Benefits and Harms: Environmental and Social and Economic
Regarding the Keystone Sanitary Landfill Phase III Site Development
Benefits and Harms Environmental and Social and Economic
1.0 Introduction The Keystone Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (“Keystone”) is proposing a permit modification of the Keystone Sanitary Landfill (“KSL” or the “Landfill”) which will increase KSL’s permitted disposal capacity by approximately 145 million cy.
Keystone has submitted its application for this expansion (the expansion application will hereafter be referenced as “Phase III” or ”Phase III Expansion”) with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”). Included in Keystone’s application is its version of the Harms Benefits Assessment which Keystone referred to as “Benefits and Harms: Environmental and Social and Economic,” labeled as Exhibit D-10 (hereafter “Keystone’s HBA”). Friends of Lackawanna (“FOL”) is a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation that was formed to oppose the Phase III Expansion and to address problems with the Landfill’s continued operation. FOL’s mission is to protect the health and safety of the local community as well as its regional image and the environment. In doing so, it has chosen to submit its own version of the Harms Benefits Analysis as it relates to the Phase III Expansion. The format of this analysis follows the same general outline as Keystone’s HBA. Keystone’s HBA claims that the benefits of the Phase III expansion “will significantly outweigh any remaining harms and potential harms associated with the Phase III Landfill permit modification project.” As seen below, FOL’s position is exactly the opposite.
2.0 Benefits General Keystone’s HBA lists several sections of benefits broken down as follows:
2.1 Environmental Benefits of the Project, both on and off site
2.1 Benefits to Local Business, Economy and Employment Page 2 of 17
2.3 Benefits to Local Residents and Local Government
2.4 Benefits from Host Agreements
2.5 Benefits based on Demographics
Though some of the benefits listed are connected to the operation of a landfill and are beneficial (participation in the Great American Cleanup Program and Recycling Programs), the majority of the “benefits” Keystone claims fall into one of the following categories: (a) a cost of doing business, (b) mandatory or statutory fees; (c) benefits that are unrelated to the operation of the Landfill; (d) inaccurate as it applies to the geographic region at issue; or (e) not a benefit at all, and rather, an activity that reduces or prevents additional Harms.
A.
Benefits proposed by Keystone that are the Cost of Doing Business
Operating a landfill, specifically one of the busiest landfills in the Commonwealth, takes significant operational expenses and resources. Keystone claims these expenses as benefits in Keystone’s HBA. However, these items benefit primarily Keystone rather than any other entity or group and these expenses allow Keystone to operate profitably. Specifically, Keystone claims the following benefits that are more accurately categorized as expenses, or the cost of doing business:
(i)
Fuel/Oil/Lubricants; **
(ii)
Machinery, Equipment, Services, Rentals and Maintenance; **
(iii)
Miscellaneous Goods;
(iv)
Utility Payments;
(v)
Tax Payments; and
(vi)
Payroll (a similar benefit is also listed in Keystone’s HBA in Section 2.5 attempting to realize the economic multiplier effect).
A landfill should not be able to claim the expense portion of its Income Statement as a benefit when seeking to expand. If not for these expenses, the operation could not continue. Rather than cite these expenses as a benefit, they should more accurately categorized as the cost of doing business and they should not be included in the examination of benefits.
Page 3 of 17
** It should be noted that there is shared ownership in both Keystone and the entities that sell Keystone its (i) fuel/oil/lubricants and (ii) Machinery, Equipment. Of course, FOL does not have access to purchase invoices to verify what portion of these purchases are with related or affiliated entities.
B. Benefits proposed by Keystone that are mandated
Keystone includes two main categories of benefits that are mandated, including (i) Pennsylvania Disposal Fees and (ii) Host Fee Agreements with both Dunmore and Throop Boroughs.
