Section: Croton-on-Hudson Devil is in the Details
October 24, 2006
Will Washington Help the Residents of Croton? Part 2
The second avenue the Village is pursuing in Washington, D.C. is through the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB).
The reason why Croton is concerned about what is happening in Washington is, as stated in Part 1 of this article:
1. What is the STB? With the establishment in 1995 of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to consolidate interstate and intrastate rail transport under one federal agency, waste haulers have developed a new tactic in an attempt to free themselves from local regulations. Once a waste transfer site is approved by the STB as part of a railroad, this federal preemption may exempt the site from meeting the state and local environmental review and permitting conditions that have been long established by the EPA and Congress as a local policy domain. The use of this loophole has expanded rapidly in recent years in the Northeast and the early results are chilling.
The STB is a three member board, www.stb.dot.gov, formed as a result of the Interstate Commerce Termination Act of 1995. The STB’s purpose is to enact policy on interstate trucking and railroads. The STB does not hold public hearings although input from interested parties is received and posted by them. They meet once a month and publish an agenda but also make decisions in the interim without notice to the public.
2. What is the Village doing at the STB? Currently the Village is addressing two issues with the STB – both primarily related to Buffalo Southern Railroad (BSOR) which has a current application to the STB..
First, as a result of a preliminary injunction decision by federal judge Colleen McMahon, and at her recommendation, the Village has filed a complaint with the STB. The complaint states the Village’s position that BSOR, a class 3 common carrier that operates in western New York, cannot simply start operating in Croton – 300 miles away from its primary location – without permission from the STB.
Second, BSOR, a sublessee at 1A Croton Point Avenue property owned by Greentree Realty LLC, filed a Notice of Exemption at the STB to transfer waste at the site. If BSOR is successful in receiving this STB exemption, the potential for an unregulated waste handling operation in Croton is a real possibility. The Village is actively fighting this by filing briefs with the STB to call attention to the need for a full administrative review of the BSOR application to operate in Croton.
3. What are the STB’s likely decision dates? Even if Croton is successful, a full review of BSOR’s application by the STB may only delay a ruling favorable to BSOR, pursuant to BSOR submitting further information the STB may request. This ‘we need more information” process is quite common at the STB. On the other hand, the STB has moved rather quickly on other applications of late.
The Village does not know when the STB may choose to act on the matters in front of them that relate to Croton. It could be at any time as there are no specified time-frames or clocks that apply. A decision from the STB that is unfavorable to Croton could leave us with an unregulated waste transfer situation as we fear.
4. Should the Village continue the fight at the STB and in Congress? – The answer is a resounding YES. Yet, any reform in Congress to close the STB/waste station loophole may be years away. And the STB’s own decisions may rule in favor of BSOR long before then.
5. Should the Village pursue other alternatives that might preclude the worst-case result of an unregulated waste site in our midst? Again, the answer is YES. If we do nothing beyond the legal work at the STB and in Congress, we leave Croton at the mercy of decisions to be made in Washington into which we have scant input and over which very little control.
6. Can we really rely on Washington to help us in time? No. Therefore, we should explore alternatives that give the Village local control and oversight to safeguard local health, safety and welfare.
-- Trustee Ann Gallelli
Tools: 
Print
| 
Comments (2)
October 23, 2006
Will Washington Help the Residents of Croton? Part 1
Recently there has been much discussion, and some confusion, about what is happening in Washington D.C. that is relevant to Croton’s situation at 1A Croton Point Ave. Right now Croton is pursuing two separate strategies in Washington--one is legislative and the other is administrative. It comes down to a question of time. Can the Interstate Commerce Termination Act of 1995, which created the Surface Transportation Board (STB) be amended in time, and in such a way, that the current application of Buffalo Southern Railroad (BSOR), or any other common carrier, to receive an exemption to transfer solid waste in Croton can be ‘derailed’ before the STB makes its decision.
Because the situation is complex and an explanation is lengthy, we have divided the information about the above question into two separate articles: legislative and administrative (part 1 follows).
1. Why are we concerned about what is happening in Washington? “In a nutshell: With the establishment in 1995 of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to consolidate interstate and intrastate rail transport under one federal agency, waste haulers have developed a new tactic in an attempt to free themselves from local regulations. Once a waste transfer site is approved by the STB as part of a railroad, this federal preemption may exempt the site from meeting the state and local environmental review and permitting conditions that have been long established by the EPA and Congress as a local policy domain. The use of this loophole has expanded rapidly in recent years in the Northeast. The early results are chilling.” For more, click here.
