STOP THE DUMPING!
was updated 10/13/11
Before I get into any definitions or articles, I will explain the reason for this web site.
I am fighting the dumping of River Dredge and Fly Ash on the Hazleton City
Landfill. Through this web site you will come to see the reasons why.
Hopefully! This is the reason why many articles pertain to landfills in
general. Let me add to this statement, in no way do the comments on this web
site reflect the opinions of Citizen Advocates United to Save the Environment
(CAUSE), they are strictly my opinion.
A settlement was
finally reached between Hazleton Creek Properties and SUFFER. The
agreement calls for more stricter rules and another monitoring well. Hazleton
Creek is supposed to supply the well reports every 6 months along with the
regular reports. Good Luck to SUFFER, I hope they get their reports faster than
CAUSE did. Now that the agreement was reached
between the both parties, DEP will have no excuse not to release the
Enhanced Groundwater Monitoring Data, but I highly doubt anyone will see it.
They will find another excuse.
Well I guess
the DEP went to sleep again.
The DEP has granted the WMGR125 several months ago. Now we get Flue Gas
Desulfurization Material (FGD). That's the crap they clean out of the
stacks after the scrubbers go through them. They are going to mix
that with the fly ash and pour it into the big hole behind Kowalski's.
Speaking of mixing, they applied to Susquehanna River Basin Commission for
65,000 gallons of water a day to mix with the stuff. "To make it
cementitous". Susquehanna gave them the permit, despite letters from a
retired DEP Geologist and a resident. They don't care if the material contains
Hexavalent Chromium. (Verified by
Earthjustice and Environmental Integrity in an article on Feb. 1, 2011) The
chemical that Erin Brockovich was fighting in
Hinkley, CA. Then it gets better, now they are increasing that
petition to 200,000 gallons.
|FGD being dumped by
||FGD being dumped in
pit behind Kowalski's
Someone Finally Awake At DEP
The DEP has put a hold on General Permit
WMGR125. They have found 18 discrepancies in the application for the new
permit and have sent it back to Hazleton Creek Properties to straighten out.
One important part was the Enhanced Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Let's
face it, they never monitored the wells in the way the plan suggests. They
have never monitored GW7B, GW7, GW8 and SW1 as the plan called for.
Looking through the discrepancies, there are some serious things that need
attention. They have until December 30, 2010 to respond with all of the
corrections. Do I think they'll make it....could be...maybe..who knows
with McClellan at the helm. At least this time someone was awake in
PCB Soil disappears
The soil from the PCB-laden capacitors finally
left after being stockpiled on the Municipal Landfill for over 2 years.
Invoices from January 6th and 7th show the soil went to Model City Landfill in
New York. It sat 3 years and 3 months after the EPA told them to dispose
of it. I can't imagine how much PCB leachate flowed across the landfill in
that period of time.
McClellan Up To It Again
Mark McClellan and his henchmen are up to it
again. This time it's FGD Scrubber Material. That's the stuff they
scrape from inside of the towers in coal fired generation plants. It is
the result of reducing the sulfur dioxide emissions in a wet scrubber flue gas
desulfurization systems. Now when this stuff is scraped, it's a wet solid
residue generated from the treatment of these emissions. It appears solid,
but when agitated or vibrated becomes liquefied. So it must be stabilized
and/or dewatered. One of the ways of stabilizing it is to add coal ash or
commonly called fly ash. Then it can be disposed of into a landfill.
One of the problems is that the flue gas material is more concentrated than coal
ash. The content of toxic materials is far greater. This placement has
never been performed before. Again another experimental program that we
will have to live with forever. Do I believe that DEP will slide this one
through - what do you think? Did you ever wonder how McClellan or any of
those people sleep at night? Or for that matter DEP. I guess money
is the answer to it all. Or all of the sleeping pills they can buy with
the money. So friends get prepared. The meeting is tonight (8/31/10)
at the High School. Good Luck to us all.
Update On The Meeting From November
Sorry I have been real busy with other
projects and haven't had the time to write anything. As you know by now
the meeting at the Hazleton Administration Building was a real farce. At
least 200 men wearing Hazleton Creek shirts and caps attended the meeting.
We all know they were paid to be there. One of my friends asked one of the
men if they were paid to come and he replied "Yes". He then asked him why
he was there and his reply was "He didn't know", must be nice to have money!
As usual, Mark McClellan came up with a few of his stories to push their effort.
He told everyone there that there was already a death at the site when a person
was pushed into a hole and died. Let me straighten out this story.
On July 22, 2008, while my husband and I were at the site, a young girl jumped
into the big pit behind Kowalski's, in an attempt to commit suicide. After
calling 911, he boyfriend tired to get down and get her. The both became
trapped. They were brought up by emergency responders and treated at the
hospital for scrapes and bruises. NO ONE HAS DIED ON THAT SITE.
McClellan is trying to justify the reason for filling in the pits. The
period for responding to the appeal was extended to Jan. 11, 2010. At this
point we have no word as to whether the permit was accepted or denied.
Will keep you posted.
Properties is looking at another permit.
The WMGR097 which is used for Research and
Development activities to support the beneficial use or processing prior to
beneficial use of residual and/or municipal waste. More material
they want to dump in unlined pits at the landfill. After reading Mr.
Gadinski's report I don't think anything more should be dumped on there.
There is a public meeting concerning this permit application being held on
Nov. 16, from 7:00 to 9:00 at the Hazleton High
Everyone should try and attend.
It's very important. Also letters of comment should be submitted to the
DEP before Nov. 23. The address is
Mr. Ronald C. Hassinger Chief, General Permits/Beneficial
Use Section, Division of Municipal & Residual Waste, Bureau of Waste
Management, P.O. Box 8472, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472.
Remember the deadline is Nov 23.
Retired DEP Geologist Finds
Problems In Landfill Groundwater Monitoring System.
Retired DEP geologist
Robert Gadinski, viewed the monitoring well reports for the Hazleton City
Landfill and came to the conclusion, the groundwater monitoring system is
deficient, because the system contains only one downgradient well for 3200
linear feet which is the measurement across the affected coal measures.
Evidence of contamination exists in the area of the Buck Mountain Mine Pool and
in the water quality data for wells, MW-9, MW-10 and MW-13. It is quite
possible that the contamination of residential wells along SR 309 has its origin
on the HCP site. Is the contamination historical or as a result of site
activities including disposal that occurred prior to the development of these
monitoring points? Based on Act II any contamination not disclosed
and discovered subsequent to disposal is the liability of the owner of record.