These purported benefits, though quantifiable, should not be considered in the Benefits analysis because simply, Keystone is required to pay them. To the extent that PaDEP analyzes the impact of the Host Fees on both Dunmore and Throop, it should also consider that the Borough of Dunmore runs a balanced budget and did so prior to its new Host City Agreement. Further, the Borough was planning a tax decrease without the new Host City Agreement fees (source: Dunmore Borough Council Meeting Minutes http://thetimestribune.com/news/dunmore-borough-council-cuts-taxes-in-aftermath-of-landfill-deal-1.1806797). Prior to the new Host City Agreement, and for decades prior, Dunmore received the lowest host city fees allowed by Pennsylvania law. Its reliance on Landfill fees was, and will not be, that of a dependent municipality. From Throop’s perspective, it has already established a Sunny Day fund and is on solid financial footing (source http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/throop-preparesfor-future-1.1879898).
C. Benefits proposed by Keystone that are unrelated to the operation of the Landfill
Keystone claims several benefits that in fact have no direct connection to the operation of a landfill and therefore should not be considered in the Benefits analysis. These include (i) Local University/College Scholarships; (ii) payments to the Dunmore Community Center; (iii) contributions to the Throop Environmental Fund; (iv) Participation in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Adopt-a-Highway Program (excepting, of course, the portion whereby Keystone is actually cleaning up the debris that trucks coming to KSL causes). Though these activities and payments do provide a benefit, they are unrelated to Keystone’s operation and therefore should not be considered in the evaluation. Page 4 of 17
D. Benefits proposed by Keystone that are inaccurate as they apply to the geographic region at issue
Keystone claims that the Phase III Expansion will benefit Northeastern Pennsylvania because without it, Lackawanna County and the surrounding counties will experience significant increases in overall waste disposal fees due to increased transportation costs, additional truck purchases, and construction of transfer stations. This “benefit” should be discounted entirely and not considered by the PaDEP because Keystone’s assertions are incorrect and misleading.
Northeastern Pennsylvania already has a second, active landfill known as the Alliance Landfill (“Alliance”) in Taylor, Pennsylvania. Not only does Northeastern Pennsylvania have a second landfill, it is estimated that Alliance has close to forty years worth of available space for local garbage. (Source: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/alliance-could-accept-keystone-sshare-of-local-garbage-1.1788973).
In addition, PaDEP data shows a steady downward trend in the amount of waste that Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties have been disposing at KSL. At the same time, however, KSL’s acceptance of out-of-state waste and drill cutting has skyrocketed. Thus, Northeastern Pennsylvania is bearing the burden of out-of-state waste rather than gaining a benefit from the Phase III expansion.
Relatedly, Keystone also points to decreasing available MSW volume as a cause for a benefit. However, dramatically increasing capacity, as this expansion would, can serve to remove all incentives for society to consider non-landfilling waste management activities. If additional capacity maintains, or decreases, the cost of solid waste disposal via landfilling, alternative more environmentally friendly programs need not be considered. Driving actions that do not incentivize activities that benefit the environment are a net Harm for society and even more for the communities that shoulder the burden, and risks, of housing these facilities. Therefore, Keystone’s proposed Benefit related to “Regional MSW Disposal Services” (Keystone’s HBA, page D.N - 9) should not be considered in the Benefits analysis.
Page 5 of 17
E. Benefits proposed by Keystone that are not benefits at all but are activities that reduce or prevent additional Harms
Keystone asserts several benefits that are not actually benefits. Instead, they are activities or mechanisms that reduce or prevent harm created by the Landfill. Therefore, in accordance with PaDEP Document Number 254-2100-101, “Environmental Assessment Process, Phase 1 Review,” the below items should not be considered as a benefit for purposes of the PaDEP analysis, including:
(i)
Eddy Creek. Keystone asserts that restoration of Eddy Creek is beneficial
because it will allow stormwater discharge from KSL to continue to run through the creek and reduce the amount of stormwater that “likely outlet into the Northern Anthracite Field’s mine pool, which is a significant contributor of acid mine drainage to the Susquehanna River. However, the existing path of stormwater runoff resulting from KSL ‘likely’ running into the mine pool is an existing harm. Restoring Eddy’s Creek does not provide a net, new benefit. Rather, it aims to reduce a harm or potential harm that is already occurring and should therefore not be considered as a benefit.
