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 htttp://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/actioncenter/alertvolunteer.asp?id=16

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.   However, one abstract does appear to suggest that P. piscicida strains could be starved and revived, and still retain the original pathogenic potential.

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 Landfill:

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 cases (86%).

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 industrial waste."

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 ground.

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.

A recent report [1] 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.[2] 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 problem.

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.

EPA SAYS ALL LANDFILLS LEAK, EVEN THOSE USING BEST AVAILABLE LINERS

www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn037.htm

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 #37, #71, and #116)

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 RHWN #268.) 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.

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. 

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 of it?

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.