impacts on poor and minority communities.

Technical Siting Criteria •The potential for clustering should be examined. The second category of criteria to develop •Other close or adjacent land uses should be examined to determine includes technical parameters that help define compatibility. the best potential facility sites. These criteria provide guidance on specific engineering, •Other close or adjacent land uses should be examined to analyze operation, and transportation conditions that cumulative impacts. should be considered to ensure that potential sites are feasible from technical, environmental, and economic perspectives. These criteria areas, direct access to rail lines or barges address the following issues: will significantly reduce the number of large transfer trailers leaving the station • Central location to collection routes: To and traveling area maximize waste collection efficiency, trans- roads. It is prefer- fer stations should be located centrally to able to avoid rout- Requiring Minimum Distance waste collection routes. As a rule of thumb ing traffic through Between Transfer Stations in urban and suburban areas, transfer residential areas ommunities with a waste transfer station stations should be no more than 10 miles because traffic clustering problem might consider requiring away from the end of all collection routes. generated by C Beyond that distance, collection routes a minimum distance between facilities as one transfer stations possible solution. Designating a minimum dis- might need to be altered to enable refuse to contributes to con- tance between waste transfer stations, or other be collected and deposited at the transfer gestion; increased industrial facilities, will limit clustering by forcing station within one operating shift. risk to pedestrians; the siting of new facilities away from existing • Access to major transportation routes: The increased air emis- operations. The end effect can be a more equi- transfer station should have direct and con- sions, noise, and table dispersion of facilities and their negative venient access to truck routes, major arteri- impacts. A community will need to determine what minimum distance is reasonable. als, and highways (or rail or barge access, if appropriate). For large metropolitan

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 15 Waste Transfer Station FP 20

wear on roads; and might contribute to lit- routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally, ter problems. but tends to peak twice a day. The first peak is often near the middle of the day or • Site size requirements: The area required shift, and the second at the end of the day for specific transfer stations varies signifi- or shift. Therefore, the best sites for transfer cantly, depending on the volume of waste stations are located away from areas that to be transferred, rates at which waste will have midday traffic peaks and/or school be delivered, the functions to be carried out bus and pedestrian traffic. at the site, and the types of customers the facility is intended to serve. Locating a site • Ability for expansion: When selecting a of sufficient size is critical to operating effi- site, consider the potential for subsequent ciencies and minimizing impacts on the increase in the daily tonnage of waste the surrounding community. Engineering input facility will be required to manage, or can establish preliminary size criteria based added processing capabilities for recycling on a conceptual design. and diversion. It is frequently less expen- sive to expand an existing transfer station • Sufficient space for onsite roadways, than to develop a new site due to the ability queuing, and parking: Transfer stations to use existing operations staff, utility con- typically have onsite roadways to move nections, traffic control systems, office vehicles around various parts of the trans- space, and buildings. fer site. Waste collection trucks can be up to 40 feet long. Transfer trailers that move • Space for recycling, composting, and pub- waste to a disposal facility are typically 50 lic education: Atransfer station could be to 70 feet long. These vehicles need wide sited in areas also conducive to recycling or roadways with gradual slopes and curves composting activities. Many transfer sta- to maneuver efficiently and safely. Also, the tions are designed to enable residents and site will need space for parking transfer businesses to drop off recyclables and yard vehicles and to allow incoming and outgo- waste in addition to trash. Some transfer ing traffic to form lines without backing up stations incorporate education centers or onto public roads. interpretive trails focusing on waste pre- vention. These types of facilities offer • Truck and traffic compatibility: Transfer increased utility to the community. stations often receive surges of traffic when collection vehicles have finished their • Buffer space: To mitigate impact on the surrounding community, a transfer station should be located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land uses such as residences. Buffers can be natural or constructed and can take many forms, including open spaces, fences, sound walls, trees, berms, and landscaping. • Gently sloping topography: Transfer stations often are multilevel buildings that need to have vehicle access at several levels. Completely flat sites need ramps or bridges constructed to allow vehicle access to upper levels (or areas excavated to allow access to lower levels). Sites with moderate- ly sloping terrain can use topography to their advantage, allowing access to the Many transfer stations are multi-level facilities that allow vehicle access at several upper levels from the higher parts of the levels. natural terrain and access to lower levels

16 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 21

from the lower parts. Sites with steep Developing Community-Specific Criteria slopes might require extra costs associated The third category of criteria to consider are with earthmoving and retaining walls. impacts that the facility will have on the surrounding community. These criteria are typi- • Access to utilities: Transfer stations gener- cally less technical in nature and incorporate ally require electricity to operate equip- local, social, and cultural factors. Examples of ment, such as balers and compactors; these criteria include: lighting; water for facility cleaning, rest- rooms, and drinking; and sanitary sewer •Environmental Justice considerations (e.g., systems for waste-water disposal. Some clustering, cumulative impacts). smaller transfer stations use wells for water •Impact on air supply, and some, especially in more rural quality. settings, use septic systems or truck their waste water for offsite treatment. •Impact on the local infrastructure. • Zoning Designations and Requirements: •Adjacent land uses, including other envi- Zoning ordinances frequently classify trans- ronmental stressors that might already fer stations as industrial uses, which limits exist. their siting to areas zoned for industry usu- •Proximity to schools, churches, recreation ally in conjunction with a special use per- sites, and residences. mit. Exclusive use of predetermined land use criteria, however, might result in locating transfer Using GIS to Narrow the Search stations in areas already overbur- geographic information system (GIS) is a com- attribute or exclusionary criteria for siting transfer dened with indus- Aputer system capable of assembling, storing, stations can be layered on top of municipal maps, tries or clustering manipulating, and displaying geographically refer- as well as each other, to narrow down potential of these types of enced information (data identified according to site locations. The maps show these variables in facilities in areas location). After the data are entered, each positive relationship to infrastructure and housing patterns. adjacent to poor and minority com- Wetland Resource Map munities. If local Ta m p a B ay F l o r i d a zoning ordinances are so restrictive that they disallow Marine and Estuarine Deepwater Habitats Deepwater Lakes and Rivers facility siting out- Estuarine Marshes and Aquatic Beds side pre-estab- Tidal Flats lished industrial Estuarine Forested Wetlands

zones, substantial Palustrine Forested Wetlands

engineering and Inland Marshes and Aquatic Beds

architectural Palustrine Scrub/Shrub

design must be Open Water

incorporated into Major Roads the facility to mini-

mize impacts on Ta m p a the surrounding Gulf of Bay Mexico community.

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 17 Waste Transfer Station FP 22

•Prevailing winds. Host Community Agreements Siting any type of solid waste management •Number of residences impacted. facility has often been met with strong commu- •Presence of natural buffers. nity opposition. Whether the facility is publicly or privately owned, many residents may not be •Impacts on existing businesses. confident that the siting, permitting, and over- •Expansion sight process will be sufficiently rigorous to capability. address their concerns and protect them from •Buffer zones and screening measures. future impacts. When this type of opposition arises, it is often advantageous for the develop- •Traffic compatibility. er to enter into a separate agreement with the •Impact on historic or cultural features. surrounding community, laying out all issues of concern and the developer’s action plan in •Impact on neighborhood character. response. These “host community agreements” are most frequently used when private compa- To maintain objectivity in the facility siting nies are developing a facility, but public agen- process, the community-specific criteria cies might also find them useful in satisfying should be prioritized before potential sites are community concerns. These agreements typi- known. After potential sites are identified, the cally specify design requirements, operating committee will apply these criteria to evaluate restrictions, oversight provisions, and other each potential site’s suitability as a waste services and benefits that the immediate com- transfer station. These issues also factor into munity will receive. Provisions might include permitting decisions concerning private facili- the following: ties and should not be ignored by the permit- •Steps to reduce negative environmental ting agency or transfer station developer. impacts in the immediate area, such as committing to the use of low emission or Applying the Committee’s Criteria alternative fueled vehicles, or retrofitting After all three categories of siting criteria are vehicles with particulate filters. agreed upon, it is time for the committee to •Limitations on waste generation sources. apply the criteria and narrow down all possible sites. Keep in mind, however, that despite •Roadside cleanup of litter on access routes. the best efforts, every site has some shortcom- •Restrictions on facility operating hours. ings that will need to be addressed. •Restrictions on vehicle traffic routes. First, the exclusionary criteria can be plot- ted on maps, which helps the committee visu- •Financial support for regulatory agencies to alize where the facility cannot be sited due to assist with facility oversight. local, state, and federal regulations. Once •Independent third-party inspection of unsuitable areas are eliminated, the commit- facilities, or the use of video monitoring. tee’s technical criteria and community-specific •Assistance with recycling and waste diver- criteria are applied to all remaining options. sion objectives. Information for each potential site should be developed so the committee can rank the sites. •Afee paid to the local government for Based on the committee’s ranking, the top two every ton of waste received at the facility. to four sites should undergo more rigorous •Free or reduced-cost use of the facility for analysis to determine technical feasibility and the community’s residents and businesses. compliance with the environmental and community objectives. •Guaranteed preference to the community’s residents for employment.

18 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station FP 23

•Funding for road or utility improvements. •Provisions for an environmental education center. •Financial support for other community based activities.