(ii)
Mine Pool Infiltration. Keystone asserts that the Phase III expansion will increase
the amount of impervious area, thereby reducing the potential contribution of stormwater infiltration into the mine pool that underlies the Landfill. However, by its own admission, this purported benefit again is not a net new benefit. Rather, the action aims to reduce a harm or potential harm that is already occurring and should therefore not be considered a benefit.
(iii)
ISO 14001. Keystone asserts that its continuation of ISO 14001 is a benefit
because it “reduces the potential for environmental problems…” and it also “increases waste compaction rate” and “a reduction in water consumption for the operation, and a dramatic mitigation of off-site odor concerns.” These claims are not net benefits, rather, they aim to reduce a harm or potential harm that is already occurring (citing Keystone’s claims of reduced potential for “environmental problems” or “off-site odor concerns”) and should therefore not be considered a benefit.
Page 6 of 17
(iii)
Beneficial Use of Methane Gas. The ongoing operation of KSL generates
Methane Gas as a byproduct. Keystone claims its ability to sell this methane gas as a benefit. Keystone should not be able to claim this as a benefit because (a) Keystone generates revenue from the selling of this gas (thus keeping the benefit itself) and (b) not all methane gas is captured therefore turning the ongoing and continued gas releases into an environmental harm and thus its purported benefit is a harm.
(iv)
Drill Cuttings and Fluids. Keystone claims its “Management of Drill Cuttings and
Drilling Fluids from Shale Gas Development” is a benefit. This is not a benefit, and by Keystone’s own admission, it is a harm or potential harm as evidenced by Keystone listing the management of such gas well drilling materials in Section 3.3 of its HBA, “Harms and Potential Harms to the Health and Safety of the Surrounding Population”. Therefore, because this activity is a harm, or at minimum a potential harm, it also should not be evaluated as a benefit.
(v)
Relocation. Keystone asserts relocating waste from unlined portions of the
Landfill to lined portions of the Landfill is a benefit. Again, and similar to the preceding activities, by Keystone’s own admission, it is doing so to minimize “uncontrolled releases of leachate from the waste mass present at KSL...” This purported benefit is not a net new benefit by Keystone’s own admission. Rather, it aims to reduce a harm or potential harm that is already occurring and should therefore not be considered a benefit. Additionally, this purported benefit was an issue that the PaDEP and Keystone considered and evaluated as part of a separate modification and therefore cannot be considered as part of this expansion permit. To the extent that the PaDEP would evaluate the Relocation effort, it should also analyze the Harm and Potential Harm for both the environment and KSL employees that are exposed to the unknown materials contained within the unlined portion of the Landfill.
The above activities should not be considered Benefits for the reasons outlined above. Additionally, if an applicant could cause actual or potential harms, but then claim the same activities as benefits, then taking steps to mitigate or remediate are a company's obligations and the cost of doing business - not a benefit. To equate such mitigation or remediation with providing a benefit creates a reward for a company doing what it is supposed to be doing in the first place. Likewise, it creates an incentive to cause harm, because then the company can claim a benefit when it acts to mitigate or remediate the harm.
Page 7 of 17
In conclusion, the above activities should be disregarded by PaDEP in analyzing the Keystone HBA. 3. Harms As part of Keystone’s HBA, Keystone included Harms and Potential Harms along with mitigation plans to minimize potential harms. In Section 3.0, Potential Harms, Keystone alleges that “...the project will not result in substantially new harms nor potential harms…” That assertion is patently wrong as evidenced by the sections below.
The following analysis counters many of the assertions put forth by Keystone and also identifies additional Harms that should be evaluated in this application process. The harms identified herein are not exclusive, and we respectfully reserve the right to identify additional harms in the future as they are discovered as a supplement to this HBA.
A.
Harms and Potential Harms to Property Values
Keystone states that “it is unlikely that continued operation of the KSL through approval of the Phase III permit modification will result in any depreciation of the market purchase value of homes in the vicinity of the KSL” (page D.N -13). This is false.
