Environmental Issues—

IWC Reviews Railroad’s Wetlands

Permit Request

By Andrew Gorosko

Following the January 13 closure of a public hearing, Inland Wetland Commission (IWC) members are considering the Housatonic Railroad Company’s controversial application to correct wetlands violations at its 30 Hawleyville Road rail terminal, where the company has proposed expanding its solid waste handling operations.

The session was the third meeting at which the firm described how it would correct environmental problems at the 13.3-acre site that were created when it conducted past earthen filling in or near wetlands without first obtaining a wetlands permit to do so.

IWC members are expected to discuss and act on the application at an upcoming session. The applicant of record for the wetlands permit is Newtown Transload, LLC, a firm that would work as a contractor for the railroad’s proposed expanded waste handling operations.

IWC members learned at the January 13 session that the private ad hoc Hawleyville Environmental Advocacy Team (HEAT) and also Catherine and Howard Winkler of 149 Currituck Road have been granted legal intervenor status by the town in the railroad’s application to correct the wetlands violations. The Winklers own land abutting the railroad property.

Also, IWC members learned that IWC member Edward Bryan has recused himself from participating in IWC review of the railroad wetlands application. A reason for Mr Bryan’s recusal was not stated.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, said that representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will visit the railroad site on January 15 to inspect the property. The USACE visit comes at the town’s request, Mr Benson said.

Attorney Dwight Merriam, representing the applicant, said USACE will inspect the property to learn whether the federal agency has jurisdiction over the railroad’s wetland activities.

As the IWC reviews the wetlands protection aspects of the railroad site, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is reviewing the railroad’s proposed waste handling expansion project.

In the Clean Railroads Act of 2008, Congress granted the state environmental agencies the right to regulate the health and safety aspects of railroads’ waste handling activities. Previously, only the federal government regulated railroads.

The railroad proposes significantly expanding the tonnage and also increasing the range of solid waste that it transfers from heavy trucks onto railcars for shipment by rail for disposal at out-of-state landfills.

After it completes its review of the railroad’s waste handling expansion proposal, the DEP would issue a preliminary decision and then hold a public hearing on the railroad’s application.

Mr Merriam told IWC members that the railroad’s plans for correcting the wetlands violations on the site have been improved to enhance the environmental protection of the property. Mr Merriam submitted a report on site soils, as well as information on the types of plants that would be planted at the property for environmental protection purposes.

Mr Merriam stressed that “no hazardous materials” would be handled by the railroad at the property. He spoke in terms of a government-endorsed definition of “hazardous materials.”

The railroad, however, would handle various “contaminated soils,” which do not fall under the definition of “hazardous materials.”

Colin Pease, the railroad’s vice president for special projects, said that any handling of contaminated soils at the site would be done inside a building, in light of environmental protection issues.

Mr Merriam said the railroad is willing to modify its wetlands protection plans for the property in terms of meeting the IWC’s requirements for the site.

The railroad has done a thorough wetlands review of what would make for “feasible and prudent alternatives” at the site, Mr Merriam said.

The railroad wants to make its property a better property, he said. “We really want to be responsive,” he added.

Mr Merriam turned down a suggestion that the railroad create a 75-foot-wide buffer zone between its activities and the adjacent Winkler property. Creating such a buffer zone would not be practical in terms of railroad activities, he said.

Attorney Keith Ainsworth, representing the Winklers, said that creating a 75-foot-wide buffer zone is “reasonable.”

Mr Ainsworth told IWC members, “It’s our firm opinion that the [wetlands] application should be denied.” The site should be restored to its condition before the wetlands violations occurred, he said.

If the IWC approves the railroad’s wetlands permit application, the IWC should require creation of a buffer zone between the Winkler property and the railroad site, Mr Ainsworth said.

Contaminants in the solid waste which the railroad would be handling could threaten the purity of nearby wetlands, which are high quality wetlands, he said,

Mr Merriam said of the continuing local conflict over the railroad’s plans for its property, “We don’t want this to be an ongoing battle with the town…We have done the best that we can in a somewhat complex and adversarial situation.”

The town government and HEAT oppose the railroad’s expanded waste handling proposal. Town government opposition and the citizens group’s opposition has focused on several issues, including the potential for surface water pollution and groundwater pollution due to expanded waste operations. Other issues include increased truck traffic, increased noise, and additional blowing dust in the area.