Gadinski said " I can say with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that
the monitoring system approved by the DEP at this site is technically deficient
as many other coal combustion waste (CCW)/"Beneficial Use" sites in
What does that do
to the health and safety of the citizens of Hazleton?
Army Corps Will Dredge Without A Permit.
Army Corps of Engineers is planning to dredge the Delaware
River to a depth of 45 feet whether New Jersey or Delaware wants it or not.
The following state was released October 25th from Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control Secretary Collin O'Mara concerning the
dredging. "The Army Corps of Engineers notified DNREC last night that they
intend to proceed with their proposal to dredge the Delaware River to 45 feet
without first securing the required permits from the State of Delaware." "DNREC
recently denied the Corps' first permit application, in part, because the
proposed project had changed significantly since the originally submitted for
consideration and many of the potential environmental impacts of the changed
project were unknown or based upon outdated information. DNREC remains
committed to considering a new application through an efficient, science-based,
and transparent permitting process. It is therefore especially troubling
that the Corps now seeks to proceed without a current environmental assessment
and without any public consideration of the project as currently proposed."
It amazes me how any form of the Federal Government can
get away with anything they want, but let one of us try to do the same.
HCP Web Site
A friend of mine happened to
click on this web site by accident,
www.hazletoncreekproperties.com and saw some fantastic
pictures of the site.
Everything looked really, really fine. Not to mention the job they are
doing with permitted materials. It really aggravates me to see how
they are disillusioning the public. Let me show you some real pictures of
Rinaldi wrote the DEP on
Aug. 25th and said he sent back 5 rail cars with non-permitted material.
Why then were these materials found on the site Sept 24th?
What about this contaminated material supposed to be from where the
capacitors were stored? It's been there for several months now. One
would think DEP wouldn't allow that. The strange thing about that was when
the DEP was questioned by an individual as to what the material was, the comment
was that it was the contaminated soil from the capacitor site. I couldn't
believe they would allow that laying there, PCB's are PCB's and the soil should
have been removed to a disposal site, long before that part of the site was
flooded on March of 2008, spreading the PCB's over a wider area.
|Area including contaminated soil 3/5/08
||Water remained on contaminated soil 3/13/08
Hazleton people should know the
truth about what's going on out there.
The Redevelopment is selling the
Landfill to Hazleton Creek Properties. The agreement was already signed.
The first payment of $600,000 is due on December 15th of this year, with 4 more
payments due the 15th of December of the next 4 years. The Redevelopment
claims they need the money for the city's debt, but if you ask me they want to
be removed from any possible problems that occur with the site, and I'm sure
they know there will be. Still, the property remains in their name until
the final payment is made.
have recently came upon some documents verifying that the first payment was
made. In fact a down payment of $150,000 was made when the amendments were
made to the Lease Purchase option on Aug 11, 2008 and the remaining $450,000 on
Dec. 15, 2008.
Something strange is going on at the
site. The empty train cars have remained on the site for the last couple
of months and not a piece of equipment has moved. It seems strange,
because they worked through last winter. Word has it the
DEP is also a little concerned over the non
This recent sign has been posted on the 309 side of the
property. Note that it says visitors please call 570-501-5050.
That's a joke! People can't even stand on the other side of 309 by the
little strip mall and take pictures without getting screamed at. Patrons of the
Beltway Diner walked up the access road to see how the site was coming along and
they were also told to leave. Guess that's why they put the fence up. What so secret about that place, what is
going on that no one should see? If everything is on the up and up on the
site, they should want people to see the great job they're doing and not chase
people away. Makes you wonder!
One interesting point
concerning the toxicity of the Hazleton City Landfill. Every garbage
hauler who had dealings with the landfill and had dumped there repeatedly, has
pasted away with CANCER. Some of those from the past are Johnny Machinas
and Harold Jacoby who were haulers and had constant contact with the landfill
and Joe DiSabella, who ran the landfill for the city of Hazleton. There were
several other people who were mentioned to me, but the names past away with the
person who informed me. Only one landfill worker still remains alive, Ron
Kripp, but he also has CANCER.
this telling us something?
Pay very special
attention to the following picture!
This is a picture of a section of
the site formerly known as Crystal Ridge Landfill. This site has been sinking
over the course of the last several years. It is due to the 55 gallon
barrels and the skids they were placed on when they were buried, are degrading.
An engineered cap was placed on the site in 1982, but the cap is not going to
stop it from sinking. This area is where Hazleton Creek Properties and the
Hazleton Redevelopment Authority had rezoned to an Industrial site, to
make a parking lot.
There is no doubt in my mind, sometime in the future
someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed there.
Well the rezone passed council by
a 4 - 1 vote, on Sept. 2, 2008. Naturally Bob Niles held out because he
knows the situation. Now they can do anything they want out there.
Still don't know what they're going to do with the old Crystal Ridge Landfill,
because it's going to keep sinking. Just hope no one is on it when it
CAUSE is still
waiting for the results of the water samples that were drawn on August 13th.
My guess is one turned bad and they don't know what to do.
Sorry to be so late with an update,
I was real busy for awhile. Well the 6 wells are in at the Landfill and
they were tested on August 13th. So far CAUSE hasn't received the results
of any of the tests. I don't know if that's bad or good. It makes me
wonder if they are looking for a way to change any of the tests. Only my
opinion only! I will post here as soon as I hear something.
No one, but no one knows what's under the Hazleton City
Landfill, because it was never properly monitored. The existing wells in
the area of the Landfill were insufficient to monitor anything. The only
way to find out what is or is not going into the groundwater is to dig wells and
test. I am convinced that at least one of those wells will turn up toxic
waste. The only way it couldn't, is if the well is placed in the wrong
place. The expert Geologist is satisfied with the location of the well
placements. First of all to have the dredge material removed from the site
it must be proven toxic. Without the proper testing, nothing can be
proved. Right now no one can prove anything. DEP nor Hazleton has
ever provided any financial compensation to any of the residents who lived near
the Landfill for the last 48 years. ATSDR and EPA knew of the site
for years and never did anything about it.
