LTE: DETRIMENT OBVIOUS

Another excellent letter today in The Scranton Times-Tribune. Excerpt: If this landfill expansion happens, it will have chilling effect on businesses and job opportunities in Lackawanna County for generations to come.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_6348ec74...

DETRIMENT OBVIOUS

Editor: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources’ harms-versus-benefits conclusion regarding Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s expansion plan seems to place a higher value on monetary benefits than the surrounding area’s quality of life.

Consider DEP’s view using money as the primary deciding factor.

A primary purpose of the $450 million Casey Highway development was to open the mid- and upper-valley area to business development. The Scranton-Lackawanna Industrial Building Co. used the highway’s access to create the Valley View Business Park and the Jessup Small Business Center. This involved building roads and installing utilities. The tools were there to create a successful business environment. Developers built prime facilities that would accommodate production, offices or warehousing. But something happened to change the view of investing in the area. Keystone Sanitary Landfill announced its intention to expand for approximately 42 years.

I see 17 vacant or underutilized buildings within a 4-mile radius of the landfill, with an average size of 213,487 square feet. Some are state-of-the-art facilities that normally would have tenants before construction was complete. Why are these potential businesses and the associated jobs not fulfilled in these in prime locations?

As a former business manager located in the shadow of the landfill, I can feel the pain as Realtors or developers take potential clients to sites and drive almost within touching distance of this massive, smelly pile of trash. If you were an investor or business manager would you choose this location? If you managed a business there and the lease was about to expire on your location, would you want to renew that lease?

Several excellent employers have moved into the area but the true potential is not being reached. If this landfill expansion happens, it will have chilling effect on businesses and job opportunities in Lackawanna County for generations to come.

GENE KATAPSKI

MOUNT COBB

LTE - 7/6/2020

Another letter requesting that DEP deny KSL’s expansion. Keep on writing and make sure our voices are heard!

Editor: I sent the following message to Roger Bellas, waste management program manager for the Department of Environmental Protection’s regional office:

“I am writing to voice my hope that the expansion of Keystone Sanitary Landfill will be denied. I believe every state should have to handle their own disposal needs for refuse. When we can throw out anything we want and it is carted a state away we have little reason to change our disposal habits.

“The Lackawanna Valley has been degraded for a century and a half starting with clear cutting of the forests, fouling of the land, air and water from coal mining, installation of multiple unsightly electric power transmission lines and of course the truck traffic, dust, birds, smell and visual disruption from not one but two local landfills. To me the cost-benefit study that was done by the DEP places the health and welfare of all of our current and future residents on one side of the scale and the interests of a powerful, connected family on the other.

“Are we to believe that an honest accounting of the true costs and benefits of the proposed 40-plus-year expansion of this landfill favors a family dynasty with a poor record of environmental stewardship over the future of an entire region? I respectfully ask that this permit application be denied.”

BOB SHUMAKER

SCRANTON

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_b6a58795...

Op-Ed: Reports detail money's impact on environmental policy

5fd38575cab19.image.jpg

Today's Op-ed by FOL's Pat Clark is on the upcoming DEP decision and the deja vu inducing prioritization of money over all else. As you will read, last month's Grand Jury report echoes, almost exactly, what we have experienced with how the DEP has looked at this landfill expansion proposal.

"By rejecting Keystone’s proposed landfill expansion, DEP has an opportunity to salvage any credibility which this agency may have once enjoyed before it became so marred with a reputation of serving at the behest of industry, the rich and the politically connected. It has one final opportunity to fulfill its constitutional duties and stick up for the people of Northeast Pennsylvania, including generations yet to come."

**********************

Reports detail money's impact on environmental policy

By PATRICK CLARK GUEST COLUMNIST

Studies estimate that approximately two-thirds of people have experienced dèjá vu. Translated, the French term means “already seen” and it is best described as the feeling you get as though you have been somewhere before or have an overwhelming sense of familiarity with something new. It is a common, almost always harmless, experience, except when reading a grand jury report involving the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

In late June, a Pennsylvania grand jury report was made public. It resulted from a two-year investigation centered on the DEP’s oversight of the natural gas fracking industry. If one simply replaced “fracking” with “landfill,” it is eerily similar to a November 2017 ruling by another independent body, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, which evaluated how the DEP regulates Keystone Sanitary Landfill in Dunmore and Throop.

Fracking and waste disposal are massive, powerful industries in Pennsylvania. Since fracking’s emergence, Pennsylvania has consistently ranked toward the top of the U.S. “unconventional oil and gas industry.” When it comes to trash, Pennsylvania historically imports more waste than any other state. Strong, environmentally destructive industries require stronger regulatory agencies to protect the public. Though the DEP’s stated mission is to do so, it has failed woefully.

The grand jury fracking report concluded that “...officials did not do enough to properly protect the health, safety and welfare of the thousands of Pennsylvania citizens who were affected by this industry” and that “government institutions often failed in their constitutional duty to act as a trustee and guardian ‘of all the people,’ as Article 1, Section 27 [of the Pennsylvania Constitution] provides” and “We believe some DEP employees saw the job more as serving the industry than the public.”

Oversight lagging

The nearly identical 2017 Environmental Hearing Board Ruling passage found that 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.”

Further, the grand jury report found that “DEP employees often elected not to inspect reported violations... And even in cases where investigation did show that a violation had occurred, and that ground water had been tainted... DEP employees chose not notify unsuspecting neighboring landowners, who would have no way of knowing there was a problem.”

The mirror section in the 2017 Environmental Hearing Board: “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.”

The parallels do not stop at the nearly identical written conclusions. Both reference an unexplained lack of notice of violations at the offending companies. Both discuss the lack of underlying historical health data. Both reference the location of offending facilities being in close proximity to residential areas, not “out-of-the-way industrial parks.”

Perhaps the most damning similarity comparing Keystone’s expansion proposal and the 2020 grand jury report is, unsurprisingly, the impact of money on environmental decisions.

Revenue was priority

The grand jury report states, “...we believe that our government often ignored the costs to the environment and to the health and safety of the citizens of the commonwealth, in a rush to reap the benefits of this industry.”

In the DEP’s harms-benefits analysis of the proposed landfill expansion, the DEP concluded that there is not a single environmental benefit, only environmental harms. And every “social and economic benefit” is financial in nature. Yet, on balance, the DEP still found that “the identified benefits of the project clearly outweigh the remaining known and potential harms of the project.” Another way to read that is “money outweighs our environment, health and safety.”

Finally, to connect the remaining dots of these intertwined Pennsylvania cash cows, where does some of the toxic waste from the fracking industry the Grand Jury denounces ultimately reside? Buried in the Keystone Sanitary Landfill, of course.

Dèjá vu isn’t typically something to worry about. Except when it is. Except when it involves repeated condemnations by independent arbiters of the agency in charge of protecting both our citizens and our environment. The DEP has not rendered its final decisions on the landfill’s expansion request, but it will do so shortly. By rejecting Keystone’s proposed landfill expansion, DEP has an opportunity to salvage any credibility which this agency may have once enjoyed before it became so marred with a reputation of serving at the behest of industry, the rich and the politically connected. It has one final opportunity to fulfill its constitutional duties and stick up for the people of Northeast Pennsylvania, including generations yet to come.

**********************

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_ce971a4e...

Sen. Casey opposes landfill expansion in letter to DEP

safe_image.jpg

We are overwhelmed with gratitude for all of the letters of opposition sent to the DEP this week. Over the coming days, we will be sharing as many of the letters from public officials as we can.

Here's a brief story highlighting Senator Casey's continued anit-expansion stance.

Much more to follow and thank you to everyone who took the time to write.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_cd0d324e...

LTE June 28

Great questions by this writer!

Editor: Often on business calls, when we said we were from Scranton, people would say, “I’ve been to Scranton — that’s the place with all the waste coal piles and all those junk cars.”

That is a main impression people had of Scranton. They would ask, “What’s with all the coal piles and junk cars?”

The culm dumps are gone, but the junk cars remain. Today, visitors may say, “What’s that smell around here?” or, “Is that huge mountain a landfill in the middle of town?”

Why is this still happening? Northeast Pennsylvania is one of the most scenic areas in the country. Why do residents and elected officials allow companies to destroy the countryside? Why does the state allow out-of-state garbage to be dumped in Pennsylvania, especially a major city? Why does the state allow trucks to tear up the roads and scatter garbage all the way to the state line?

I live in Moscow and have driven the Interstate 380/81 corridor since 1974 and see the degradation. I have never seen, in modern times, such a disregard for the environment and the residents who live in the surrounding area.

I have found Keystone Sanitary Landfill owner Louis DeNaples to be very pleasant to deal with — he’s a clever and astute businessman and no one works harder. However, he appears to have little regard as to how his operation affects the environment, the residents and other businesses in the area. I would not trust his company to do the right thing in handling another 50 years of trash, based on what I’ve seen.

In today’s marketplace, if you do not clean up your own mess, or if your business adversely affects residents, the environment or local businesses, somebody should get after you. They should not allow an expansion for another 50 years with out-of-state garbage.

FRANK HUBBARD

MOSCOW

Dunmore, Mid Valley school directors mull opposition of landfill expansion

img_5341_slide-5523cce07c637e60202998a7f90867631899447e-s800-c85.jpg

Thank you, Mid Valley School Board, for once again voting to send a letter to the DEP in opposition to the landfill expansion and protecting the health of our children. As Pat Clark states in the article, we look forward to the Dunmore School Board doing the same.

*****************************

Excerpt:

The Mid Valley School Board will once again send a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection opposing the Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s proposed 42-year expansion.

The Dunmore School Board has yet to decide.

Both boards discussed sending letters of opposition to the DEP during virtual meetings Wednesday night. The DEP is in the final phase of reviews for Keystone’s Phase III expansion. As part of the review, it opened a 60-day window for public comment on May 1. That window closes 4 p.m. Tuesday.

The expansion would allow the landfill — located in Dunmore and Throop — to continue bringing in trash until 2064, amounting to an additional 94,072,940 tons of waste, or 188 billion pounds, according to the landfill’s 42.4-year expansion plans.

Mid Valley

Directors voted 7-2 to join both Scranton and Dunmore councils in sending letters of opposition to the DEP. The board previously voted to do the same more than five years ago.

Dunmore

During the public participation portion of the Dunmore School Board virtual meeting, Superintendent John Marichak summarized two letters sent to the board by borough residents Sharon Cuff and Molly Earley Callahan asking it to oppose the expansion.

Children are especially vulnerable to environmental health issues, Cuff said in her letter.

“The key to protection is prevention, and I ask that you take steps to do just that — take action to prevent the expansion and protect the students in the district,” she wrote.

Solicitor Matthew Dempsey said it’s been the board’s policy and procedure is to leave issues, such as zoning, to Dunmore Borough Council.

However, board member Francis Kranick said he welcomes the chance to sign, and even compose a letter, to see what his fellow board members’ thoughts are on the issue.

Director Jessica LiBassi added, “It’s something we should express our view on.”

The proposed expansion is a contentious issue in the small community, said Director Michael Coleman.

“As far as a school board, do I think we have much power and pull in any decisions that are made? No I don’t,” he said. “But I think it’s important that our voices are somewhat heard and we stand up for the children.”

Pat Clark, a leader of Friends of Lackawanna, said the group respects Mid Valley’s decision and looks forward to the Dunmore School Board opposing the expansion.

“Dunmore School Board Directors are beginning to take action to protect the health of students from the known harms in their district from Keystone Sanitary Landfill,” Clark said in a text.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_26a4a714...

Chris Kelly: Like Dimock, Keystone expansion is a preventable disaster

5eee531627e5a.image.jpg

Chris Kelly’s powerful article amplifies the tragic realities our area will face if the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Governor Tom Wolf allow this preventable disaster to happen. Write and tell Governor Wolf and the PADEP to deny the expansion: http://www.friendsoflackawanna.org/write-a-letter

************************************

Excerpt:

The proposed expansion of Keystone Sanitary Landfill in Dunmore and Throop is a preventable disaster in progress. If approved, “Mount Trashmore” will defile and define not just its “host communities,” but all of Northeast Pennsylvania for the next half-century and beyond. It will stain the region as a vast dump unfit for business investment, job creation or family relocation.

Who chooses to move into the shadow of a mountain of trash? No one who can afford to live and raise a family Anywhere Else. What major employer wants to bring jobs to a region whose most visible industry is garbage? None that can invest Anywhere Else.

“If you’re on the fence (about moving here), it doesn’t just knock you off the fence, it makes you run away from the fence,” said Pat Clark, a founding member of the anti-expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna.

And yet the state Department of Environmental “Protection” is weighing whether to consign the families and businesses of our region to being dumped on with mostly out-of-state trash for the next 42-plus years to benefit a single family accustomed to getting the best government money can buy.

“It really is a state permit to pollute,” Pat said. “It’s giving an entity the state-sanctioned right to desecrate your future forever. That’s just not how environmental protection is supposed to work.”

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_03560d1d...

2 LTEs

2 Letter to the Editors on Keystone in today's The Scranton Times-Tribune. Keep sending 'em in (and feel free to send your thoughts to DEP as well...)

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../article_979985f9...

*****************

Editor: The state review of a proposed expansion at Keystone Sanitary Landfill in Dunmore and Throop is open for public comment during its technical evaluation.

One concern is about how much waste we generate and what room is left for this landfill. I propose a question that is not a new idea: How can we reduce the waste we produce?

FAWN CONTRERAS

ARCHBALD

*****************

Editor: Thanks to Michele Dempsey for her June 8 letter explaining her opposition to the state Department of Environmental Protection’s rulings concerning the Keystone Sanitary Landfill expansion (“Halt landfill plan”).