Professor Richard Ready has studied the impacts of landfills on residential real estate in the state of Pennsylvania. Among others, one of his conclusions that large landfills (defined as those accepting more than 500 tons of garbage per day) have a negative, statistically significant, impact on nearby residential property values (see (i) attached letter and (ii) original literature at http://aese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp27.pdf). Specifically, “every available hedonic pricing study that measured the impact of a large landfill...found that the landfill had a negative impact on nearby property values, and that the impact was statistically significant.”
In public meetings conducted by the PaDEP on this matter, Keystone has stated that property values of Dunmore and Throop have increased over the life of the Landfill, therefore implying that Keystone (i) does not have a negative impact on property values and (ii) any negative values may have already occurred. This argument, and framework, is flawed. First, that line of reasoning ignores the more pertinent question that the hedonic pricing model
Page 8 of 17
addresses, “what is the impact to property values if they were not near a landfill?” Second, it does not account for what will likely happen moving forward if this expansion is granted. As awareness of KSL increases regionally, along with its increased visibility due to both height and overall mass, the probability of an ongoing negative impact to property values will also increase.
Lastly, a letter sent to the PaDEP by the Greater Scranton Board of Realtors reinforces this point as well, stating, “It is the belief of our Association that the proposed expansion will have a negative impact on…property values of the communities surrounding the landfill.”
B.
Harms and Potential Harms to Aesthetics/Community Character of the Surrounding Community
Keystone states that the Phase III Expansion “will not result in obscuring significant visual features…” and “the resulting visual changes are considered modest when compared to the currently permitted conditions.” (page D.N - 14 of Keystone HBA).
First, an additional 165 feet above already permitted conditions is not modest. It is a significant height increase above the Phase II permitted height. Second, using only a 3 mile radius, Keystone’s own Line of Sight study as provided as part of the related Zoning dispute, states that an additional 0.88 square miles of Municipal Area will be able to see the Landfill at the of Phase III height that could not see the height of Phase II (a 40% increase in Municipal Area visibility; 3.08 square miles at the conclusion of Phase III versus 2.2 square miles at conclusion of Phase II). Similarly, using the same 3 mile radius, the number of people that will be able to see the Landfill at the Phase III height increases by approximately 40% as well (4,841 people at the conclusion of Phase III versus 3,464 people at the conclusion of Phase II).
Third, given the topographic characteristics of Northeastern Pennsylvania, and the location of the Landfill, the proposed expansion has a tremendous impact on the regional aesthetic (See attached images). Specifically, the degradation in aesthetics should not be confined to just the 3 mile radius that Keystone analyzed. It should also be analyzed in terms of the project’s overall impact to the region as a whole. To that end, the Landfill will become more
Page 9 of 17
visible and prominent via the most highly trafficked roadways in the region including Interstate 81, Business Route 6 (the Scranton Carbondale Highway), the Casey Highway and Interstate 380. This site is not in visible isolation and as the Landfill grows (both in the supposed filling in of gaps and the increased height), so too does its negative visual impact and negative aesthetic impact. The Landfill will be the identifiable landmark that travelers see as they pass through the region and it will serve as a daily reminder to local residents of its presence. Furthermore, the stigma attached to the area because of the Landfill’s impact on the aesthetics of the area cannot be ignored as a constant, and unmitigated, harm for generations to come.
C.
Harms and Potential Harms due to Traffic
Keystone states that “...the potential traffic harms associated with the continued operation...are considered to result in a minor residual harm.” Factors that could impact potential traffic harms include the volume of trucks entering the Landfill (at this time, Keystone is not seeking any change in volume) and the potential for an increase in overweight vehicles at the site (page D.N 15 - 17). By Keystone’s own admission, there are already Overweight Vehicles regularly entering the Landfill (logically, there must be a defined number of Overweight Vehicles entering the Landfill for it to have a “71% reduction in overweight vehicles accessing KSL” (page D.N 17)). Governing bodies have established weight restrictions on transport vehicles for safety reasons. Therefore, each overweight vehicle that traverses the roadways of the region is an additional harm for the surrounding population.