2. What legislation is under consideration? Two companion bills introduced in both the US House of Representatives (HR-3577 with 5 co-sponsors) and the US Senate (S-1607 with 4 co-sponsors) were submitted on July 2005 and referred to the appropriate subcommittee. HR-3577 was introduced by then Representative, now Senator, Menendez (D-NJ). S-1607 was introduced by Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ). Companion bills are nearly identical bills introduced in both houses of the government. They typically stand a better chance of being enacted than solo proposals as any final legislative act must be approved by both Houses.
Both bills seek to transfer oversight of railroad transfer stations from the STB to state and local governments. The lack of such local oversight authority has resulted in disastrous waste transfer operations in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Additionally, HR-4821 was introduced on February 28, 2006 by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) along with 6 cosponsors, including Rep. Maurice Hinchey of NY. This bill calls for the exclusion of solid waste disposal from the jurisdiction of the STB.
3. Is there any other legislation under consideration? Croton’s Congressional representative, Sue Kelly, submitted HR-4870 to the House Transportation Committee on March 2, 2006 with no – cosponsors. Six months later, after the lack of co-sponsors was raised on September 4, 2006, at Croton’s Village Board meeting, two co-sponsors signed on to the bill on Sept. 6th and Sept. 29th. Representative Kelly has not signed on as a co-sponsor of either HR-3577 or HR-4821.
HR-4870 specifically relates to Northeast Interchange Railway (NIR), another lessee at 1A Croton Point Ave. It calls for the STB to take no further action on future applications by Northeast Interchange Railways (NIR) as well as for compliance with state and local regulations. As NIR currently has no application in front of the STB, passage of this bill would have no real practical effect on our current situation with Buffalo Southern Railroad (BSOR)
4. What has the Village done to support these bills? The Village joined many other municipalities and organizations in submitting letters and documentation to support of these bills. The Village also wrote to our federal, state and local governments seeking their support of these bills. Among those organizations that are record for supporting this legislation are the US Conference of Mayors and at least three national waste industry trade groups.
5. Why is the waste industry supporting these bills? The waste industry wants a level playing field. That means that new waste handling operations should be subjected to same environmental scrutiny and local land use review as existing sites had to undergo, regardless of whether the new sites are owned by railroads or not.
Communities in which quasi-rail wastes sites are proposed, such as Croton, and legitimate solid waste firms, whose operations did invest in complying with all local regulations, both strongly disfavor such environmentally unregulated “bare bones” waste handling sites for complementary reasons.
6. When can we expect action on these bills? As of October 2006, there has been no action on either HR-3577, HR-4821 or S-1607 in either the Senate or the House beyond their referral to the subcommittees. For more information, click here. There also has been no action on the HR-4870 although hearings occurred on May 23 on the more general question of the relationship of railroads to waste hauling at which the then-Chair of the STB spoke.
The 109th Congress is close to ending. On Sept. 30th, Congress recessed until after the November elections. They will reconvene in mid-November for a few weeks in November and December. In January a new Congress, the 110th, will be in place. The outcome of the election will have a great deal to do whether the bills in committee are carried over to the next session. Those that have many co-sponsors and companion bills in the opposite chamber are more likely to remain viable. It also depends on whether the main sponsors of the bills are still in the Congress.
As to timing, unless one of these bills is passed prior to a possible STB approval of BSOR’s exemption to handle solid waste, they will be of no help to Croton’s ability to have oversight of operations at 1A Croton Point Avenue.
-- Trustee Ann Gallelli
Tools: Print
| Comments (1)
August 29, 2006
Lessons from Ohio: Weak Laws Govern the Waste Industry
A recent a letter in the Gazette from an Ohio citizen, rightfully pointed out the effects of living with a nearly unregulated solid waste site. Ohio residents have a real problem: Ohio laws that govern waste are among the weakest in the nation. And Ohio has 71 waste landfills.
Ohio has no state requirement for environmental review or site plan analysis of locations proposed for disposal or transfer of municipal solid waster or construction and demolition debris waste.
Nor does Ohio’s state legislature appear eager to enact tougher regulation of what has become a profitable state-wide industry. The only review of waste sites in Ohio is left to under-funded local health departments, requiring landfills to avoid contact with drinking water aquifers.
Continue reading "Lessons from Ohio: Weak Laws Govern the Waste Industry."
Tools: Print
| Comments (1)
August 15, 2006
On The House Subcommittee on Railroads...
Contrary to recent verbal and printed statements that a bill sponsored by Representative Sue Kelly to make changes in the Surface Transportation Board rules is on a “fast track” and will be acted upon soon, please note the following status report taken from GovTrack.com.
Official Title: H.R. 4870. To establish certain rules for Surface Transportation Board approval of waste management company applications to become rail carriers. Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced House bills go first to House committees that consider whether the bill should be presented to the House as a whole. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Introduced: Mar 2, 2006 Last Action: Mar 3, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads. Sponsor: Rep. Sue Kelly [R-NY] (no cosponsors)
Clearly, there has been NO action since it was introduced in March and referred to the subcommittee. As stated in the Status section, the process for any House bill to move ahead in arduous and “the majority of bills never make it out of committee.”