She also encouraged readers to protest to Roger Belas, the head of the DEP regional office. I sent him the following message:

“I am writing to you as a resident of Scranton for the last 50 years. When my family moved here it was for my husband’s job. At the time, we had a 20-month-old daughter and a 9-month-old son. Our apartment in Scranton was in close proximity to a culm pile. Not being from the area, I didn’t even know that it was coal waste until I asked. Nine months later, our son, at 18 months, had his first asthma attack in a series of serious attacks that still endanger him.

“I vehemently oppose the landfill expansion. I know that the dangers of the landfill expansion are not the same as those of coal waste but they are, even in the report of the DEP, identified as dangerous to our health and safety. I demand that the DEP do its job and protect the citizens of NEPA from yet another environmental danger, one that even they identify as such. They have stated that not having the money that the landfill would generate would be worse. Worse for who?”

DENISE NORDBERG

SCRANTON

MUST-READ letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from Dunmore Council

Dunmore Council and Mayor Tim Burke sent their powerful, MUST-READ letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). One of the main points of the letter: “PADEP’s permitting process is fundamentally broken, leaving struggling towns like Dunmore to negotiate with billion dollar organizations by ourselves." For over 30 years, threats have been KSL's main negotiation tactic if Dunmore opposed them, pushed back or tried to get more money or protection for the community. In the past, their method worked. But today, threats are no longer tolerated. Kudos to the five members of Dunmore Council—Vince Amico, Michael Dempsey, Janet Brier, Beth McDonald Zangardi, Tom Hallinan — who are willing to stand up to the threats and bullying in order to represent the voices of the people who voted them into office to protect our community! Despite voting yes to sending an opposition letter to DEP, we can only infer that Carol Scrimalli and Tom Ehnot refused to sign the letter after contact was made by Keystone Sanitary Landfill.

104220657_2601296910136863_2762477612942136877_o.jpg
104364710_2601297056803515_7417306340484135509_o.jpg

Editorial: Let them sue

104000555_2600592996873921_1540046777854142653_o.jpg

An excellent editorial in today's The Times Tribune. Will the DEP, which is designed to protect the citizens of the State, ignore the elected representatives and bodies who continue to oppose this expansion?

https://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/let-them-sue-1.2638144

********

Let them sue

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD / PUBLISHED: JUNE 14, 2020

The Keystone Sanitary Landfill apparently brims not only with millions of tons of out-of-state garbage, but with hubris.

According to Dunmore borough solicitor Michael P. Perry, landfill officials have threatened to sue the government if borough council follows through on its plan to send a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection opposing the company’s massive expansion plan.

Council voted unanimously May 11 to send a letter to the DEP detailing its public health concerns regarding millions of tons of garbage already in the landfill and nearly a hundred million more tons that it would bury over the next 42-plus years.

The landfill covers parts of Dunmore and Throop, but final authority to permit the expansion lies with the state environmental regulator.

Damage from such a massive expansion will not be limited to Dunmore and Throop. The landfill already is a blight on the interchanges of Interstate Routes 81, 380 and 84, offering thousands of daily travelers exactly the wrong image of Lackawanna County and Northeast Pennsylvania.

The DEP itself somehow has failed to detect odors wafting from the landfill into neighborhoods, diminishing the quality of life for many residents. Adding another 90 million-plus tons of garbage to the landfill isn’t going to make it smell any better.

Scranton City Council also voted unanimously in May to send a letter to the DEP opposing the unwarranted expansion.

Formal opposition should not stop there. Every governing body in Lackawanna County, including the county board of commissioners and all 10 school districts, formally should oppose the expansion and advise the DEP of it. All regional members of the General Assembly and Congress also should weigh in against the expansion.

This isn’t simply about technical compliance with the DEP’s standards. That is the bare minimum requirement. The expansion won’t be good for the region even if Keystone or its successor perfectly operates the landfill.

It’s time for all local governments and public officials to make common cause against the further degradation of Northeast Pennsylvania.

Landfill threatens litigation if Dunmore council sends letter opposing expansion

So far, 2020 has been the year of the crazy, unbelievable story. So to balance things out, here's the most predictable headline you'll see this year: The Keystone Landfill threatens to sue the town that hosts it unless the town does exactly what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. In related news, the Pennsylvania DEP seems fine with KSL's approach. As always.

**************************************

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../landfill-threatens...

Landfill threatens litigation if Dunmore council sends letter opposing expansion

BY FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: JUNE 11, 2020

Keystone Sanitary Landfill threatened to sue Dunmore Borough if council sends a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection opposing the landfill’s proposed 42-year expansion plans.

The DEP is in the midst of its final phase of reviews for Keystone’s Phase III expansion.

The expansion would allow the landfill — located in Dunmore and Throop — to continue bringing in trash until 2064, totaling an additional 94,072,940 tons of waste, or 188 billion pounds, according to the landfill’s 42.4-year expansion plans. As part of the final review, which began in April, the DEP opened a 60-day window for public comment that began May 1 and will conclude June 30 at 4 p.m.

Borough council voted, 7-0, to send a letter opposing the expansion during its May 11 meeting and finalized the letter this week, though it has not been sent yet.

During a council meeting Monday, borough solicitor Michael P. Perry discussed the threat of a lawsuit from Keystone.

“Keystone does not want … the borough council to send the letter, so we’ve been discussing that issue with them, with potential litigation threatened by them if we did send the letter based on the prior landfill agreement,” he said.

However, Perry does not believe the litigation would be successful.

“The 2014 (host) agreement … permits the council to make any type of comment they want with regard to the landfill and any expansion of it,” he said at the meeting.

Councilwoman Janet

Brier said the two-page letter, which council still has to sign before sending, addresses the borough’s health concerns over the expansion and how much garbage the landfill has already taken in over the past decade, among other issues.

“We’re in a situation of environmental degradation, and we want to remedy it,” she said.

Council is also copying the letter to officials at the local and state level in hopes of prompting government leaders to comment, she said. Officials include Gov. Tom Wolf, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright and state Rep. Kyle Mullins, D-112, Blakely.

“They need to comment one way or another on this,” she said.

Scranton City Council also unanimously voted last month to send a letter of opposition to the DEP, citing health and environmental concerns.

Throop Borough Council has not sent a letter to the DEP, council President Rich Kucharski said. Council is leaving the decision up to the DEP, he said.

“Essentially, our position was DEP is the entity that either approves or disapproves,” he said.

Attempts to reach landfill officials were unsuccessful.

The public can mail written comments to Roger Bellas, waste management program manager, DEP Northeast Regional Office, 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, or email him at rbellas@pa.gov.

Dunmore Council Votes to Send Letter

On May 11th a motion was made by Dunmore Council and the vote was UNANIMOUS to send a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stating opposition to the expansion of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill.

During the June 8th Dunmore Council Meeting, Attorney Michael Perry stated that the owners of Keystone Sanitary Landfill THREATENED to sue the Borough if the letter is sent to the DEP.

The motion was made and passed. Let Dunmore Council know that we are with them and that the days of bullying and threats are over! We deserve better than to be a dumping ground for the next 43 years. COVID-19 has shown us how precious and fragile our health is. We must protect it! We are with you, Dunmore Council! Please send the letter in immediately so our voices can be heard!

LTE: Halt landfill plan

In today's Letters to the Editor in The Scranton Times-Tribune, FOL's Michele Dempsey commends Scranton and Dunmore Councils for their anti-expansion support and highlights the paradigm shift happening in NEPA as more and more are demanding better than the status quo. Well done Michele!

*****************

Halt landfill plan

Editor: As a founding member of Friends of Lackawanna, I commend members of Scranton City Council for their excellent letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in strong opposition to the proposed expansion of Keystone Sanitary Landfill.

I also commend members of Dunmore Borough Council for unanimously voting during their May 11 meeting to send a letter to the DEP opposing the expansion. This is a positive sign of the paradigm shift happening in this area as we look toward a brighter, healthier future and believe we can be a successful, thriving community that deserves better.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us how precious and fragile our health is. We must protect it at all costs. Friends of Lackawanna has proven that the landfill poses a threat to the health and safety of our community. If the expansion happens, we will not have to quarantine ourselves because citizens will simply leave or not move here.

Unfortunately, action by DEP officials flew in the face of common sense last July when they claimed the benefits of the landfill — money — outweighs the harms — our health and safety. They gave the landfill a pass on its environmental assessment. Now, DEP officials are doing the technical review to determine if the massive landfill structure is technically sound because there are extreme dangers to the area if anything goes wrong.

If they pass, an additional 188 billion pounds of waste, mostly from New York and New Jersey, will be dumped in our community, compromising our health and safety irreparably.

Citizens can be a hero to our community and voice opposition to this threat to our future by submitting comments to Roger Bellas, DEP Northeast Regional Office, 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, or email him at rbellas@pa.gov by June 30 at 4 p.m.

MICHELE DEMPSEY

SCRANTON

Scranton City Council opposes proposed landfill expansion, water company rate hikes

Thank you Scranton Council! We encourage everyone to submit comments to Roger Bellas, DEP Northeast Regional Office, 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, or email him at rbellas@pa.gov.

Excerpt: “Several council members expressed concern that the proposed expansion of the landfill, which is located in Dunmore and Throop, would adversely affect community health and the environment. The expansion would last 42.4 years, during which time the landfill would bring in about 188 billion pounds of waste, according to a timeline the landfill provided DEP.

“I see the landfill as a hazard to people’s health,” Councilwoman Jessica Rothchild said when reached between council’s caucus and regular meeting. “Based on what I’ve read and my understanding of the expansion, I think the negatives outweigh the positives by far.”

Council President Bill Gaughan suggested sending the letter, a plan Rothchild and councilmen Kyle Donahue, Tom Schuster and Mark McAndrew endorsed.

In July, DEP released the results of an environmental assessment weighing the harms and benefits of the expansion that determined the benefits “clearly outweigh” known and potential harms. Benefits listed in the assessment include tax revenue, continued employment of local workers, lucrative host agreements and recycling and cleanup programs. Landfill officials have pointed to the assessment as evidence the expansion won’t create serious environmental, public health or safety issues for residents.

The DEP announced last week that it had begun the technical review phase of the landfill’s proposed Phase III expansion, which includes a 60-day window for public comment that closes June 30 at 4 p.m. Council will send its letter as part of the comment process.”

DEP moves into final phase of reviews for landfill expansion

75362360_2416025185330704_5816408101389074432_n.jpg

FYI: The DEP is now in the Technical Review phase of Keystone's expansion evaluation.

From the story: "According to the timetable, the expansion will last 42.4 years, bringing in 94,072,940 tons of waste, or 188 billion pounds — the equivalent of nearly 258 Empire State Buildings."

NOTE TO DEP: You can't build 258 Empire State Buildings on top of a foundation originally designed to support your back deck. It's going to end badly for everyone.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../dep-moves-into-final...

*********

DEP moves into final phase of reviews for landfill expansion

BY FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: MAY 1, 2020

The state Department of Environmental Protection is moving into its final phase of reviews before it decides whether to approve Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s proposed 42-year expansion plan.

The DEP announced Thursday that it began its technical review phase of the landfill’s proposed Phase III expansion earlier this month. The review includes a 60-day window for public comment that begins today and closes June 30 at 4 p.m., DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said in an email.

Keystone sent revised plans and supplemental information to the DEP last month after the department requested additional information as part of an environmental assessment in July that weighed the harms and benefits of the expansion. The DEP determined the benefits “clearly outweigh” the known and potential harms, according to the assessment. Both the assessment and technical review are part of the overall review of the landfill’s March 2014 application for expansion, Connolly said.

At the conclusion of the assessment, the DEP asked for more information on seven items, including the complete design of the facility with detailed drawings of development stages that link the work to a timetable.

According to the timetable, the expansion will last 42.4 years, bringing in 94,072,940 tons of waste, or 188 billion pounds — the equivalent of nearly 258 Empire State Buildings.

The landfill would continue operations until 2064. The closure would include planting grass and other vegetation and offering the land to Throop and Dunmore boroughs as a greenspace buffer between the Casey Highway and the towns, according to supplemental information Keystone submitted to the DEP.

“Ultimate land use would be either a municipal recreational and/or bank for endangered vegetation,” according to Keystone.

The DEP will spend 90 days reviewing features of Keystone’s expansion plan, including the proposed liner and leachate systems, gas management, slope stability and plans for mine subsidence, according to the DEP. It will then send a letter to Keystone with a time frame to respond.

The time frame depends on what information the department is looking for, but deficiency letters typically have a limit of 60 business days, Connolly said.

After receiving a response from the landfill, the DEP will have 60 days for a second review, where it can either approve the expansion or send the landfill a pre-denial letter, giving Keystone a final chance to respond.

The DEP would then have a final technical review and issue a decision within 30 days of Keystone’s response, according to the department.

Pat Clark, a leader of anti-landfill expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna, said the group is still reviewing the new information.

“But, as we have been doing since 2014, we will read through everything submitted. And we will submit comments,” he said in an email.

The public can mail written comments to Roger Bellas, waste management program manager, DEP Northeast Regional Office, 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, or email him at rbellas@pa.gov.

Appeals court rules against challengers to Keystone Landfill expansion

5edfac17ab1e6.image.jpg

[Zoning Case update] The Commonwealth Court didn't rule on the merits of our zoning case. Instead, it issued a ruling on the procedural appeal process of a zoning matter like ours and did not rule on the primary issue at hand of whether a landfill is a structure (and is therefore subject to height restrictions).

Full details below and a few additional points:

1) Our team is working to digest all of this and will figure out what our available, and best, next steps are for the zoning matter.

2) As the article states, "In no way, shape or form do we view this as a done deal."

3) This is a frustrating ruling as it doesn't resolve the main issue at hand and opens the door for even more possible legal uncertainty.

4) Confusing? Yep. We are reading and reviewing it all now and will, as always, keep everyone updated.

*************************

BY TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 19, 2020

A group opposed to Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s proposed expansion suffered another defeat Tuesday when an appellate court tossed its appeal of a ruling that declared landfills are not structures subject to a height restriction.

Friends of Lackawanna has been battling Keystone for years over whether Dunmore’s zoning ordinance, which limits the height of structures to 50 feet, applies to landfills. The group contends the landfill’s trash pile constitutes a structure and it therefore must comply. Keystone maintains the ordinance applies only to buildings.

In 2014, the borough’s zoning officer issued an opinion in favor of Keystone. The zoning board and a senior Northampton County judge specially appointed to hear the case affirmed that decision, which led Friends of Lackawanna to appeal to the state Commonwealth Court.

In a 15-page opinion filed Tuesday, the court did not rule on the merits of the case. Rather it agreed with Keystone that the issue should never have been before the court system because the zoning hearing board did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Keystone’s attorney, Jeff Belardi, said the ruling is a victory for the landfill because it lets stand the zoning officer’s opinion that the expansion does not violate the zoning ordinance.

Pat Clark, one of the leaders of Friends of Lackawanna, said that does not mean the fight is over, because the court’s ruling leaves the door open to possible other challenges.

“In no way, shape or form do we view this as a done deal,” he said.

In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the zoning hearing board had no authority decide whether the landfill was subject to the height restriction. That’s because, by law, Friends of Lackawanna’s only recourse was to challenge the validity of the entire zoning ordinance.

The group initially did that, but later abandoned that argument and focused on the height restriction issue. Once it withdrew the validity challenge, the zoning board no longer had authority to rule on the matter, the court said.

“It said the argument that’s been going on in the court system over the zoning ordinance and the height restriction should have never been played out,” Belardi said. “The only thing that could have been in front of the zoning board is a challenge to the whole ordinance. Friends of Lackawanna did not do that.”

Belardi said the group cannot now raise that challenge because the time frame to do so passed.

Clark said it’s not clear yet whether Keystone must file for any other zoning permits. If it’s required to do so, the Commonwealth Court opinion leaves open the possibility Friends of Lackawanna can challenge them.

“I can see the whole process starting over again if a permit application is needed. We don’t know the answer to that yet,” Clark said.

Clark said the ruling is frustrating. He had hoped to get a ruling on the merits of the dispute, only to be told the issue should have never gone to court.

Belardi also expressed frustration. He said the height restriction fight was unnecessary because Keystone agreed two years ago that it would not seek to pile trash higher than it currently does. He said Friends of Lackawanna continued to challenge the issue, however, because it was concerned Keystone would later alter that plan.

Clark said the group is considering its options, which include asking the Commonwealth Court to reconsider its ruling or to ask the state Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“We need to figure out what our next steps are legally and procedurally,” he said.

Dunmore, Throop officials weigh in on borough-employed landfill inspectors

5edfabde4d00c.image.jpg

In theory, a Borough employed inspector could help, but that person would not be authorized to regulate or cite the landfill. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection needs to do its job, and do it in a way that the citizens its mandated to protect, have faith in. To date, as it relates to Keystone, DEP has not done so.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../dunmore-throop...

Dunmore, Throop officials weigh in on borough-employed landfill inspectors

BY FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 8, 2020

Rather than rely on state inspectors to monitor Keystone Sanitary Landfill, Dunmore and Throop could employ their own inspectors to address complaints, but neither town has done so in years.

Last month, residents reported a rotten egg smell that permeated the towns to the state Department of Environmental Protection, but delayed response times from state inspectors drew criticism from residents and officials.

The DEP offers grants for host municipalities that will pay for 50% of the salary and expenses for up to two certified inspectors. Both Taylor and Ransom Twp. employ their own inspectors, who monitor Alliance Landfill.

Previously, Joe Lorince, Dunmore’s zoning, code and health officer, served as Dunmore’s landfill inspector. He estimated that he hasn’t been the inspector in about seven years. He no longer holds the position because of concerns that serving as both the landfill inspector and zoning officer created a conflict, he said. He called the position having an extra pair of eyes in town. “When you have your own person there, you have somebody to respond to,” Lorince said.

Throop hasn’t had a landfill inspector in at least 12 years, Chief Clerk Robin Galli said. Throop officials haven’t talked about it at length, but they have had discussions about hiring landfill inspectors to respond to odors, said council President Rich Kucharski. The position isn’t in the budget, so “we would have to look at numbers,” he said.

“In light of the odor issues that have been occurring in the last couple months, it’s something that we’re probably going to take a serious look at,” Kucharski said.

