he always creative John Cole (Coletoons - John Cole political cartoons) from this weekend's The Scranton Times-Tribune on the pending zoning issue in Dunmore and Keystone Sanitary Landfill.
There is a Dunmore Council meeting is 9/19/19 to collect public input on this matter. Show up if you want your voice heard.
From the Scranton Times-Tribune Editorial Board—a great summary of this week's Dunmore Planning Commission meeting which was the saddest form of local governance one could see.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD / PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2019
A narrow majority of the Dunmore Planning Commission dutifully rolled over Thursday for a powerful private interest at the expense of the public good.
The borough’s zoning law exists to regulate development and protect residents’ property rights and values, and other elements of the public interest, including public health.
But by a 3-2 vote, the craven board majority recommended that the borough government alter its zoning law to suit the needs of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill, which is owned by economically and politically powerfully borough resident Louis DeNaples.
The borough zoning law precludes structures over 50 feet high, but the landfill’s expansion plan calls for it to climb several times beyond that limit to accommodate more than 100 million more tons of mostly out-of-state garbage over the next 40 years.
Court precedent stands in way
State appellate courts already have ruled in a case involving a Mercer County landfill that landfills — complex, highly engineered facilities — are indeed structures for the purpose of zoning regulation. It will be difficult for Keystone to overcome that precedent in a case before the Commonwealth Court that has been brought by Dunmore residents who oppose the landfill expansion.
So the landfill has called an end run, relying on lap dog Dunmore politicians to alter the zoning law in its favor by specifically stating that landfills are not structures.
The planning commission’s decision to be the lead blockers on that end run is predictable yet shocking. It is an egregious, bald-faced abandonment of the public interest and the worst sort of special-interest pandering.
But it is just a recommendation. Dunmore Borough Council should find the spine to reject the recommendation or send its integrity to the landfill for permanent disposal.
If you are confused about all the decisions and ongoing litigation regarding the potential expansion of the Keystone Sanitary Lanfill (KSL), here is a break down of where we are at now.
We have always had 2 main ways to stop the growth/expansion of this landfill:
1) Would have been for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to say the harms outweigh the benefits, which Friends of Lackawanna clearly proved. However, Governor Tom Wolf did not intervene and the DEP,--an organization that the Environmental Hearing Board said operated more in the interest of KSL than the citizens they are charged to protect--passed the Environmental Assessment Review saying the benefits of the landfill (just money for those keeping track) clearly outweigh the harms.
2) Pennsylvania case law has already determined that modern landfills are structures. Dunmore's Zoning Ordinance explicitly limits the height of structures in the borough to 50 feet. This would essentially limit the height of the landfill so that they could not expand much beyond where they are at today.
So now that the expansion can't be stopped by DEP with the Environmental Review, the best chance is Zoning. Despite the clarity of PA case law, KSL does not want to be considered a structure and KSL and FOL are fighting this in court. KSL is afraid that they will lose because the law is so clear, therefore, they are trying to run an end game around ongoing litigation by having Dunmore Council add an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance saying that a landfill is not a structure.
Dunmore Council ultimately gets to decide if Dunmore accepts the amendment. Before it gets to Council, it must be reviewed by Lackawanna County Regional Planning and the Dunmore Planning Commission. The former declined to support KSL's request. And even though the Dunmore Planning Commission almost never goes against the County and has never changed the ordinance to the singular benefit of one company, last night they voted 4-3 to approved it. Both Planning Boards are advisory so Dunmore Council makes the final decision.
If you care about this issue, please attend the Dunmore Council meeting on September 19th at 6pm at the Dunmore Community Center located at 1414 Monroe Avenue in Dunmore and tell them NOT to accept the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
What do our Board members gain by giving up local control of the height restrictions on Keystone Sanitary Landfill? All the community gains is more trash, health risks and the knowledge that our leaders will "sell us down the river."
Below are the questions FOL asked the Planning Commission last night along with their answers. We can only make our very educated guesses to why 4 members still chose to approve it--Al Senofonte, Thomas Pichiarella, Joseph Pinto and Gerard Michaels.
Should this pass at the level of Dunmore Council--and we have faith it will not--those who voted in favor will FOREVER have their names tied to the decision that compromised the health of their children, grandchildren and posterity and cemented the regions reputation as a dumping ground. History will hold them accountable.
Questions asked by FOL:
1) Does anyone on this board have any financial or business relationship with the owners of the landfill in any way? Answer: No.
2) When is the last time the Planning Commission voted to amend or change the Zoning Code to the singular benefit of one company? Answer: Never.
3) If the Borough adopted this proposed change, isn't it true that in effect, there would be no limit to how high the landfill could grow over time? They would be unregulated in how high it could grow? Answer: Yes.
4) Given that the Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission has declined to support KSL's request twice, how often does this Planning Commission go against the County recommendations? Answer: Never for all Board Members except Thomas Pichiarella who said once in the 7 years he has served, but couldn't remember what is was.
Excerpts:
DUNMORE — A divided borough planning commission voted Thursday to recommend a zoning amendment that would boost Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s expansion plans.
After listening to arguments from landfill lawyers and its opponents, the commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend amending the zoning ordinance to specifically say landfills aren’t structures. The amendment would allow Keystone, if state regulators approve its expansion, to continue piling trash higher than the 50-foot restriction on structures in the manufacturing zone where the landfill operates.
Commission Chairman Al Senofonte and members Thomas Pichiarella, Joseph Pinto and Gerard Michaels voted yes. Members Elizabeth Zangardi, Gary Duncan and Joe Grochowski voted no.
The argument moves to the borough council, the only body with the power to amend an ordinance. The council is scheduled to host a public hearing Sept. 19 at 6 p.m. at the Dunmore Community Center, 1414 Monroe Ave., Dunmore, according to a legal notice.
Pat Clark, a Friends of Lackawanna member, said the amendment would benefit only one company and argued a previous Commonwealth Court ruling found landfills are structures. The zoning ordinance lists all the uses where height restrictions don’t apply and landfills aren’t among them, he said.
“That’s why we’re here,” Clark said. “Keystone is not here because they think it’s clearly not a structure. They’re here because they’re worried that it is (a structure) and Pennsylvania (court) case law says it is.”
“DEP’s assessment ignores the potential negative economic effects of the [Keystone Sanitary Landfill] expansion, which are tough to calculate in real time but not hard to forecast. How much economic activity — investment, industry, jobs — will be lost when our region is written off as the Trash Capital of the Northeast? Who would want to call such a place home?” — Excerpt from Chris Kelly’s response to Dunmore being the best place to live in PA on a $50K salary (we couldn’t agree with him more)
KELLY: King of the hill ... of trash
KELLY'S WORLD / PUBLISHED: AUGUST 28, 2019
If you earn $50,000 a year, Dunmore is the best place in Pennsylvania to call home, according to Internet bean-counters who have never set foot in Bucktown.
Last week, GOBankingRates.com, a personal finance website akin to WalletHub and NerdWallet, released the results of a “study” ranking each state’s best place to live based on the median U.S. worker salary of about $50,000.
The website’s analysts subtracted cost-of-living expenses and considered “supplemental data” like “livability and amenities.” It costs $30,695 a year to live in Dunmore, the study found. Health care costs are about 9% higher than the national average, but the crime rate is 26% below the national average.
The numbers added up to crown Dunmore king of affordability in the Keystone state. It’s nice to see a neighboring community plucked from obscurity as an attractive example, but I couldn’t help but wonder whether factoring in the proposed 40-plus-year expansion of a mountain of out-of-state trash might have changed the equation.
You’d think that might fall under “livability.”
So I called GOBankingRates spokesman Rob Poindexter, who is based in Bethlehem. As expected, he had never heard of Keystone Sanitary Landfill, or its host communities, Dunmore and Throop.
Rob explained that the study was produced by analysts in Los Angeles. where the website is based. The rankings are based primarily on economic data, and don’t consider environmental impacts like mountains of out-of-state trash.
The tight focus on income vs. cost makes it “tough to really get into hyper-localized issues,” Rob said.
He’s right. The state Department of Environmental Protection analysts proved it with their “environmental assessment” of the landfill expansion, which reads like a sales pitch for time-share condos in Chernobyl.
The newspaper covered the assessment extensively when it was released in July, but there has been little landfill news since. I thank the internet bean-counters at GOBankingRates.com for inadvertently reminding me that Northeast Pennsylvania’s most “hyper-local issue” must be revisited from time to time.
None of us can afford to ignore the iceberg of coffee grounds, take-out containers and dirty diapers that threatens to sink the region’s future.
The website’s analysts also brought into tight focus the folly of evaluating places where people live in dollars and cents alone. DEP “regulators” did just that when they touted the $178.6 million Keystone would pay to Throop and the $160.6 million the landfIll would deliver to Dunmore in host community fees over the four-decade expansion.
Keystone would also pay hundreds of millions of dollars for wages, supplies and equipment, which the regulators apparently see as ample compensation for persistent noxious odors, potential groundwater contamination, flocks of filthy gulls and other nasty facts of life around a landfill.
DEP’s assessment ignores the potential negative economic effects of the expansion, which are tough to calculate in real time but not hard to forecast. How much economic activity — investment, industry, jobs — will be lost when our region is written off as the Trash Capital of the Northeast?
Who would want to call such a place home?
I briefly lived in Dunmore when I was a rookie correspondent assigned to cover the borough. I was earning far less than $50,000 a year, but I had a decent apartment and good, welcoming neighbors.
One of the first things they told me was that Dunmore is a great place to live, but as a reporter I needed to understand that its prospects and processes are geared to serve the business interests of a man whose name I need not mention. You know who.
He owns Dunmore, they said. We just live in it and pay the bills.
If the landfill expansion permit is granted, generations will pay the consequences
Today's The Scranton Times-Tribune editorial is directly on point on KSL's status as a structure or a dump. You can't have it both ways.
KSL is looking for the Borough of Dunmore to bail them out here, plain and simple.
We think the Borough (Council and Planning) will recognize this as the end-run that it is and deny this proposed zoning change.
--> PA courts have held that mega landfills, just like this one, are structures.
--> As the editorial states, for 30 years, KSL has insisted that the landfill is "a state-of-the-art piece of high-tech modern engineering, incorporating complex design elements..." - you can't be both that and a pile of dirt.
--> Ruling in KSL's favor would affirm what people have been saying for a long time - our area is dominated by garbage.
“We simply tried to help the borough help itself.” - Keystone's attorney
Amazing selflessness by KSL. As always. #grateful.
FOL doesn't quite see it that way. Not even a little bit.
Excerpts
Keystone’s attorneys argue the landfill isn’t a structure, an argument Dunmore’s zoning board agreed with in October 2015. The anti-expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna and six landfill neighbors then appealed the zoning board’s decision in Lackawanna County Court, arguing the landfill is a structure.
Senior Judge Leonard Zito issued an order in October upholding the zoning board’s decision that sided with Keystone, prompting the landfill opponents to appeal to Commonwealth Court, where the case awaits resolution.
When Keystone originally proposed the zoning change, the Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and could not make a recommendation. Whether landfills are structures subject to height restrictions in a zoning ordinance “is unsettled law in Pennsylvania,” the commission wrote in an ordinance/amendment evaluation report that cited, among other things, the pending appeal in Commonwealth Court
Excellent letter to the Editor!
https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/…/letters-to-the-editor-7-…
Landfill’s unhealthy benefits
Editor: Every “benefit” in the recently released state’s environmental assessment for the proposed Keystone Sanitary Landfill expansion is economic and social.
Considering the economic advantages of the host agreement, goods and services purchased locally, employment and employee-related costs and the annual reimbursement to Keystone College for its environmental education program, the benefit to each person in Throop and Dunmore equals about $7.55 daily.
The landfill’s “harms” include litter, noise, vectors, fires, stormwater, leachate reaching the Lackawanna River and groundwater, and harms to our air with odors and toxins. Every harm is environmental and affects community health.
Some harms currently may affect our health. Exposure to benzene increases the risk of cancer, the second-leading cause of death in Pennsylvania. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leukemia rates for Lackawanna County were higher than Philadelphia County in 2012-2016.
According to a state Department of Health report, Keystone landfill was monitored for toxins. The monitoring period for the landfill was January to April 2016. Elevated levels of benzene were detected. As a result, the report recommended “a fence line air monitoring program that includes publicly accessible real-time results.”
The landfill still seeks approval from the Department of Environmental Protection air quality staff and must provide details of a comprehensive air monitoring program. I recommend calling the DEP air quality staff and telling them that, due to the current release of toxins, the monitoring program is the only one that should be approved.
I should be able to look at my phone and see hourly levels of benzene and other toxins in the air so that I can better protect my family. The air quality staff should deny the landfill’s application because any risk to the quality of our air, water and environment is too much, and definitely not worth $7.55 a day.
SAMANTHA MALONEY
SCRANTON
Somehow the Pa DEP can make their "logic" stink more than a century of trash.
We completely agree with the opinion by the Times Editorial Board.
https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/…/broad-view-of-benefits-1…
Broad view of benefits
BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD / PUBLISHED: JULY 14, 2019
Who knew that dumping an extra 100 million tons of mostly out-of-state garbage in the area could produce benefits so vast that they outweigh the harms inherent in such an enterprise?
According to the state Department of Environmental “Protection,” the proposed massive expansion of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill is, in effect, a blessing to Northeast Pennsylvania. The results of its harms-benefits analysis indicate that the agency uses an extraordinarily broad definition of “benefit.”
The agency, as its name suggests, exists to protect Pennsylvania’s environment. Yet the benefits it attributed to the landfill expansion are all economic, even though some of them are not benefits, whereas most of the harms it acknowledged are environmental.
Regulators cited as a benefit, for example, the $178.6 million the landfill would pay to Throop and the $160.6 million it would pay to Dunmore in host community fees over the proposed 40-year expansion.
Host community fees exist to help those towns deal with the burdens that a massive landfill places on them. It is upfront, preemptive compensation rather than a simple benefit. If the business were anything other than a massive dump, the communities would pay the company to locate there through tax abatements and subsidies, rather than accepting payments to put up with it.
The DEP also noted that the landfill will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in wages and buy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of equipment and supplies across the decades of expansion. It does not calculate, however, the job creation and related economic activity lost in a county dominated by waste disposal.
The proposed harms are mostly negative environmental impacts that the DEP is supposed to guard against. They include pervasive odors, potential groundwater contamination and other environmental problems but, fear not — the DEP says the landfill has plans to mitigate those actual and potential harms.
So far on this project, the DEP has managed to convert assessment of a development that will have a massive impact on the quality of life in the region into a bloodless bureaucratic process of checking off boxes. But it has the benefit of low expectations because Northeast Pennsylvanians live with the results of that approach from the lingering scars of industrial-scale mining to the exalted status that the Legislature has bestowed upon the natural gas industry.
A great LTE on the DEP's mission and how it relates to the purported "benefits" of the proposed expansion.
"Dubious ‘benefits’
Editor: I have a question for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regarding its recent statement regarding the proposed Keystone Sanitary Landfill expansion.
But first, I had to go look up the agency’s mission statement. From the DEP website: “The Department of Environmental Protection’s mission is to protect Pennsylvania’s air, land and water from pollution and to provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment. We will work as partners with individuals, organizations, governments and businesses to prevent pollution and restore our natural resources.”
My question for DEP is: How can the so-called “benefits” to allow the landfill’s expansion have nothing to do with the environment? If the DEP’s mission is to protect the environment, but it can’t list a positive environmental effect of this expansion, why did officials there feel the need to list socioeconomic benefits as apparent decision-making positives?
COSMO LOVECCHIO
SOUTH ABINGTON TWP."
Alternate Headline: "Megadump uses excess methane to fuel decades long, statewide Gaslighting campaign"
“There are no viable, financially feasible alternatives to landfilling at this point and time,” Keystone Sanitary Landfill consultant Al Magnotta said.
Well, so long as Pennsylvania aggressively seeks out expansionary trash policy, no one will ever have to figure out any alternatives.
Oh yeah, there's over a half-century of capacity in the US; Pennsylvania has around 400 million tons of capacity remaining. And locally? We are lucky enough to have a second mega dump with decades of capacity left. We don't need any more.
This sustained garbage-first state policy will trash our future.
We are continuing our mission one day at a time.
This environmental assessment relied on people in the right positions to do the right thing based on the factual evidence uncovered by Friends of Lackawanna. Despite our best efforts, that has not happened. The fact that DEP could make a statement as preposterous as "the benefits of the landfill clearly outweigh the harms" is quite simply, not true unless you value money over environmental health and the sanctity of life.
What are your thoughts? Do you think the DEP is inept? Corrupt? Both? Other?
We will continue to fight and uncover the truth.
Full Scranton Times Article Here.
Exceprpts:
Harms and benefits
The assessment itself lists 15 harms, some environmental and other social and economic, as well as Keystone’s proposed mitigation for each one and DEP’s determination of remaining impacts.
In certain cases, DEP found that some potential for harm will remain despite Keystone’s proposed mitigation.
Regarding odor, for example, DEP found Keystone’s proposed mitigation is unlikely to completely eliminate odors at all times. There also remains a potential for negative groundwater impacts despite improvements the landfill has made to its leachate treatment plant and other completed or planned mitigation projects, according to DEP.
The assessment also lists eight benefits of Keystone’s proposal, all of them social and economic.
For example, Keystone estimates it will purchase about $248.7 million in fuels, oils and lubricants, and about $557.6 million in machinery, equipment, services, rentals and maintenance, from local and regional vendors over the life of the expansion.
The assessment also lists the estimated values of host agreements with the landfill to be about $178.6 million for Throop and about $160.6 million for Dunmore over the life of the expansion, though DEP notes host fees are based on the tonnage of waste received at the landfill and there is no guaranteed minimum amount.
The assessment frustrated members of the anti-expansion group Friends of Lackawanna.
“DEP’s analysis acknowledges that there have been, and still are, ongoing issues with the landfill such as groundwater degradation, air quality, visual impacts, leachate problems and more,” Pat Clark, a founding member of Friends of Lackawanna, said in a written statement. “DEP then lists the benefits, all of which are financial, and determined they ‘clearly’ outweigh the harms. Sadly, it goes to show that you can throw enough money at a problem and get your way, even if it is at the expense of an entire region’s future.”
With all due respect, Mr. Magnotta, it may be a business to you, but it is our community, our health, and our children’s future that are at stake.
BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD / PUBLISHED: MAY 12, 2019
The Keystone Sanitary Landfill submitted, then withdrew a proposal for Dunmore Borough to amend its zoning ordinance to state that the landfill is not a structure. (Times-Tribune File)
Ever since owners of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill first proposed a gargantuan expansion that would extend its life by more than 40 years, the company has maintained a technical, unemotional argument for the project — with one telling exception.
Whenever skeptics, including this page, have referred to the landfill as a “dump,” landfill spokesmen have bristled. Keystone is not a dump, they have said, but a high-tech engineering marvel. It includes a state-of-the-art system to collect and treat landfill runoff known as leachate, and another system collects methane to be used as a fuel for power generation and to prevent its escape into the atmosphere.
All of that is key to the question of whether the landfill can expand. Dunmore’s zoning ordinance precludes a structure higher than 50 feet in the zone covering the landfill’s location. But the zoning board dutifully found in 2014 that the marvel of engineering is not a structure, thus exempting it from the restriction.
Landfill opponents appealed that decision, lost in local court and appealed to the Commonwealth Court. They appear to have a better chance there to overturn the zoning board decision because, also in 2014, that court ruled that a landfill in Pine Twp., Mercer County, is indeed a structure subject to zoning height restrictions.
It would be unusual for the appellate court not to abide by its own precedent, which the landfill operators appear to recognize. They recently asked Dunmore to change its zoning ordinance to settle the height issue in their favor before the Commonwealth Court might decide otherwise. Under the proposal, the ordinance itself would declare that the landfill is not a structure, making it expandable skyward.
Landfill representatives did not appear at a scheduled borough planning commission hearing on the matter, and the commission recommended against the change.
As Pat Clark, of expansion opponent Friends of Lackawanna, put it: “KSL has spent the past 30 years touting its self-proclaimed, state-of-the-art status and its modern engineering sophistication. All of a sudden, they wanted everyone to forget those assertions and pretend this high-tech structure is a mere pile of dirt, not a structure. You can’t have it both ways.”
But Clark has skin in the game. What does an informed neutral party say? Advanced Disposal, which owns 200 landfills, to the question on its website, “What is a landfill?” responds: “A landfill is a carefully designed structure built into or on top of the ground, in which trash is separated from the area around it.”
KSL withdrew their recently proposed zoning amendment. Though we don't think this is the last zoning maneuver they may attempt, this withdrawal was a win for transparency and a testament to your continued vigilance and engagement. Thank you to everyone.
The overall expansion request still is pending with the PA DEP. We continue to await their decision as well. As always we will update everyone as we learn more.
Full story below and available HERE.
Key Excerpts:
The withdrawal of the proposed zoning amendment comes the week after landfill representatives failed to show up at a borough planning commission meeting on the zoning amendment. Because no one from KSL came to the meeting, the commission unanimously voted not to recommend a change to the ordinance to borough council.
Borough council would have ultimately had to make the final ruling on the amendment. A public hearing on the proposed amendment scheduled for May 15 before borough council has been cancelled, borough manager Vito Ruggiero said.
“KSL has spent the past 30 years touting its self-proclaimed, state-of-the-art status and its modern engineering sophistication,” Clark said. “All of the sudden, they wanted everyone to forget those assertions and pretend this high tech structure is a mere pile of dirt, not a structure. You can’t have it both ways.”
KSL has spent the past 30 years touting its self-proclaimed state of the art status and its modern engineering sophistication. All of the sudden, they want everyone to forget those assertions and pretend this high tech structure is a mere pile of dirt. They can't have it both ways.
Here's a summary of what KSL is trying to do with the Dunmore Zoning Ordinance via today's Scranton Times:
Here's a summary of what KSL is trying to do with the Dunmore Zoning Ordinance via today's Scranton Times:
"Keystone Sanitary Landfill is trying to change Dunmore’s zoning ordinance to note that landfills are not structures.
The proposed changes, submitted by attorneys for the landfill along with a $500 processing fee, could stop the borough’s ordinance from limiting the height of any future mountains of trash there. Structures located in manufacturing districts in Dunmore cannot be higher than 50 feet, per the ordinance, but the landfill’s lawyers argue the facility is not a structure.
Whether it is or not is a legal question awaiting a ruling in a state appellate court.
Northampton County Senior Judge Leonard Zito, the visiting judge assigned the case after every Lackawanna County judge declined to preside, issued an order in October upholding a 2015 Dunmore Zoning Hearing Board decision that sided with Keystone and found landfills are not structures.
An attorney for Friends of Lackawanna, the primary activist group opposing the landfill’s proposed expansion, and six landfill neighbors — borough residents Joseph and Mari May, Edward and Beverly Mizanty and Todd and Katharine Spanish — filed an appeal on Nov. 19 challenging Zito’s order in Commonwealth Court.
While a judge has yet to rule on that appeal, the zoning ordinance amendment submitted by the landfill cites the zoning hearing board’s September 2015 ruling and Zito’s order upholding the board’s decision.
If ultimately approved by council, the proposed changes would amend the ordinance’s definition of a sanitary landfill by stating they “shall neither be considered, nor subject to regulation as, structures for purposes of this ordinance.”
“KSL (Keystone Sanitary Landfill) knows that modern landfills, according to the controlling Pennsylvania case law, are structures,” Pat Clark, a founding member of the Friends of Lackawanna, wrote in an email. “That’s why they are throwing this Hail Mary pass hoping for the Borough of Dunmore to bail them out on this end run around our ongoing litigation and the existing case law.”
The existing case law — Tri-County Landfill Inc. v. Pine Twp. Zoning Hearing Board — is a January 2014 Commonwealth Court ruling on a landfill proposed in Mercer County in which the court found a township zoning ordinance limits the height of structures to 40 feet and that the ordinance’s definition of structures includes landfills.
Multiple attempts to reach attorney Jeff Belardi, who submitted the petition for the zoning amendment on Keystone’s behalf, were unsuccessful. Last year, Belardi called the Dunmore case and the Mercer County case “factually different.”
Keystone consultant Al Magnotta referred all questions to Belardi.
The Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to change Dunmore’s zoning ordinance and “cannot make a recommendation” at this time, according to an ordinance/amendment evaluation report obtained by The Times-Tribune. Whether landfills are structures subject to height restrictions in a zoning ordinance “is unsettled law in Pennsylvania,” the report notes, citing among other things the pending appeal in Commonwealth Court and the Mercer County case.
Dunmore’s planning commission has not made a recommendation on the amendment, but may discuss the proposed changes at its meeting tonight, member Al Senofonte said. That meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. at the Dunmore Borough Building, 400 S. Blakely St.
The borough also will take public comment on the proposed zoning amendment at a public hearing at 7 p.m. May 15 at the Dunmore Community Center, 1414 Monroe Ave.
“If Dunmore approves this request, it is ignoring reality, history, controlling case law and our future,” Clark said in his email. “There’s only one logical and just conclusion — denial of this request.”
The state Department of Environmental Protection continues to review Keystone’s expansion application. The landfill initially asked DEP to allow the burying of trash 165 feet higher in the expansion area than on existing permitted areas, but has since amended its application to eliminate the increased height.
Because Keystone could always amend the application again, the height-limitation question remains key, Jordan B. Yeager, the lawyer representing the neighbors and the citizens’ group in the Commonwealth Court appeal, said last year."
Contact the writer:
jhorvath@timesshamrock.com;
570-348-9141;
@jhorvathTT on Twitter
https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/…/keystone-sanitary-landfi…
A Health Consultation report was finalized and published by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for the Keystone Sanitary Landfill (“KSL”) site in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. It confirms that the health of Northeastern Pennsylvania residents is being harmed.
Though KSL has been accepting waste for over thirty years, and has been rapidly expanding operations since opening its gates, this is the first health consultation ever centered on this facility. The consultation was requested by Friends of Lackawanna (“FOL”), a non-profit organized to stop KSL’s proposed 40+ year expansion which, if approved, will allow it to accept over 100-million additional tons of waste to the site. The lack of existing studies are even more concerning since, as the report states, “Landfills are known sources of environmental contamination based on previous studies.”
KSL’s expansion request is currently being evaluated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”). In order for the expansion to be approved, KSL must prove that the benefits to this project clearly outweigh both the known and potential harms of the project.
Though many categories of harms related to this project have already been established, this published consultation adds additional health-related harms, both actual and potential. They include, but are not limited to:
Acute exposure to some of the contaminants (known to be emitted from landfills) detected in air near KSL cause negative health effects for sensitive populations, such as pregnant women, children, older adults and people with respiratory and heart disease.
An expansion and increase in landfill capacity could increase contaminant levels in air.
Odors, particulate matter and exposure contaminants in the air causing harm, resulting in irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract.
Chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde were detected above known cancer risk evaluation guides.
Additional chemicals were found, exceeding acceptable health ranges, in the ambient air such as ammonia (exceeding standards at the Mid Valley School District, one of the collection sites); methylamine, acetaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide.
Changes in the landfill operations could adversely impact future subsurface vapor migration pathways.
Nutrient loading of aquatic systems by gull feces has serious implications for municipal surface water drinking water sources, such as the one near KSL.
The report does not draw a direct correlation between the facility and most known cancers, however, it acknowledges certain cancer rates in the area are higher for unknown reasons. However, "directly causing cancer" is not a standard by which a landfill expansion is evaluated by the DEP - it is whether the benefits of the expansion clearly outweigh both the known and potential harms.
Michele Dempsey, a founding member of Friends of Lackawanna, concluded, “Now that this health consultation is finalized, the DEP cannot approve this expansion as health concerns, both known and potential, are now on the record. To do so would be a dereliction of duty and would be acting in contrast to the department's Constitutional mandate according to Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Perhaps worse, it would put a price tag on our future, our reputation, and now, our health.”
Additional statements on this consultation and how it relates to the proposed expansion
“The real concern here, of course, is what the implications of these findings are for future public exposures to pollutants, and resulting health risks, under changes in landfill operations.”
-- Kevin M. Stewart, Director of Environmental Health, American Lung Association in Pennsylvania
"Despite limitations in the data available to ATDSR, the agency still found that some of the contaminants detected in ambient air near the landfill could have caused transitory adverse health effects for members of the community... It likely represents the tip of the iceberg and an underestimate of the everyday exposures from the landfill."
-- Steven Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment & Justice
“On any given day, we have hundreds of children playing on our playground and on our fields. To know that their health could be at risk under the current conditions sent a shock through the district. This begs the question; how much worse would it be if the expansion is allowed?”
-- Donna Dixon, current Mid Valley School District, Board Director, former Mid Valley Elementary School Principal
The full report is available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/KeystoneSanitaryLandfill/Keystone_Sanitary_Landfill_HC-508.pdf
The Times-TribuneMarch 24, 2019
GUEST COLUMNIST BY PATRICK CLARK
We are taught that rainbows and wild geese should not be chased. Circles cannot be squared. Windmills are not to be tilted at, nor pipes to be dreamed of.
But can a group of concerned citizens stop a mega-landfill from expanding and cementing a region’s reputation as the dumping ground of the northeast?
In 2014, the Keystone Sanitary Landfill proposed to triple in size — adding more than 100 million tons of garbage over the next 40 to 50 years. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection uses a harms-benefits analysis concerning landfill expansion proposals. To obtain an expansion permit, a landfill must prove that benefits of the project clearly outweigh known and potential harms.
Our area has accepted more than its fair share of garbage, much of it from out of state; instinctual questions about safety, prudence and need for such an expansion arise and intuition does not carry the day in the harms-benefits analysis. Facts are needed and a record must be established.
At the time of application, Keystone pointed to its stellar compliance history, lack of violations and self-proclaimed “state of the art” status. Ignoring the notion that a landfill being state of the art today is the equivalent of having the fastest dial-up internet in town, the landfill’s compliance file at DEP, to that point, was thin.
Knowing the violation history was virtually nonexistent, Friends of Lackawanna began by analyzing the process DEP used to regulate the landfill. And after a lengthy review, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board agreed that the DEP had not done its job.
The board found that DEP’S process with the landfill was a “heads I win, tails you lose” loop, always favoring the landfill, stating that “the biggest deficiency with the Department’s review [of Keystone’s compliance history] was that it relied almost entirely on recorded violations, yet the department almost never records any violations at Keystone, even if they undeniably occurred.” That “essentially guarantees that the permittee will pass the formal compliance history review with flying colors.”
That dereliction of duty is how a landfill morphs from a small, neighborhood dump to defining the aesthetic landscape of a region. In 1990, Keystone could accept an average of 2,000 tons of waste per day. In 1991, it increased to 3,500. In 1998, it increased again to 4,750. And from 2012 on, it is up to 7,250 tons daily.
Having established that the oversight process was broken, we attempted to prove there are actual harms associated with this landfill. We looked through records, read reports and requested health data. We have established a record that is anything but flawless. The everfattening record includes:
■ State-confirmed ongoing contamination of groundwater at the landfill for more than 15 years.
■ Landfill citations from DEP for leaking, spilling and improperly storing leachate.
■ The landfill discharged leachate into the sewer system, according to the Environmental Hearing Board.
■ Keystone’s data show property values nearest the landfill have decreased relative to property values farther from the site.
■ DEP confirms that surrounding neighborhoods have been increasingly impacted by pungent odors.
■ A state Department of Health consultation shows toxic chemicals, known to cause adverse health effects, were found during ambient air testing. That can impact our most-sensitive populations: children, pregnant women, the elderly and those with respiratory problems.
■ DEP has not “consistently exercised vigorous oversight of the landfill consistent with its regulatory and constitutional responsibilities with just as much concern about the rights of the landfill’s neighbors as the rights of the landfill,” the Environmental Hearing Board reported.
The community at large has supported our mission at every turn. Our network of members continues to grow after five years, including standing-room capacity at public hearings and informational sessions. Our elected public officials — U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright; Pennsylvania Sen. John Blake and state Rep. Kyle Mullins — all support our position and oppose this expansion. Our active online petition opposing the expansion has soared past our signature goal of 5,000.
Over the five years, we have moved from a nonexistent record to one filled with undeniable harms. We have shifted from a community accepting the status quo to one fighting for a better future. We have shifted from instincts to indisputable evidence.
With what it now knows, if DEP allows this expansion it will ignore the record, the community, our elected representatives, the known and potential harms and its constitutional duty as a trustee of our natural resources. Friends of Lackawanna has made our case. All the DEP needs to do in order to deny this expansion is read the file.
Please join us in telling Governor Tom Wolf and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection that you stand with FOL and oppose KSL's proposed expansion.
If you have already signed, many thanks!