D.
Harms and Potential Harms on the Local Economy
Keystone states that “...approval of the Phase III permit modification will not result in any potential economic harm to the local economy.” This is an unsubstantiated theory that lacks any type of specificity. It does not consider the impact that the proposed expansion would have on surrounding businesses such as the adjacent industrial park. Currently, much of the industrial park sits unoccupied and numerous employees, and former employees, of businesses within the park have continually complained of ongoing odor problems. This does not help attract businesses and is a negative harm on surrounding businesses and the local economy.
Page 10 of 17
E.
Impacts on Environmental Justice Communities
Keystone acknowledges that KSL is within a half mile of an Environmental Justice Community (EJC). It states some actions that it has taken to attempt to minimize any potential harms for the entire surrounding communities.
However, the entire underlying theory of environmental justice is that minority and lowincome communities often bear a disproportionate share of environmental costs, degradation and pollution (http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/Environmental_Justice.pdf). Given that parts of Dunmore are classified as EJC, we need look no further than the statistics that proves this is exactly what is already happening and will exacerbate the issue if the expansion is approved.
On a per person basis, Northeastern Pennsylvania, and specifically, Lackawanna County, accepts more waste per person than any other county in the state by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Additionally, of the counties receiving the most garbage, Lackawanna County is the most dense in terms of population (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/half-of-the-garbagedisposed-of-in-pa-goes-to-five-counties-1.1887458). If the calculations are taken down to the Dunmore level, these numbers are as demonstrative. Keystone is the largest contributor to these calculations by a wide margin given its volume as compared to Alliance and supports that the distribution of environmental harms, and potential harms, is not equitable.
F.
Harms and Potential Harms Associated with the Quality of Life Within the Local Area and on the Surrounding Environment
Keystone acknowledges that there are Harms and Potential Harms attributable to nuisance issues (odors, dust, litter, noise) and there can also be Harms or Potential Harms associated with the surrounding environment (stormwater, groundwater and air quality). As required, Keystone goes on to review its Mitigation Plans. However, Keystone’s HBA fails to
Page 11 of 17
fully address and acknowledge all issues. Additionally, it fails to acknowledge several key Harms and Potential Harms which are identified below.
i.
Groundwater
Keystone states that “...the use of a dual contained lining system has essentially eradicated the potential release of leachate from Keystone’s MSW disposal areas to the waters of the commonwealth” and that “...sampling and testing have verified the fact that the ground water quality and quantity has not be adversely impacted by KSL operations” (page D.N - 25 of Keystone HBA). Keystone’s assertions are not true. In fact, leachate is reaching waters of the Commonwealth and reportedly have been for over a decade (source: http://thetimestribune.com/news/landfill-leachate-reaching-groundwater-1.1769666). Recent discussions with PaDEP and Keystone indicate the source may have been discovered. However, given the scope of KSL and the increased amount of material if the expansion is granted, there is no guarantee that the fix has been discovered and that this problem will not continue.
Additionally, an independent review of groundwater reports demonstrate continued, and repeated, groundwater pollution due to drill cutting waste and landfill liner system failure (See Friends of Lackawanna Permit Renewal for the Keystone Sanitary Landfill, Inc. filed with the Environmental Hearing Board).
Keystone asserts that its relocation of waste from the unlined portion to a lined portion, the restoration of Eddy Creek and a new wastewater treatment facility will mitigate these issues. However, given the long, and ongoing groundwater problems, Keystone does not, and cannot guarantee it even knows where the issues are stemming from, let alone how to fix them. These issues are an ongoing Harm and will be at minimum, a Potential Harm as long as this Landfill is in existence.
Page 12 of 17
ii.
Air Quality
Keystone discusses its techniques to control and mitigate air quality (particulates and methane gas related issues). However, Keystone’s analysis does not consider all related air quality harms and potential harms. First, Keystone’s HBA does not account for the impact that the meteorological and wind conditions will cause based on the proposed increase in height of the Landfill. As the Landfill grows higher, it is logical that there is an increased likelihood of particulate and odor impacting the surrounding communities.
Second, there are air quality concerns from both an above and below ground perspective. Prior investigations have suggested that “the unlined portion of Keystone Sanitary Landfill is a likely source of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and carbon dioxide” (See “Final Background VOA Project Report” by John S. Mellow, December 2, 2002 and for additional background, see http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/in-dunmore-an-environmentalmystery-never-solved-1.1870610). This issue is an ongoing Harm and given the underlying coal seams, will continue to be a potential harm. Third, as it relates to the Methane Gas capture process, Keystone’s methods do not capture all gases and continually release gas into the atmosphere. In a recent on-site meeting, Keystone officials estimate that approximately 60% of the methane produced by the Landfill is currently sold to power companies. In Keystone’s HBA, it also states that it “is agreeable to the inclusion of Phase III permit modification a condition that would require MG Beneficial Use Agreements to be in place no later than two years (2) from the date of the permit modification issuance” (page D.N - 6 of Keystone’s HBA). The proffered conditional language lacks any specificity to quantify how much gas would be re-sold and it also has no binding characteristics. There is no guarantee that the Landfill would continue these relationships and there is also no guarantee that 100% of all methane gas would be re-sold for beneficial use purposes. Therefore, so long as anything less than 100% of all methane gas is sold to third parties, there will be a release of gas into the atmosphere as a harm, and an on-going harm, well past landfill closure timeframe as the Landfill will continue to produce gas past its operational life.
Page 13 of 17
iii.
Marcellus Shale waste and drill cuttings
Keystone can accept both Drill Cuttings and Drilling Fluids resulting from the Marcellus Shale industry. There are many unknown variables associated with the processes and resulting materials from the oil and gas industry. In Keystone’s HBA, Keystone does not adequately discuss the harms and potential harms of receiving this material. Moreover, it only discusses the drill cuttings and not other shale related waste Keystone is permitted to accept. Keystone has claimed that even though Keystone is already permitted to accept additional types of waste from the fracking industry, it currently does not. However, merely because Keystone has not yet accepted a waste stream into KSL that it is permitted to accept does not mean it will not accept it in the future. In fact, it easily could at any time with no further approvals needed from PaDEP. Therefore, the full risks, harms and potential harms must be identified.
iv.
Potential for On-Site Disasters and Emergencies
Keystone must be prepared for disaster events and it references several of them in its program as outlined in Form L of its application. Form L defines the term “emergency” to include a fire, spill or other event that threatens public health, safety, public welfare, or the environment and personal injury. However, Keystone’s HBA or Form L do not seem to document processes in the event of a fire or landslide, both of which are not uncommon in landfills.
For example, Keystone has had at least three subsurface oxidation events and these events can increase in frequency as the Landfill grows. There does not appear to be a documented procedure in place to handle either subsurface or above-surface fires. Moreover, are the local emergency response teams trained and have access to necessary equipment to control a fire related event given the proposed height and scope of the expansion? Landslides are also possible as evidenced by the 2013 landslide at the Chrin Bros. Sanitary Landfill in Williams Township (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/easton/mc-williams-chrin-landfill-landslide1112-20141112-story.html). Additionally, given the potential linkage of earthquakes from fracking activities (http://time.com/60363/fracking-earthquakes-ohio/) and our area’s established fracking industry, the risk of this type of disaster may be increased.
Page 14 of 17
Though some emergencies and disasters are rare, they are a potential harm and unique to landfills that must be considered and addressed.
v.
Proximity to Drinking Water
Dunmore No. 1 Reservoir is in close proximity to KSL. It is a back-up drinking water source and though it was last used in 2006, it is still a backup water source for the region. The Keystone HBA does not address the potential harm to this water source and the impact of the proposed KSL growth on it. Moreover, PaDEP representatives have stated that the reservoir would need to be tested prior to usage as a drinking water source (http://thetimestribune.com/news/landfill-leachate-reaching-groundwater-1.1769666). However, there are no cited records of ongoing tests to ensure it could be used in the event it is needed. If the testing indicated the water source is not usable due to proximity to the KSL, there would be a negative impact to the community.
