NEW YORK-New York City's massive garbage pail twice the size of Central Park will close months earlier than expected.

Fresh Kills landfill, the jumbo site on Staten Island that has taken the city's trash for the past half century, will close July 4, not at the end of the year, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said.

Giuliani revealed the accelerated time frame as part of his nearly two-hour state of the city speech last week.

Fresh Kills opened in 1948 and grew to become the nation's largest landfill
- so big that it can be seen from space.

Staten Island Borough President Guy V. Molinari said the early closure is good news for his community.

"It's a huge event for us," he said. "To have to accept garbage from as many as 8 million people for the past number of years was an enormous burden.

"As the mountain of garbage grew higher, the odors emanating from the landfill went farther and farther," he said. "From an economic standpoint and quality of life, it's been a huge, huge bit for us."

Having the landfill on Staten Island caused some people to move away and others not to live there, he said. But as news of the pending closure became known in recent years, interest in the area started growing.

"A lot of that would not be happening if not for the closure of Fresh Kills," he said.

Giuliani's announcement that the landfill would close on Independence Day was no surprise to the borough president, who worked Giulliani closely with the administration. He credited the mayor and his staff for working to advance the closure date.

An earlier closure than the Dec. 31st mandated deadline started becoming a possibility as the city was able to divert more waste away from the site in recent years than previously anticipated, Molinari said.

A variety of factors are contributing to the earlier closure date, Sanitation Department spokeswoman Kathy Dawkins said.

A key has been diverting more of the city's waste - about 12,000 tons per day at this point - away from the landfill, she said. Only about 3,500 tons per day being generated in Queens still are going to the landfill.

"It's been a series of things that have been working in our favor," she said.

Bids to handle Queens' trash are under review at the city controller's office, Dawkins said. A contract will be awarded following that process.

Once that contract kicks in, the landfill no longer will receive any more putrescible garbage from the city.

Statistics from the Sanitation Department showed the average tonnage handled at Fresh Kills was 12,600 per day in 1996 and 10,700 in 1998. The figure dropped to 8,500 by 1998.

City planners view Fresh Kills land as an unprecedented development opportunity in time.

Some portions of the property not containing trash can be developed more quickly than disposal areas, where the city could have to wait for up to 30 years to allow property to stabilize.

Plans are for an international competition among landscape design experts to determine the property's best potential use.

MONCURE, N.C. - Residents are logging onto the Internet to voice their concerns about Waste Industries Inc.'s plan to open a 200-acre regional landfill in Moncure.

With springtime in the air and flowers blooming many of us take to our yards or plot of earth for a dose of old fashioned gardening. We rake, weed, plant and fertilize. But more than a few of us also apply heavy doses of pesticides to keep the grubs down and insects away. And while labels on pesticide containers warn us of the product's danger when we use it, these same labels also tell us to "wrap container in newspaper and throw in he trash," even when full. If danger exists in using pesticides, equal or greater danger exists in their improper disposal in the garbage. These product labels and our behavior need to change.

Massachusetts recently became the first state to pass a law that protects our children and families from dangers of pesticides by banning their use in schools and day care centers. The evidence is clear. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to a number of serious health conditions and diseases. A recent Stanford University study, for example, reported that pesticide exposure in the home and garden may increase the risk of developing Parkinson's disease. These products, though, pose a danger not only in their use but also in their disposal. Sanitation workers have been injured; streams have been contaminated; and children have been poisoned.

One crucial tool to educate the public about pesticide product dangers is the instructions on the products themselves. But while consumer product labels give us special instructions on pesticide use, they contradict state and local policies on disposal.

All across the nation, thousands of state and local programs collect unused pesticides at permanent centers or one-day events and dispose of them at permitted hazardous waste facilities. In Massachusetts, 234 of its 351 municipalities collected pesticides last year and more permanent household hazardous waste collection centers are being developed this year. These special colletion programs exist because the public demands this service. In addition, government officials believe that the risk of putting unused pesticides in our garbage cans is too great. Officials in a small number of states that collect pesticides with regular trash only do so because they lack the money for special collections.