Local Project May Use Dredge
Hazleton Creek Properties LLC, who leases the land from the
Hazleton Redevelopment Authority may use river dredge to reclaim the adjoining
Cranberry Creek Property. The DEP granted permission for the use if HCP
takes over the state contract between the DEP and #1 Contracting. The DEP
cancelled the contract last year after the work bogged down.
Claims Partial Victory.
The environmental group C.A.U.S.E.
(Citizen Advocates United to Safeguard the Environment) claimed partial victory
over Hazleton Creek Properties in their fight to keep the river dredge from the
old Hazleton City Landfill. The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board's
decision on November 2, 2007 found in favor of the group when it disapproved the
groundwater monitoring plan for the site. The Board ordered that HCP
may not operate under its DEP permit to introduce dredge, coal ash and kiln dust
at the site until a new groundwater monitoring plan was submitted and excepted
by the DEP and implemented on the site. The Board stated: "It will
involve the unprecedented placement of 10 million cubic yards of a residual
waste mixture in unlined, abandoned mine workings that are partially filled with
unpermitted landfills known to have been used for midnight dumping of hazardous
waste. It would have been one thing if the Department approved a small
beneficial use project at a site without complications located in an isolated
area. Here, the Project will be carried out on a massive scale on a
complicated site in very close proximity to densely populated
residential and commercial areas. If the people of Hazleton are to have
this project in their midst, they deserve some assurance that the Project will
perform as expected and not harm them or their environment. " November 2, 2007
Board Decision, p. 60-61.
Mayor Lou Barletta responded by
saying, they won in every other instance of this case and the decision doesn't
affect the permit already in place, so he doesn't anticipate any delay in the
project moving forward.
August 17, 2007
We recently read an article that some leaders of
the Republican Party are courting Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta to run
for the U.S. Congress or Governor of Pennsylvania. The story
indicated that some leaders thought that the immigration issue and
his success as mayor make him an unusually attractive candidate.
Letís take a closer look at his record.
First, letís look at Lou Barlettaís success as mayor. Our
immediate reaction was to ask whether these leaders have ever been
to Hazleton. The city is a mess. The crime rate is out of sight. In
the past few weeks, there were two additional murders and several
random shootings. Police are seldom seen on foot patrol and itís not
safe to walk the streets. The city is replete with empty stores and
buildings. Contaminated river sludge is being dumped in the city and
the streets are in a state of disrepair. In short, this once proud
city is now decaying and badly in need of help.
How does the deterioration of Hazleton qualify its mayor to run
for higher office? We donít know. In all fairness, we cannot hold
the mayor responsible for all of Hazletonís problems but he has done
little, if anything, to stop or slow down the cityís continuing
decay during his term in office. In fact, we believe that the
deterioration has accelerated during his term.
Now, letís look at the immigration issue. We should first note
that Lou Barletta was a major proponent of bringing immigrants to
Hazleton. A few years ago, he was on television bragging that while
many cities in Pennsylvania were losing population, Hazleton was one
of the fastest growing cities in the state. He credited this growth
to the influx of immigrants.
Then, Lou changed his tune. He discovered that the people of
Hazleton were opposed to this influx of immigrants so he blamed all
of the cityís problems on illegal immigrants. He promoted an
anti-illegal immigration ordinance that got him national attention.
From the beginning, the ordinance had a snowballís chance in hell of
being declared constitutional in a federal court. Thus, it came as
no surprise to anyone with a minimal knowledge of the law when the
ordinance was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Does the
mayor have any legal advisors?
It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to enact laws that
regulate immigration. What a responsible mayor would have done was
to pressure the members of Pennsylvaniaís congressional delegation
to better protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
The city is now burdened with major legal fees for its frivolous
ordinance. In spite of this, the mayor has indicated that the city
will appeal the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and
to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. The ordinance will continue
to be declared unconstitutional by the appellate courts and the
legal fees will continue to mount. As a result, the residents of
Hazleton will probably see an increase in their property taxes to
pay the legal fees. However, Lou Barletta will still have the
soapbox and the national attention that goes with it and his
political career will be advanced at the cost of the City of
Courtesy of Dante Piccione - www.dante7.com
Yes it looks like we got a little reprieve the last week of
February. It seems that Mallinckrodt Baker decided to send their
demolition debris to a landfill in Morgantown, PA instead of here. This is the
material that I spoke about earlier that could contain Beryllium. We could
use many, many more like this.
On the subject of the Dredge. I was under the impression
that the Dredge was supposed to be mixed with Fly Ash and some other junk to
make it more cement-like. It's strange that they went ahead and are
working without the Fly Ash. Not that I want the Fly Ash also, but that would
throw their ground hardness out, wouldn't you think.
Dredge Trucks Are Causing Trouble.
The trucks that are hauling Dredge are causing trouble for the
people of Cranberry. Not only are they throwing dirt all over everything,
but they are endangering the lives of the children who must wait for the school
bus weekday mornings along Old 924 through Cranberry. Witnesses say trucks
have come very close to a school bus and that terrified the residents.
Hazle Township Supervisors threaten to close the 924 entrance to the landfill.
According to initial plans the Dredge was supposed to arrive on trains, but
Norfolk & Southern are involved in another project, so the alternative was to
ship by truck. The route for the fly ash was to enter the site on the 309
side, which now the trucks are using for the Dredge. This is also
presenting a problem, as the trucks must stop traffic to turn onto the road that
leads to the site. The larger of the trucks aren't able to make the swing
from the road onto 309 without turning into the oncoming lane, also presenting a
great problem. Numerous businesses are concerned, not only of the increase in
truck traffic, but the problem of the dirt and dust, as they haven't erected the
washer as of yet to clean these trucks off as they leave the site.
Anyone who's had a close call or problem with these trucks,
please call the Pennsylvania State Police at Valmont and voice your concern.
Not Beryllium Again!
Hazleton Creek Properties LLC announced this week it would import
demolition material from Mallinckrodt Baker, a chemical plant in
Phillipsburg, NJ. Mallinckrodt Baker produces imaging equipment,
pharmaceuticals and respiratory equipment, along with an amazing amount of
various chemicals including Methyl Ethyl Ketone. Of the three buildings
razed last fall, one of them contained Beryllium. As it is stated in the
Saturday January 20th edition of the Standard-Speaker, Hazleton Creek
consultants didn't know what would happen to the material containing the
Beryllium, but we are going to receive 200 cubic yards from the walls and
foundation of that building. As far as I'm concerned 1 cubic yard is too
much. We don't this reappearing again.