These agreements can also require that community representatives have access to the facility during operating hours to monitor perform- ance. Safety concerns must be addressed if this provision is included. Community representatives usually welcome an ongoing communication process between facility operators and an established citizen’s committee to encourage proactive response to evolving issues. The provisions or amenities in a host community agreement generally are in addition to what state and local standards or regulations require, and thus should not be thought of as substi- tutes for adequate facility design and operation. The same is true for state, tribal or local government compliance enforcement. The government agency responsible for transfer station compliance also should make a commitment to the community concerning its role in actively and effectively enforcing all requirements.

Planning and Siting a Transfer Station 19 Waste Transfer Station FP 24 Waste Transfer Station FP 25 Waste Transfer Station FP 26 Waste Transfer Station FP 27 Waste Transfer Station FP 28 Waste Transfer Station FP 29 Waste Transfer Station FP 30 Waste Transfer Station FP 31 Waste Transfer Station FP 32 Waste Transfer Station FP 33 Waste Transfer Station FP 34 Waste Transfer Station FP 35 Waste Transfer Station FP 36 Waste Transfer Station FP 37 Waste Transfer Station FP 38 Waste Transfer Station FP 39 Waste Transfer Station FP 40

Inspection Guidance for Transfer Stations, Materials Recovery Facilities, and Waste-to-Energy Facilities June 1995

Table of Contents

STATE REQUIREMENTS : 1

LOCAL REQUIREMENTS...... 1

PRE-INSPECTION PROCEDURES 2

INSPECTION PROCEDURES 2 Arriving at the Facility 2 Gaining Access...... 3 Denial of Access...... 3 Health and Safety Considerations 3 Exit Interview...... 4

DOCUMENTATION 4

LEA APPROVALS 5

RECORDS 6

INSPECTION REPORT...... 6

INTERAGENCY COORDINAnON 6

FACILITY TYPES 7 Transfer or Processing Stations : 7 Small Volume Transfer Stations 7 Waste Transfer Station FP 41 Waste Transfer Station FP 42 Waste Transfer Station FP 43 Waste Transfer Station FP 44 Waste Transfer Station FP 45 Waste Transfer Station FP 46 Waste Transfer Station FP 47 Waste Transfer Station FP 48 Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 49 Environmental Justice in Waste Programs

Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area You are here: EPA HomeOSWEREnvironmental Justice in Waste Programs>News and Events>Proposed Transfer Station Questions

Proposed Transfer Station Questions ● EJ In Waste Programs Home Waste Transfer Station Workgroup ● EJ Topics in Waste Program ❍ About EJ ❍ Accomplishments Panelists Questions For Fact Finding Proceeding ❍ Action Plans

❍ Projects & Programs

● EJ Resources ❍ Laws & Regulations Questions for Impacted Community and Technical ❍ News & Events Assistance Organizations: ❍ Offices, Regions & Links ❍ Publications In what ways do the operations at a waste ❍ Tools & Contacts transfer stations impact you?

In what ways do trucks transporting waste to waste transfer station impact you?

What has been your observation regarding the manner that waste transfer stations operate in your neighborhood?

How many waste transfer stations exist in your neighborhood and how close are they to your place of residence?

Are there facilities that process waste, such as recycling facilities, in your neighborhood? If so, how are they regulated.

What has been your experience in the regulatory

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

process with respect to addressing the issuesWaste Transfer of Station FP 50 siting and operation of waste transfer stations?

What has been your experience regarding the way that the impact of other facilities, including other waste transfer stations, in your neighborhood have been considered in the regulatory process?

What has been the consequence of the siting of waste transfer stations on the neighborhood? (Such as the impacts on economic development, residential uses, open space)

What techniques would you recommend to reduce the impacts from operation of existing waste transfer stations in your neighborhood?

What techniques would you recommend to reduce the impacts from the transport of waste to and from waste transfer stations?

What techniques would your recommend to prevent clustering of waste transfer stations?

What regulatory changes would you recommend to address the impacts from the operation of waste transfer stations?

What regulatory changes would you recommend to prevent clustering of waste transfer stations?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

What regulatory changes would your recommendWaste Transfer Station FP 51 to prevent the disproportionate siting of waste transfer stations in poor and communities of color?

Questions for Regulatory Agencies and Technical Assistance Organizations:

What role does the transfer station play in the solid waste management plans for DC. How do the various jurisdictions in DC coordinate in this planning?

How much transfer station capacity do you need? Do you have it?

How are parcels of land designated as potential sites for transfer stations? How do the various jurisdictions coordinate? What are the routing considerations?

What public participation is afforded in this selection process? In the zoning process?

What regulatory authority do you have over transfer stations? Over traffic patterns affected by transfer stations?

How are facility hours of operation set?

What standards exist for the siting and operation of waste transfer stations?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 52 In assessing the impacts from a proposed waste transfer stations how are the following considered:

a. improper traffic patterns, b. sewage discharges c. noises, d. odors, e. discharge into the public air, of diesel fuel particulates, airborne microbes, dusts, allergens, formation of carbon monoxide, ozone and other gases, f. disease carrying vectors such as birds, rats, cats, opposums, etc.being brought to and attracted to the site and concentrating in the neighborhood g. synergistic and concentrated effects coming multiple waste transfer stations in proximity each other or to similarly impacting uses

What is the Best Available Control Site Selection, Design and Technology to do the following:

1. Avoid dispersing pollutants into the public air, including diesel fuel 2. particulates, carbon monoxide, othere gases, airborne microbes, dusts, etc. 3. Avoid discharging pollutants into the public sewers 4. Avoid creating breeding sites in discharge sewers for bacteria immune to current medicines 5. Avoid collecting any hazardous waste in the waste stream at a transfer station. 6. Protect the transfer station neighbors from explosions and fires in the waste at the transfer stations. 7. Avoid spills of hydraulic fluid, fuel and other liquids from trucks and machinery at transfer stations. 8. Contain and collect such spills. 9. Assure that the transfer station has adequate space to do all of the necessary supporting work needed now and in the future to handle the trucks'parking, maneuvering, fueling, weighing, cleaning, repair, storage as well as all of the other activities at the transfer station. 10. Detecting and immediately controlling nuisances associated with the transfer station.

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 53 How is illegal dumping addressed in solid waste management planning?

What is the relationship between recycling and transfer stations?

How can you respond to the clustering issue? If you attempted to thin out a clustered area, what principles would guide you (timing of permit application, operating history, design components?

What problems are posed by use of Marine Transfer Terminals in the export of solid waste?

How has DC's Solid Waste Management Plan considered the export of solid waste?

How has DC Solid Waste Management Plan considered the current circumstances of waste transfer stations being clustered in certain communities?

What measure have your agency implemented to assess and reduce the impacts from such clustering?

What efforts have been made to develop a regional government plan thatlimits the number and location of garbage and trash transfer stations serving

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 54 Washington, DC and the suburbs surrounding it?

Does the Comprehensive Plan for the District of Columbia provide any environmental justice guidelines which control the location of handling the private and public waste stream?

What studies are you aware of which measure and distinguish the health risks human populations face when more than one proximate source of offensive airborne pollutants is mixing its pollutants with the airborne pollutants of another source, etc.?

What criteria should be applied to assess whether Waste Management Plans adequately address adverse impacts and environmental injustice caused by plans to or activities that operate garbage and trash transfer stations?

Does the District of Columbia government have the authority to control the siting of waste transfer stations, including their prohibition in certain locations, based on public health and environmental impact?

What regional and national solid waste and recycling policy should EPA pursue to make a dramatic change in the economic attractiveness that is causing a population explosion of garbage

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

and trash transfer stations? Waste Transfer Station FP 55

How should the regional impacts associated with the local and long-range transport of solid waste, included transportation and economic impacts, be considered in solid waste management plans?

How should the waste reduction strategies and importation of solid waste be considered in solid waste management plans?

What is your role in determining the regulatory standards applicable to transfer stations?

What is your role in transfer station siting?

Which agency enforces transfer station regulations? What staff is available?

How is the public involved in facility siting and concerns about operations? How do you respond to citizen concerns?

What measures would you recommend to prevent the clustering of waste transfer stations in the future?

What are differences in impact between marine transfer terminals and land-based transfer stations?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

In considering other waste transfer stationsWaste Transferand Station FP 56 other stationary and mobile sources in proximity to a proposed waste transfer stations, how should the impacts from those facilities be considered in an environmental impact assessment and permits for the proposed facility? In other words, how should cumulative impacts from proximate facilities be considered in the permitting and environmental review of a proposed waste transfer facility?

How are the emissions of trucks during the time of delivering or picking-up solid waste at waste transfer station considered in air permit calculations performed by the company?

What is your role in Solid Waste Management Plans?

How do consider issues of environmental impact and public health in reviewing Solid Waste Management Plans?

What role do think the federal agencies should play in addressing the impacts from solid waste facilities?

How does your agency examine the potential impacts to populations protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights in environmental decisions? When does this occur?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 57

Questions for industry participants:

Why are transfer stations needed?

How do you choose where to locate a transfer station? What kind of approvals are needed?

What regulatory standards apply to your facilities? Do they reflect best practices? Do you feel they are uniformly enforced at all facilities operating as transfer stations? What standards apply to the transportation associated with transfer stations (truck, rail and barge)? What considerations lead you to prefer one mode of transportation over another?

Do you feel there are any regulatory loopholes that need to be filled? Is illegal dumping a problem?

Should transfer station regulation be a matter of local standards, or would a uniform federal baseline be useful?

