The NIMBY challenge: scrap recyclers may opt for their day in court when facing a NIMBY threat—or they may find themselves there unwillingly. . attitudes

Recycling Today, April, 2003 by Dan Sandoval

The often laborious steps to build, site or expand a recycling facility could sap the energy, interest and bank accounts of many companies. From receiving permits from local, regional and state agencies, hiring consultants and engineering firms to ensuring that a facility will operate in an environmentally friendly way, to convincing local legislators that their business would not do irreparable damage to the surrounding communities, the path that many recycling companies need to take can dissuade many executives from trying.

In addition to the cost to build, expand or remain in business, the time may drag on for years. And then, there often is no guarantee that the company will succeed in receiving the go-ahead from the government.

Local, regional and state agencies, as well as vocal community opposition in some instances, can make it difficult for recyclers to present their cases. And when an impassioned public reacts to NIMBY (not in my back yard) scares, whether real or absolutely inaccurate, the recycler may be in an awkward position.

Further, some recycling companies that have operated in relative isolation may come under extreme scrutiny from government entities when surrounding neighborhoods change. Some recycling yards, operating for decades far from residential areas, may see encroaching urban sprawl and resulting negative attention from new neighbors. These facilities may operate in areas zoned for industrial--even heavy industrial--activity, but the perception (and often the misperception) of what is occurring at the site can stir some communities that are seeking a "better environment.

UNDER PRESSURE. Recyclers operating in central city areas may see redevelopment or gentrification in the area that creates pressure on a recycling company to abide by new zoning standards.

While most recyclers say that they have attempted to work with local legislators and regulators to co-exist harmoniously, the unfortunate fact is that often pressure from a local community can make it extremely difficult to continue operating efficiently.

Over the past several years a host of recyclers have noted that they are seeing active neighborhood groups using a host of methods to drive many of the operations out.

From filming the goings on of some recycling yards to establishing local community groups with the sole purpose of forcing local governments to alter their attitude toward a scrap yard, a newly energized opposition to many recycling facilities has put increased pressure on recycling yards to defend their businesses.

In one case, E.L. Harvey & Sons, Westborough, Mass., attempted to expand its existing operations to an adjacent community. (See related stories in the www.RecyclingToday.com archives as well as in the first part of this series in the March 2003 issue of Recycling Today). After contentious public hearings, the recycler was given the approval to expand. However, after agreeing to some changes to the operations, differences of opinion arose. According to local press reports, the Hopkinton, Mass., Board of Health and E.L. Harvey & Sons were close to resolving their differences out of court, but abruptly the health board chairman stated a compromise might not be within reach after all.

Harvey appealed four conditions the board set on a permit to expand its recycling facility on 40 acres in Hopkinton. The parties had been working with their lawyers the past two months to reach an agreement since the board approved the company's expansion.

However, after appearing to have a compromise worked out, a snag was hit and both sides have been unwilling to settle.

Harvey appealed a condition requiring it to monitor groundwater on and down grade from the site, including the town's old landfill, which was capped in 1986.

In a local press report, Harvey attorney Stephen Richmond said he was "puzzled" by representatives by the city's latest response because the company had not changed its proposal since its last meeting with the board.

Harvey agreed to monitor, provided it could use up to three existing monitoring wells and use water standards set by the state of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for solid waste facilities.

Water would be tested twice a year, and results submitted to DEP and the Board of Health.

But representatives from the city had expressed reservations. Nancy Peters, chairwoman of the city's Board of Health, expressed concern that the water standards for solid waste facilities are too lenient. "The public water supply wells are much too important to allow that," she said.

She wants the recycler to compare site groundwater to drinking water standards like it does at its Westborough facility, and to carefully monitor an area of critical environmental concern on the property.

Harvey's attorney, Stephen Richmond, said the company doesn't anticipate a problem, and fully intends to comply with designated state standards.

In a published report, CEO Jim Harvey said he was fed up with the board's inflexibility, and that he and his family have been made out as "bad guys."