Also note, by Saturday's Standard-Speaker, analysts disqualified
one batch of Dredge because it contained too much Boron, a substance used as a
cleanser and pesticide. It will irritate the nose, throat and eyes and
reduce the sperm count in males who breathe it over a period of time. They had
to make us believe they were on the job. I think I would rather have had
the Boron, than have the Beryllium.
WELL IT'S HERE!
Dredge arrives under DEP watch,
was the headline in the Standard-Speaker, December 19, 2006. The
trucks began arriving Thursday the 14th. Mark Carmon from DEP said the
agency is continually monitoring the material for the project.
The dredge is being brought in from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort
Mifflin Confined Disposal Facility in southeast Philadelphia. The
material is placed in one of several impoundments and dried over a period of
time. The material being shipped to Hazleton is tested for
contaminants before being excavated at Fort Mifflin and loaded onto trucks.
The trucks from at least six hauling companies including Bonner
are logging in several round trips a day between here and Philadelphia.
The material at first had the appearance of black top soil, now it's more of
a brown color. I was under the impression that it would be mixed with
construction and demolition material, but this is being spread by itself.
Although it has no smell at this point, (that I attribute to the cold, dry
weather), I say, "let it rain some and we should definitely got some smell."
It is also creating a mess on the old Main Street in Cranberry. Trucks
coming from the dump site are depositing clumps of the mess all over the
roadway. Clumps of dredge, that I'm not sure they're testing and
material from a toxic landfill at least. The dust from the trucks make
it almost impossible for the people in Cranberry and surrounding area to
keep their cars clean and hang clothes outside on clothes lines. I
travel through there quite often visiting my grandchildren, and see the
conditions that exist.
People, let the DEP, HCP, HRA, the Hazle Township
Supervisors, Penn Dot and possible the Pennsylvania State Police what's
going on there. You have to live there!
There was a meeting in the home of
Maryann Fisher, in Cranberry. The residents were complaining about the
dust the trucks are throwing off as they go in and out of "the Site". Todd
Eachus and one or two of the Hazle Township supervisors attended. I was
wondering when the people in Cranberry were going to get mad. Maybe we
can't stop them at this point, but we can sure enough made it hard for them.
No one has to put up with all of this dust and no one has to submit their
children to all of these health hazards. Remember they don't care about
any of us, just the money they can stuff in their pockets. Todd Eachus is
for the other project, but the other project is not Dredge and Fly Ash, it is
clean fill. This is Dredge and Fly Ash, and it's going to harm us all.
Keep up the good work Maryann, none of us needs
In the June 7th issue of the Standard-Speaker Mayor Barletta said without the dredge and fly ash he is unable to hire
anymore police officers. My question then is, how did he hire
the officers that were just hired in the last couple months? I think
it's a very low tactic for him to tell the people, especially the elderly
people that without the dredge, they have no police protection. That's
about as low as you can go! He speaks
about being in Philadelphia, at Fort Mifflin and seeing the grass grow on
the dredge and the deer running in it. I was at Fort Mifflin on the 3rd of November, but didn't see any deer. In fact we weren't allowed to go where the dredge was because of the recent rain. We were told we would sink about 2Ĺ feet and it was very dangerous. I have borrowed some pictures
of the Fort Mifflin Disposal site from my friends at McAdoo Info, you decide
if he saw what he said he did. They are posted at the top of my
On April 26, 2006, Governor Rendell visited Coaldale Fire Company to celebrate their 100th anniversary. Pictures of Gov. Rendell's visit to Coaldale at
Pertaining to the news articles from DEP, the Governor gave
out all that money in 2 days, and all we get is river dredge and fly ash.
What are we, chopped liver over here? Don't we want to eliminate danger and
be more attractive for economic development? This is crazy!
If you didn't attend the Jan. 18 meeting
at the Hometown Firehouse in Hometown, PA, you missed a good show.
Pennsylvania's Department of Health was there to give the status of a study
which was conducted concerning the local health problems. The DOH
blamed illnesses, such as cancer, Polycythemia Vera, to lifestyles.
Colorectal cancer was blamed on our dietary habits and lung cancer to
smoking. The total story can be found at
On my links page is a link to "Hometown
Hazards", written by a very exciting lady, who is originally from Hometown,
PA. Take a look at her page, I think you will find some very
than 500 General Electric Co. employees have sued Monsanto Co, along
with two related companies, claiming they were exposed to toxic
chemicals manufactured for decades by Monsanto.
Governor Rendell wants Philadelphia in
competition with New York City for the river traffic. That's fine with us,
but dump your dredge somewhere else.
Speaking of Governor Rendell. He's
trying to force the states of New Jersey and Delaware into agreeing to the
dredging of the Delaware River. He is holding up the 2006 budget for the
Delaware River Port Authority in an effort to do so. This could mean the
closing of PATCO, a high speed rail that runs from South Jersey to center city
Philadelphia which receives tolls from the Delaware River Port Authority's four
bridges. The rail line transports 35,000 commuters into the Philadelphia.
So far the leaders of New Jersey and Delaware are holding their ground.
UPDATE: I see PATCO is still running without the 2006 budget and Governor
Rendell still didn't get his dredging. Hang in there New Jersey and
Delaware, don't give in to him!
The Delaware Riverkeeper
doesn't want the Delaware River dredged as much as we don't want the dredge from
it. They say it won't benefit their economy or their people. Deepening the
Delaware River will not bring in the big container ships as Rendell says,
because the port is too far from the ocean and not equipped for those kind of
ships. The only ones who will benefit for the deepening are the oil companies.
Read the whole story at
For those who
do not know the definitions of river dredge and fly ash.
River Dredge - Material
pulled from the bottom of the river to deepen it.
Fly Ash -Fine solid
particles of ash that are carried into the air when fuel is combusted.
More to worry about!
I just obtained
some information from a friend about a USGS web site saying that off the coast of
Boston Harbor, New York Harbor and New Jersey harbor they've found Unexploded
Ordinance (UXO) left over from World War II and peacetime military exercises.
Isn't this just wonderful! If this is contacted during dredging operations
we could have another Nagasaki right here in the US. Funny the Army Corps
of Engineers didn't know that.