What efforts do you undertake to respond to community concerns?

How do you consider proximity to other uses, such as residential uses, in the siting of a waste transfer stations?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 58

How should proximity to other uses, such as residential uses, be considered in the siting of a waste transfer operation?

How do you consider proximity to other uses, such as residential uses, in the transportation mode and route used for the transportation of solid waste?

How should proximity to other uses, such as residential uses, in the selection of transportation mode and route for the transportation of solid waste?

What mechanisms do you currently have in place to capture and treat air emissions from waste transfer stations?

What type of air emission are captured?

How are the emissions of trucks during the time of delivering or picking-up solid waste at waste transfer station considered in air permit calculations performed by the company?

What measure could be used to capture and treat emissions from trucks during the time that they are processing waste at waste transfer stations?

What truck technologies can be used in the transport of waste to reduce air emissions, fugitive

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

dust, and odors? Waste Transfer Station FP 59

What technologies can be used in waste transfer stations to reduce air emissions, fugitive dust and odors?

What measures would you recommend to reduce the impact from current circumstance of the clustering of waste transfer stations in certain communities?

What measures would you recommend to prevent the clustering of waste transfer stations in the future?

In considering other waste transfer stations and other stationary and mobile sources in proximity to a proposed waste transfer stations, how should the impacts from those facilities be considered in an environmental impact assessment and permits for the proposed facility?

What technologies exist for using marine transfer terminals for the export of solid waste?

What impediments exist for using marine transfer terminals for the export of solid waste?

What are differences in impact between marine transfer terminals and land-based transfer stations?

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

Waste Transfer Station FP 60 Is retrofitting existing marine transfer terminals viable?

What are the cost considerations in retrofitting marine transfer terminals for long-range solid waste export?

In selecting a site for a facility, what are your considerations?

How do you look at the demographics of communities among potential sites?

How do you look at the environmental conditions of communities potential sites? In assessing the impacts from a proposed waste transfer stations how are the following considered:

What is the Best Available Control Site Selection, Design and Technology to do the following:

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Proposed Transfer Station Questions | News and Events | Environmental Justice in Waste Programs (OSWER) US EPA

1. Avoid dispersing pollutants into theWaste public Transfer Station FP 61 air, including diesel fuel particulates, carbon monoxide, othere gases, airborne microbes, dusts, etc. 2. Avoid discharging pollutants into the public sewers 3. Avoid creating breeding sites in discharge sewers for bacteria immune to current medicines 4. Avoid collecting any hazardous waste in the waste stream at a transfer station. 5. Protect the transfer station neighbors from explosions and fires in the waste at the transfer stations. 6. Avoid spills of hydraulic fluid, fuel and other liquids from trucks and machinery at transfer stations. 7. Contain and collect such spills. 8. Assure that the transfer station has adequate space to do all of the necessary supporting work needed now and in the future to handle the trucks' parking, maneuvering, fueling, weighing, cleaning, repair, storage as well as all of the other activities at the transfer station. 9. Detecting and immediately controlling nuisances associated with the transfer station.

EJ Topics | Resources | Using This Site

EPA HomePrivacy and Security NoticeContact UsContact Us

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/html-doc/wastques.htm Waste Transfer Station FP 62 Waste Transfer Station FP 63 Waste Transfer Station FP 64 Waste Transfer Station FP 65 Waste Transfer Station FP 66 Waste Transfer Station FP 67 Waste Transfer Station FP 68

Trashing East L.A. County

Sam McPheeters

Huffington Post

Posted: 06/21/11 04:59 PM ET

A quaint white mailbox announces 1371 East 9th Street in Pomona. In either direction, long strips of grass mark an unassuming thoroughfare that is surprisingly clean and quiet. The small- town tranquility belies this site's importance to the fifth largest city in Los Angeles county (home to the LA County Fairgrounds, less than three miles away). If regional trash disposal behemoth Valley Vista has its way, this block will soon transform into the Pomona Valley Transfer Station, a sprawling 10.5-acre waste-processing facility with extreme consequences for local residents.

The possible site poses an array of possible problems. According to the January Revision of the Environmental Impact Report, the transfer station would add 610 truck trips to Pomona city streets. That's 610 new truck trips every day. To be fair, it's hard for the average citizen to assess exactly how much extra traffic this means. After all, who among us knows how many vehicles normally go roaring down any given street on any given day? A more quantifiable yardstick would be tailpipe emissions, which would rise to three times the regional threshold with this many vehicles. During the construction phase, particulate emissions will exceed the safety threshold six times over. And even these levels are based on Valley Vista sticking to a tight program of mitigation measures.

One gloomy detail hides in appendix H of the EIR. Valley Vista plans to drop the Waste Transfer Station into a census tract holding Pomona's second highest percentage of minorities and low- income families (the tract with the highest percentage is next door), which makes the project an environmental justice concern. The neighborhood already holds a massive recycling plant and wood recycling facility. Although it may seem like a perverse joke to further handicap the most vulnerable population in an already poor city, there is a nice logic to this move from a business standpoint: impoverished communities are generally the least likely to organize in their own defense.

In this case, however, community complacence hasn't really panned out for Valley Vista. The Pomona Valley Cluster of OneLA -- a broad based organization of faith communities, schools, unions and non-profits -- has gone after the issue with tenacity and disciplined organization. After a packed public meeting in March, Pomona residents delivered 1,057 angry letters to city planers. Such outrage could be confused with the creeping NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard") of wealthier communities, if not for the simple fact that Pomona already has an existing waste transfer station. It's a mile and a half from the 9th street site. The big difference between the Waste Transfer Station FP 69

existing site and the proposed site is that the future Waste Transfer Station would handle far more than just Pomona trash, accepting rubbish from a broad sweep of inland empire cities.

Ominously, a section of the EIR labeled "alternatives analysis" seems to state that the project can only be made economically viable if it operates well beyond the limits of human safety. The site would need to reduce operations by a whopping 74% to meet SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) thresholds for tailpipe emissions, and another 4% beyond that for SCAQMD's cancer risk exposure threshold. More ominous still, the project would have the capacity to move in the exact opposite direction; slated to handle 1,500 tons of garbage per day, the 9th Street Waste Transfer Station would have the capacity of processing 5,000 tons.

So what's the upside? Even if an influx of employment could somehow compensate for environmental calamity, the EIR only estimates 40-50 jobs. Assuming all these jobs go to Pomona residents -- a big assumption -- that would mean employment for a grand total of 1/30th of 1% of the city population. More disturbing is the proposed facility's impact on future Pomona residents: nine schools sit within a one-mile radius of the proposed site (disclosure: my wife teaches kindergarten at one of these schools). It shouldn't surprise anyone that children are especially susceptible to the tailpipe emissions of 106,000 extra truck trips every school year.

Arguments against the site seem lopsidedly overwhelming. What positives could Valley Vista possibly offer to offset so many profound negatives? Over the course of a month, I made repeated attempts to speak with Valley Vista president David Perez, and we did share one brief, off-the-record exchange by phone. Perez is not some old-timey cartoon villain with a Snidely Whiplash mustache. When we spoke, I found him to be genial and perceptive, and quite aware of the local backlash against his project. But his refusal to engage in an actual interview spoke to a potentially winning corporate strategy. Valley Vista isn't running for public office. They don't need to sell the public on their plan. All Valley Vista requires is for public apathy to outweigh public outrage. The fight is theirs to lose.

There is, after all, one very compelling reason for the transfer station to be built: it will make a lot of money for people unaffected by its mess (you just have to be one of the plant's owners to be compelled by this reason). In the meantime, citizens of Pomona are continuing to make their voices heard.

If you live in Los Angeles county and have any interest in environmental justice, corporate responsibility, childhood development, or general human decency, this is the time to make your voice heard as well. You can start by befriending the "Don't Trash Pomona!" page on Facebook. A public Planning Commission hearing is slated for next month.

Waste Transfer Station FP 70 Waste Transfer Station FP 71 Waste Transfer Station FP 72 Waste Transfer Station FP 73 Waste Transfer Station FP 74 Waste Transfer Station FP 75 Waste Transfer Station FP 76 Waste Transfer Station FP 77 Waste Transfer Station FP 78 Waste Transfer Station FP 79 Waste Transfer StationResearch FP 80

