1

GORDON DANIELS

A view of the Glendale Road landfill. The pile of material in the center will be used to cover compacted trash

2

GORDON DANIELS

The landfill at 170 Glendale Road is expected to reach capacity in 2011.

3

GORDON DANIELS

Dave Hawthorne, solid waste foreman for the Department of Public Works, takes a methane reading at a monitoring well at the Northampton landfill on Glendale Road. Readings are taken twice a month to help regulate the efficiency of the methane-run electrical substation at the landfill.

4

GORDON DANIELS

The Northampton landfill off Glendale Road allows city residents with landfill permits to deposit their household trash in receptacles. Trucks and other vehicles with more material go to the right, where they are weighed and charged accordingly.

NORTHAMPTON - The city's 40-year-old Glendale Road landfill has generated no small amount of controversy in recent months as nearby residents and candidates for public office rally to oppose a possible expansion as it nears capacity in 2011.

Some landfill neighbors have complained so bitterly and persistently about the noise and smells it generates that the city spent $1.2 million to settle lawsuits and buy two properties whose owners have been the most vociferous in their complaints. The city took ownership of one of those homes in June for $545,436 with plans to resell it this year.

Issues between the city's operation of the landfill and its neighbors are nothing new. Over the years, neighborhood residents have complained that it diminishes the quality of their lives through truck noises, unsightly litter and odors. There have been allegations of air and water quality contamination and concerns raised about public health risks.

In one memorable moment on the floor of the Northampton City Council chambers many years ago, a resident dumped a bag of trash, saying he'd picked it up from the road after it flew out of uncovered trucks on their way to the landfill.

This election season, the proposed landfill expansion has become a lightning-rod issue in the campaigns for political office in two cities and fueled a non-binding ballot question in Northampton. Many voters in both Easthampton and Northampton clamor to know where candidates for mayor and city council stand with regard to the expansion question.

Both incumbent Mayors Clare Higgins of Northampton and Michael Tautznik of Easthampton have said much misinformation has swirled around the landfill question. They say the controversy dodges the fact that the region needs to come to grips with how to deal with its solid waste, including the waste their cities generate.

Higgins says Northampton is committed to serving the communities using the landfill in an environmentally responsible manner for the long term. "We have made a commitment to take care of local waste issues in our own backyard," she wrote to state environmental regulators when seeking support for a landfill expansion in 2005.

Meanwhile, opponents continue to stake out territory against expanding the landfill, but without consensus on how Northampton and surrounding communities should handle their trash if the dump closes in less than two years.

What follows are some frequently asked questions about the city's landfill and the issues involved with expanding or closing it.

1. How old is the city's landfill?

The city began operating an unlined landfill in 1969 after it took property off Glendale Road by eminent domain. The land had earlier been used as a privately run dump. Today, the landfill is about 52 acres in size and consists of an original unlined area and four lined landfill cells. The facility accepts about 50,000 tons of waste annually.

2. Who uses the landfill?

Four major commercial waste haulers - Allied Waste Services, Alternative Recycling Systems, Duseau Trucking, and Waste Management - delivered more than 60 percent of the total waste at the landfill last year, including residential and institutional waste commingled with commercial waste from the region, according to a recent analysis. These haulers run routes in nearly 40 communities, including Easthampton.

In addition, 16 municipalities have agreements with the city allowing them to directly haul their waste to the Northampton landfill. Last year, these 16 municipalities along with Northampton accounted for about 9,300 tons of waste, or about 18.8 percent of the total amount of waste tonnage at the landfill. They are Amherst, Ashfield, Chesterfield, Cummington, Gill, Goshen, Granville, Hadley, Hatfield, Huntington, Middlefield, Plainfield, Southampton, Westhampton, Williamsburg, and Worthington.

The landfill also serves about 10 small haulers that accounted for about 4,200 tons or 8.8 percent of the landfill waste last year, while self-hauling businesses, including building contractors, delivered about 3,800 tons or 6.5 percent of the total waste disposed in 2008.

Seven area institutions brought 1,800 tons or 3.6 percent of the waste to the landfill last year: Smith College, Deerfield Academy and Eaglebrook School, Clarke School for the Deaf, the Hampshire County Jail and the VA hospital in Leeds, according to Northampton Department of Public Works reports.

3. How much annual revenue does the landfill generate and what does it cost to run?

Landfill users pay fees that generate about $3 million annually, money that is used to cover the $1.2 million it costs to operate and maintain the facility on Glendale Road. The additional revenues pay for a variety of other landfill-related expenses such as the Department of Public Works' solid-waste division, including capital investments, long-term debt service and employee salaries, pensions and benefits, and a landfill post-closure fund, to name some.

Out of that money and other solid waste revenues, the city's general fund receives a $468,000 host community fee annually for having the landfill in the city. The general fund also gets a $20,000 payment-in-lieu-of-taxes from the DPW's solid-waste enterprise fund for the landfill property.

Landfill revenues also contribute to a percentage of salaries throughout city government for those who work indirectly on the landfill and solid-waste issues, including city councilors and the mayor's, auditor's and treasurer's offices, among others.

4. Why is Northampton considering expanding the landfill?

The landfill is expected to reach capacity in mid-2011, and the city needs to figure out what to do with its trash when that time comes. Local officials have spent considerable time and money trying to find the best solution against the backdrop of costly litigation involving landfill opponents and amid closer scrutiny of the landfill by state environmental regulators.

Thus far, the city has been working steadfastly to expand the landfill on adjacent property it bought in 1988.

The planned 20-plus acre expansion to the north and 9.5 acres along side slopes would add another 21 years to the lifespan of the solid-waste facility, according to the city's projections. Extending the life of the landfill with state-of-the-art liners has long-term value to the region's economy and is the right environmental choice, they argue.

