Noise Pollution of Rail-Dependent Recycling Center

You recently published an article by Andrew LePage concerning the proposed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) being designed for the City of Industry (Nov. 21).

I was disappointed to note only passing mention of a nearby “hospital.” As the administrative service director at Lanterman Developmental Center, I feel a responsibility to share some facts with your readers.

First of all, the proposed MRF would be located approximately 4,000 feet from Lanterman. Lanterman Developmental Center is home to almost 1,000 residents with severe and profound developmental disabilities. Approximately 500 of these individuals have behavior problems and react negatively to noise, needing as predictably calm and quiet an environment as possible. Most noise and vibrations cause startle responses, which can lead to seizures and cause a decrease in their sense of well-being and their quality of life.

The trains, which will carry the refuse mentioned in the article, will be long enough (6,000-plus feet) to extend adjacent to some of the residences on the Lanterman campus. (The tracks essentially divide the developmental center grounds.) It is one thing for trains to pass through, but (for the trains) to sit on the tracks while they are loaded and unloaded will certainly increase noise and odors.

Secondly, we at Lanterman are vitally concerned about any potential increase in the air pollution, which Industry city officials say cannot be avoided. As a center, we take many positive actions to work at reducing pollutants in the air. In addition, on stage two and three smog alert days, the activities of all the residents of Lanterman are severely curtailed. This includes not being able to go outside of their homes to school and work sites because of the condition of the air. It’s one thing for you and me to be able to choose to stay in, but for the residents of Lanterman, it is a necessity. At least 100 individuals living here have respiratory problems so severe that they receive regular respiratory therapy, 50 have tracheotomies and at least four at any one time are maintained on ventilators.

So, in addition to the impact on the citizens of the communities adjacent to City of Industry, Lanterman’s residents, most of whom cannot speak up for themselves, would suffer negative effects.

And, thirdly, while there was mention of some 2,000 businesses in City of Industry that need disposal service, the 600 residents of Industry live much farther from the proposed MRF site than those who live in the Lanterman, Diamond Bar and Walnut communities.

PATRICIA D. REES

Administrative services director

Lanterman Developmental Center

The Nov. 21 issue carried a story about local residents’ opposition to two proposed Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) near their neighborhoods. The proposed City of Industry MRF has a planned capacity of 5,700 tons per day of mixed municipal waste, and this would make it the largest such facility in the nation. This type of facility is known in the industry as a “dirty” MRF because it separates and processes recyclables from raw garbage. A “clean” MRF only accepts separated or commingled recyclables.

Before dealing with the immediate issues at hand, I need to mention something very fundamental. The generators of garbage (i.e., people) are ultimately responsible for any solid-waste crisis that may occur in their communities. The consequence of the many conveniences built into our lifestyles are never realized until it is at our doorstep. The per capita generation of garbage in Los Angeles County is the largest in the nation. More important than recycling, I have preached source reduction for years. I have not seen much change in behavior because of an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. Due to this historic insensitivity, the problem is no longer out of sight.

Returning to the present situation, if recycling were the only issue then I would propose that clean MRFs of a smaller scale be built in four or five cities across the San Gabriel Valley. Many cities are interested in having MRFs in their jurisdiction. I specifically mention “clean” MRFs because the infrastructure is in place, since local haulers have curbside recycling programs. This would relieve the centralized traffic problem caused by one massive facility, and remove the control from just one jurisdiction.

There is another problem to consider, however. Local landfill capacity will reach maximum in the near- to mid-term. It seems as though the only alternative is to ship our trash via rail. This requires the trash to be dumped and packed into rail trailers. However, a trash transfer, rather than a trash sorting (dirty MRF), facility would provide a quicker turnaround for the garbage. I feel that the most equitable approach to solving the problem in this region would be to have a few clean MRFs and one or two trash transfer facilities in suitable locations.

DAVID B. REYNOLDS

Community recycling volunteer

Member, National Recycling

Coalition