Particulate Matter Oxidative Potential from Waste Transfer Station Activity Krystal J. Godri,1,2 Sean T. Duggan,1 Gary W. Fuller,1 Tim Baker,1 David Green,1 Frank J. Kelly,1 and Ian S. Mudway1 1Environmental Research Group, MRC-HPA Centre for Environmental Health, School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom; 2Division of Environmental Health and Risk Management, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom

contributing to adverse air quality in South BACKGROUND: Adverse cardiorespiratory health is associated with exposure to ambient particulate Bronx include industrial facilities and vehic- matter (PM). The highest PM concentrations in London occur in proximity to waste transfer ular traffic (Jackson 1995; Maantay 2007). stations (WTS), sites that experience high numbers of dust-laden, heavy-duty diesel vehicles trans- Te 19 WTSs housed in this low-income and porting industrial and household waste. densely inhabited community area also con- OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to quantify the contribution of WTS emissions to ambient PM mass tributed significantly to increased PM expo- concentrations and oxidative potential. sures, with children experiencing elevated METHODS: PM with a diameter < 10 µm (PM10) samples were collected daily close to a WTS. exposures due to the proximity of these facili- PM10 mass concentrations measurements were source apportioned to estimate local versus back- ties to schools, playgrounds, and residential ground sources. PM oxidative potential was assessed using the extent of antioxidant depletion from buildings (Maciejczyk et al. 2004). To date, a respiratory tract lining fluid model. Total trace metal and bioavailable iron concentrations were it is not clear whether such health effects are measured to determine their contribution to PM oxidative potential. simply due to residents experiencing elevated RESULTS: Elevated diurnal PM10 mass concentrations were observed on all days with WTS activity PM concentrations or whether the toxicity (Monday–Saturday). Variable PM oxidative potential, bioavailable iron, and total metal concentra- of PM derived from WTS-related activities is tions were observed on these days. Te contribution of WTS emissions to PM at the sampling site, as predicted by microscale wind direction measurements, was correlated with ascorbate (r = 0.80; elevated above that of urban PM. p = 0.030) and glutathione depletion (r = 0.76; p = 0.046). Increased PM oxidative potential was Increasing interest has developed in associated with aluminum, lead, and iron content. assessing which PM physical and chemical characteristics specifically contribute to CONCLUSIONS: PM arising from WTS activity has elevated trace metal concentrations and, as a consequence, increased oxidative potential. PM released by WTS activity should be considered a their observed toxicity. Recent literature has potential health risk to the nearby residential community. suggested that transition metals (Stohs and Bagchi 1995), organic species (polycyclic aro- KEY WORDS: antioxidants, iron, meteorology, oxidative potential, respiratory tract lining fluid, source apportionment, waste transfer sites. Environ Health Perspect 118:493–498 (2010). doi:10.1289/ matic hydrocarbons and quinones) (Squadrito ehp.0901303 [Online 17 December 2009] et al. 2001), and endotoxin (Thorne 2000) are associated with increased PM toxicity. Te capacity of PM to induce toxicity (in par- Waste transfer stations (WTSs) represent a Advisory Committee about the impact of ticular, to elicit a respiratory and/or systemic hybrid of traffic and industrial microenviron- these facilities on the surrounding commu- inflammatory response) has been proposed ments. Tese sites experience high volumes of nities; degraded health and environmental to be a function of its oxidative potential heavy-duty diesel trucks and are often situ- conditions were highlighted, as well as wider (Li et al. 2002; Nel et al. 2001)—that is, ated in densely populated urban centers (Gil negative impacts on the community. The the ability of PM to generate reactive oxy- and Kellerman 1993). These facilities serve consequence of the environmental disameni- gen species directly or indirectly to engender as the link in the waste management system ties of these facilities has resulted in dispro- oxidative injury to the lung (Pourazar et al. between the waste collection program and portionate clustering in low-income areas in 2005; Prahalad et al. 1999). We therefore final disposal: Street waste collection vehi- the United States [National Environmental evaluated PM oxidative potential to provide cles discharge loads, avoiding uneconomic Justice Advisory Council) (NEJAC) 2000]. a simple aggregate measure of the particu- travel to distant landfill sites. Although this Similar studies in the United Kingdom have late oxidative burden in the ambient airshed approach effectively decreases the overall air identified a disproportionately high number influenced by WTS emissions. quality burden the waste management system of industrial sites, including WTSs in socio- Te objective of this study was to examine poses on an urban center, communities in economically deprived regions (Higgs and the pattern of elevated PM concentrations at a proximity to WTSs suffer from enhanced Langford 2009; Walker et al. 2005). WTS located adjacent to a densely populated traffic flow and increased particulate matter The relationship between extended air community in London. We used PM source (PM) levels arising from vehicular tailpipe/ pollutant exposure and increased prevalence apportionment techniques and microscale nontailpipe emissions and dust releases from of asthma symptoms has been well docu- laden trucks (Fuller and Baker 2001; Restrepo mented (Romieu et al. 1995; Schwartz et al. Address correspondence to F.J. Kelly, School of et al. 2004). Studies conducted in New York 1993; Studnicka et al. 1997; Sunyer et al. Biomedical and Health Sciences, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford St., London, SE1 9NH, City (Maciejczyk et al. 2004; Restrepo et al. 1997). In New York City, asthma hospitaliza- United Kingdom. Telephone: 020 7848 4004. Fax: 2004) and London (Fuller and Baker 2008) tion rates were stratified by the geographic 020 7848 3891. E-mail: [email protected] have reported that the highest PM concentra- location within each of the city’s boroughs. Te work described in this manuscript was funded tions in these urban centers occur at sampling Children living in the Bronx, specifically by the London Borough of Bexley local council, with sites influenced by WTS-related emissions. the South Bronx, suffered from hospitaliza- additional support provided by the Environmental Concerned citizens inhabiting urban com- tion rates for asthma 70% and 700% greater Research Group at King’s College London. The authors declare they have no competing munities with WTSs across the United States than the average for New York City and financial interests. have raised questions to the WTS working New York state, respectively (New York Received 6 August 2009; accepted 17 December group of the National Environmental Justice City Department of Health 1999). Sources 2009.

Environmental Health Perspectives t VOLUME 118 | NUMBER 4 | April 2010 493 SORTING AND RECYCLING OF DOMESTIC WASTE. REVIE... http://infoventures.comJosh/abs/wastOOOl.html Waste Transfer Station FP 81

[aSH-Link Home IIVIOnline I.Comments J

WASTE-MANAGEMENT-INDUSTRY

SORTING AND RECYCLING OF DOMESTIC WASTE. REVIEW OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND THEIR POSSIBLE CAUSES

Occupational health problems associated with recycling programs were discussed, including musculoskeletal problems, pulmonary diseases, organic dust toxic syndrome, gastrointestinal problems and irritation ofthe eye, skin, and mucous membranes. General descriptions ofthe technologies, health problems, and exposures were given for various types offacilities, including refuse transfer stations, landfills, incinerators, sorting facilities, and compost and biogas producing facilities. The authors conclude that the major occupational health problems at waste recycling facilities are pulmonary disorders, organic dust toxic syndrome like symptoms, gastrointestinal problems, eye inflammation, skin irritation, upper airway irritation, and musculoskeletal system disorders.

Science ofthe Total Environment, 168(1):33-56, 1995. (88 references)

The paragraph above is a short summary ofa larger, in-depth abstract taken from OSH-DB, the world's most comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health database. OSH-DB contains abstracts ofover 230,000 articles, books, NIOSH bu.lletins, and other publicationsfrom the 1890s to the present day. For more information, go to the OSH-Link Home Page.

You can do a search ofthe OSH-DB database and get a list ofarticles on any topic ofinterest on our Visitor Search Page. Access to read the articles is limited to OSH-DB subscribers.

IVI Home • aSH-link Home • Search • Comment

lofl 5/9/2003 3:07 PM Waste Transfer Station FP 82

City, Community Respond to Veolia Waste Transfer Station Issues

Posted on Friday Mar 16, 2012

The City of Evanston held a press conference near the Veolia Waste Transfer Station in Evanston on Friday, March 16, 2012 regarding the lawsuit filed against it by Veolia Environment Services as relates to its operation of a waste transfer station at 1711 Church Street in Evanston, Illinois.

Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl, was joined by Aldermen Delores Holmes (5th Ward) and Peter Braithwaite (2nd Ward), Kristen White and Dorothy Headd of Evanston Neighbors United (a group concerned about the operations at the waste transfer station) and City of Evanston Corporation Counsel Grant Farrar to discuss the ongoing problems associated with the transfer station.

Listen to remarks from city officials and residents here>>>

"Residents and the city are here today to speak on the injustice of having a waste transfer station operating in a predominantly residential area of the city and the station’s negative impact upon the residents as well as the community as a whole,” said Mayor Tisdahl. “The Veolia Waste transfer station is Evans tacitly in which waste hauling trucks bring in and unload muni solid waste and then is loaded into a large semi-truck and then hauled to a dump. Other communities’ trash comes to Evanston before being shipped out to its permanent landfill.”

“According to the Environment Protection Act, no person can establish any pollution control facility for use as a garbage control facility which is located less than 1000 feet from the nearest property zone used for primarily residential use. This regulation is meant to prevent residents from experiencing nuisances caused by waste transfer station; however this regulation does not apply to Veolia because the EPA exempts any such facility that was in existence before Jan 1, 1990. This exemption has allowed the Veolia waste transfer station to be within 50 feet of the nearest residence for over 27 years."

“The city would like to express support for the permit application currently pending with the IEPA the Lake Shore Waste to operate a new transfer station at 6132 W Oakton St. in the Village of Morton Grove. The proposed transfer station is located in an industrial of the village with little to no impact to the residents and residential property. The location in Morton Grove is 5.4 miles from the transfer station in Evanston. The new transfer station will provide users of the Veolia Waste Transfer Station FP 83

Transfer Station in Evanston a nearby alternative to transfer their waste at a more appropriately situated facility. I would like to ask the Governor of the State of Illinois and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to help the citizens of Evanston to resolve this issue,” concluded Mayor Tisdahl.

“We know that there have been residents on Darrow Ave. who have complained year, after year about the rodents and the smell some of whom have lived here for decades,” explained Alderman Holmes. “We need to address this social injustice that has been done to this particular community. We have thousands of HS students that go past this dump every day. We have residents that we don’t know what even might have happened to them in terms of their health issues."