5. What is the process of expansion and who has the authority to make it happen?

The process begins with the Board of Public Works, which must seek permission for expansion in the form of site-plan approval from the Planning Board and a "heavy public use" special permit from the City Council. This process would involve public hearings and public comment.

6. Are Northampton public works officials going to apply for a special permit to expand the landfill? And if so, when?

Department of Public Works Director Ned Huntley said it remains unclear whether the department will seek a special permit to expand the landfill. "Our board hasn't said whether the project should move forward or not," Huntley said.

7. Are there alternatives to expansion?

The DPW commissioned a recent landfill alternatives study that is still under scrutiny by the Board of Public Works. The board is reviewing five options in the report, including the city getting out of the garbage business entirely or closing the landfill but keeping the Locust Street transfer station open or implementing a city garbage collection system in which trash would be hauled elsewhere. There is evidence to suggest trash disposal costs would rise if the landfill closes in 2011, but it remains unclear how much that would be and under what program.

Another scenario would expand the landfill and combine it with a curbside collection program for city residents.

The BPW was expected to make a recommendation for the city to pursue at its last meeting, but is waiting for direction from City Council. Meanwhile, the board continues to review the financial viability of an expanded landfill, according to Terry Culhane, the board's chairman.

"It's unclear to us what the City Council wants from us, where a couple of months earlier, it seemed perfectly clear," Culhane said this week.

Culhane noted that because the process involving expanding the landfill has taken as long as it has, it's possible that the landfill may have to close temporarily even if an expansion is approved, which could affect financial projections for the landfill. (The landfill alternatives study can be found on the Internet at http://media.gazettenet.com/pdf/landfill_alternatives_draft_report_0714....).

8. What is this state waiver people keep talking about?

In 2006, former state environmental commissioner Robert W. Golledge Jr. granted a special waiver to the city to expand the landfill over a recharge area of the Barnes Aquifer that feeds the Maloney Well in Easthampton. That well is a backup drinking water supply for Easthampton residents and is not used for that purpose because the well water contains elevated levels of iron oxide and manganese, two naturally occurring elements that can cause discoloration of the water.

Northampton officials sought the waiver because state regulations restrict siting landfills in what are called "Zone II" areas of public water supply wells. For the record, part of the existing sanitary landfill is within the recharge zone, as are two now-closed Easthampton landfills.

The state had never before granted a waiver for a dump or landfill expansion in such a zone, and in his decision, Golledge wrote that granting the waiver "is necessary to accommodate an overriding community, regional and state public interest and will not diminish the level of protection to public health, safety and the environment."

Although critics disagree, Golledge found the combination of land-use controls, monitoring measures and continued removal of toxics from the waste stream would ensure that the Maloney Well can be used as public water supply by Easthampton residents.

Golledge also stated that the closed landfills in Easthampton and other potential contaminant sources like dry cleaners, gas stations and cemeteries "likely present a greater concern than the proposed landfill expansion because these potential contaminant sources lie closer to the (Maloney) well than the Northampton landfill." (The commissioner's 10-page decision granting the waiver can be found on the Internet at http://www.gazettenet.com/gazettenet/assets/landfillwaiver.pdf).

9. What is a Zone II area of a public water supply well?

Here's how state regulations define this type of zone: "Zone II means that area of an aquifer that contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated (180 days of pumping at approved yield, with no recharge from precipitation). It is bounded by the groundwater divides that result from pumping the well and by the contact of the aquifer with less permeable materials such as till or bedrock. In some cases, streams or lakes may act as recharge boundaries."

10. How will users of the landfill dispose of their trash if the city closes the facility?

The approximately 50,000 tons of waste arriving at the dump each year will likely be diverted to other area landfills, including those in South Hadley, Chicopee and Granby, according to state regulators. However, that is not likely to be an entirely smooth transition as all of these facilities are already operating at or near their permitted capacity. It's also possible that some of the waste could be carted off to facilities farther away if or when the landfill closes.

11. Why have city councilors been prevented from discussing the city's landfill expansion plans with its residents?

Because the City Council is the special permit-granting authority for a landfill expansion, councilors have been instructed by an outside attorney not to discuss any specifics about the project with constituents until a public hearing process ensues. In a memo to councilors last year, Shutesbury land-use attorney Michael Pill said the public hearing process must give all interested people "a full, fair and open opportunity to present facts and opinions to the council to support or oppose the landfill expansion."

He asserts that "fundamental fairness" requires that councilors base their decision on information received only through the public hearing process. The council appears to have heeded that advice and many of their constituents are upset about what is frequently termed a gag order.

12. What is the non-binding landfill question on the Nov. 3 election ballot? How did it get there? And what impact will it have?

On Nov. 3, voters will be asked to answer this question: "Shall the City of Northampton expand the Northampton landfill over the Barnes Aquifer?"

The question was originally brought to the City Council by At-Large City Councilor Michael R. Bardsley, a mayoral candidate, and Ward 6 City Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge on behalf of citizens, but was rejected by the council over the summer largely because many councilors found the language too simplistic and without context.

In September, the same question made its way onto the ballot by means of a citizens' petition that required signatures from at least 1,930, or 10 percent, of the city's registered voters. Many of the petitioners are under the umbrella of an organization called Water Not Waste.

It remains to be seen whether the results of the ballot question will influence public policy but it can send a message as to what governmental action voters deem desirable. But the question is non-binding, meaning its outcome cannot compel the city's policymakers to take a particular action.

Dan Crowley can be reached at dcrowley@gazettenet.com.