Unfortunately, many pesticide manufacturers continue to argue that pesticides should be tossed in the garbage along with pizza crusts and orange peels. They want the labels to remain the way they are and oppose household hazardous waste collections because they think pesticides are safe for disposal in landfills, incinerators, septic systems and wastewater treatment plants.

Fortunately, state and local government agencies and other organizations are not deterred from the pesticide industry's opposition. Hundreds of letters have already been sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the agency responsible for regulating pesticide labels, urging it to change the label by referring consumers to local authorities and a national telephone hotline for proper disposal information. On June 16, the EPA released draft policy to change the labels, and government officials are hopeful that such local control will eventually be granted.

Local agencies believe that, since they are responsible for managing both garbage and hazardous chemicals, consumers in their communities should contact them for advice on whether pesticides should be put in garbage pails, collected in trucks that drive their local streets and, in many cases, are disposed of in local landfills and incinerators. These officials understand that they can be held liable for contamination at a disposal facility, as was the case for 13 communities in southern California, which were recently ordered to spend over $32 million to clean up a contaminated landfill.

As scientific evidence continues to mount about the environmental and health risks from pesticide manufacture, use, storage and disposal, we must be ready to respond. Not only should pesticide manufacturers be required to change the disposal instructions on the label, but they also need to begin discussions with government agencies over how they can contribute to reducing the impact from their products. It costs money to keep these products out of our disposal facilities. This cost is now almost completely borne by taxpayers through municipal collection programs. Those pesticide products not collected are impacting the environment, and ultimately public health, adding further financial burden on our citizens.

It is time for pesticide manufacturers to live up to their responsibility and work with government agencies to reduce the impact from their products, just as many other industries are doing all across America. Government agencies around the country are looking to manufacturers to be environmental stewards, whether they produce electronics, paint, oil, beverage containers or pesticides. Only with their support will we he able to move toward that ever elusive, but attainable, goal of sustainability. Changing the label so that consumers properly dispose of pesticides is a good next step.

Pesticide disposal levels is just one of the many issues that must be addressed by hazardous materials professionals. This fall, the Hazardous Materials Management Conference on Household, Small Business and Universal Wastes offers professionals in the field the opportunity to meet with colleagues, net-work and learn how peers are dealing with various hazardous materials challenges. Featured session topics include product stewardship; materials of concern such as pesticides, mercury-containing products and cathode ray tubes; household hazardous waste collection program innovations; pesticide labels; and much more.

The conference is sponsored by the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association (NAHMMA) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). It will be held Nov. 12-17 at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel in Boston, Mass.

Scott Cassell is president of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association.

Rumpke gets OK to expand By Jim Johnson

COLERAIN TOWNSHIP, OHIO - America's sixth-largest waste hauler has struck a deal to help clear the way for expansion of its massive Cincinnati-area landfill.

Rumpke Consolidated Companies Inc. reached a rezoning settlement with the Colerain Township Board of Trustees that allows its landfill to expand disposal space by 89 acres to help create another 11 to 15 years of disposal capacity.

Rumpke and the township have been at odds over the rezoning of residential property adjacent to the landfill to make way for an expansion. Township trustees denied a zoning change in July, but quickly faced legal action by the firm.

Rumpke's proposed expansion, which still requires state approval, would bring total disposal space to 333 acres, including land that has already been zoned for a landfill but is not being used, Rumpke spokeswoman Shelly Sack said.

The landfill, which brings in about 6,500 tons of trash each day, currently has a footprint of 244 acres, Sack said.

The landfill's total property, including buffer space and nondisposal areas, would increase to 509 acres.

Colerain Township and Rumpke have inked a consent decree that drops a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. Under the decree, the parties agree that existing single-family residential zoning adjacent to the property should he changed to excavation and landfill use.