Additional concerns which are not likely to
be routinely tested would be the potential for nasty microorganisms in the
dredged sediments. Are the nasty creatures in the sediment? Various abstracts
from the American Society for Microbiology
indicates that microorganisms can exist and lay dormant in these marine
environments. The abstracts indicate fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci,
clostridum perfringens, hepatitis A, Pasteurella piscicida, Vibrio vulnificus,
and some new bugs (Desulfocapsa sulfoexigens) in the neighborhood. There was no
indication that the bacteria and/or viruses would become dormant and revive in
(lets say) a freshwater drainage area.
one abstract does appear to suggest that P. piscicida strains could be starved
and revived, and still retain the original pathogenic potential.
The above two articles courtesy of
Boy this is really great,
bombs and bugs in the stuff too.
In 1987 I had the opportunity to venture into the
Hazleton City Landfill with a acquaintance of mine and saw with my own eyes the
barrels sticking out of the ground. As a matter of fact we walked over
some of them. I don't think they just jumped up and ran away.
Below is a list that was supplied to me of
the chemicals that "do not exist" that were dumped at the Hazleton City
|All-Steel Waste - 690 Tons
||Hydrochloric Acid - 14,000 Barrels
|Auto Lite Waste - 940,000 Tons
||Insulation - 940,000 Tons
|Beryllium - 450,000 Tons
||Latex & Oil based paint - 800 Barrels
|Chromatex Waste - 650 Tons
||Liquid Sludge - 9,000 Gallons
|Dyes - 35,000 Gallons
||Liquid Sludge per year - 2,530,000 Gallons
|Dyed Materials - 980 Tons
||Medical Waste - 250,00 Tons
|Ethylene Glycol - 900 Barrels
||Methyl Ethyl Ketone - 30,000 Barrels
|Epoxy Resin - 5,000 Barrels
||Paint Sludge - 350,00 Tons
|Fiberglass Insulation - 52,000 Tons
||Paint Solvents - 8,000 Barrels
|Foam Waste - 530,000 Tons
||PCB's - 1,300 Tons
|General Foam Waste - 1,000,000 Tons
||Plastics - 958,000 Tons
|Hazleton Bleach & Dye Waste - 3,000 Barrels
||Solvents from plastic plants - 430,000 Tons
|Heavy Metals (Radioactive) - 2,400 Barrels
||Sulfuric Acid - 300 Barrels
All of these are said to be gone by now. Right!
All of these barrels have rotted and eroded, that's why the capacitors and
some of the barrels were
still on the site. I've heard estimates up to 65,000 barrels.
The only way you will get rid of all these barrels is to get the Anthracite
King to dig out the hole, and then you might hit a barrel the wrong way.
At that point, it's all over, you could kiss this town, at least half of it,
LEACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL DUMPS HAS SAME TOXICITY AS LEACHATE FROM
HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMPS.
In a new study, researchers at Texas A&M University have compared
leachate from municipal landfills with leachate from hazardous waste
landfills and they report, "...There is ample evidence that the municipal
waste landfill leachates contain toxic chemicals in sufficient concentration
to be potentially as harmful as leachate from industrial waste landfills."
Specifically, the Texas researchers compared leachate from several municipal
landfills with leachate from the notorious Love Canal landfill (and other
hazardous waste landfills, such as Kin-Buc in Edison, NJ) and they found the
leachates similar in their cancer-causing potential.
Leachate is the liquid that is produced when rain falls on a landfill,
sinks into the wastes, and picks up chemicals as it seeps downward.
Industries creating "hazardous wastes" (as legally defined under federal
law) may not send those wastes to municipal landfills, but must instead send
them to special hazardous waste landfills.
When a new municipal landfill is proposed, advocates of the project
always emphasize that "no hazardous wastes will enter this landfill." The
Texas study shows that even though municipal landfills may not legally
receive "hazardous" wastes, the leachate they produce is as dangerous as the
leachate from hazardous waste landfills.
Dr. Kirk Brown and Dr. K.C. Donnelly at Texas A&M, authors of the new
study, examined data on the composition of leachate from 58 landfills. The
data they reviewed showed 113 different toxic chemicals in leachate from
municipal landfills and 72 toxic chemicals in leachate from hazardous waste
landfills. The abundance of toxics in municipal landfills probably occurs
because the entire spectrum of consumer products ends up in municipal
landfills, whereas hazardous waste landfills serve a limited number of
industries within a region.
The actual source of the toxic chemicals in municipal landfills is not
known precisely. Under federal law (RCRA Subtitle C) each "small quantity
generator" can send up to 2640 pounds per year of legally-hazardous
chemicals to municipal landfills. In 1980, the EPA [U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency] estimated that 600,000 tons per year of legally-hazardous
wastes were going to municipal dumps from 695,000 "small quantity
Illegal dumping may be another source; illegal dumping is impossible to
prevent entirely because someone bringing in a truckload of wastes may hide
a few gallons, or a few barrels, of hazardous chemicals in the middle of the
truckload. The higher the price of legal disposal, the more incentive people
have to dump illegally. However, the most likely source of most of the toxic
materials in municipal landfills is legally-disposed household products like
paint solvents, oils, cleaning compounds, degreasing compounds, and
pesticides. "In addition, the final depository of most of the products of
our modern industrial society is the municipal waste landfill where the
paints, plastics, and pharmaceuticals dissolve and degrade in the acidic
anaerobic [oxygen-free] environment, thereby, releasing degradation products
which may be even more toxic than the products from which they originated,"
say Brown and Donnelly.
The findings of Brown and Donnelly will come as no surprise to many
researchers who have known for years that municipal leachate is as toxic as
the leachate from industrial landfills. For example, in an article entitled,
"APPLICATION OF HYDROGEOLOGY TO THE SELECTION OF REFUSE DISPOSAL SITES,"
Ronald A. Landon reported in 1969 in the JOURNAL OF GROUND WATER, Vol. 7
(Nov.-Dec., 1969), pgs. 9-13, that "Leachate at its source, that is within
the landfill, has concentrations and characteristics of many industrial
wastes; and in many instances would be better treated as such a waste."
What Brown and Donnelly have contributed is a quantitative analysis of
the toxicity and the carcinogenic potential of leachates from the two types
Brown and Donnelly conclude, "The risk calculations based on suspect
carcinogens... indicate that the estimated carcinogenic potency for the
leachate from some municipal landfills may be similar to the carcinogenic
potency of the leachate from the Love Canal landfill."
