Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 6/23/2021
WILBRAHAM – Concerned residents asked questions of the company that plans to increase the capacity of the recycling company at 120 Old Boston Road. The questions came as part of a formal hearing during which the Board of Selectmen, serving as the Board of Health, listened to testimony and received documented evidence about the proposal.
Attorney Christopher Myhrum of the Law Offices of Christopher Myhrum in Springfield oversaw the hearing as a neutral party not associated with either the town or 120 Old Boston Rd., LLC, the company operating Western Recycling.
Currently, the facility is open between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays and from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. During those hours, Western Recycling processes up to 645 tons daily of construction and demolition waste, municipal waste and “lightly contaminated” soils, according to the company. The maximum yearly capacity is 156,000 tons of waste, brought in by truck and rail.
Western Recycling has requested to step up its capacity to 2,000 tons each day and up to 612,000 tons per year. To do this, the facility would extend its hours to 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. The company would begin on-site processing 24 hours per day, and store up to 100 bales of waste outside the building for up to 72 hours. While the increased capacity may necessitate an addition to the existing building, it would not increase the footprint of the business.
Frank Fitzgerald, of Fitzgerald Attorney at Law in East Longmeadow, is representing Western Recycling. He presented several experts who had studied potential ramifications of capacity and hour expansion at the site.
Green Seal Environmental Executive Vice President Laura Bugay explained that the project had already passed the state Department of Environmental Protection’s site suitability criteria. She went through the criteria and explained how the company had addressed each one. She said that Tech Environmental had completed a sound study to assess the noise issue from later hours of operation and found that the facility will meet noise regulations.
Philip Viveiros, senior project manager for McMahon Associates, addressed a major concern among residents: traffic. He said that part of the site suitability report approved by the DEP included an investigation of traffic congestion, pedestrian and vehicle safety, roadway configurations and alternate truck routes.
Part of the examination considered 11 intersections in the area around the site. There are two intersections where accidents are higher than the Wilbraham average. Viveiros said a slight majority of the accidents at Old Boston Road and River Road are single vehicles hitting fixed objects, while a proposed Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) project should address traffic issues at the intersection of Boston Road and Stony Hill Road. Accident rates at the remaining intersections examined were average for the area.
The extra tonnage will result in an extra 37 trucks coming and going during the 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. peak hour 15 trucks during the afternoon peak of 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., but a total of 217 more trucks per day are expected.
Despite this, Viveiros said the increased traffic would have a “negligible impact on traffic operations” and “does not constitute a danger to the public health, safety or the environment.” As Wilbraham Town Attorney Steve Reilly later explained, that language is important as it is the legal standard which must be met.
Reilly said that the Tighe & Bond study that was ordered by the town-created working group on the matter was “largely consistent” with the findings of Green Seal Environmental and the DEP, however, it raised concerns regarding noise levels of 24-hour operation.
Tanya Basch, director of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and chair of the working group, laid out the recommendations for acceptance of the expanded capacity, to which the company had largely included in its proposal. The capacity would be phased in with three levels. At each point, the Board of Health would review the impact. The company would need to log all complaints and a predetermined number of complaints within a certain time would trigger a review by the board.
Monthly Board of Health inspections would be conducted and hauler regulations would need to be strictly adhered to. These restrictions include proper tarping of trucks to keep litter from blowing off of trucks, limited idling time and limited use of compression brakes – a form of braking that relies on the engine to hold the vehicle back. Many of the recommendations were made after consulting with officials in Holyoke, where a facility operates under similar conditions.
Two of the half-dozen residents that spoke during the hearing expressed support for the expansion, praising improvements that the company has made since taking ownership of the facility.
Speaking against the facility’s capacity and hours expansion, John Boudreau, president of the nearby Woodcrest Condominiums Board of Trustees, was concerned about increased truck traffic on Boston Road. He said entering and exiting the neighborhood at the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and Boston Road was “a nightmare as it is,” at peak hours. He expressed skepticism about Vivieros’s claim that the traffic would not be impacted heavily, but Vivieros said that the proposed work from MassDOT would ease the existing traffic problems on that stretch of Boston Road.
Old Boston Road resident Christopher Bolek told the parties in the hearing that the noise level, odors and frequency of trucks traveling to and from the facility is already “significant.” He also noted the excessive speed of trucks, despite the short distance from the River Road turn onto Old Boston Road and the driveway of the site. Bolek asked about the possibility of “pathogens and contaminants” blowing off the trucks as they pass homes. Basch told him that they have not received complaints about odors, but the required tarping of trucks is designed to keep litter and debris from blowing off the trucks. She explained that hauler companies that do not follow requirements are prohibited from doing business in the town.
Resident Robert Dupuis referenced a petition he had circulated with 40 collected signatures. “I can speak for everyone when I say no one wants this expansion,” Dupuis said. He said the whole town will suffer from “significant liability,” stating “we would be seen as a dump by the rest of the area.” He also predicted multiple lawsuits due to traffic accidents and claimed vehicles are already “encouraged” to travel at 80 mph due to “incorrectly-scaled” speed limits. Further, a train car accident “would cover our commercial areas in garbage.”
Karen Madden asked who would pay for upkeep on roads that are impacted by the weight of additional trucks. As it stands, she said, neighbors have complained to the Engineering Department about road deterioration and to the police about trucks driving over lawns. “These changes are just too much for us to bear,” Madden said.
Another resident asked to know what benefit Western Recycling is to the town. When he was referred to the host community agreement, he pushed back, asking for anyone to name one benefit. Basch stepped forward and explained that per the agreement with the town, Western Recycling does not charge to take the town’s catch basin cleanings, the disposal of which can be expensive. The facility also gives the town the lowest cost on disposal of solid waste and provides some bulk disposal. Two public hazardous material recycling days per year and staging of emergency debris are also benefits provided by the company’s agreement with the town. Basch said money from the incoming trash provides revenue to the general fund, which can be used for road upkeep and infrastructure.
Residents had more questions at the June 21 Board of Selectmen meeting, but Reilly explained that due to state laws around formal hearings the board was not allowed to ask or answer questions outside of the formal proceedings that were conducted at the June 15 meeting. The board has 45 days from that hearing to make its decision based solely on the testimony and exhibits presented. Breault suggested that the board vote on the issue at the July 12 meeting to allow time to work out any issues, but a date for the vote has not yet been finalized.