The trustees, who unanimously approved the zoning change, issued a statement after their decision.

"Having carefully considered the advice of its attorneys on matters relating to the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits of the case at trial, the anticipated cost of litigation, and the possibility, in the event that the township lost the case at trial, that damages could he awarded and the township might lose control over the details of the development and operation of this property, the board decided to settle the case," the statement reads.

While the land in question has been zoned residential, its topography and proximity to the existing landfill "effectively preclude the development of that land for residential uses, the trustees stated.

Legal counsel told the trustees that keeping the land residential despite those hurdles "is impermissibly restrictive and would justify a court declaring the zoning unconstitutional." the trustees' statement says.

The township, as part of the settlement, will receive 45 cents per ton for all trash placed in the landfill after the expansion area opens, almost double its current rate of 25 cents per ton.

Rumpke has been paying the township about $450,000 per year through the fee, Sack said.

Bill Terry, Rumpke's chief opperating officer, called the agreement a "win-win settlement for both parties."

With the township hurdle cleared, Rumpke now must seek expansion permission from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The landfill is permitted to take in a little more than 8,000 tons per day, but there are no plans to increase current volumes, Sack said. "We're not going to be increasing tonnage or the amount of traffic or trucks or anything," she said.

The landfill has about four years of capacity remaining at current disposal rates and should begin accepting waste in the new area before that space runs out. "We think it should be seamless," Sack said.

WASHINGTON - Eight years after listing municipal solid waste landfills as a hazardous air pollutant source, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released its proposed emission standards.

Published Nov. 7, the proposed rules apply only to "major" source landfills those that emit 10 tons per year or more of pollutant - as well as any landfill co-located with the source, and some landfills that are area sources.

The proposed rules have the same requirements as emissions guidelines and new source performance standards for landfills, with some changes. The proposed rules add startup, shutdown and malfutiction requirements, and the rules mandate reporting for deviations for out-of range monitoring parameters. In addition, landfill operators will have to report every six months instead of each year.

Most landfill operators follow many of the requirements already and will not be greatly impacted by the regulation, said Ed Repa, director of environmental programs with the National Solid Waste Management Association.

"It's going to be some paperwork. and it's going to cause little problems, but it's not going to really affect the industry," Repa said.

Rose Spikula, director of environmental compliance for Waste Management Inc., agreed. She said her company already has the control systems, monitoring and paperwork in place. "We're there," she said.

Despite the programs already in place, the EPA estimates that the regulation will reduce emissions for 30 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, ethyl benzenes, toluene and benzene.

The agency will hold hearings in Decemher on the proposed rules if contacted by Nov.27. Comments are due to the Agency by .Jan. 8.

After a nine-month investigation, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accused County Waste and Recycling in Clifton, N.Y., along with Casella Waste Systems Inc. and two of its subsidiaries, Vets Disposal Inc. of Oneonta, N.Y. and Waste Stream Inc., of Ithaca, N.Y., of violating state recycling laws. The parties reached the agreement Dec. 4.

"New Yorkers in every corner of the state support recycling every day by separating their bottles, cans and newsprint from other trash," Spitzer said. "Citizens expect and deserve that waste haulers will do their part in complying fully with the state's recycling law."

"[It's] legalized extortion," said Scott Earl, owner of County Waste and Recycling.

Casella will pay a total of $90,000 in rebates to about 2,000 customers in Delaware, Herkimer and Oneida counties and reimburse the Regis Mohawk Tribe $1,350 for collection services in tribal buildings in Franklin County.

There were times when the performance of some of our people fell through the cracks," Casella spokesman Joseph Fusco said. "It's more important to say we've corrected the issue."

The Rutland, Vt.-based solid waste company inherited some of the problems from its acquisitions in the area, Fusco said. Recycling is a crucial part of solid waste management, and the company has invested in new equipment to handle recyclables in problem areas and is educating its employees.

"If there's anything we want our customers to understand, it's that the effort they make is appreciated and is worth something," he said.

The investigation revealed that between January 1998 and May 2000, Vets Disposal and Waste Stream landfilled recyclables collected from residential customers, Spitzer said. Thus, the customers paid for curbside recycling service but didn't receive it.

County Waste and Recycling allegedly landfilled recyclables from April to October 1999. For its part, it will pay $5,000 to the town of Clifton Park and $2,500 each to the towns of Malta and Stillwater. The company offered to donate the funds to the municipalities to help develop their recycling programs.

"My whole life has been in the garbage business. I've been at it since I was 12," Earl said. "We do everything here the correct way."

The attorney general's evidence against County Waste and Recycling consists of a handful of complaints, Earl said. After one customer called to complain, the state set up a highly advertised hotline for others to call in if they saw their hauler dump recyclables. In two months, the attorney general received three complaints via the hotline, he said. County Waste and Recycling made 500,000 collections from 60,000 customers during that time. But after paying $22,000 in legal fees, it was time to give up the fight.

"It hurt me personally," Earl said "We believe in recycling and we'll continue to commit to it. It's part of my business, it's part of my life."

New England Waste Services of Vermont, a unit of Casella, has filed its request with the Vermont Department of Natural Resources.

The company has requested permission to increase the annual tonnage it receives at the Coventry landfill from 180,000 tons to 240,000, said Chris Wagner, chief of certification and compliance with the state Department of Natural Resources.

The public comment period expired Nov. 24, after which state officials could approve the increase in tonnage, Wagner said.

Company spokesman Joe Fusco did not return telephone calls seeking comment on the reason for the increase.

However, a source with the state said the request was made because out-of-state landfills used by Casella were reaching capacity.

An increase in tonnage should not result in additional trash being imported into Vermont, Wagner said.

"They principally take Vermont waste because of a statute that requires any waste they take to come from states with a solid waste plan," he said.

New England Waste's Coventry landfill is in northeastera Vermont, approximately 10 miles from the Canadian border.

MANOR TOWNSHIP, PA - You can't put a price on memories - at least according to Melvin Hess, an attorney representing five homeowners in Manor Township who are fighting to keep their homes and land amid Lancaster County's planned 300-acre expansion of the county landfill.

Four of the nine homeowners occupying land earmarked for the 300-acre landfill expansion have accepted a compensation package from the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority. Five others have rejected the county's offer and banded together to file lawsuits against the town and the waste management authority.

"Four homeowners in the path of our expansion have accepted our land offers, and they feel like they have just won the lottery," said James D. Warner, executive director of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority.

However, Hess said money can't always buy everything or everyone.

"Some of these homeowners have been here for decades," he said. "No amount of money can replace their fond memories or make them feel whole after being displaced from their homes, some of which have been in their families for two or three generations."

According to Warner, the county sent all nine homeowners a land offer that included:

• $47,500 per acre, a significant premium over the $8,000 to $12,000 per acre market value of most area farmland.
• 130 percent of their highest home appraisals.
• Annual interest payments of 4.5 percent of the purchase offers through 2025, the homeowners' deadline to relocate.
• $1,000 for home improvements for every month (through 2025) that they occupy their homes and $250 per month (through 2025) after they relocate.

"The appraisals of the four homes we have agreements to buy range from $85,000 to $130,000, before the 30 percent premium," Warner said. "To put the entire compensation package in perspective, a home valued at just $100,000 could yield the owner $576,250 total over the next 25 years. These nine homeowners also occupy about 15 acres, which represents another combined $712,500 that the county has offered to pay for their land."

The county needs the land to extend the life of its landfill by 30 years, through 2048, Warner said. The Frey Farm landfillspans 400 acres, but just 60 acres and about 18 years remain for future refuse disposal, and the authority has committed to providing the county with an integrated solid waste management system through at least 2030.