In industrial landfill leachate, 32 chemicals cause cancer; 10 cause
birth defects, and 21 cause genetic damage; in municipal landfill leachate,
32 chemicals cause cancer, 13 cause birth defects, and 22 cause genetic
DECADE-OLD STUDY REVEALED THE POLLUTING EFFECTS OF
A careful study of 50 landfills in 1977 concluded that 43 out of 50 (86%) had
contaminated underground water supplies beyond the boundaries of the landfill.
At the other 7 sites, off-site contamination was measured but could not be
attributed to the landfills by the strict criteria used in the study. In other
words, the study of 50 landfills found groundwater pollution at all 50 sites,
but the contamination could be definitely traced to the landfills in only 43
The study was conducted by Geraghty & Miller of Port Washington, NY, one of
the nation's leading hydrology consulting firms, under contract to EPA (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency). They looked at 122 sites in 15 states and
finally selected 50 sites in 11 states for careful evaluation. They studied 7 in
Wisconsin, 6 in Illinois, 5 in Indiana, 5 in Michigan, 2 in Pennsylvania, 5 in
New York, 9 in New Jersey, 3 in Connecticut, 5 in Massachusetts, 2 in New
Hampshire, and 1 in Florida.
Criteria for selecting sites were strict: no site was selected if it was
already known to be contaminated or if there were reports of bad taste or bad
odors from drinking water near the site already; sites were selected to include
various geologic settings (various rock and soil types) and various climatic
conditions; sites were selected to include different kinds of dumping (landfills
and lagoons), and different kinds of wastes. Some of the wastes would be termed
"hazardous" today, but many of the wastes involved were not "hazardous" by
today's legal definitions and are still allowed in municipal landfills today.
Sites had to be at least 3 years old.
The criteria for determining whether a site was contaminating groundwater
were strict. (1) Contaminants had to be measured in groundwater beyond the
perimeter of the site; (2) the concentration of contaminants downstream of the
site had to be greater than the concentration of the same contaminants measured
in an uncontaminated background well; (3) all wells used had to be tapping the
same aquifer; (4) geologic interpretation of the data by hydrologists had to
convince them that the landfills was the source of the contamination.
In 43 out of 50 cases, the landfill was confirmed as the source of
contamination. In four other cases, contamination was confirmed, but the area of
contamination was so great that sources besides the landfill were also
suspected; at three more sites, contamination was found but data could not be
gathered from uncontaminated background wells. So contamination was confirmed at
all 50 sites, but in 7 cases, the project's criteria could not be met for
deciding that the landfill was the culprit.
The term "landfill" was used to mean a dumping ground that accepted garbage,
demolition debris, municipal and industrial solid wastes, sludges or liquids.
The investigation "concentrated on those landfills with a major component of
Some of the landfills had liners, others did not. Since publishing this
study, the EPA has published its opinion several times, that all landfill liners
will eventually leak. (See HWN
#37.) Thus this study provides important evidence that all landfills, lined
or not, all eventually contaminate groundwater. Lined landfills will contaminate
groundwater more slowly than unlined landfills, but the long-term effects will
be the same: someone's groundwater will become contaminated whenever municipal
solid waste or industrial waste or legally hazardous wastes are placed in the
The study makes some interesting points worth remembering about landfills:
"The intermixing of inorganic and organic wastes, wastes of high and low pH, and
wastes having different physical properties in a common disposal area, may lead
to influences on the environment not anticipated from any single waste
material." (pg. 7) This is important because landfill liners are selected to be
compatible with the wastes that will be placed in a landfill. However, as this
statement says, the mixing of wastes in a landfill will produced unanticipated
chemical combinations with unpredictable results. A landfill liner selected to
withstand attack from chemicals X, Y and Z may not withstand attack from
chemicals X and Z in combination, or Y and Z in combination. The more chemicals
involved, the greater the number of possible combinations, the more complex the
interactions will be, and the less predictable the results become.
The study makes another valuable point: "The wastes that are deposited
continue to weather and leach for years." (pg. 8) The chemical interactions
within a landfill do not cease when the dumping stops. In the case of inorganic
materials (arsenic, lead, chromium and so forth) the duration of the hazard is
essentially infinite--toxic metals will never change into anything besides toxic
metals. (The Geraghty & Miller study found toxic heavy metals at 49 of the 50
sites and found they contaminated groundwater off-site at 40 of the 50 sites.)
When anyone proposes a new landfill and says that liners are being selected
to prevent contamination of the environment, you should ask, (a) How can they
possibly predict all the possible combinations of chemicals that will be created
inside the landfill, producing new combinations of chemicals that will attack
the liners?; and (b) What is the expected duration of the hazard inside the
landfill vs. the expected duration of the liners that have been selected?
If the proponents of a landfill project are honest, these questions will
force them to admit that they are not able to predict the chemicals that will
come in contact with the liner (especially since the chemicals used by industry
change from year to year, and an average of 1000 new chemicals go into
commercial use each year); and they will be forced to admit that the duration of
the hazard (in the case of metals at least) is very great (thousands of years or
longer) whereas the expected lifetime of any human-created material (including
packed clay liners and all FMLs [flexible membrane liners]) is much shorter than
the expected hazard. Leakage is inevitable.
Common sense and available data combine to force a single conclusion: all
landfills will eventually leak. Landfill liners may SLOW the release of
contaminants into groundwater but they cannot PREVENT it. There is no such thing
as a secure landfill.
TOXIC GASES EMITTED FROM LANDFILLS.
A recent report 
from California state government takes a fresh look at a problem that has been
ignored for years: toxic gases released from landfills. Solid waste landfills
and hazardous waste landfills both emit toxic gases into the surrounding air.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) published its opinion back in 1982
that air pollution from landfills is a significant problem but said it would
have to ignore the problem because no one knew how to get a handle on it.
So far as we know, EPA has never said another word on the subject. University
researchers reported almost a decade ago that landfills emit airborne toxins
into the local environment, but until now no one has defined the extent of the
Under California state law (Health and Safety Code Section 41805.5) all solid
and hazardous waste landfills must be tested for toxic gas emissions. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) selected 10 toxic gases for measurement;
they selected these particular gases because they are known to have ill effects
(particularly cancer) on humans who are exposed for extended periods. The ten
toxic gases they tested for are: vinyl chloride, benzene, ethylene dibromide,
ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), trichloroethylene, and
chloroform. In addition, landfill gas samples were also analyzed for oxygen,
nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide.
