|
|
|||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||
|
|
Testimony of
New York State Senator Liz Krueger Before the
Department of Sanitation Regarding the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan December 20th,
2004 Good
evening. My name is Liz Krueger and I
am the State Senator for New York’s twenty-sixth senatorial district, one
primarily comprising parts of Manhattan’s Midtown and East Side. I would like
to thank the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) for hosting this public hearing
and allowing me to speak. I
was alarmed when initially notified of DSNY’s intention to resume operation
at the 91st-Street marine transfer station (MTS), and I testified
in June to express this dismay. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) does not appear to have regarded my concern or that of many community
leaders and residents as legitimate, because many of the reasonable questions
that were originally posed remain inadequately addressed or ignored. And while I support incorporating marine
transfer stations into the City’s waste disposal solution and believe that we
must be responsible for our own garbage, placing one at the proposed site
still seems irresponsible and myopic. There
must be a better site on the East Side for such a facility. The residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood and the presence of Asphalt Green—a unique City
resource—adjacent to the MTS site make 91st Street an
inappropriate location. Furthermore,
the DEIS sets inadequate parameters for a final environmental impact
statement that, as of now, will neglect both the full capacity of the MTS
site and, subsequently, a comprehensive examination of the MTS impact and
required mitigation. To be blunt, an
MTS located at 91st Street will have deleterious effects on area
traffic, odor, noise, air quality, public health, the character of the
neighborhood, and the vitality of Asphalt Green. The
DEIS severely neglects the maximum operational capacity of the converted MTS
at 91st Street, forecasting that it will receive only 1,700 tons
of trash per day despite possessing the capacity to accommodate 4,290 tons. I
assume that the City, currently grappling with a financial shortfall, would
not waste its money by erecting a facility that it intended to
underutilize. Thus, it seems
reasonable that a converted MTS at 91st Street would accept far more
waste than the seemingly disingenuous forecast. An
MTS receiving 4,290 tons of trash from four community boards would operate
six days a week and receive trucks throughout the day and night. On peak collection days, the MTS would
receive 469 delivery vehicles, not the 130 projected. On off-peak days, the site would still
need to accommodate—given a conservative assumption of 15-percent less
traffic—398 trucks, or seventeen per hour. All trucks would drive straight through Asphalt Green. In order to go through the site, unload
its contents into non-spill containers, turn around, and then exit, each
truck would require more than the three-and-one-half-minutes average that the
current plan would allow. Reconfiguring
a few intersections or altering some traffic light patterns seem like
hopeless remedies for this potential plague. As
trucks took longer to unload their cargo, those that arrived later would
begin to line-up along the delivery routes—the narrow streets running
east-west and congested York Avenue, a thoroughfare that already barely
accommodates two bus routes, FDR Drive access, and a high volume of
cars. While idling, waiting to unload
the waste that they carried, the trucks would be sitting with their motors
running; releasing carbon-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-based pollutants; emitting
pungent odors; and creating a din.
This situation would cause problems for which there is no adequate
mitigation. And if you think that
driving on York Avenue is already frustrating, wait until there are standing
trucks constantly clogging the road; if you currently enjoy a restful evening
of sleep, remember it fondly as diesel engines roar throughout the night. Beyond
the environmental and quality-of-life problems that the MTS would cause at
this location, there would also exist a significant threat to public
health. With dozens of schools
sending thousands of children to Asphalt Green for recreational activities,
permitting heavy polluters like diesel-fuel trucks to constantly idle near
the site and imperil a population particularly susceptible to respiratory
ailments is not only unsafe but negligent. Unfortunately,
the DEIS neglects this realistic scenario, instead relying upon a series of
complex measurements to justify a plan that seems to have been chosen long
before the impact study process was even undertaken. If the City is serious about its need to
reduce waste and find better ways to accommodate it, there are a number of
alternatives that should be included in the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). It could start by supporting state-level
efforts, like my “bottle bill,” to expand recycling programs, increase bottle
deposits, and cover more types of beverage containers. This would create a dedicated revenue
stream that could preserve and promote City recycling, insulating it from the
often-senseless budgeting process. New York could also decrease its waste
stream by cutting back the distribution of unwanted direct mail and
catalogues. Managing bulk waste would
also behoove the City, and implementing a system to redistribute items like
computers, bicycles, and furniture could potentially result in a 15-percent
reduction of the waste stream. City
agencies could also adopt a waste-prevention incentive program because these
arms of government get free collection services. There
are a number of alternatives to be explored, and while the specifics of the
strategy may be cause for disagreement, a consensus has emerged that the DEIS
is inadequate, perhaps disingenuous.
Thank you very much for your time. |
|||||||
