Wednesday, September 12, 2012

"We'll use "state-of-the-art" containers when we transport the solid waste." [?]

From: Richard Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: We'll use 'state-of-the-art' containers when we transport the solid waste.

I noticed the following little paragraph in today’s Newsday story:
Andrew Kaufman, president of Brookhaven Terminal Operations, said if the depot was asked in the future to move solid waste, it would do so in accordance with all federal regulations and use state-of-the-art containers that are both water and air tight, preventing any unpleasant odors from escaping.
These "state-of-the-art" containers are probably like the "state-of-the-art" landfill liners Brookhaven residents were promised would never leak.

And there is the tricky part of getting the solid waste into the water and air-tight container.  I'm pretty sure they will need to take off the lid for that.

Wait! Wait!

I thought there was a signed legal agreement between the Town of Brookhaven and US Rail.

U. S. Rail's settlement with Brookhaven Town says it won't be handling any waste products:
U S Rail also has specifically agreed to not handle solid waste at the BRT site.  In its “Stipulation of Settlement” with the Town of Brookhaven, U S Rail has agreed that “operations at the Property shall not include the collection, sorting, separation, processing (including but not limited to, baling, crushing, compacting and shredding), incineration, treatment, management, disposal, transport or transfer of solid waste and construction and demolition debris unless required under federal law or regulations.”
I can't imagine any federal law or regulation that would require a railway company to transport solid waste.

Oh, but that was a settlement between U S Rail and the Town of Brookhaven. 

U S Rail Corporation sold its interest in the BRT site to a related company, GTR Leasing and changed the name of its Brookhaven operation from "U S Rail of NY LLC" to "Brookhaven Rail."

Oakland Transportation Holdings then acquired an equity interest in Brookhaven Rail and acquired GTR Leasing. 

Nevada 5, in turn, owns 98% of the equity in Oakland Transportation Holdings of Farmington Hills, Michigan.

So I guess the any agreement between the Town of Brookhaven and U S Rail is moot, as U S Rail Corp of Ohio is no longer involved, if it still exists.

Or maybe the agreement applied only to the BRT site. 

The new 230 acres is clearly not "the BRT site" so there aren't any restrictions on its use---unless covenants are attached to the sale.

Besides, the name in the Newsday article was "Brookhaven Terminal Operations." 

"Brookhaven Terminal Operations LLC" is also based in Farmington Hills, Michigan.  (The names change every couple of months.)

While they were at it, they also created the following new companies in Farmington Hills, Michigan:

    Brookhaven Rail Freight Services LLC

    Brookhaven Eastern Holdings LLC

All three have the same address.

The lease of $1,000 annually that was to be paid by U S Rail to Sills Realty, however, was transferred to the new owners.

It's too bad the "Stipulation of Settlement" with U S Rail is ineffective, since it played a major role in the Final Environmental Assessment of the Surface Transportation Board's Section of Environmental Analysis, which allowed U S Rail to build its railroad in Yaphank in the first place.

U S Rail also has specifically agreed to not handle solid waste at the BRT site.
But that Final Environmental Assessment document also touted how the U S Rail project would reduce truck traffic to the two asphalt plants, when it turns out, it actually increases truck traffic.

It seems odd that the Section for Environmental Analysis didn't bother to look up the distance of the two asphalt plants from the barge terminals currently be used for delivering the aggregate and compare the length of the trips from the BRT versus the length of the trips from the barge terminals. 

If they had, they would have seen that the justification for building the rail terminal, providing crushed stone aggregate to two asphalt plants by rail and reducing truck traffic, did not reduce truck traffic at all, but instead greatly increased it.

The (faulty) Final Environmental Assessment was based solely on the delivery and transloading of stone aggregate.  The assessment said the rail cars would return empty.  No other freight was considered.


No comments: