Town Opposition Continues—

Railroad Revises Waste Permit Request

By Andrew Gorosko

The Housatonic Railroad Company has revised its controversial pending state application to expand its solid waste handling at its Hawleyville rail terminal, reducing the proposed volume of waste that would be handled and also omitting certain forms of waste.

The railroad’s revised waste-handling permit application to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) comes in response to continuing opposition to expanded waste handling at the rail terminal from town officials and also from members of a citizens group. The opposition focuses on the possible adverse environmental effects of a waste expansion project.

In an October 1 letter to First Selectman Joe Borst, Edward Rodriguez, who is the railroad’s general counsel, writes that the revised permit application “is intended to address some of the concerns expressed by the [state] attorney general, various town officials, and citizens concerning Housatonic Railroad’s application.” Mr Rodriguez adds that the proposed revisions “are made in an effort to address various concerns raised by members of the community and town officials.”

“I am sure that there are those who oppose any type of waste facility in Newtown, and the concern of those individuals can never be fully addressed,” he writes.

“I do expect, however, that most fair-minded and objective residents who have expressed concerns about our operations will find these voluntary measures to either resolve their concerns in a satisfactory manner, or will go a long way in doing so,” Mr Rodriguez adds.

The lawyer thus asks that town officials reduce or withdraw their objections to the railroad’s permit application for expanded waste handling.

First Selectman Joe Borst, however, had a different view of the matter on October 7.

“This [permit revision] is a step in the right direction. But we don’t want it in Newtown. We’re going to do everything we can to stop it,” Mr Borst said of the waste expansion project.

A suitable facility for such truck-to-rail waste transfer exists on White Street in Danbury, he said.

“We don’t need this [waste] facility in Newtown,” he said, adding, though, that he does not object to the railroad’s continuing its lumber-handling at its 30 Hawleyville Road rail terminal.

“There are so many side issues — the noise, the constant noise,” Mr Borst said of the waste-handling operation.

The first selectman said he is very concerned about the prospect of groundwater pollution being caused by the railroad’s waste handling. The town will continue its surface water quality monitoring program in that area to check on whether pollution is occurring, he said.

The state attorney general, state environmental officials, and town officials met on October 2 to discuss legal strategy concerning the railroad’s seeking a waste-handling permit from the DEP. (See related story.)  

When Congress approved the Clean Railroads Act of 2008, it required that the health and safety aspects of solid waste handling by railroads be subject to regulation by the state DEP. Previously, railroads had been subject only to federal regulation.

Revised Permit

In the initial permit application that the railroad had submitted to the DEP last April, it proposed increasing its solid waste handling from 450 tons daily to 2,000 tons daily, and also increasing the range of solid waste that it handles. The railroad transfers solid waste from heavy trucks onto railcars for shipment by rail for disposal at out-of-state landfills.

Until now, the solid waste shipped out by rail has largely been construction/demolition debris. In the permit application submitted to the DEP last April, the railroad sought to also handle contaminated soils, used casting sand, coal fly ash, dredge spoils, ash from resource recovery plants, sludge ash, treated woods, and scrap tires in the form of crumbed tires, shredded tires, and whole tires. The railroad’s DEP permit application last April indicated that it wanted permission to operate the waste transfer station seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

In its revised permit application to the DEP dated September 28, the railroad proposes that “the average volume of all permitted waste processed through the facility on a monthly basis shall not exceed 1,000 tons per day, excluding Sundays.”

Also, the railroad deletes certain waste items that it had formerly requested permission to handle. The deleted items include used casting sand, coal fly ash, whole scrap tires, and sludge ash.

The revised permit seeks permission to handle the following materials: cardboard mixed with construction/demolition debris, construction/demolition debris mixed with bulky waste, contaminated dredge spoils, contaminated soils, paper mixed with construction/demolition debris, crumbed scrap tires, shredded scrap tires, and treated woods.

Also, the railroad states that normal operating hours for its waste handling would be 6 am to 8 pm on Mondays through Saturdays. Waste facility operations may occasionally occur at other times, it adds.

The railroad states that waste materials stored on the site would be stored under cover in a structure.

Also, contaminated soils or contaminated dredge spoils that are outside of their original shipping containers or packaging would not be placed on the ground or stored within structures, but would be promptly loaded into railcars, it adds. Also, such waste loading would occur only after the DEP approves the permit application and would be done only in structures and in the manner approved by the DEP, it adds.

The total storage of all waste at the facility would not exceed 3,000 cubic yards at any time, according to the railroad.

Also, the railroad proposes that it expand a waste-handling area located within an existing building on the site. The railroad adds that it would omit the proposed construction of a new waste-handling building, unless the DEP requires that such a building to be constructed.

Among other permit application revisions, the railroad omits its previous proposal to handle solid waste in an area known as the “bulk loading track.”

Robert Isner, DEP’s director of waste engineering and enforcement, said this week, “I think the general nature of the [waste permit] application remains the same.”

The most substantial revision involves the reduction in daily waste volume from 2,000 tons to 1,000 tons, Mr Isner said.

The revisions to the list of the waste materials that would be handled on the property essentially is a “technical” change, he said.

Whether a new waste-handling building would need to be constructed on the site would be determined during DEP’s technical review of the application, he said.

“An indoor [waste] operation is much easier to control,” he added.

The DEP has formulated a draft “notice of insufficiency” to the railroad explaining that its permit application is insufficient, thus requiring the clarification of certain permit discrepancies and the provision of added information, he said.

Mr Isner said October 6 that the railroad has not yet responded to a DEP “notice of violation” that had been issued based on a September 2 DEP inspection of certain waste-handling activities which were underway without authorization from DEP.

Mr Isner said he expects that the DEP would conduct a public hearing on the railroad’s waste-handling application sometime in March 2010.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, who has strongly opposed the railroad’s proposed waste-handling expansion, expressed doubts about the railroad’s credibility.

“I don’t trust them to go by what they say they’re going to do. I don’t have any level of trust in them,” he said.

The railroad has assured the town and others that it seeks to protect the environment, including wetlands, near the site of its proposed waste-handling expansion.

The town Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) is scheduled to hold a public hearing at 7:30 pm October 14 at the town offices at 31 Peck’s Lane on the wetlands protection aspects of the railroad’s waste expansion proposal.