Landfill Trashed: Opponents of Proposed Boggs Landfill Comment on DEP Decision

CLEARFIELD – The news broke on Friday that DEP denied the application for the proposed Camp Hope Run Landfill in Boggs Township.

The Clearfield County Commissioners, state Rep. Camille “Bud” George and others fought against or voiced their concerns over the landfill.

GantDaily spoke with Clearfield County Commissioner Mark McCracken about the news.

McCracken was with the last board of commissioners, including Rex Read and Mike Lytle, when they voiced their opposition to the proposed landfill. When the current board of commissioners was elected, they also announced their opposition to the proposed landfill.

“I feel DEP followed the spirit of ACT 101 and requested information they (PA Waste) were unable to comply with,” said McCracken.

“I’m very pleased they saw fit to reject the letter,” added McCracken.

Darryl Lashinski of the Concerned Citizens Fighting the Boggs Township Dump had yet to read the details concerning the rejection yet. Until he could, he declined comment, “Other than it’s good news.”

Sam Ettaro, who worked with Lashinski’s group, commented on the application denial.

“I’m very pleased to hear that,” said Ettaro. He commented that it was his belief that such a development would be detrimental to the direction the county was moving in.

“Being an activist for a long time … it really, you get jaded with government agencies,” added Ettaro. “It’s nice to see them (DEP) making a decision on the side of right.”

PA Waste LLC submitted a permit application to DEP for the Camp Hope Run municipal waste landfill in late September 2006. The company wanted to develop an 845-acre municipal waste landfill with 221 acres lined to
accept an average of 5,000 tons per day for 25 years.

According to DEP’s letter to PA Waste:

“Following DEP's review of the Permit Application, including PA Waste's responses to both of DEP's technical deficiency letters, DEP has made the determination that the Permit Application does not adequately address the requirements of Section 507 of Act 101,53 P.S. § 4000.507. As you are aware, because PA Waste's proposed facility is not included in the host county's Act 101 plan, according to Section 507(a) of Act 101, DEP shall not issue any permit for a municipal waste landfill unless PA Waste demonstrates to DEP's satisfaction that the proposed facility meets all of the requirements in Section 507(a) (2) of Act 101. 35 P.S. § 4000.507(a)(2). These requirements include a demonstration by PA Waste that the "proposed location of the facility is at least as suitable as alternative locations giving consideration to environmental and economic factors." Briefly stated, DEP interprets this statutory provision as requiring an applicant to identify the sources and quantity of waste expected to be disposed at its facility, and to identify the current disposal locations for this expected waste.

“The applicant must also examine available alternative disposal facilities located between the source of the expected waste and the applicant's proposed facility, and demonstrate that the proposed facility is at least as suitable, environmentally and economically, as the available alternative disposal locations. Applying this statutory requirement to PA Waste's submissions, DEP has determined that PA Waste's application has not demonstrated that the location of its proposed facility is at least as suitable as alternative locations for disposal of waste that the facility proposes to accept.

“In its April 28, 2008 response, PA Waste focused on one company that would transport waste by truck to the proposed facility. Because of your request for confidentiality, dealt with in more detail below, at this time, the company listed will be referred to as Company X. The amount of waste PA Waste states that Company X would transport by truck to the proposed PA Waste facility is approximately 2,000 tons per day. PA Waste indicated that this waste stream would consist of only construction demolition (C/D) waste and would originate from New York City.

“None of the facilities currently used for disposal of waste by Company X were identified and no comparison was made between those existing facilities and PA Waste's proposed facility in terms of economic and environmental impact as required by Act 101.

“Instead, PA Waste provided some general statistics regarding waste that is currently being transported from New York City to Ohio to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed landfill as opposed to trucking waste from New York to a landfill in Ohio. However, PA Waste has not provided any documentation that the waste that Company X will be bringing to the proposed facility is actually being transported to Ohio for disposal.

“In order to demonstrate that it would be at least as suitable to transport waste to the proposed facility as opposed to a landfill in Ohio, PA Waste has to provide evidence that the waste from Company X is actually and currently being transported to Ohio.

“In the April 28, 2008 response, PA Waste provided a list of eight landfills that Company X would pass on its way by truck from New York City to the proposed facility. For each of these landfills, PAWaste has provided a short analysis and attempted to demonstrate why each site is not a suitable alternative to the proposed facility. For the following seven facilities listed below, PA Waste has failed to show that the proposed Camp Hope Run Landfill is as suitable both economically and environmentally:

1. Grand Central Landfill- Northampton County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on two criteria; 1) there will not be enough disposal capacity at the landfill, and 2) the price would be prohibitive. PA Waste assumes that if Grand Central Landfill resumes operations at near full capacity, there will not be available disposal capacity because the landfill has to serve
the needs of the parent owner of the landfill which holds contracts for a significant portion of residential waste from New York City. PA Waste appears to imply with this statement that this landfill's disposal capacity is being reserved by the owners to accept mostly New York City waste.

In fact, this is not true. Since 2001, the most waste on an annual basis this landfill has taken from New York State has been only4.8 percent of the total waste amount received by the landfill. PA Waste also states that the tipping fee for waste disposal in Northeast Pennsylvania is generally in the range of$65 per ton. They have not provided any supporting documentation to show that the tipping fee at the Grand Central Landfill would be $65 per ton.

In addition, using PA Waste's own argument from the permit term justification analysis submitted with the April 28, 2008 response, it is highly unlikely that a landfill would charge the gate rate tipping fee for a large volume customer.

2. Chrin Landfill- Northampton County: PA Waste states that this site is not as suitable as the proposed landfill because there is a commitment with the host municipality to serve only communities within a 60 mile radius from the site.

However, PA Waste did not provide any proof evidencing the existence of this commitment. No discussion was provided regarding if this commitment extends east across the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. In 2007, Chrin accepted over 90,000 tons of waste from New Jersey.

3. Alliance Landfill- Lackawanna County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on two criteria; 1) there will not be enough disposal capacity at the landfill, and 2) the price would be prohibitive. With respect to disposal capacity, while it is true that Alliance has in the last several years, accepted approximately 75 percent of their permitted average daily volume CADY), the landfill still may accept approximately 500 tons per day to reach the permitted ADV. With respect to the price per ton, PA Waste has not provided the actual tipping fee for this landfill. Furthermore, as noted above, and as noted by PA Waste in the April 28, 2008 response, the actual tipping fee would likely be less for a large volume customer.

4. Keystone Landfill- Lackawanna County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on two criteria; 1) there will not be enough disposal capacity at the landfill, and 2) the price would be prohibitive. With respect to disposal capacity, PA Waste states that the ADV for this landfill is 3750 tons per day. PA Waste uses this figure to argue that the landfill does not have enough daily capacity beyond what it has been operating to accept an appreciable amount of the waste from Company X.

This is incorrect; the ADV for this landfill is 4750 tons per day. With respect to the price per ton, PA Waste has not provided the actual tipping fee for this landfill. Furthermore, as noted above, and as noted by PA Waste in the April 28, 2008 response, the actual tipping fee would likely be less for a large volume customer.

5. Commonwealth Environmental Services Landfill- Schuykill County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on the assertion that the price per ton would be cost prohibitive. While PA Waste states that the landfill charges the same price for municipal waste as for C/D waste, PA Waste has not provided any documentation to support this contention. Furthermore, the actual tipping fee would likely be less for a large volume customer. Finally, PA Waste states that the relative travel distance to the Commonwealth Environmental Services landfill from New York City versus the proposed site is relatively small and Waste did not provide the actual difference in travel distanceand has not provided an economic analysis that supports this statement.

In fact, the distance to CES from New York City is approximately 160 miles, whereas the distance from New York City to Boggs Township, the proposed location of PA Waste's facility, is approximately 260 miles. Aside from the environmental impact associated with trucking waste for an additional 100 miles each way, the cost of fuel alone raises issues concerning the economic suitability of trucking waste to Boggs Township in lieu of CES.

6. Wayne Township Landfill- Clinton County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on the fact that this landfill has not recently taken waste from New York. The fact that Wayne Township Landfill has not recently taken waste from New York does not mean that the operator of the landfill would not accept New York waste in the future. PA Waste did not provide any information confirming that it is Wayne Township Landfill's policy not to accept waste from New York.

7. Lycoming County Landfill- Lycoming County: PA Waste's argument that this site would not be as suitable as the proposed landfill is based on their assertion that there is will not be enough disposal capacity at the landfill to accept any appreciable volume of the Customer X's waste. Lycoming County Landfill has an ADV of 1600 tons per day. Waste acceptance records for this landfill indicate the actual daily tonnage accepted over the last several years is over 400 tons per day less than their permitted volume.

“The May 19,2008, supplement to the April 28, 2008, response by PA Waste included a letter fromanother company (hereinafter referred to as Company Y). No environmental or economic analysis of why the proposed site would be as suitable than landfills currently being used by Company Y has been provided. PA Waste has not demonstrated that the proposed landfill would be at least as suitable both environmentally and economically than those currently being used by Company Y.

“Finally, as a general matter, PA Waste has not demonstrated how redirecting the expected waste to PA Waste's proposed facility will not contribute to an increase in pollution to the environment. The application also does not demonstrate how redirecting the expected waste from New York City to PA Waste's proposed facility in Boggs Township will be more cost-efficient.

“Based on the above remaining deficiencies, DEP has determined that PA Waste, LLC has not adequately addressed the questions of site suitability and other requirements of Act 101. PA Waste has had 330 days to prepare a response to these issues pertaining to Act 101. DEP is terminating the review of the application and is hereby denying the application.”

Also indicated in the letter was the PA Waste asked that certain information in the application be kept private. Pa Waste reportedly presented many letters of information without indicating why they should be kept private.

DEP stated that some of the documents were public and that is not DEP’s duty to “wade through these various documents and designate which are confidential.”

PA Waste has 30 days to submit an appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board.

To read the full letter from DEP to PA Waste, click here.