“We have a responsibility to stand up for residents whenever they feel an injustice has been done as well as protect the environment so that families can live in a very healthy way,” said Alderman Braithwaite who represents the area in which the transfer station is located. “This past month we have had an opportunity to lobby downstate to the IEPA and the residents that were there presented a very solid case that I think won the attention of the IEPA.”

“Veolia sued the city and continues a pattern of conduct that Veolia has perused against the city for approximately two years. Veolia is a $50 billion multinational French conglomerate that is utilizing $500 an hour attorneys to continue to bully the City of Evanston and they are trying to use the courts in furtherance of that aim,” explained Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel for the city. “The city passed an ordinance last year imposing a transfer station fee. That ordinance as a matter of law is valid; it is done pursuant to several sources of authority; in case law and Illinois statute. Veolia is contesting that and have filled a lawsuit that is not grounded in fact or law. The city is contesting that law suit and has filled its answer in affirmative defenses. We are currently in front of a new judge because Veolia has continued a pattern that it’s done in other issues related to the law, it has gone judge shopping. It’s contesting every Administrative Adjudication case that is brought against it; it’s tying up the resources of city staff and the city law staff in fighting those Administrative Adjudication findings. In short, it is continuing to use the courts to continue its pattern of not acting as a good neighbor. We look forward to being a strong voice on behalf of the city to win this case as a matter of law.”

Read the city's response to Veolia complaint here>>>

“I have lived in this ward for nearly five years. I pass by here daily with my toddler. In addition to the many residents who surround the dump, I am deeply concerned about the impact that this facility is having on the health of our youth, many of whom pass by here daily on their way to ETHS and Masson Park, which is used annually by 68000 residents,” said neighbor Kristin White. “What we know about this waste transfer station is that it stinks, that 90 trucks on average drive through our neighborhood ( … ) each day to dump their loads; that Veolia processes between 400 and 500 tons of garbage each day; and that Veolia is not using any dedicated modern technology to sort and determine the contents of their garbage other than the eyes of their workers. What we don’t know is what is being dumped here. We have been able to successfully work with the Brady Scholars Program at Northwestern University this year, who cared very much about the injustice of this issue, they were able to share with us national and Waste Transfer Station FP 84

international research that shows us that it is not uncommon to find concerning levels of lead, asbestos, mercury bacteria, spores and organic dust in waste transfer stations even though Veolia states they do not collect some of these materials. If this Veolia Waste Transfer Station was located in an industrial area, with limited traffic and few people around, the health and environmental impact would not have the same consequences as it does for Evanston residents who cross paths with this waste transfer station each day.”

“I have lived in the 5th ward for almost four decades. I am not happy about the Veolia Waste Transfer Station located in my neighborhood and I want to see it go,” said neighbor Dorothy Headd. “Many of the residents I have spoken to feel the same way about this issue. We, the residents of the 5th ward, have many concerns about this Waste Transfer Station being in our neighborhood. We are concerned about our property values, our health, the environment, our safety and the safety of our children. Having this Waste Transfer Station right in the middle of where we live, work and play puts the residents at risk and we want to see it gone."

Waste Transfer Station FP 85

June 30, 2011 In Fight Against Trash Station, Upper East Side Cites Injustice

By MIREYA NAVARRO

Lorraine Johnson says she remembers the garbage trucks that lined up near her housing project on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, to unload trash at a marine sanitation station on the East River.

They made noise, spewed diesel fumes, attracted rats and smelled bad — “like dead bodies,” she said.

“I have nightmares just thinking that there’s a possibility that they might come back,” said Ms. Johnson, 66, a disabled resident of the Stanley M. Isaacs Houses, at 94th Street and First Avenue.

The proximity of public housing figures prominently in a battle by Upper East Side residents to derail a city plan to reactivate a waste transfer station on the East River at 91st Street. In lawsuits, rallies and lobbying in the State Legislature, they argue that economically disadvantaged residents, already struggling, should not be saddled with additional problems.

“How can you ignore the fact that the closest community is 80 percent minority?” said Anthony Ard, president of the Gracie Point Community Council, a neighborhood group that was founded to fight the plan.

But city officials and environmental justice advocates counter that a housing project does not make a community disadvantaged. The Upper East Side is one of the city’s wealthiest areas, they say, and the sanitation plan is intended to redress the disproportionate number of waste stations in poorer neighborhoods. None of the stations are in Manhattan.

“For the Upper East Side to claim the environmental justice legacy is just ridiculous on its face,” said Gavin Kearney, director of environmental justice for New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, which represents the neighborhoods that hold most of the roughly 60 waste transfer stations. “Any community will have low-income residents to a certain extent. A fair system is one that distributes this equitably.”

A review by The New York Times of census tracts within roughly a half-mile of the transfer stations confirms that most of them are in moderate- to extremely low-income neighborhoods. More than half the stations are in two areas in particular: the Greenpoint and Williamsburg sections of Brooklyn, and the South Bronx. About 73,000 residents with a median household Waste Transfer Station FP 86

income of $40,200 for 2009 live near the waste transfer stations in those two Brooklyn neighborhoods, the census figures show; 92,000 people with a median income of $21,000 live near the sites in the South Bronx.

By comparison, the neighborhood near the proposed East River transfer station, Yorkville in the Upper East Side, has about 47,000 residents with a median household income of $91,000.

“It shows that they generally don’t build this sort of facility in high-income areas,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College who analyzed the census figures for The Times. “Certain neighborhoods have certainly gotten more than their share.”

On average, people living near the waste stations had a median income in 2009 of about $40,000, compared with a city median of $50,000.

People interviewed in some of those areas said they were not wishing that other New Yorkers had their problems — truck traffic, odors and emissions that have been linked to health issues like asthma. But fair is fair, they say.

“Where do people think the trash goes?” said Misra Walker, 19, a resident of Hunts Point in the South Bronx, which has about more than a dozen transfer stations.

“They should collect waste, too, and we should try to support each other,” she said of the Upper East Siders.

The waste stations are used to unload trash from garbage trucks and transfer it to other trucks that then take it for disposal outside the city, usually in landfills. Under a waste management plan developed in 2006, the city hopes eventually to rely more on barges and trains to haul garbage out of the city, with the goal of limiting air pollution. The plan also emphasizes having each borough directly manage more of its own waste.

An existing recyclables transfer station at West 59th Street on the Hudson River is expected at some point to start handling construction and demolition debris from Manhattan that is currently trucked to the Bronx and Brooklyn, for example.

In addition to the marine transfer station to be rebuilt on the Upper East Side, three other marine transfer stations are being reactivated in the Gowanus and Gravesend sections of Brooklyn and in College Point, Queens.

For decades, the marine stations loaded garbage onto barges that sailed to the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. But after the landfill closed in 2001, the city began depending more on privately owned land-based transfer stations and on trucks, which meant more air pollution. The expectation now is that the new marine stations will take almost half the trash from city garbage trucks that is handled by land-based stations, and that some of those will close.

City officials said a marine transport site was the most cost-effective and environmentally sound option. Harry Szarpanski, the Sanitation Department’s deputy commissioner for long-term Waste Transfer Station FP 87

export, said that regulations were in place to ensure cleanliness and that the waste transported by barge would be moved in sealed containers.

That offers little comfort to opponents, including residents concerned about smelly truck traffic and air-safety watchdogs who say a station under construction near La Guardia Airport will attract scavenging birds and jeopardize aircraft safety.

On the Upper East Side, neighbors point out that the dumping trucks will arrive on a ramp that intersects the Asphalt Green athletic complex, possibly putting the safety of people using its playground and playing field at risk. They said that because of an increase in the number of residents, the streets had grown significantly busier since the marine station closed in the late 1990s.

Their efforts to stop the station include two pending lawsuits and a bill in the Assembly that would ban operations of any marine waste transfer station within 800 feet of a public housing project in cities of one million or more residents.

Critics say the bill was specifically tailored to block the Yorkville station and ignores poor state residents who do not live in public housing. But its chief sponsor, Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner of the Upper East Side, said he wanted to give residents of the Stanley M. Isaacs Houses and John Haynes Holmes Towers, another housing project in the area, a voice.

“We should be seeking environmental justice, but this isn’t it,” he said of the waste management plan.

Several environmental groups have described the city’s approach as evenhanded. Nonetheless, said Marcia Bystryn, executive director of the New York League of Conservation Voters, the dispute underscored the need for a broader debate about the vast amount of trash churned out in the city and about generating less, recycling more and finding ways to produce energy from local waste.

“All of these things need to be talked about,” Ms. Bystryn said.

But at the end of the day, she and others said, there will always be trash.

Waste Transfer Station FP 88

At Hearing, 1,000 Oppose Waste Transfer Station STEPHEN O’KANE, Staff Writer Published: January 1, 2009

(L-r) Allan Anderson, senior vice president of Dexter Companies, LLC, and Craig Flanagan, vice president of leasing for Duke Realty Corporation, share the front row with Dennis Kelly, project manager for Catholic Construction Services, Inc., and Father Francis Tuan Tran, administrator of the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Church, Norcross. All four men also shared a common opposition to the proposed development of a waste transfer station in their community. (Photo by Michael Alexander)

LAWRENCEVILLE—Father Francis Tuan Tran, administrator of the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Church, stood in solidarity with nearly 1,000 of his parishioners Dec. 16, hoping numbers would help prevent approval of a new waste transfer station next to the mission.