The CARB summarized their findings this way:
1) One or more of the 10 toxic chemicals could be measured in gases emitted
from 240 out of 356 landfills tested; in other words, 67% of the tested
landfills emitted one or more of the toxic gases.
2) Hazardous waste landfills and municipal solid waste landfills appeared to
be similar in their ability to produce toxic gases.
3) In many cases, but not all, toxic gases escaping from landfills could be
measured at the property line, the legal boundary of the landfill.
4) Methane at concentrations greater than the regulatory limit of 5% was
found to be migrating offsite underground at approximately 20% of the landfills.
Methane is a naturally-occurring gas created by the decay of organic matter
inside a landfill. As methane is formed, it builds up pressure and then begins
to move through the soil, following the path of least resistance; often it moves
sideways for a time before breaking through to the surface of the ground.
Methane is lighter than air and is flammable. If it enters a closed building and
the concentration builds up to about 15% in the air, a spark or a flame is
likely to cause a serious explosion. For this reason, landfill designers
sometimes install a set of pipes full of holes like a swiss cheese to provide a
known pathway for the methane to escape through; such systems are sometimes
successful and sometimes not.
I had the opportunity to
attend Mayor Barletta's presentation on his proposed reclamation area. I
listened to the so-called "experts" and was almost in tears. After I did a
lot of investigation on the 2 materials. I came up with an article from the
August 21, 1997 Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly. It is
rather lengthy. It's title is: A NEW US WASTE STRATEGY EMERGES. It
goes on to say a new strategy for disposal of hazardous materials is emerging in
the US. After years of unsuccessful efforts to gain public acceptance of
waste materials in the oceans, in landfills, and incinerators, frustrated
environmental officials at the federal and state levels now advocate spreading
hazardous materials onto and into land, essentially dispersing dangerous toxins
into the environment, leaving no fingerprints. In Pennsylvania, the state
environmental officials are promoting the "beneficial use" of coal ash and
incinerator ash as a soil amendment, to rehabilitate coal mines and strip-mined
lands. A private firm, Beneficial Ash Management, in Morrisdale,
reportedly supplies the ash, which it gets from "power plants, mid-sized
industries, and paper manufacturers. Professor Barry Sheetz of
Pennsylvania State University, funded by U.S. EPA, is providing the engineering
know-how to harden the toxic ash into cement-like material, which is then placed
in mines and onto strip-mined land. The cement-like material is then
covered with "synthetic soil" and left. Professor Sheetz says he hopes
this provides a permanent solution to the problem of acid mine drainage.
More likely, it promises to provide a cheap, permanent solution for toxic wastes
generated by coal-burning power plants and incinerators as far flung as the
American Ref-Fuel incinerator in Essex County, N.J.: International Paper
Company's plants in Erie, and Lock Haven, PA and the Tobyhanna (PA) Army Depot,
saving each of these facilities the large sums of money that would otherwise be
spent on toxic waste disposal, and absolving them of liability because their
wastes will never again be identifiable or traceable. The address for the
EPA SAYS ALL LANDFILLS LEAK,
EVEN THOSE USING BEST AVAILABLE LINERS
In the FEDERAL REGISTER Feb. 5, 1981, the EPA first stated its opinion that
all landfills will eventually leak:
"There is good theoretical and empirical evidence that the hazardous
constituents that are placed in land disposal facilities very likely will
migrate from the facility into the broader environment. This may occur several
years, even many decades, after placement of the waste in the facility, but data
and scientific prediction indicate that, in most cases, even with the
application of best available land disposal technology, it will occur
eventually." [pg. 11128]
NEW EVIDENCE THAT ALL LANDFILLS LEAK
Starting in the 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] funded research which showed that burying household
garbage in the ground poisons the groundwater. On several occasions, EPA spelled
out in detail the reasons why all landfills leak. (For example, see RHWN
Then in late 1991, after several years of deliberation, EPA chief William
Reilly issued final landfill regulations that allow the continued burial of raw
garbage in landfills. (See
EPA's 1991 regulations require an expensive landfill design: two liners in the
ground and an impervious plastic cover over the landfill after it has been
filled with garbage. This is "state of the art" technology, the very best that
modern engineers can build. However, EPA officials still expect such landfills
to fail and eventually poison groundwater.
As early as 1978, EPA knew why all landfills eventually leak. The main
culprit is water. Once water gets into a landfill, it mixes with the garbage,
producing a toxic leachate ("garbage juice"), which is then pulled downward by
gravity until it reaches the groundwater. Therefore, the goal of landfill
designers (and regulators) is to keep landfills dry for the length of time that
the garbage is dangerous, which is forever.
UNRECOGNIZED CAUSE OF LANDFILL FAILURES.
With 80% of the nation's garbage still being buried in landfills (see
we must ask whether our landfills are as well-designed as can be. One important
and overlooked source of landfill failures is lightning
As most of our readers know, a landfill is a bathtub in the ground. The
bathtub can leak through its bottom, or it can fill up with fluids and leak over
its sides. To prevent this from happening, landfills are now "capped" with clay
or plastic when they are retired from service. The cap is supposed to act as an
umbrella, preventing rain from filling up the bathtub and preventing the
formation of toxic leachate that might pour out the bottom if the bottom leaked.
The cap is the essential element in a landfill's safety design: it keeps liquids
out. When the cap is destroyed, nature will begin to distribute the contents of
the landfill into the local environment, using water as the vehicle for
distribution. Damage ensues.
Lightning packs a tremendous wallop when it strikes the ground. Lightning
bolts last only a few millionths of a second, but they typically involve five
million volts and anywhere from 2,500 to 220,000 amperes of current. Lightning
can bore large holes in the ground where it strikes. Geologists have a name for
holes made by lightning: fulgarites (after the Latin name for lightning, fulgar).
Fulgarites are created when lightning strikes sandy soil; a hole is bored into
the sand and the sides of the hole get so hot (estimated to be 3200 degrees
Fahrenheit, or 1800 degrees Celsius) that the sand melts and forms a glass tube.
A large hole bored by lightning can be eight inches in diameter and can reach to
a depth of 15 feet.
Since lightning can burn a hole eight inches in diameter up to 15 feet deep,
it must be obvious that no plastic liner (1/10 of an inch thick) will deter
lightning in any way whatsoever. The only cap that could work would be a
20-footthick layer of clay. An alternative would be lightning protection.
The National Fire Protection Code requires lightning protection for all
structures containing flammable liquids or gases. The explosive methane gas
generated within a landfill probably meets this specification. To fulfill their
objectives of protecting the environment, landfill caps should be fitted with
lightning protection, just the way military ammunition dumps are protected. Tall
towers with heavy cables strung between them, solidly grounded, are one option.
A 10-acre landfill could be protected by four 250' towers spaced 900 ft. apart.
Such towers would have to meet Federal Aviation Administration regulations for
obstruction lights and standby power supplies, to minimize hazards to aircraft.
Large landfills could not be protected by towers because the towers
themselves would penetrate the cap, destroying its integrity. Such large fills
will need to be entirely covered with heavy, well-grounded steel cages (called
Lightning protection is a well-developed field of engineering. If the
designers, owners and regulators of landfills are serious about protecting the
environment, they will address the hazards of lightning and take the necessary
steps to see that public health is protected from landfill failures caused by
I just copied this article from the
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. After it told of the beneficial uses of FLY
ASH, this part of the article appeared at the bottom.
Producers of fly ash contend that it is harmless and has much
the same properties as soil. However, according to the EPA, fly
ash can also contain heavy metals, including nickel, vanadium,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper,
molybdenum, zinc, lead and selenium. Fly ash disposed at Chisman
Creek, near Norfolk, Virginia, created surface and groundwater
contamination and it was declared a Superfund site in 1983. The
waste has now been stabilized. Fly ash producers blame
situations like Chisman Creek on improper disposal. While
improper disposal is part of the problem, if fly ash was
harmless, it wouldn't be an issue.
In the past fly ash produced from coal combustion was simply
taken up by flue gases and dispersed into the atmosphere. This
created significant environmental concerns and health risks.
These days most power plants are required by law to reduce their
fly ash emissions to less than 1% of ash produced. The remainder
is collected using electrostatic precipitators or filter bags.
This collected ash is either sold for use in the
cement/construction industry or disposed of in ash ponds or land
fill. In recent times the more and more fly ash is used
beneficially - still though, more than 65% of fly ash produced
from coal power stations is still disposed of. This amounts to
approximately 7 million tonnes (Mt) disposed of annually in
Australia, 40Mt in the United States and 100s of millions in
India and China. As a result the disposal of fly ash is a growing
concern for many countries world wide.
The address for the article is:
Prof. Barry Sheetz, one of
the "experts" for this project, was or is funded by the US
EPA, isn't that saying they also know the ASH is bad and a better way to get rid
Speaking of the EPA, I happened to wonder
onto their website looking for more interesting reading material. I came
upon this 226 page document for the remediation of waterways in the US. I
read a few pages and found it very interesting. After all we are being
told River Dredge is safe. Parts of the document reads as follows:
Sediment is the mixture of assorted material that settles in the bottom of a
waterbody. It includes the shells and coverings of mollusks and other
animals, transported soil particles from surface erosion, organic matter from
dead and rotting vegetation and other animals, sewage, industrial wastes, other
organic and inorganic materials, and chemicals. Surface waters in the US receive
discharges of various liquid and solid wastes from three main sources. 1. Point
sources such as municipal and industrial effluents. 2. Non-point sources
such as agricultural runoff, soil entrainment and airborne particles. 3.
Other sources such as spills, contaminated groundwater infiltration and
intentional aquatic dumping. Many of these discharges contain
toxic/hazardous materials that settle and persist in the environment
because of their physciochemical properties. The contaminated sediment
affects human health and the environment and causes losses of resources such as
drinking water. Contaminants typically found in sediment can be classified as
follows: Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), Pesticides, Chlorinated
hydrocarbons, Mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives),
Phthalate esters, Metals, Nutrients, and Miscellaneous, such as cyanides and
I believe we were told the sediment was
harmless! And My, My, this is right from EPA's site.
From the EPA's site another interesting
article. Apparently they had some success on increased vegetation growth
on a PA Superfund site with the use of Sewage/Fly Ash, but it was unknown as to
the long term results, especially as to the mobility of the metals in the
contaminated soil. They used as a study site an old abandoned lead
tailings pile in Desloge, Missouri. Although the fly ash changed the
availability of the metals, primarily to unavailable forms, it increased the ph
of the leachate from the fly ash to 12, in adversed to a ph of 7 in the control
where only the tailings were used. Lead is forming a hydroxide complex and
is actually more soluble. With the increase of the ph the use of
sludge/fly ash would not seem appropriate on a lead tailings site and growing
crops in the mixture was not pursued. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/5246)
According to the Army
Corp of Engineers' own study, brackish and marine dredge material or sludge from
the Delaware River contains at least 128 different contaminants, including
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium and thallium.
More than 100 organic toxins, including dioxins, PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) and other toxic organic chemicals, were also found in samples taken
for the study. (Dante Picciano - Army For A Clean
Environment - in speech to Hazleton residents - April 12, 2005)
If none of these things bother you, then let
them bring this Dredge and Fly Ash in, but if it does, then it's time to do something.
Don't let all these so-called experts baffle you. This is what they want,
they want people who don't understand, or believe them because they are
"EXPERTS". Do some investigating for yourself. Those of you who have
access to the internet, look up RIVER DREDGE or FLY ASH and see what you find,
just like I did. It makes interesting reading. Either a lot of
people on the internet lie or your "EXPERTS" do, Then again there are
people who don't want to fight, because their businesses are in Hazleton and
they are afraid of the repercussions, or because they believe the people in power will
win anyway. That's also want they want, they are waiting for us to give
up, it's for easier them that way.
I apologize for the
length of these articles, but I am showing facts, not fantasy, and if it takes a
whole web site to do that I will. We are not trying to scare our neighbors,
but give them the facts. This is why I included the web addresses for the
articles so they can read them for themselves and make a decision.
As events turn up I will post them here, but
PLEASE THINK, and investigate, before we end up with something more that
we will never be rid of.
If you have any comments or facts that would benefit this
board, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
The comments on this
board are strictly my opinion, not the opinion of any group.
Please don't let this
one get away from you, PLEASE.
Take a look at my other pages.
2001 - 2013
2005 - 2014 Oscette@ptd.net