Dunmore Councilman Vince Amico, who criticized the DEP’s odor reporting process in January, said he would like to see the borough employ its own landfill inspector if it’s feasible to do so. “It would be beneficial to the borough, that’s for sure,” he said.

Amico previously raised concerns over residents having to wait as long as two hours for an inspector to show up at their home to verify a smell. “You could call one of your neighbors to verify an odor when they’re in your community, as opposed to waiting a half hour, 45 minutes, whatever that may be,” he said. Amico intends to speak to his fellow council members about the position and learn more about the cost of and requirements for hiring an inspector. He also reached out to Taylor’s borough manager to learn about how the town uses its inspector.

Taylor’s inspector works about 20 hours a week, earning $17.60 an hour, Borough Manager Dan Zeleniak said. The inspector, Jim Schiavo, is on call, Zeleniak said. When the borough receives a complaint, it will send Schiavo, who lives in town, to check on the issue and create a report.

Schiavo will often tag along with DEP inspectors, he said.

“That’s the whole idea of it — to have more people on the ground,” Zeleniak said, calling the inspector an intermediary between the borough and landfill.

Ransom Twp.’s host landfill inspector, David Bird, works about 20 to 30 hours each month, earning $25 an hour, said JoAnn Pane, the township’s secretary and treasurer. Historically, the township had two inspectors, each working about 20 hours, she said.

Any municipality that hosts a landfill should be in favor of anything that leads to increased transparency and communications between the landfill and host community, said Pat Clark, a leader of anti-landfill expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna. He believes the problem goes beyond hiring an inspector, though.

“The larger issue here, and elsewhere, is the feckless nature in which the DEP handles policing of landfills in general, and especially, here at Keystone,” Clark said in an email, noting, however, any borough-employed inspector would not have as much power as someone employed by the DEP.

Although he didn’t explain the borough’s lack of an inspector, Dunmore Mayor Timothy Burke said he would rather have the state pay for an inspector from the Environmental Protection Agency. “The EPA would have somebody qualified — it’d be somebody nonpolitical in the job,” he said.

Jessup council votes to send letter to DEP over landfill leachate discharge

5edfabd11f28b.image.jpg

DEP has not made a decision on whether or not they will hold a public hearing. We encourage everyone to contact Colleen Connolly, PA DEP, at 570-826-2511 or by email at coconnolly@pa.gov and request that a meeting be held on this important matter. As Dunmore Councilman Vince Amico states “The more information that’s put out to the public, the better off we all are”.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/.../jessup-council-votes...

Jessup council votes to send letter to DEP over landfill leachate discharge

BY FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY, STAFF WRITER / PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 5, 2020

In a show of support for Dunmore, Jessup council voted this week to send the state Department of Environmental Protection a letter urging it to hold a public hearing regarding the Keystone Sanitary Landfill’s proposal to discharge treated leachate into two local waterways.

“I think the towns should stick together,” said Jessup Councilwoman Rella Scassellati. “It will affect all of us — just like the power plant affects more than just Jessup.”

The landfill submitted three permit applications to the DEP in December, presenting plans for an alternative leachate treatment method that would allow it to discharge the liquid into Eddy Creek along Marshwood Road and into Little Roaring Brook near Dunham Drive. The landfill would also spray the treated leachate onto its dirt roads to keep dust down. Leachate is the liquid that percolates through trash piles.

The DEP deemed one of the landfill’s permit applications administratively complete and ready to be reviewed, but it needs more information from the landfill before it can begin reviewing the other two, DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said in an email. The DEP will not make a decision on a public hearing until all three applications are complete, Connolly said.

The landfill currently treats its leachate and discharges it into Pennsylvania American Water’s sewer system. PAW then further treats the leachate at its South Scranton treatment plant and discharges the effluent into the Lackawanna River.

Under the landfill’s alternative discharge proposal, it would treat the leachate to a greater degree before discharging it into the waterways.

Scassellati compared Dunmore and its contention with the landfill to the fight between Jessup residents and Invenergy LLC’s 1,485-megawatt Lackawanna Energy Center power plant. Specifically, the energy center had floated plans to discharge treated wastewater into Grassy Island Creek in Jessup, though it eventually opted to discharge into the borough’s sewer system.

Dunmore Councilman Vince Amico, who asked the DEP in December to hold a public hearing, said he spoke to Jessup council members about the proposed discharge plan during a recent Sierra Club meeting.

Amico wants experts to explain what would be discharged and what the treatment process is. Having a public hearing is vital, he said.

“The more information that’s put out to the public, the better off we all are,” he said. “More information is always better.”

He lauded Jessup officials for requesting the hearing.

Contact the writer:

flesnefsky@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5181;

@flesnefskyTT on Twitter