The priest addressed the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners at a public hearing, pleading with board members to consider the dangers and possible side effects of rezoning land to build such a property so near to the church on Shackleford Road in Norcross.

The meeting was the second public hearing on the rezoning. Father Tran brought more than 600 people with him to the first meeting a few weeks earlier, which ended with a recommendation by county planners to deny the requests for rezoning and a special use permit.

He had hoped that, with more people, the commissioners would see how strongly parishioners oppose the plan.

Commissioners immediately agreed to move the issue to the top of the Dec. 16 agenda, after seeing that the Gwinnett Justice Center auditorium, as well as the hall outside and an entire extra room were full of protesting members of the Norcross mission.

“Let me say that the delay is a result of the overflow crowd,” said Charles Bannister, commission chairman, as the hearing began a few minutes late. Lee Tucker of the Mahaffey, Pickens, Tucker law firm, which is representing the land owner, Lancaster Enterprises, addressed the board first, outlining the need for a waste transfer station in the area. Waste Transfer Station FP 89

“We all generate trash,” Tucker began, adding, “It has to go somewhere.”

Tucker claimed that a new transfer station would keep more trucks off of the road and, in the end, improve the health of the area by safely and quietly moving trash away from Gwinnett County.

“All activities would be indoors,” Tucker said. “There would be no outdoor handling.” He added that the proposed plan for the nine-acre property includes two buildings designed to look like office space and provided renderings of a possible land plan. Tucker also argued that the location is appropriate for the use proposed because of office properties nearby and a quarry located across the street.

Allan Anderson, vice president of Gwinnett Corporate Center, which is responsible for nearly 3 million square feet of office and warehouse space near the property, took the podium to counter the remarks made by Tucker.

“This is a totally inappropriate use for the property,” said Anderson.

He said that putting in a waste transfer station would drive businesses away from the area due to the increased traffic and possibly unsanitary conditions, and he urged the commissioners to deny the request.

Dennis Kelly of Catholic Construction Services also addressed the board and introduced Thuy Nguyen, a member of the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Mission.

Nguyen and her husband, Felix, have lived in Gwinnett County for more than 15 years. She is a registered nurse who has been employed by Gwinnett Medical Center for the last decade. The couple has an 8-year-old daughter, Jasmine.

“My family and I are members of the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Mission Catholic Church, which currently has 4,000 members,” Nguyen began. “We, too, share in your mission, in that we help each other become better citizens for the church and community.”

She expressed her concerns about the air pollution, dangerous truck traffic and increased noise level that a waste transfer station would bring to the area and cited her first-hand experience with patients who have acquired airborne infections requiring long hospitalizations.

“I am worried that the fumes that rise with heat, foul odor and debris could be harmful to their health,” she said about the children she works with every Saturday at the church.

“But my greatest concern is that of a mother,” she continued. “My daughter—as well as many other children— comes to the church to worship and learn about God, and to participate in other activities. I am deeply disturbed that my only child, who has asthma, could be exposed to such a detrimental environment. I am sure that any loving parent would greatly share in my concerns.” Waste Transfer Station FP 90

Nguyen also noted that current law does not allow a liquor store to operate next to a school or daycare center.

“How can we fathom a waste station next to a church school, that has more children present than a daycare,” she asked the board.

“As a member of the church, I urge you. As a teacher, I ask you. But as a mother, I beg you. Please deny the proposed rezoning request to build a solid waste transfer station,” Nguyen concluded.

“Please keep us safe and healthy,” Jasmine chimed in at the end of her mother’s address.

Father Tran addressed the board last. After highlighting the many concerns he and the mission had, he asked those present who opposed the rezoning to stand up.

Nearly the entire room stood. Those who were patiently watching in the halls stood. Those who were watching the hearing on televisions in a separate room stood.

“Please help us to protect our community,” said Father Tran.

Bannister then allowed the board to offer motions. Commissioner Kevin Kenerly, District 4, made a motion to approve the rezoning with stipulations.

He said the truck traffic was a major consideration, suggesting that it be limited to approximately 80 trucks per day and that a new traffic light be considered near the property. The vote on his motion ended in a 2-2 tie.

Commissioner Mike Beaudreau, District 3, then offered a second motion.

He asked the representatives of the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Mission to what degree there had been collaboration between themselves and the current owners of the land. Both sides agreed that there has been no talk outside of the two public hearings.

Beaudreau motioned to table the decision until the Feb. 3 meeting, suggesting in the meantime that the two parties begin discussing compromises or possible solutions. By February a new commissioner will have joined the board.

The motion received a majority vote, tabling the decision until then.

Hopeful parishioners stood up and began filing out of the building, forced to wait until February to learn the fate of the property next door. http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/2009/01/01/wts/ ● The Buffalo News ● Buffalo.com ● Jobs ● Cars ● Homes ● Apartments ● Classifieds

81° Cloudy 03:35 PM EDT Friday, July Search Weather 10, 2009 Forecast

● Home● City & Region● Sports● Business● World & Nation● Opinion● Deaths● Life● Entertainment● Blogs View Today's Front Page

Environmental Commission opposes expansion of waste transfer station : Buffalo/Erie County : The Buffalo News

Waste Transfer Station FP 91 BUFFALO Buffalo News Video Environmental Commission opposes expansion of waste transfer station

By Brian Meyer NEWS STAFF REPORTER

April 22, 2009, 7:24 AM / 0 comments

Buffalo’s Environmental Management Commission wants the state to reject a planned expansion of a waste transfer station Story tools:

in the Seneca-Babcock neighborhood. ● Larger

The application submitted by Battaglia Demolition is riddled ● Smaller

with inaccuracies, outdated data and “sloppy” documentation, ● Save Joseph A. Gardella, chairman of the commission, alleged ● Print Tuesday. ● Email The commission, which by City Charter must review key environmental matters, said it has been concerned for years Share this story: about the operation of Battaglia’s existing facility at 1037-1055

Seneca St.

“Traffic problems on streets that are not designed for heavy trucks, activities on site that are accomplished without necessary city permits . . . and a general lack of understanding of environmental issues that must be addressed in the http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/647554.html Environmental Commission opposes expansion of waste transfer station : Buffalo/Erie County : The Buffalo News community are just a few of the issues we have encountered over the last 10 years,” Gardella Waste Transfer Station FP 92 wrote in a letter to state officials.

Gardella, a chemistry professor at the University at Buffalo, warned that a dramatic expansion of the waste transfer station could have a profound negative impact on the neighborhood. He urged the state Department of Environmental Conservation to reject the project and force Battaglia to start from square one by resubmitting a more complete application.

Company President Peter J. Battaglia Jr. defended his application, noting that even if the state approves it, environmental studies would be completed before the project could proceed.

“Our application is only a starting point that the city, state and residents would have a right to review,” Battaglia said.

He also claimed that city officials have been trying to block his project for political reasons, calling it a ploy to block competition in the solid waste processing arena.

Mayor Byron W. Brown and some Common Council members have expressed strong objections to Battaglia’s planned expansion.

Some argued that while the company has the legal right to operate its transfer station under existing restrictions, it should not be permitted to expand both the volume and the variety of garbage it handles. City officials noted that the application raises the possibility that rail cars may haul future waste at the site.

Earlier this month, several homeowners in the Seneca-Babcock neighborhood urged Council members to block the project.

[email protected]

Reader Comments Click To View and Add Comments Breaking News Video Breaking 24 Hour News ● Poor leave Calif. at higher rate than rich http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/647554.html (2 of 3) [7/10/2009 3:31:50 PM] Waste Transfer Station FP 93

Waste transfer station threatens Maple View Farm BOB AND CHRIS NUTTER Published: Feb 01, 2009

When we moved Maple View Farm from Maine to Orange County in 1963, we were attracted to the natural beauty of the area. We delighted in the communal and rural way of life. Now, that way of life is under threat by the county's plan to put an unnecessary waste transfer station in the heart of our farming area.

When we started bottling on Maple View Farm, a couple of dozen families would visit us, every Sunday after services, to buy bottles of milk which we sold off our loading docks. Most of our Sunday guests stayed the afternoon. Children wanted to pet the calves. Parents wanted to walk in the fields. We loved this weekend ritual, which we saw as our unofficial open house -- and the start of our opportunity to offer a connection to a rural way of life.

We started farm tours about 30 years ago. In the beginning, it seemed like every child had some relative -- aunts, uncles or grandparents -- who were farmers. A decade later it became apparent that an increasing number of our young visitors had no idea where their food came from.

Our tours started on the steps of our front porch where the children could look at the views: the silos, the cows and the fields. We asked them to consider the labor and land it took to feed the livestock -- 150 cows that produced their milk, and 150 more calves and heifers that would comprise the herd of the future. For these youngsters, it was an early and important lesson in sustainability.

We can no longer safely allow tours, so we are building a 5,000 square foot agricultural education center on our farm, which will be completed in a couple of months. Here, local school children will interact with farm animals and try their hands at gardening. The center will have pigs, turkeys, chickens, cows, fruit trees, samples of different types of soil and a garden. It is our commitment to assure an agricultural education for every child in Orange County.

We are pleased that Maple View Farm has become a special place for the community. Families enjoy time together in rocking chairs on the porch at our store, especially on warm summer nights. Our bike rack, water and ice cream provide a well-deserved rest stop for a constant stream of the cyclists. Most of all, there's the contemplative quiet beauty of our breathtaking sunsets -- a perfect way to end the day.