NOTE: many of the preceding sections have direct health implications for the region. FOL has provided its research to date to the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for consideration in their ongoing Public Health Assessment. Since PaDEP will look to those Agencies for guidance and assistance in this analysis, it too will receive the related health information and concerns.
vi.
Regional Reputation, Public Perception and Civic Pride
This proposed expansion has become one of the largest issues facing Northeastern Pennsylvania. It continues to gain traction and the overwhelming reaction of the public has been negative. The people of Northeastern Pennsylvania have strongly voiced our opposition to this expansion as evidenced by the hundreds of letters, emails, comments and questions put forth to the PaDEP and the elected public officials. The public has attended meetings, asked questions, and believe the proposed expansion will hurt our regional reputation. Additionally, many elected bodies and officials have come out against the expansion including: 
Senator Bob Casey (http://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/casey-raisesconcerns-about-expansion-of-keystone-landfill and in his related press conference states
Page 15 of 17
that he is against this expansion: http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/us-senatorbob-casey-im-opposed-to-landfill-expans/38856/JYZj0Po4n0Wxeg9Y5Vbwiw)
Congressman Matt Cartwright (http://cartwright.house.gov/media-center/pressreleases/rep-cartwright-statement-on-brads-landfill-and-keystone-landfill)
Mid Valley School Board (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/mid-valley-school-boardagainst-landfill-expansion-1.1790932)
Scranton City Council (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/scranton-council-formallyopposes-expansion-of-keystone-landfill-1.1810624)
Dunmore Borough Council (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/dunmore-borough-councilopposes-keystone-landfill-expansion-1.1771130)
Dickson City Borough Council (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/dickson-city-down-ondump-expansion-1.1873887)
Scranton School Board (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/scranton-board-oks-changein-student-starting-times-next-school-year-1.1891748)
Put simply, the region has spoken loudly, consistently, and clearly on this issue Northeastern Pennsylvania does not want this expansion and if this expansion is granted, it will harm our regional reputation and our collective civic pride.
4. Balancing of Harms vs. Benefits
The PaDEP Solid Waste Regulations require that the applicant (here, Keystone) clearly demonstrate that the benefits of the project to the public clearly outweigh the known and potential harms.
Keystone concludes that it has met that burden. We believe the above narrative and the principles below prove the opposite. The benefits of this project do not outweigh the known and potential harms.
First, as demonstrated above, many of the Benefits Keystone asserts are not Benefits at all and should not be considered in the analysis. Additionally, Keystone has ignored signficant harms and potential harms in its analysis that are included above. In the ultimate balance, Keystone has not met its burden to show that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms.
Page 16 of 17
Second, Keystone’s HBA almost entirely ignores the variable of time. Specifically, the PaDEP’s guidance on the procedures used to review environmental assessments makes it clear that “Some harms and benefits will last for a limited time period and others may last longer even after the facility closes.” (Department of Environmental Protection, Document Number 2542100-101). As long as the Landfill is in its current location, and the pile of waste remains, many of the actual and potential harms are never eliminated. There will always be a risk of air pollution, water pollution, mine subsidence, disaster occurrence and reputational damage. Alternatively, almost all, if not all, of the proposed benefits run out at some point in the future (two years or ten years or fifty years from now). Therefore, even if one discounts the harms and potential harms down to almost nothing (e.g. a penny per year at its extreme) and considers them over an endless time frame, at some point the harms and potential harms will, by mathematical rule, exceed a finite amount of the benefits because the benefits run out. In summary, an infinite amount of anything (in this case, the harms and/or potential harms) will at some point in the future, always exceed a finite amount of a something else (in this case, the benefits).
Based on the above narratives, and the principles of mathematics, it is our conclusion that Keystone cannot prove that the benefits of the project outweigh the harms on an individual or collective level. Looking forward, the public faces increased harms and potential harms far in excess of any benefits as they relate to the public health, welfare, and safety and the environment and therefore, this proposed expansion must be denied.
Page 17 of 17