Two of the largest pieces of the county's landfill expansion puzzle already are in place. Manor Township last year quietly rezoned 300 acres for landfill use, and the county's waste management authority recently agreed to pay nearly $4 million for an option to acquire 345 acres of farmland from state Rep. John E. Barley and members of his family for another $15.7 million. Sixty acres of the Barley family plot remain zoned as farmland.

Warner said the county has gone an extra step and offered to buy the homes and land of 20 homeowners whose properties lie near the planned expansion at market value any time during the next 25 years.

The land offers for the 29 homeowners and the Barley family's parcel could top $30 million, but Warner said the price tag amounts to a competitive $1 per cubic yard and that the county will offset this cost with tipping fees. Last year, Lancaster County reaped nearly $50 million in tipping fees from waste haulers.

While the four homeowners who accepted the county's offer might feel like they have hit the jackpot, the remaining five are letting it all ride on three inter-twined court actions against Manor Township and the county's waste management authority, Hess said. In Deceinber the group of homeowners filed lawsuits with the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas seeking to halt the county's landfill expansion plans.

The homeowners filed an equity action, claiming the land purchase agreement reached with the Barley family was unlawful and involves the frivolous spending of public funds, Hess said. The lawsuit also alleges that the recent rezoning of the nine homeowners'properties and the Barley family's property contradicts the township's earlier public commitment to not expand the Frey Farm landfill beyond the 152 acres added in 1986.

The five homeowners challenging the deal also are suing Manor Township and the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority for allegedly violating the state's open meetings law when discussing rezonmg and landfill expansion. Open meetings laws require that most meetings of public boards be announced in advance and be open to the public.

Hess claimed that township officials and the local waste management authority conspired in secrecy on the land rezoning and the Barley family land purchase agreement. The county's landfill expansion plans were disclosed to affected homeowners only after these moves had been made behind closed doors, Hess said.

"This was an inside deal from the very beginning," Hess said. "Barley's son, Rob, was one of three on the township's planning commission that recommended the rezoning, and his family stands to gain millions of dollars in this deal. Also, Barley's longtime campaign manager is one of three on the township's Board of Supervisors that ultimately voted in favor of the rezoning, which contradicts a 15-year public policy not to expand the landfill."

Rep. Barley was unavailable for comment before press time.

The lawsuits are unfounded, Warner said, and the county and township will vigorously defend themselves and their landfill expansion plans in court hearings expected to begin in March.

"All steps taken in this expansion process were conducted in accordance with the law and in the best interest of the people of the township and county," Warner said. "It is our duty to properly plan for the area's future waste disposal needs, and we are doing just that, with all affected parties' concerns in mind."

The five homeowners involved in the lawsuit stand to lose a lot, including the county's generous compensation packages, but they have the conviction to fight for their principles, Hess said.

"These homeowners maintain that this entire arrangement was unlawful, and they believe in fighting hard for their homes and land," Hess said. "We're just hoping that we get a judge that doesn't find the Barley family, the township and the local waste authority intimidating, so these homeowners can finally get a fair shake."

Forty residents of the Bellevue area have thrown the latest haymaker in the continuing controversy with the Schultz Landfill and the Buffalo Crushed Stone quarry.

The residents have named 22 defendants in a lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court March 9 seeking over $400 million.

The lawsuit cites negligence, nuisance, abnormally dangerous activity and trespassing on the part of the defendants.

Buffalo Crushed Stone, one of the primary defendants named in the suit, is blamed for "damage to property located at considerable distances from the blasting site."

In addition, the release of hydrogen sulfide gas into the air when the quarry’s pumps are running is a nuisance with its rotten egg odor.

The lawsuit says that hydrogen sulfide reacts with water to form sulfides, which can trigger asthma attacks. Long-term exposure can result in poor lung function and other health problems.

Jamie Hypnarowski, senior vice president for Buffalo Crushed Stone, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Hypnarowski told the Times that company lawyers had not reviewed the lawsuit as of Wednesday morning.

He added that Buffalo Crushed Stone had not officially been served with the suit.