We are now concerned that our heritage is threatened. Orange County's plan for a waste transfer station will allow dozens of garbage trucks to rumble past Maple View Farm every day and cut our farm in two. Our tractors will no longer be able to easily cross the road to deliver feed to our livestock. Traffic and noise will compromise the views that we all love and effectively destroy the rural character that our families and neighbors have worked for nearly a half century to build. We fear that those commitments from the county commissioners to protect our rural community may have been empty political rhetoric.

The waste transfer station makes no sense -- spending $7 million to $10 million of taxpayer money on a temporary fix? Plus there are the costs to operate and use the facility that the county staff has not even estimated. Vendors and community groups have provided the commissioners with good alternatives for quality and cost Waste Transfer Station FP 94 effective service. These alternatives can save millions of dollars and keep us on a path toward the sustainable future that we like to believe our farm symbolizes. Shouldn't we be pursuing them aggressively?

The days are long gone when we could herd our cows down Dairyland Road without encountering a car, but our role has never been more important. We don't fight many changes but strongly oppose this waste transfer station. It threatens Orange County's rural heritage and our community's link to its farms and food. It's a waste of our tax money and resources. We can do better. http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/39538.html Voices That Must Be Heard: Chinese in Bensonhurst oppose waste transfer station - New York Community Media Alliance

Waste Transfer Station FP 95

Edition 158: 3 March 2005 log in

Voices That Must Be Heard Weekly Edition link | print Previous Editions Chinese in Bensonhurst oppose waste transfer station News Archive By Jennifer Yao, World Journal, 16 February 2005. Translated from Chinese by Belinda Zhao. Editorials Archive Briefs Archive Chinese in Bensonhurst are angry that the New York City Department of Sanitation is proposing to put a waste transfer station around the exit of Belt Parkway and Bay Parkway. The area has in recent Series Archive years formed a new Chinese-American neighborhood. Photo Library Video Library The Sanitation Department is proposing to set up the station at the intersection of Shore Beltway and 26th Avenue. The station will receive yearly waste of up to 700 thousand tons. It means that trucks Contributors will haul in 1968 tons of waste each day, which will then be transferred to the barges by the forklift Subscribe and shipped away.

Councilman Domenic Recchia, who represents the area, said he is concerned. Recchia said that about About NYCMA half of the waste is commercial waste and handled by private companies. The trucks are likely to Members operate on a 24-hour basis which will not only burden the local traffic but also deteriorate the quality Directory of living. Advertising Services Program Ethnic Community Press Fellowship Assemblyman William Colton just led a successful campaign to demolish an old incinerator at the exact same site. The incinerator had stopped operating since the 1980s but was only demolished last Independent Press Institute, IPI year. Colton said that he was puzzled that the Sanitation Department would even propose building a Ippies Awards transfer station there. Colton said that long-time residents still remember the days when ashes and Census 2010 trash would be strewn around the neighborhood and that it would be impossible to tolerate the station.

Belt Parkway is the only connecting highway in Bensonhurst area. Residential and commercial buildings line both sides of the highway, with shopping malls and fast food stores in the midst. The proposed transfer station is beside Exit 5.

Colton said that the Sanitation’s environmental evaluation simply did not account for how it would impact the surrounding schools, senior housings and health center. Hundreds of students will be affected by the pungent smell whenever the wind blows in their general direction. Colton also said that the evaluation report completely ignored the water and sanitation issues in the area.

Chinese residents in the area are furious. They hope a local representative will help them fight the

plan.

In Briefs section of Edition 158: 3 March 2005

search site by

Contact | Privacy Statement | Newsfeeds | Site Map

http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/158/briefs/briefs/ Brentwood Trash Facility Fight Spans Two Decades

Waste Transfer Station FP 96

Brentwood Trash Facility Fight Spans Two Decades

By Ashlee Clark Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; B01

The flies signal summer at Ruth J. Wilson's house.

They zip in through open doors and crawl into the refrigerator.

During last summer's invasion, Wilson gathered up some of the dead flies, sealed them in an envelope and mailed the package to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They identified the insects as humpback flies.

Wilson says they're invading her house on 13th Street NE because of the waste transfer center a few hundred feet away.

The USDA letter is among the piles of documents that chronicle two decades of complaints by Wilson and her neighbors since the trash transfer station opened in 1988. Their grievance centers on the presence and stench of the garbage processed and stored at the facility until it is taken to landfills, attracting flies, raccoons, possums and rats.

But officials of Square 3942 Limited Partnership, which owns the facility, say that they are observing regulations and that they improved the property when they bought it by cleaning up a vacant lot strewn with waste.

The dispute is approaching its second decade, but the large group that once rallied in opposition has dwindled to a small, frustrated band of neighbors led by Wilson.

Wilson's latest tactic, based on researching the Clean Air Act, is to contend that the transfer station violates air pollution standards. She has also charged that the placement of the transfer facility is an example of "environmental racism" against the working-class neighborhood, where mostly African Americans reside.

In her Brentwood neighborhood, off Rhode Island Avenue, Wilson, a former schoolteacher, is well known for her community activism. She has spoken out for literacy programs in D.C. public schools and helped organize a project to preserve the history of North Brentwood, the Prince George's community where she grew up.

But it is the fight over trash that riles her. Though she and her allies are sick of the garbage and the pests they http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402241_pf.html Brentwood Trash Facility Fight Spans Two Decades say it brings, the daily grind has overtaken the activist spirit in some neighbors. Waste Transfer Station FP 97

"They're not apathetic. They're just tired," Wilson said. "I'm not tired. I was born a fighter."

As Wilson devises new strategies to uproot the station, the transfer station owners face litigation with the city to keep the business open. The District contends that the transfer facility is not in compliance with permit regulations.

Wilson has kept all of her files on the fight over the years. She came up slowly one recent day from her basement -- Dante's Inferno, she calls it -- with armloads of manila envelopes and stacks of papers that document her war on the waste.

Wilson says the trash has affected her health. Her voice is coated with phlegm that she attributes to the transfer center, and she said she takes four medications for chest congestion and related problems.

Brian Schwalb, an attorney for the site's owners, said he doesn't know of any evidence that the station is detrimental to health. He said his clients came in and cleaned the area, which had been overrun with garbage, when they bought the property. He also said there are many other industrial operations in the area, which could be sources of contamination.

Tony Lash, one of the owners, said he runs an excellent, lawful facility.

What about the animals and pests that Wilson says overrun the neighborhood?

"Washington is full of possums and raccoons," Lash said. "It's not just my transfer station."

And Wilson's campaign to boot his site from the area?

She "has been jumping up and down and raising all kind of Cain" over the transfer station since a D.C. Superior Court judge threw out most of the complaints Wilson and her neighbors filed against Lash in a lawsuit, he said.

"So for Mrs. Wilson to just get on the phone and have nothing else to do but badger D.C. government all day, it's not fair," he said.

Wilson's closest ally through the years, Rosalee Collins, is now in a nursing home.

Congregants at the Israel Baptist Church, located near the transfer station, have also given up fighting after the station was continuously allowed to operate.

"I got to the point where I feel like we're fighting a helpless case," said the Rev. Morris Shearin Sr., church pastor.

On a recent Wednesday, Wilson invited two representatives from the mayor's office of community relations http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402241_pf.html Brentwood Trash Facility Fight Spans Two Decades and services to a parking lot off Rhode Island Avenue that overlooks the trash facility. Moses A. Greene, Waste Transfer Station FP 98 a spokesman for the office, said information about the site will be passed to the city's Department of the Environment and other agencies.

Wilson said her campaign will continue until the facility is out of her neighborhood.

"I'm like Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King," she said. "When a job has got to be done, somebody has to go out there and fight it."

News researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402241_pf.html Waste Transfer Station FP 99 Waste Transfer Station FP 100 STNG ::Poncr. LaPone officials pursue battJe agains( waste transfer site http://www.pOSHrib.colll/lJews/484723.pcw astelransfer.al1kleprin l Waste Transfer Station FP 101

Back to regular view' Print this page y

Porter, LaPorte officials pursue battle against waste transfer site (http://www.post-trib.com/r1ews/484713,pcwastetransfer.article)

july 26, 2007

BY TOM WYATI Post-Tribune staff writer

Officials from Porter and laPorte counties continue to fight a proposed wasle transfer station on County Line Road.

A Marion County judge earlier this month denied a petition by Porter and laPorte counties, as well as the towns of Pines and Beverly Shores, that appealed a September 2006 fuling that upheld the granting of a permit to Great Lakes Transfer LLC for the transfer station.

Great Lakes is planning the wasle transfer station on County Line Road north of U.S. 20 on the LaPorte County side of the road.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management granted Great Lakes a solid waste facility permit in late 2005, but area residents raised pollution concerns and cited possible harm to nearby dunes.

Porter County officials have fought the station by denying to grant a driveway permit for the project. LaPorte County and lown officials joined the fight by claiming IDEM issued the permit improperly, given the fact Porter County denied the driveway permit.

But an Office of Environmental Adjudication judge last September ruled the permit was properly granted. A Marion County judge upheld the rUling July 13.

Porter County attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger said she is filing a motion to correct errors made by the Marion County judge. Expecting the motion 10 be denied, Rinkenberger said she will then take il to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

"We can continue to fight and fight and tight," Rinkenberger said.

