MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

                                                                                                                                (VICE-CHAIRMAN)

                                                                                                                         CRIMINAL JUSTICE

                                                                                                                         BANKS AND BANKING

December 27, 1999

Mr. Robert Durand

Secretary of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02202

Attention: MEPA Unit Re: EOEA # 8694

Dear Secretary Durand:

I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change filed by

Abington Transfer Station LLC. (ATS) and I would like to offer the following comments:

1. Although the proposed project is technically outside of

my district, I do represent two precincts in the town of Abington. I am therefore concerned not only about the impacts created by this project to the site itself and the immediately abutting areas, but also to the region. I am concerned that a project of this size and significance has been able to advance to its current stage of permitting without ever having to file a formal Environmental Impact Report (EIR) .

2. The current Notice of Project Change (NPC), which is asking for the Secretary to find that the proposed changes are "--insignificant in terms of environmental consequences.." include changes, which relate significantly to the operation of the facility. The change in the size of the processing building, from 23,000 square feet to 32,000 square feet represents a 34% increase in operating area. The NRC claims that this is "minor" change to the project and that it will in effect improve the project. However, it can be arguei that a change in the operational size of that magnitude reflects a gross misrepresentation of the original safe operating capacity of the 1800 ton/day facility.

Similarly, the proposed changes to the access road and the additional "vehicular trips" generated onto route 58 on the order of 144 trips per day represent a significant change in the operation of the facility of approximately 24%. This change is also presented as being minor, but again it represents a significant under estimate of the impact of the original transportation and traffic component of the project.

One can only wonder what the outcome of the site approval process would have been if all of the dimensions and impacts of the proposed facility had been put on the table f rom the start. The residents of the surrounding communities are rightfully concerned that this project has not been comprehensively or correctly evaluated.

3. Sufficient questions have been raised about the traffic analysis to warrant further study.

4. Comments submitted by Mr. William Creighton of Abington indicate that the review process itself has been incomplete and so piecemeal as to be ineffective. I would just like to second his comment that it appears that the project has slipped through the process and at some point, a project of this size and scope should have been required to do an EIR and be reviewed through a proper notification process and through a new ENF. See the comments of William Creighton -non- procedural issues". If Mr. Creighton's analysis of the record is correct,the project should have been flagged for "a significant lapse of time". The project went from a local 280 ton a day facility to a regional 1800 ton a day facility without an adequate review.

Sincerely,