Most of the lawsuit focuses on the Old Land Reclamation landfill, Land Reclamation, Inc. landfill and Integrated Waste Schultz Landfill, Inc.

The lawsuit mentions a State Department of Environmental Conservation report from April 2000 that says surface water in drainage ditches and leachate seeps at the Old Land reclamation site contains "elevated barium, lead, zinc, analine and phenols."

The report claims that compounds found in Cayuga Creek surface water containing benzene and chlorobenzene are attributable to the Land Reclamation Inc. site.

These are just two of several dozen claims listed in the lawsuit, which alleges defendants did not do all they could to prevent exposure to these contaminants.

Several defendants in the case are companies that were generators to the landfills.

These companies include Westwood-Squibb Phamaceuticals, Niagara Mohawk, Ford Motor Company, American Optical Corporation, NL Spencer Kellogg, Inc., Pratt & Lambert and Buffalo Color Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges these companies should have known "toxic and hazardous substances and chemical waste products that they disposed of would spread from the three landfills and contaminate the surrounding air, water and soils if disposal was carried out in a negligent manner."

The plaintiffs say they cannot enjoy their homes and property due to the negligence of the defendants.

They further state they have become sick, sore, lame and disabled through exposure from the sites.

Donna Hosmer, one of the plaintiffs in the case, was diagnosed with lupus about ten years ago and feels her ailment is connected to pollutants from the sites.

Hosmer didn’t think there was any connection until about a year ago when she learned that other people in the neighborhood were also suffering from various ailments, including lupus.

"After we found out that there was radioactive waste in the Schultz Landfill, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back," added Hosmer.

Donna lives on Old Farm Court with her husband and two children.

The lawsuit was filed two days after a public meeting at Bellevue Fire Hall announcing the findings of seismic tests done by Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. of Hazelton, PA at the quarry.

Residents greeted the findings with little enthusiasm at the March 7 meeting.

Despite assurances from Doug Rudenko, Vibra-Tech’s Senior Geophysicist, that blasting at the quarry is not damaging their homes, the residents in this neighborhood felt that nothing positive came out of the meeting.

Most residents cited mistrust of Buffalo Crushed Stone management for their skepticism.

Town Supervisor Dennis H. Gabryszak, who attended the meeting, felt that Buffalo Crushed Stone officials are opening a line of communication with their neighbors.

"From the standpoint of getting the information out, Buffalo Crushed Stone is being more open than they have in the past in addressing the problems," he said.

However, Gabryszak understands the skepticism Bellevue residents have toward their quarry neighbor.

"I don’t know if I’m convinced that everything has been done that can be," Gabryszak said. "It will take a while from the residents’ standpoint...that production blast was mild."

Tonight representatives of the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Army Corps of Engineers will present information and announce their findings on the transport of material from Tonawanda’s Linde site to the Schultz Landfill.

This public presentation will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Bellevue Fire Hall.

It is expected that the Army Corps of Engineers will announce there were no toxic materials dumped at the Schultz Landfill in 1998 from Linde Building 30.

Councilmember Thomas Johnson said the tone of tonight’s meeting will be dictated by how residents welcome the findings.

"If they don’t like what they hear," said Johnson, "I expect some of the questions could be quite vociferous."

NEW YORK -- The end.

Fresh Kills landfill, arguably the most famous and infamous landfill in U.S. history, is history.

When the final garbage barge floated from Queens to the Staten Island landfill last week and deposited its load, an era came to an end.

It was the last of more than 400,000 barge trips to the landfill in more than a half a century.

Fresh Kills opened for business in 1948 and grew to become the nation´s largest landfill -- so big that it actually can be seen from outer space.

Earlier plans were to stop taking trash at the landfill by the end of this year, and then the date was bumped up to July, and then last week.

New York Gov. George E. Pataki, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Staten Island Borough President Guy V. Molinari were all on hand to say goodbye to what the governor called an environmental nightmare.

"This is a glorious day for Staten Island," said Molinari, who called the landfill "the most notorious environmental burden in Staten Island history."

"The closure of the Fresh Kills landfill is, by far, the highlight of my 27-year political career, and perhaps the greatest victory in our borough´s history," he said.

Barges had been hauling about 3,400 tons of trash each day to the landfill from Queens in recent months. That´s a far cry from the more than 12,000 tons per day the landfill once accepted from throughout the city.

Last week´s final barge left the city´s North Shore Marine Transfer Station in Flushing Bay, Queens, and hauled about 600 tons of waste from a handful of Queens communities.

Instead of dumping trash on Staten Island, New York now has agreements with 15 private transfer stations to handle waste from its five boroughs at an average cost of about $64 per ton. All of the waste at this point is heading out of state.

The city, by 2005, wants to use five existing marine transfer stations to funnel about 6,500 tons per day to a transfer station in Linden, N.J., that would be operated by Allied Waste Industries Inc. A similar amount would be exported by rail or barge.

Other boroughs began diverting their waste away from Fresh Kills as early as 1997, leaving Queens as the last area to use the site in recent months.

While no more trash is going to Fresh Kills, July is still the official end date for Fresh Kills, said Kathy Dawkins, spokeswoman for the city´s Department of Sanitation. "Between now and then we will start the preparations of final closure and capping of that location," she said.

Barbara Warren, a Staten Island resident and member of the Fresh Kills Task Force that´s providing input, said the end of the landfill is "obviously a very important step."

"Everybody wants it closed. Everybody is a little skeptical," she said. That´s because while the landfill will not accept waste, people still are worried about how the trash will be handled.

Of particular concern to Warren is the proposed construction of a transfer station on Fresh Kills property. "The possibility that that could become a regional transfer station," she said.

Warren is an employee of the Consumers Union, the nonprofit group that publishes Consumer Reports magazine. She also would like to see more emphasis on waste reduction and recycling efforts.

Staten Island generates about 600 tons per day, but the transfer station could be built to handle up to 2,880 tons per day, she said.

"This is clearly oversized for our borough. There´s no question," she said.

Warren said she realizes a need to build in capacity for future growth on the island. But, she added, "I don´t know how much more growing we can do."

With the trash flow ending, city planners have turned their attention toward eventual development of the 3,000-acre landfill.

Developers, however, will have to wait years and years to use some of the land as the trash underneath decomposes and settles.

New York is looking to an international landscape design competition to determine just what to do with the property, which is twice the size of Central Park. "I think the focus is likely to be on recreational park type uses or natural areas, but they might not be the exclusive use there," Andrew Lynn, executive director of the New York City Planning Department, has said.

There is the potential to construct buildings on some land where actual trash disposal did not take place.

An estimated 150 million cubic yards of trash now sits at Fresh Kills in four main sections. A couple of those areas already have been capped, a third is preparing for its final cover and the fourth received the final shipment last week.

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- More than a dozen companies -- including major U.S. manufacturers, three landfill owners and a limestone quarry -- are named in a $400 million lawsuit filed on behalf of nearby Cheektowaga residents who claim toxic waste is making them sick.

Attorneys for 39 residents and former residents of the neighborhood southeast of Buffalo filed the claim in New York Supreme Court in mid-March against companies that at one time owned or disposed of waste at three area landfills. The lawsuit says those landfills and a nearby limestone quarry are responsible for illnesses and deaths in the region.

The lawsuit claims that hazardous waste disposed of in the Schultz landfill, the Land Reclamation landfill and the Old Land Reclamation landfill are leaching into the surrounding soil and water.

The lawsuit, which has yet to be served to all the defendants, seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $10.1 million per plaintiff.

Integrated Waste Systems owns the 20-acre Schultz construction and demolition debris landfill on Indian Road.

Casella Waste Management of New York and its subsidiary, Schultz landfill Inc., own the air space rights to the unused section of the Schultz landfill. Both are named.