No matter what, Rinkenberger said the county will not grant a driveway permit to Great Lakes LLC, meaning the county might be facing a lawsuit over the driveway access in the future.

"If they sue us after we go through this whole process and a judge orders us to granl road access, we'll appeal that, too," Rinkenberger said. "We'll take this as far as It can go."

Affiliates: RoqerEberl.com I SearchChicaqo - Aulas I SearchChicago - Homes I SearchChicago - Jobs I NelghborhoodCircle.com I Centerstage ® Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group I Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

I of I 7/26/2007 ): I0 PM Waste Transfer Station: Defenders Policy http://www:mcdef.org/wstxfr.htm Waste Transfer Station FP 102

Waste Transfer Station: Defenders Policy

During the 1980s, the Defenders worked diligently to defeat the siting of landfills in McHenry County. By 1989 it became clear that it was to find a site in, McHenry County with suitable soils and hydrogeology for a landfill. As an alternative Defenders proposed a solid waste disposal policy that encouraged considerable volume reduction, comprehensive recycling programs, composting and waste transfer stations to facilitate the exchange of processed and raw waste.

On January 20, 2003, the Board of Directors approved a Waste Transfer Station policy, in the

The Defenders are participating in the hearings on the proposed Lowe Transfer Station. The proposed location is in the county on Route 14 next to the Hollows Conservation area and bordering the Village of Cary. We hope to be able to question the witnesses for the applicant regarding the issues outlined in our policy.

In the application for the transfer facility, the applicant included a reference to the McHenry COl!nty Defenders and offered a pledge of money to the Defenders in recognition of the role the Defenders play in facilitating waste reduction education and recycling. The Board was not informed or aware of this inclusion prior to its presentation to the County. The board president responded immediately with a letter to the County Board Pollution Control Facility Siting Committee in that regard. Also at the December 16, 2002 meeting, the Defenders Board made a motion to not accept money as presented in the application. We take our role as an advocacy organization seriously and do not want to be perceived as promoting one specific transfer station.

Our goal in participating in the waste transfer station hearings is to help the siting committee and the public understand the issues regarding the environmental sensitivity regarding their siting. In general the Defenders are in favor of the concept of waste transfer stations. In addition, the Defenders believe that every individual and business in this county needs to take responsibility for the amount of solid waste which they produce. We continue to advocate for a solid waste policy which includes recycling, composting and overall waste reduction.

Transfer station policy - January 2003

In January of 1989 the Board of Directors, McHenry County Defenders adopted a Solid Waste disposal Policy. In that policy support was stated for: (A.) Maximizing the participation of households, commercial establishments and industry in recycling (B.) The construction of a transfer station to facilitate the exchange of processed and raw waste.

Today, the McHenry County Defenders continue to believe in the concept of reduction of waste stream volume by encouraging the use of "less stuff', and through recycling and composting programs. To this end we support completion ofa county ordinance mandating commercial and industrial recycling and encourage a ban on leaf burning with leaves and yard waste directed to a compost site. .

We concur with the McHenry County Solid Waste Management Plan 1O-year Update (September 3, 2002) that a transfer station(s) should be developed in McHenry County. A transfer station is a site at which collection trucks transfer their waste load to larger transfer trucks that then haul this large load to an out-of-county landfill. Sited, regulated and

2of4 5/29/2003 4: 12 PM

J Waste Transfer Station FP 103 Waste Transfer Station FP 104 Waste Transfer Station FP 105 Waste Transfer Station FP 106 Waste Transfer Station FP 107 Waste Transfer Station FP 108 Waste Transfer Station FP 109 Waste Transfer Station FP 110

Share Report Abuse Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 Contact Us Residents, Business Owners Protest The Forum Waste Management Expansion Plan Newsgroup 102-05 159th Avenue Howard Beach, NY 11414 Phone: (718) 845-3221 Fax: (718) 738-7645 E-mail: Forum West: [email protected] Forum South: [email protected] View my complete profile

The Forum Newsgroup By Conor Greene

Civic leaders and elected officials gathered in front of About Us Waste Management’s Review Avenue property on Monday Welcome to the temporary to call on the city to reconsider its solid waste disposal online home of The Forum plan, which will increase the amount of local truck traffic Newsgroup, publisher of two in West Maspeth. community newspapers. The

Forum South covers Howard The press conference, which included Councilman Tony Beach, Ozone Park, Broad Avella (D-Bayside), Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley (D- Channel, Richmond Hill and Middle Village), members of the Juniper Park Civic Woodhaven, and The Forum Association and local business owners, was called in West, launched in 2007, response to a plan by WM to expand its waste transfer covers Maspeth, Middle Waste Transfer Station FP 111

station under the city’s Solid Waste Management Plan. Village, Glendale, Ridgewood, Forest Hills and Residents and officials are objecting to the plan because Rego Park. it would require the company to truck residential waste from Review Avenue, where it is delivered by city Please feel free to contact us sanitation trucks, to the Maspeth Rail Yard at Rust Street, with story ideas, letters and a trip of about 1.5 miles each way. Instead, the other submissions. The Forum community is calling on WM to either purchase a nearby is available free of charge in property that has access to the existing rail line running local banks, supermarkets through the area or the adjacent Newtown Creek, or to at and other stores. least build a rail spur on the Review Avenue property, which is next to the track. Check back every Thursday for updated news from your “This is just one more example of the city not reaching area. out to the community to find appropriate solutions,” said News Archive Avella. “We’re calling on the city to take a second look at this plan and… together come up with a plan that works. ► 2010 (297) This doesn’t.” ▼ 2009 (471)

► December (35) The solid waste management plan was approved by the City Council in 2006. Then Councilmembers Eric Gioia, ► November (16) who represented that section of Long Island City and ► October (38) Maspeth at the time, and Dennis Gallagher, who ▼ September (40) represented parts of Maspeth, both voted in favor of the ▼ Sep 24 (11) plan, according to city records. This Week's Forum South and West The facility is currently permitted to receive up to 958 Residents, Business tons of trash per day. Under the new arrangement, the Owners Protest site will be able to handle up to 2,100 tons per day and Waste will typically receive about 1,150 tons per day. As a Managemen... result, there would be at least 65 round trip truck trips Arborcide at Lefferts each day between Review Avenue and the Maspeth Rail Playground Yard. Council Candidates Discuss Education Crowley, who holds Gallagher’s old seat, said she Views is “outraged” by the current plan and suggested that WM instead look into using other nearby sites that have creek Too Slow to Clean up and rail access, such as the former Phelps Dodge After Her Dog: property. She said “it’s not fair for our families” to have Pregnant Woman... the amount of trucks in the area increased, especially Ognibene Launches since the local asthma rate is “through the roof.” City Council Campaign “ h b k h d b d G Waste Transfer Station FP 112

and come up with a plan that will work for our Charter School community,” added Crowley. Application Now You See It; Now Robert Holden, president of the Juniper Park Civic You Don't Association, noted that the WM facility is located on School Construction contaminated land. “So they’re going to build on a toxic Projects Moving site and then pollute the air,” he said. “This whole plan Forward in For... stinks to high heaven.” He also criticized the city for Effort Underway to allowing WM to run public hearings on the proposal. “A Bring Supermarket private company ran a public hearing notifying the public to Maspeth on what’s to come,” he noted. Patients and Officials Rally for Federal Holden called on Mayor Bloomberg, who is seeking Medical I... reelection to a third term in November, to intervene. “If he wants to be mayor for four more years… We haven’t ► Sep 17 (15) heard any indication that he wants to work with the ► Sep 10 (6) community,” the civic leader said. ► Sep 03 (8)

Maspeth civic leader and business owner Tony Nunziato ► August (43) made it clear that this isn’t a case of residents demanding ► July (51) that the project not take place in their backyard. “We’re ► June (48) not saying keep it out – we’re saying put it in the right ► May (36) spot… This is not a case of NIMBY,” said Nunziato. “It’s an ► April (43) easy request.” ► March (45) Richard Sherman, the second generation owner of ► February (48) Williams Valve Corporation – located on one side of the ► January (28) driveway used by WM to access the facility from Review Avenue – accused the city of ignoring the needs of small ► 2008 (201) businesses. “When it comes to us, they don’t really care,” he charged. “They’re going to permit the expansion of a toxic waste dump… We feel as taxpayers that we have the same rights as anyone else.”

While the WM expansion will only create about 10 additional jobs, Avella pointed out that there ultimately will be a net loss of jobs in the area because neighboring employers are leaving the area as a result of the project. He lamented that the city continues to ignore the input of those living and working near the site. “These people have good suggestions – it’s time [the city] started listening to them.”

Waste Transfer Station FP 113

Last week, a WM spokeswoman said the company is taking into account the community’s input but wouldn’t say if construction of a rail spur or the purchase of a nearby site is being considered. “We continue to listen to the community comments regarding the Review Avenue project and are evaluating our future options in response to these concerns,” wrote Rachel Amar. “Waste Management can’t speculate on the basis of any rumors.”

A LIRR spokesman said the agency has "not yet received any specific proposal" on allowing WM to use the tracks and will evaluate the plan once it is officially presented.

Posted by The Forum Newsgroup at 3:40 PM Labels: city council, dennis gallagher, elizabeth crowley, eric gioia, JPCA, LIRR, long island city, maspeth, michael bloomberg, newtown creek, tony avella, tony nunziato, waste management

0 comments: