LTE: Teach recycling
Excellent Letter to the Editor by Tim McCabe of South Abington. Education and new policies around how we deal with garbage, from producing less to recycling more, is how real change will occur.
https://m.thetimes-tribune.com/.../letters-to-the-editor...
Teach recycling
Editor: Recent Times-Tribune articles have noted the economic challenges presented by cross-contamination of materials in single stream recycling collection and the danger to recycling staff of rancid waste “juice” from residual liquid leaking from bottles, jars and cans.
Despite comparatively arduous household processing requirements for rinsing, sorting and dropping off items at central collection points rather than curbside, a fair number of European nations recycle well over 50% of their solid waste flow. In the United States, the amount is approximately 35%. As residents of NEPA know, we need to rely less on landfill disposal.
Locally, many people are very dedicated to recycling. I assume many others would be willing to increase their efforts if only they had better direction on what exactly is and isn’t recyclable and how properly to prepare items for collection. As it stands now, household recycling education is almost entirely haphazard.
I believe that more formal and consistent municipal provision of instructions regarding recycling is needed. Such education likely would engender a greater sense of civic responsibility toward recycling and alternatives to single-stream collection for a cleaner, more viable supply of recyclable material.
TIM McCABE
SOUTH ABINGTON TWP.
As complaints of rotten smell multiply, landfill critics said DEP reporting process flawed
The distinct putrid stench from the Keystone Sanitary Landfill nauseated residents of Dunmore and Throop over the past few weeks as they flocked to social media to complain about insufferable smells and a reporting process that is “designed to fail.” Article 1 Section 27 PA Constitution – We have the right to CLEAN AIR!
Excerpt: The odors will only get worse if the landfill receives approval for its proposed expansion that would allow it to continue piling garbage for nearly half a century, said Michele Dempsey, a founding member of Friends of Lackawanna. “Let’s be clear, this is the landfill on its absolute best behavior as it is being assessed for a 50-year expansion, and it still can’t control its malodors,” she said in an email. “Our only recourse is the DEP, and their reporting process is absurd and their oversight is impotent.”
Write to Governor Tom Wolf and tell him that his PA DEP must deny this expansion:
https://www.governor.pa.gov/contact/
https://m.thetimes-tribune.com/.../as-complaints-of...
As complaints of rotten smell multiply, landfill critics said DEP reporting process flawed
BY FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: JANUARY 16, 2020
As the state Department of Environmental Protection investigates reports of a rotten smell that permeated parts of Dunmore and Throop on Monday, critics of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill are calling for reform on how the state handles odor reporting.
The DEP received six complaints from residents of the boroughs on Monday night, with a DEP responder traveling to the homes of all six complainants to speak with them and confirm the odor. Those who complained told the inspector it smelled like rotten eggs or sulfur, with the DEP employee calling it possibly “garbage or decay,” according to a DEP incident report. One resident called it “something else that is difficult to define.”
The inspector recommended follow-ups with both the landfill and Maid-Rite Specialty Foods at 105 Keystone Industrial Park Road, Dunmore. The inspector smelled the odor outside of Maid-Rite. The inspector did not smell anything at the landfill’s guard shack Monday night, and neither did the guard, according to the report.
A landfill employee told the DEP Tuesday that “they had some odor issues there in the last 10 days,” according to the report. Landfill officials told the DEP that it is working on new measures to control site odors, including more cover materials, a specialized coating known as Posi-Shell and a foam product on lagoons and ponds to contain smells, according to the report.
Several of the complaints said the smell has been especially a problem for at least two to three weeks.
Dunmore and Throop residents flocked to social media, with dozens of Facebook comments on local grassroots activists’ pages complaining about the smell or reporting process.
‘Designed to fail’
To be reported as a malodor from the landfill, which is the most severe type of odor that causes an annoyance and discomfort to the public, a DEP inspector has to confirm that an off-site odor exists, determine if it comes from the landfill as well as its intensity, duration and impact to the public; and investigate landfill operations to see if there was an operational problem, DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said in an email.
The DEP prefers to have an inspector meet with people at their property, she said. Complaints are recorded as soon as someone calls the department’s hotline.
The process is “laughably flawed,” said Pat Clark, a leader of anti-landfill expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna.
“Their mission is to protect the environment for the citizens of Pennsylvania, yet they place the entire burden on whether or not a landfill — which is rotting garbage — smells on the shoulders of the citizens instead of just doing their job,” he said.
Because the DEP sends inspectors to people’s homes or places of work to confirm the smell, the smell will often have shifted elsewhere by the time an inspector arrives, Clark said, explaining it can take hours for someone to show up.
“The smell doesn’t sit there like a green cloud hovering over an individual house,” he said. “It moves.”
He called the reporting system “designed to fail.”
“The more people complain, the more people there are to get to, the longer that list takes to get through,” he said.
There is no set time limit for how quickly a DEP employee has to respond to a complaint, but they try to respond as quickly as possible, Connolly said.
‘The process is flawed’
The odors will only get worse if the landfill receives approval for its proposed expansion that would allow it to continue piling garbage for nearly half a century, said Michele Dempsey, a founding member of Friends of Lackawanna.
“Let’s be clear, this is the landfill on its absolute best behavior as it is being assessed for a 50-year expansion, and it still can’t control its malodors,” she said in an email. “Our only recourse is the DEP, and their reporting process is absurd and their oversight is impotent.”
The need for reform goes beyond the DEP’s reporting system, Clark said, calling for reform on how the department treats and inspects landfills. He pointed to the DEP allowing self-reporting and the department’s analysis that the benefits of the landfill’s expansion outweigh the known and potential harms.
If people call the DEP to report an odor, they often don’t want a stranger showing up at their door, especially late at night, said Dunmore Councilman Vince Amico, who received complaints from residents about the rotten egg smell on Jan. 10..
Residents also might not be able to wait around for two hours until an inspector arrives to meet with them and verify the smell, Amico said, emphasizing that he doesn’t fault the inspectors.
“I think the process is flawed,” he said. “The onus is on the complainant to prove that there’s a problem.”
The councilman suggested several remedies, including setting up some type of monitoring system in the town and simply having inspectors respond to problem areas without actually visiting anyone’s specific address.
Both Clark and Amico feel that residents often don’t even realize they need to call the DEP to report problem odors, which leads to fewer reports.
‘Worst I’ve ever smelled’
Liz Hahn-Mattioli called the DEP at 8:24 p.m. Monday to report a rotten egg smell that seeped through her home on Dunmore Street in Throop.
She told a DEP inspector around 10 p.m. the smell was so strong that she and her three children all got headaches, said Hahn-Mattioli, the president of Concerned Citizens of Throop, a nonprofit group that advocates on behalf of borough residents. By the time the inspector arrived, however, the smell was much less pungent.
“It was the worst I’ve ever smelled,” she said, explaining she has lived there for 20 years. “I’ve never had that smell permeate through my house.”
To reach the DEP’s 24-hour emergency hotline, call 570-826-2511 or 1-800-541-2050.
Contact the writer: flesnefsky@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5181; @flesnefskyTT on Twitter
Call the DEP if You Smell It
Tonight Concerned Citizens of Throop reports that the stench from Keystone Sanitary Landfill was horrible. The smell traveled as far as Dickson City. Please note: this is the Landfill on its best behavior as it is being assessed by the DEP for an expansion. Should the DEP grant the 50 year expansion, all bets are off. Thick, putrid landfill smells will be the norm across the valley for at least the next 2 generations. Don’t believe it? Drive past the CES Landfill in Hegins (same owners) along I-81. For at least a mile or two before and after you reach it, you will not want to breathe.
Everyone impacted needs to call and report.
PADEP After hours hotline: 800 541-2050
Please note: the process to get the smell on record with the DEP is absolutely ABSURD! You have to call and then they will send someone out to verify the smell, but it has to be on your own property to count. When that person gets there, often hours later when the smell has dissipated, they can and very often have disagreed that the obvious landfill smell is coming from the landfill. They get to make the final determination. IF they agree, then and only then is it considered officially on record. THAT is why the DEP keeps saying there aren’t many complaints. Absolute absurdity.
Don’t let that stop you from calling. Please feel free to post below if you call and let us know what happens when you call and afterward. If the DEP won’t log it, at least we will have a record of citizens reporting smells.
Thank you!
LTE: Learn from legacy
Excellent Letter to the Editor in The Scranton Times-Tribune today!
Learn from legacy
Editor: Thousands of people perished or were seriously injured in the NEPA mining industry.
After dying in mining accidents, their bodies were often tossed on their families’ porches. The miners’ wives and children were left destitute. Health insurance did not exist and miners were also required to use their meager earnings to buy tools and supplies from the company store. When the demand for anthracite coal disappeared, so did much business and industry.
Our area became economically depressed, as it continues to be today. Middle-age folks like me grew up with the realities of walking on hollow ground, playing on culm dumps and dealing with the many issues that accompany living and raising families in a dampened economy.
Now, the Department of Environmental Protection and several local businesspeople ask us to further sacrifice our air quality, our water quality and our overall health in exchange for what they call “economic benefits” to the area. Fool us once, shame on you — fool us twice, shame on us. When coal was king, only the few got rich, many were killed or injured, our land was devastated and our economy eventually tanked.
There are so many ways to provide for our communities and stimulate our economy without killing our people and further damaging our environment. It is critical that we begin to be more thoughtful about the amount and type of garbage we create, to challenge the waste industry to be smarter about how we dispose of that garbage and to learn to invest in business and industry that will allow us to build a better, safer and more sustainable future. It is imperative that we do something different this time around. Our lives depend on it.
ANNA JOYCE KILCULLEN
DUNMORE
Editorial: Caution due on landfill’s water plans
Keystone Sanitary Landfill wants to treat its own leachate (toxic garbage juice) and release it directly into Eddy’s Creek and Little Roaring Brook so the Landfill can save money. As the Times Tribune Editorial Board points out in another spot on article, this puts our water quality at the mercy of the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and “Dunmore voters already have expressed their skepticism at the ballot box regarding the government’s ability, or willingness, to guard the public interest over the landfill’s interests.”
https://m.thetimes-tribune.com/.../caution-due-on...
Caution due on landfill’s water plans
BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD / PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 27, 2019
The state Department of Environmental Protection, which in recent years failed to detect any of the many odors emanating from the Keystone Sanitary Landfill and found that economic “benefits” from the massive dump’s massive expansion would outweigh environmental concerns, has compromised its credibility regarding the landfill.
So skepticism and extreme caution are necessary as the landfill advances a plan to change the treatment of water that flows from the landfill in Dunmore and Throop before it flows into tributaries of the Lackawanna River.
The landfill pretreats the landfill effluent known as leachate before sending it into the Scranton-Dunmore sewer system, operated by Pennsylvania American Water. It is treated as sewage at the system’s treatment plant in South Scranton before being discharged into the Lackawanna River.
Change in treatment plans
Now, the landfill has asked the DEP for permission to increase wastewater treatment at the landfill and release most of the treated water into nearby Eddy Creek and Little Roaring Brook, while using some of it for dust control at the landfill.
According to a landfill spokesman, the method would not reduce the quality of the discharged water that enters the rivers, while reducing the landfill’s treatment costs and the costs of acquiring water for dust control.
Dunmore voters already have expressed their skepticism at the ballot box regarding the government’s ability, or willingness, to guard the public interest over the landfill’s interests.
Those voters have thrown out of office several borough council members who had voted to amend the borough zoning ordinance specifically as requested by the landfill to accommodate its expansion plans.
Treatment of the landfill’s leachate will continue for decades regardless of whether the landfill expands. The DEP must demonstrate to the public that its decision is rooted in the public interest in environmental soundness rather than the landfill’s financial interests alone. That, in turn, requires complete transparency.
Chris Kelly: GO SMELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN
Chris Kelly always has a way with words. We particularly enjoyed his version of a famous Christmas carol which he appropriately named “Go Smell It on the Mountain.”
https://m.thetimes-tribune.com/.../chris-kelly-christmas...
The marathon battle over the proposed 50-year expansion of Keystone Sanitary Landfill in Dunmore and Throop raged on, with landfill representatives stooping to threats and rigged council votes and expansion opponents standing up and getting elected.
Mayor Tim Burke’s brave veto of a zoning amendment that would have sold out the borough and the region for the sole benefit of landfill owner Louis DeNaples will have stalwart backing from new voices on council.
GO SMELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN
Go smell it on the mountain,
Over the hills and everywhere
A pall descending over Bucktown
The landfill reeks this morn’
Fire trucks and police stations
Under the borough Christmas tree
From the Grinch up on his mountain
Generosity with a fee
So the neighbors stuck together
Voters rallied to save the day
Ran out the Grinch’s slavish elves
Put expansion on layaway
Go smell it on the mountain
Over the hills, and across this land
Tell the Grinch up on the mountain
The mayor’s veto stands.
John Cole: Picture
A picture paints a thousand words. Editorial cartoonist, John Cole, always nails it.
LTE: Questions landfill's impact on health
Take a moment to read this powerful Letter to the Editor. Dr. Gregory Cali is a physician who specializes in Pulmonary Disease and knows all too well the medical conditions caused by environmental contaminants. We couldn’t agree more with his statement “I was under the impression that the DEP’s job was to protect the public from environmental hazards and that economic effects should be left to other agencies.”
https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../letters-to-the...
Questions landfill’s impact on health
Editor: I have followed the events concerning the Keystone Sanitary Landfill expansion controversy with great interest.
I am a former Dunmore resident, and, since 2004, I have practiced pulmonary medicine on Meade Street in Dunmore, with a clear view of the landfill and the nearby used car parking lot. I read the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report on the landfill entitled “Health Consultation,” dated April 1.
I am concerned about conclusions in the report, which I summarize:
■ The incidence of laryngeal cancer and leukemia is significantly higher in ZIP codes around the landfill. Page 78 of the report states that the incidence of laryngeal cancer for ZIP code 18509 was 122% higher than the rest of the state and 39% higher for all ZIP codes surrounding the landfill. The incidence of leukemia for Zip code 18512 (the one where I work) was 59% higher than the rest of the state. The incidence of stomach cancer in ZIP code 18512 was 71% higher than the rest of the state.
■ Short-term exposure to ammonia, methylamine, acetaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide occurred at monitoring sites such as Mid Valley High School and Sherwood Park in Dunmore. These chemicals can cause irritation of the eyes, nose and respiratory tract.
■ There were peak short-term exposures to particulate matter “that could harm people’s health.”
■ Subsurface vapor exposures (vapor intrusions) into homes are not being analyzed.
In light of these findings, I was surprised that the DEP has determined the economic benefits from the landfill outweigh potential health effects. I was under the impression that the DEP’s job was to protect the public from environmental hazards and that economic effects should be left to other agencies.
I think we need a more extensive health survey in the area around the landfill based on information in the DEP report.
GREGORY CALI, D.O.
Keystone Landfill seeks alternative leachate disposal method
Despite a clear history of not being able to handle its leachate, numerous leachate violations that we know of and countless that likely were not reported by this “self-monitoring” landfill, Keystone is asking the DEP and the public to trust them to treat extremely toxic leachate correctly and discharge directly into waterways that pass by schools and ultimately end up as part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed—drinking water for millions.
It’s a beyond preposterous request that shouldn’t be entertained, yet the DEP has time after time proven its loyalty to the landfill (with whom it’s complicit in keeping information from the public) and confirmed its captured agency status by acting in the best interest of this private company rather than the people they are sworn to protect.
https://m.thetimes-tribune.com/.../keystone-landfill...
Keystone Landfill seeks alternative leachate disposal method
SCRANTON — Keystone Sanitary Landfill plans an alternative leachate treatment method to discharge directly into two nearby waterways and spray on landfill dirt roads to keep dust down, a spokesman said Saturday.
The landfill straddling Dunmore and Throop currently pretreats its leachate — the garbage juice that percolates through the trash piles — and pipes the effluent into the sewer system purchased three years ago by Pennsylvania American Water from the Scranton Sewer Authority.
The landfill’s existing leachate treatment method pretreats the liquid to a level equivalent to household wastewaster, Keystone spokesman Al Magnotta said.
The wastewater of the Scranton-Dunmore sewer system flows to the PAW treatment plant in South Scranton, where it is treated and the resulting effluent discharged into the Lackawanna River.
Now, the landfill seeks state approval to add an alternative method of leachate treatment, he said. The reverse osmosis method represents a higher level of treatment that would allow for discharging effluent into Eddy Creek along Marshwood Road, and into Little Roaring Brook near Dunham Drive, Magnotta said.
“To go to a direct discharge to a stream is a whole new world,” Magnotta said of the higher level of treatment.
Eddy Creek winds through Throop and flows into the Lackawanna River near Route 347.
Little Roaring Brook flows a short distance into Roaring Brook, which then meanders through parts of Dunmore and Scranton and empties into the Lackawanna River behind South Side Bowl.
Proper treatment of leachate is an essential landfill requirement, and Keystone plans the additional treatment option — a $5 million project — for several reasons, Magnotta said.
The additional method would reduce landfill costs of treating and pumping leachate to the PAW sewer system, he said. The landfill also would curb costs of water drawn and bought from the water company for dust control, by filling truck tankers with the higher-level treated effluent and using it instead for dust control, he said.
“It provides us a lot of flexibility and redundancy in our system to make sure we’re operating properly,” Magnotta said. “We’ll achieve a higher level of treatment and we’ll save some money.”
The leachate plan comes as the landfill’s proposal for a nearly 50-year, massive expansion remains under review by the DEP and staunchly opposed by civic group Friends of Lackawanna. A zoning dispute between KSL and the civic group regarding landfill height and structure also remains pending in state Commonwealth Court.
Magnotta said the extra method of leachate treatment does not stem from the expansion plan. Even without expansion, the landfill still would have at least 30 years of post-closure leachate treatment, he said. Century-old segments of the PAW sewer system, if they ever were to collapse, represent a potential threat of forced closure to the landfill, if it were to have only one treatment option dependent on the PAW sewer system, he said.
“We have to think long term,” Magnotta said.
While the existing leachate treatment system has approval from DEP’s solid waste division, the alternative method needs approval from DEP’s water quality bureau, he said.
Keystone will soon have public notices published in The Times-Tribune indicating the landfill will submit to DEP a water quality management permit application seeking a major modification in leachate management and permits to discharge into Eddy Creek and Little Roaring Brook.
Pat Clark, a core member of Friends of Lackawanna, was not aware of the landfill’s plan for an additional leachate option but expressed skepticism.
“The landfill has not earned the benefit of doubt from me and the (Friends’) organization as a whole when it comes to modifications,” Clark said. “My overall takeaway is it’s not (being done by) choice. They probably have to do this for some reason we’re not privy to.”
Contact the writer:
jlockwood@timesshamrock.com
EXCLUSIVE: EPA Investigating Possible Cancer Cluster Near Former Landfill In Delaware County
FOL has continuously stated that we are fighting not only for our generation but for generations to come. This is a story of a landfill that continues to cause health concerns in the community.
Video excerpt: There are kids out there that need us to stand up for them.
Brier credits Dunmore voters for write-in win
“I’m doing this because I’ve always loved Dunmore and always been active in environmental causes,” said Brier, who credits a large group of volunteers for her win.
Excerpt:
An official count completed today confirmed that Brier easily won a borough council seat with a tidal wave of a write-in votes, an unheard of event in Dunmore politics and rare in Lackawanna County or anywhere else.
“The people came out of the woodwork to help me,” said Brier, 66, an accountant by training and manager of an orthopedics practice.
For probably the first time, Dunmore will have three women on the seven-member council — Brier, incumbent Carol Scrimalli and another newcomer, Beth McDonald Zangardi.
The official results for four available council seats showed incumbent Vince Amico as the top votegetter with 3,001 votes followed by incumbent Michael A. Dempsey, 2,980, Zangardi, 2,922, Brier, 2,323, incumbent Michael F. McHale, 1,428 and incumbent Michael Hayes, 1,083.
Brier’s run for office grew out of disappointment with a Sept. 19 council vote on whether to amend the borough zoning ordinance. The council voted 4-3 to amend the ordinance to say landfills aren’t structures. Whether the landfill qualifies as a structure stands at the heart of Friends of Lackawanna’s appeal of a 2015 borough zoning board decision that found the landfill is not a structure. Friends of Lackawanna urged the council to vote against the amendment with the appeal still pending. Landfill lawyers argued the borough decided long ago the landfill isn’t a structure by not defining it that way in the zoning ordinance, and the amendment would only affirm that.
Amico and Dempsey voted against the amendment. McHale and Hayes voted for it, despite campaign promises to oppose the landfill.
“Vote them out,” many in an overflowed crowd chanted the night the council voted.
Enough voters agreed.
A tale of two 'toons
A tale of two 'toons. In 2016, John Cole published a creative cartoon showing the growing resistance to the Landfill's expansion using one truck chasing another. Today's cartoon, in a wonderful juxtaposition, shows what can happen when people stay engaged. These two cartoons are over 3 years apart. But they tell the continuation of our singular story.
Coletoons - John Cole political cartoons
The Scranton Times-Tribune
Reform in air, politicians
The Scranton Times-Tribune underscores the voter’s rejection of the status quo in Tuesday’s election and how this electoral shift is much more tuned to public interest than private interest.
Excerpt:
Yet the Dunmore Borough Council election was an even more emphatic rejection of status quo, inside-baseball governance at the expense of the public interest. Voters threw out of office at least one and probably two councilmen who voted Sept. 19 to change the borough zoning ordinance specifically to accommodate the vast and unwarranted expansion of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill.
ANTI-LANDFILL LANDSLIDE!
ANTI-LANDFILL LANDSLIDE!
The last five years have demonstrated that anti-landfill expansion candidates dominate every race. Dunmore voters made it clear last night that what’s in their best interest is their health, well being and future.
Dunmore councilman Hayes ousted while McHale's fate uncertain
BY TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 6, 2019
At least one of two Dunmore councilmen who voted for a zoning amendment that would bolster Keystone Landfill’s expansion plans was ousted by voters, coming in last in a field of five candidates seeking four open seats, according to the unofficial count in Tuesday’s general election.
Michael Hayes was the odd man out with 1,079 votes. That’s less than half of the votes that were garnered by three candidates who opposed the expansion, incumbents Vince Amico, Michael Dempsey and newcomer Beth McDonald Zangardi, who each received more than 2,900 votes.
Incumbent Michael McHale, who also voted for the zoning amendment, had the second lowest total, with 1,424 votes — a stark contrast from the May primary, where he was the highest vote-getter on the Democratic ballot.
Whether McHale retains his seat depends on the results of a write-in campaign launched by Janet Brier. A total of 2,420 write-in votes were cast, which tops McHale’s vote count. There is no way to know whose name was written in until the official count is taken Friday.
Brier and her brother, Chris McGrath, her campaign treasurer, said they are confident she beat out McHale given the number of write-in votes.
“I think we can assume 90 to 95% are hers,” McGrath said. “Even if she got 80 or 90%, she has him beat by 800 to 1,000 votes.”
McHale served on council since 2010. Attempts to reach him for comment Tuesday night were unsuccessful.
The landfill expansion has long been a topic of heated debate. It took center stage in the election after Hayes and McHale joined council members Thomas Ehnot and Carol Scrimalli, who were not up for election, in voting to approve a zoning ordinance that declared sanitary landfills are not considered structures — a decision that would exempt Keystone from a 50-foot height restriction.
The ordinance did not take effect because Mayor Timothy Burke vetoed it. Brier said the election results show the issue remains important to voters.
Brier strongly opposes the landfill expansion and jumped into the race after council’s vote. She was surprised to learn how many write-ins were cast.
“Asking people to write in your name is a daunting task,” she said.
She credited an army of volunteers for convincing voters to make the effort.
“I had a tremendous amount of help with my family, friends and many people I never knew before who stepped up and worked very hard,” she said.
Hayes said he was disappointed with the election outcome, but still believes he did the right thing in voting for the ordinance. He remains concerned the borough will face a lawsuit from the landfill owners, Louis and Dominick Denaples.
“I can walk away with my head held high, knowing that for the last 20 years of my community and public service I always did what I thought was in the best interest for my town,” he said. “I love this town and I’m grateful for the experience.”
Zangardi also campaigned against the landfill expansion. She’s confident Burke’s veto will stand. She’s anxious to take office and start working on other important issues.
“Let’s get down to doing the people’s business. I can’t wait to get started,” she said.
Council members earn $3,000 a year, while the council president is paid $6,000.
Attempts to reach Amico and Dempsey for comment were unsuccessful.
Controversy over Keystone Landfill key issue in Dunmore council race
The right to vote is the greatest power we have in a democracy. Please remember to vote on Tuesday.
**Disclaimer: Though we hope anyone running for any office, on any level, aligns with our mission, Friends of Lackawanna, as a registered 501(c)(3), cannot l endorse any political candidates.**
Excerpt:
The five candidates for Dunmore council say they expect the controversy over the proposed Keystone Sanitary Landfill expansion to be a key issue in deciding who secures four open seats in Tuesday’s general election.
Council President Michael Dempsey and Councilman Vince Amico say their recent votes against a zoning amendment that would have bolstered the landfill’s efforts shows they remain committed to opposing the expansion. They face incumbent Councilmen Michael Hayes and Michael McHale, who voted for the amendment, and newcomer Beth McDonald Zangardi, who opposes the expansion.
Landfill attorneys: Dunmore mayor's veto is invalid
The landfill lawyers are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to get Mayor Burke’s veto overturned. It’s funny that years ago when Throop’s Mayor vetoed a zoning ordinance in favor of the landfill, it was all good. But now that the veto has worked against them, suddenly it’s “invalid.” More bully tactics—if our strongman can’t scare you, maybe our fancy lawyers can. As Mayor Burke said, “Let’s go to court.” We will not back down.
Excerpts:
DUNMORE — Keystone Sanitary Landfill attorneys contended Monday that the mayor’s veto of a controversial zoning amendment is invalid.
Following a council work session Monday, which did not have a quorum, landfill attorneys David Overstreet and Jeffrey Belardi cited a recent court case where the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas ruled that a city mayor’s veto of a zoning amendment was null and void.
The Lawrence County ruling from Oct. 9 says only city council has the power to enact, amend or repeal zoning ordinances — not the mayor.
“Mayors ... are to have no involvement whatsoever when the city council takes up zoning legislation,” according to the ruling.
Landfill opponents disagree.
“A veto, under the borough code, is allowing the mayor to simply exercise his or her authority to approve or disprove the ordinance presented to them,” said Pat Clark, a leader of anti-expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna.
Clark also noted that the decision only came from a county court, and it pertained to a third class city, not a borough. As a result, the court analyzed the state’s Optional Third Class City Charter Law and not Pennsylvania’s borough code.
“To say it’s authoritative and persuasive is not, in my opinion, correct,” Clark said.
“Even if the mayor’s veto were valid, which we don’t think it is ... all it would do is remove the clarifying amendment,” Overstreet said.
The landfill would not have dedicated the time, energy and money that it has if it were “so unconcerned with a mere clarification,” Clark said.
“I think their actions speak louder than their words,” he said. “There’s a reason they want this.”
Landfill resistance proves times have changed
This is a MUST READ response by Pat Clark of Friends of Lackawanna to the threats and bully tactics of Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s consultant and ownership. They claim to be good neighbors bestowing generosity, but it is actually extortion. We no longer respond to threats. We will no longer be bullied by our “good” neighbor.
Earlier this year, Keystone Sanitary Landfill mailed a full-page color pamphlet to residents of Northeast Pennsylvania.
The front cover reads: “To have good neighbors we must also be good neighbors.” Last week, landfill engineer Al Magnotta published a column in The Times-Tribune, “21 million reasons to kill veto.” It is rife with threats, bully tactics and fearmongering and details what the landfill may attempt if the borough of Dunmore does not do exactly what the landfill orders, forever and always, until death do us part. Good neighbors, indeed.
The bully approach Magnotta employs is not a new addition to the landfill playbook. Rather, it has been the primary offense deployed to attack and intimidate those who disagree with it, especially local government and elected officials, since its formation. Consider:
■ In 1990, it sued the city of Scranton for $100 million to get its way regarding leachate disposal. Landfill leachate disposal still causes issues almost 30 years later, including three recent DEP violations.
■ In 1994, it sued officials from Throop for $16 million for passing a zoning ordinance that would have blocked an expansion at that time. Ironically, the Throop mayor later vetoed that zoning ordinance to the landfill’s benefit.
■ Now, the landfill threatens to recoup $21 million if Dunmore council does not override Mayor Tim Burke’s recent veto of a proposed landfill-friendly zoning ordinance.
In none of these matters did the landfill prevail, nor would it prevail, on any monetary awards from litigation or threatened suits. Instead, the landfill attacks economically strapped municipalities for leverage in hopes that residents’ fear of increased taxes will cause their elected officials to buckle. In the case at hand, Magnotta cites two agreements between Dunmore and the landfill: 1999 and 2014.
The three-page 1999 agreement guarantees the borough no benefits and the result was the same as if there had been no agreement: The landfill would pay Dunmore the state-mandated minimum for every ton of waste it swallowed.
The 2014 agreement is not much better with the exception of some financial increases. Worse, the 2014 contract contains no environmental protections because when the borough considered using environmental experts to help in the negotiations, landfill ownership would “not allow any of those people to speak to them.”
Each of the “benefits” the landfill claims to bestow upon its fortunate host residents, and noted in Magnotta’s piece, was reluctantly given, used as negotiating leverage or included strategically to enhance its expansion application currently under review with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
With regard to these so-called benefits, consider the following:
■ The forgiveness of “delinquent amounts” owed by the borough for prior trash collection? The landfill regularly used that same tactic as leverage between 1989 and 2014.
■ The “host fee of $1.50 per ton” was dramatically increased from its initial 2014 amount offer only after opposition, led by Friends of Lackawanna, started to speak out. Even today, this is a below-market host municipality fee and it came after 25 years of paying Dunmore the absolute minimum, to the penny, that it legally could.
■ The “yearly contribution of $100,000 to the Dunmore School District” was only added to the agreement after public outcry in 2014.
■ Contrary to owner Louis DeNaples’ statement that the 2014 contract “...was a gift. Dunmore gives us nothing,” the agreement was not a gift. Instead, the host agreement, and the anticipated payments included, were promptly filed with the DEP and counted as a “benefit” of the proposed expansion. A gift that benefits the giver is not a gift at all.
The landfill can try to follow through on Magnotta’s threats by attempting to recoup money paid to Dunmore and by reverting payments to the state-mandated minimum. But it will fail. Moreover, with the letter’s brazen and openly threatening approach, the landfill has sent a clear message to DEP that the money paid under host agreements was never intended as a community benefit. Instead, those fees are being used as an extortionary tool wielded in the open, for all to see.
Magnotta’s letter was a last-ditch effort aimed at flipping one council vote needed to overturn Burke’s veto. Historically, without as much scrutiny, the landfill has been very good at ultimately getting municipalities to do its bidding. But council members Michael Dempsey, Tom Hallinan and Vince Amico honored their oath of office and stood their ground. The veto stands. Regardless of how the entire landfill expansion saga plays out, the borough, and the area at large, show that things have changed. We are willing to stand up to the powerful to protect our children’s health and our communities’ future. We no longer respond to threats. And we will no longer be bullied by our neighbor.
Pay the Piper
"Keystone Landfill apparently is willing to play rough with Dunmore in its bid to secure a nearly half-century extension on its lifespan. The borough might just now be realizing that there were strings attached to the financial benefits landfill owner Louis DeNaples has provided it over the years."
Landfill consultant to Dunmore: Override veto or pay back $21.55 million
Like Mayor Burke says, they think they can pay us to take their poison. But when we choose our health and future over their money, it turns into raw threats. Watch closely as this plays out because as Pat Clark says, it shows exactly how the owners of the landfill operate: Give us exactly what we want or we will come after you. Will they take back all the police cars and fire trucks they “donated” with the landfill money they made off the backs of our citizens, as well? Is generosity only given with the expectation of something in return?
From the Article:
If Dunmore Borough Council doesn’t override the mayor’s veto of a controversial zoning amendment for the Keystone Sanitary Landfill, the town will be on the hook to pay back $21.55 million to the landfill, a Keystone consultant contends.
Opponents view it as a threat.
Mayor Timothy Burke vetoed an ordinance last week that said sanitary landfills are not structures and therefore not limited to the 50-foot height restriction in the landfill’s zoning district. The zoning amendment was a devastating blow to efforts to prevent the Louis and Dominick DeNaples-owned landfill’s proposed 40-plus year expansion plans.
Council voted 4-3 in favor of the zoning change in September, but Burke’s veto halted the legislation. To overturn the veto, council will need a majority plus one, or a 5-2 vote.
In an opinion column published Tuesday in The Times-Tribune, landfill consultant Al Magnotta wrote that if council does not override the veto, the borough will be in violation of its 1999 and 2014 host agreements with the landfill.
‘Significant financial problem’
If Dunmore violates the host agreements, the landfill will only have to pay the state-mandated minimum of 41 cents per ton of garbage, Magnotta wrote, compared to the $1.51 per ton the borough is receiving in 2019.
Moreover, the borough will have to reimburse the landfill for the $21.55 million the town has received in reimbursements and debt forgiveness since 2014, according to Magnotta.
The landfill expects to bring in a bit more than two million tons of garbage this year, he said.
“I just don’t believe that the full ramifications of the actions of the council or the mayor actually … are understood by the vast majority of the people in Dunmore,” Magnotta said in a phone interview Tuesday, adding the mayor and the councilmen are setting the borough up for a “very significant financial problem.”
The landfill consultant pointed to a line in the 1999 agreement where the borough agreed “to facilitate the continued development and operation of the landfill.”
“If the mayor’s veto is sustained by the three councilmen, in theory, we’re in violation right now,” Magnotta said. “It has nothing to do with the expansion. … In theory, we’d have to shut down now.”
The landfill is about 550 feet tall at its peak.
‘Basically
threatening us’
Pat Clark, a leader of anti-expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna, said the borough has to ensure it has the right to enforce zoning before it figures out what its enforcement options are.
Neither of the agreements have any basis for the landfill getting a refund, Clark said.
“Al draws plenty of legal conclusions, all of which are unfounded and designed to scare people,” he said.
He also noted that the 1999 agreement doesn’t mean the borough has to do everything to facilitate and enhance the landfill’s unmitigated growth.
“It’s not a blanket agreement to do the landfill’s bidding forever and for always,” Clark said.
Additionally, the mayor’s veto does not violate the 2014 agreement, he said. Magnotta cited a section of the agreement that said the landfill “is not a building under the current zoning ordinance pertaining to maximum building height.”
The veto has nothing to do with the landfill being deemed a building, Clark said.
“It has everything to do with it being a structure … therefore this veto is not in violation or contrary to the 2014 agreement,” he said.
Burke agreed his veto was simply about whether the landfill is a structure or not.
The mayor also noted the detrimental health effects from the landfill, including the impact on air quality and how it affects sensitive populations like children, pregnant women and the elderly.
“He’s basically threatening us,” Burke said. “He’s basically saying, ‘Take our poison. We’re paying you enough money to take it.’”
Clark said the landfill has a history of bullying, but now it evolved from “issuing threats behind closed doors” to challenging the town in a newspaper editorial.
“This letter is such a brazen, open threat to the people of the area that I have no idea why it was written,” he said. “It does, however, clearly show everyone exactly how they operate: Give us exactly what we want or we will come after you.”
‘Black and white’
Burke vetoed the ordinance on Oct. 14, and according to the state’s borough code, council has 10 days to take action on the veto. Otherwise, it stands.
As of Tuesday, council had not scheduled a special meeting, said Borough Manager Vito Ruggerio.
If the veto stands, council could vote on a revised ordinance, which would require submitting the ordinance to the county and borough planning commissions, holding a public hearing and voting again. Burke could veto the new ordinance, though.
While the landfill requested the current ordinance, Magnotta said proposing a revised ordinance is up to council.
“They could either go through with it, or they could send us a check,” Magnotta said. “I think this council has to decide what position they want to take.”
Councilman Michael Hayes, who has previously raised concerns about violating the agreement and voted in favor of the zoning change, said council should override Burke’s veto to “save this town from bankruptcy.”
“It’s what I’ve been saying all along,” he said. “Unfortunately, no one was listening. I’m glad now that people can see it in black and white.”
In the event that Dunmore did lose its host fees, the town will survive, Burke said.
“I see towns around that survive without a landfill. Dunmore could do the same,” he said.