Further, Rep. Kelly had no co-sponsors to help move the bill along or give it more impetus.
It is likely that this bill was just giving lip-service to a local constituency (see: “Kelly Introduces Legislation to Keep Waste Companies from Evading Local Environmental and Zoning Laws”) and that there is little likelihood of any action or positive results in a time frame that would help the Village of Croton-on-Hudson in dealing with the terrible consequences of having a 24/7 unregulated waste operation at 1A Croton Point Avenue.
— Ann Gallelli, Charlie Kane, Leo Wiegman, Trustees, Village of Croton-on-Hudson
Tools: Print
| Comments (1)
August 1, 2006
New Athletic Fields at Croton Point Park
Top quality athletic fields in Croton have been in hard to come by. But that has just changed for the better. As of August 14, 2006, the Village will assume maintenance and administration from the County over the newly improved athletic fields at Croton Point Park. Here are the details.
The County is completing a major renovation started two years ago. The Croton Point Park sports complex includes a baseball diamond and a multipurpose rectangular turf field, a generous parking area and a bathroom facility and a water fountain.
The Village’s new permit fee is significantly lower than the fee charged by the County for these fields prior to the renovation. The Village is taking applications now in advance of the August 14th takeover date.
These fields are located on Croton Point Park Avenue a quarter mile east the interchange with Rt. 9/9A and 100 yards east of the overpass above and entrance into the Metro North rail yard.
The baseball diamond has a sand covered infield, full height backstop and a slightly elevated pitcher’s mound. The turf on the outfield is new and robust. A new water fountain is located behind the backstop. The football-soccer-field hockey-lacrosse field is elevated for good drainage, irrigated by internal sprinklers, with embedded sockets for soccer-style goals. Its new turf is —at present—chiefly a playground for white-tailed deer and Canada geese from the woods and waters nearby. The multipurpose field’s dimensions are generous and adequate for scholastic scale competition.
Continue reading "New Athletic Fields at Croton Point Park."
Tools: Print
| Comments (13)
July 21, 2006
The Devil is in the Details: 1A Croton Point Avenue
The most critical situation facing the Village right now is the distinct possibility that an application by a common rail carrier to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) will result in a 24/7 operation at 1A Croton Point Ave (satellite map).
If the STB grants such an application, the site will operate legally and with no local control or input. An operation of this type, which the STB could permit to handle municipal solid waste, would truly be a terrible setback for Croton.
Croton has very little control over whether the STB in Washington approves a waste transfer station for the site or not. If the STB grants a federal exemption to a railroad to operate a waste handling site, that facility is no longer subject to the regulations of local governments, whether state, county or municipal.
Waste disposal is also is a major problem and of prime concern to large municipalities across the country and therefore considered to be in the national interest—50% of waste, nation-wide, is shipped by rail.
Many communities are affected and are currently working toward improving the federal law that allows this pre-emption for quasi-railroads who seek to establish waste transfer sites near existing rail lines, with or without existing spurs. However, shepherding a revision of the federal code successfully through Congress will take a very long time—probably years.
Meanwhile, if the Village does nothing, we find ourselves in the position of hoping that the federal law will be changed in a meaningful timeframe to prevent an operation from opening over which we have no control. Given the national interest in securing access to waste disposal, the STB law may be beyond improving at all.
Faced with this possibility, we—as Trustees of the Village—feel that we must examine all available options that might give us some leverage over the environmental impacts of the site.
To date, the village has spent almost one million dollars in legal fees in an effort to control this site. Also, a federal judge recently barred the Village from pursuing eminent domain to acquire the site for a centralized public works facility
The Village is currently engaged in seven or more actions regarding 1A Croton Point Avenue at all levels of government from the state and federal court, to the STB in DC, and including a recent special permit application submitted to the Village for a C&D waste transfer site at 1A Croton Point Avenue.
All of this action costs money and the fight has only just begun. Ultimately, if a common carrier prevails at the STB by securing the umbrella of federal pre-emption from local land use laws, our ability to establish any local control and environmental oversight over this waste transfer station would be zero.
For eight years, the politics of this situation has drained the village both financially and psychologically—sucking energy from other endeavors and resulting in postponement of worthy initiatives.
It is time to try to find a viable solution that protects the health, safety, and welfare of Village residents. To that end, we feel obligated to explore possible alternative solutions that will yield both control and closure (see: “Croton Trustees Change Tracks and Pursue Negotiations with Regus Industries”).
— Village of Croton-on-Hudson Trustees Ann Gallelli, Charles Kane & Leo Wiegman
Tools: Print
| Comments (1)