BFI Waste Systems owns the Land Reclamation landfill that partially surrounds the Schultz landfill. The two Land Reclamation landfills are spread over 110 acres and are listed by the state as inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Both are closed.

BFI, Casella Waste Management of New York and Integrated Waste are all named in the lawsuit.

Also named in the lawsuit is Buffalo Crushed Stone, which owns a nearby limestone quarry. According to the lawsuit, hydrogen sulfide gas produced at the quarry exacerbated asthma and other health problems, while blasting accentuated soil and ground water contamination from three landfills.

The list of defendants also includes major manufacturers, including Westwood Squibb Pharmaceuticals Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Pratt & Lambert United, Waste Management of New York, and the Ford Motor Co.

"Simply, the defendants are the landfills, the quarry, past and present owners and the people who hauled the waste there," said Linda Sikka, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

As of March 19, Sikka said that she had not served defendants copies of the lawsuit. Under New York state law, she has 120 days from the day of filing, which was March 9, she said.

Peter Ruppar -- an attorney for Integrated Waste, Schultz landfill and Integrated Waste -- declined comment, saying he had not yet seen the lawsuit and that even if he had he would not comment on pending litigation.

Sandy DiSalvo, regional environmental manager for BFI Waste Systems, declined comment, referring questions to BFI's attorney, who did not respond.

Residents have complained for years of poor health. The lawsuit says the contamination from the landfills is causing cancer, asthma and autoimmune diseases. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal illnesses as well as the contamination of property in the area.

Since the lawsuit was reported in a local newspaper, more residents have come forward. "The list of plaintiffs is definitely growing," Sikka said. "I have done nothing in the past four days but return phone messages from people who want to become plaintiffs."

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal issues surrounding hazardous waste deposited in the area. The Pfohl Brothers landfill, on Aero Drive in Cheektowaga, is about to undergo decontamination after it was declared a Superfund site.

GREAT VALLEY, N.Y. -- A Buffalo-area construction company has no plans to resurrect a minor landfill project for upstate New York.

"You just say `landfill' around here and people automatically think negatively," said Tom Reed, of J.D. Northrup Construction. His company, based in Ellicottville, is scrapping plans for a 3-acre construction and demolition debris landfill east of GREAT VALLEY, a town of about 1,400.

A large group of residents recently let it be known that a landfill isn't their preference, Reed said.

"They had a public meeting, and, of about 100 people, 90 of them were against it," he said. "We tried to convince them it wouldn't be a danger, but it was no use. A lot of the people thought we were just a front organization for a bigger landfill company that would come in and take over. It wasn't true."

The five-member Town Board isn't about to go against the public opinion, Town Supervisor Anthony T. Barrile said.

"I didn't see anything wrong with it, but a lot of people were against it," he said, referring to the public hearing last month.

The landfill would have cost J.D. Northrop Construction about $250,000, Reed said.

"We had already spent some money on site selection and soil analysis," he said.

The need for such a facility still exists, he said.

"We have to take all the debris out of the county, and there is an expense with it," he said.

CINCINNATI -- A federal judge has sentenced three Ohio men for their roles in a scheme to obtain state landfill operating permits.

U.S. District Court Judge Sandra Beckwith sentenced Vincent Zumpano of Steubenville to 15 months in prison and an $8,000 fine; Patsy DeLuca of Mingo Junction to four months of home incarceration and a $20,000 fine; and Ron DeLuca, also of Mingo Junction, to six months of home incarceration and a $10,000 fine. All three also received probation terms.

Patsy DeLuca had accepted unlawful payments intended to influence his decision as director of the now-defunct North Ohio Valley Air Authority. DeLuca, who put together the scheme, enlisted his son Ron to head the front company to collect payments, according to authorities.

Federal authorities allege that Robert Vukelic of Richmond paid $170,000 in kickbacks to the DeLucas, Zumpano and Richard Canestraro in an attempt to get environmental permits for a construction and demolition dump near Steubenville.