Approximately 70 persons gathered at the East Hempfield Municipal Building Tuesday evening to hear a report from three members of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and pepper them with questions and comments pertaining to the cleanup of an area to be incorporated into the new location for the Norfolk-Southern railyard.
Any anticipation that the meeting would have a significant influence on the relocation of the railyard was quickly dispelled by panelist Kathy Horvath who read:
“It should be noted that Act 2 is a voluntary program, and this site is being cleaned up voluntarily. DEP did not require this site be cleaned up. Under Act 2, the remediator chooses what contaminants and the media (soil and / or groundwater) they want liability relief for, and also what Act 2 standard is obtained….The [final] report attempts to demonstrate attainment of the Statewide Health standard for the compounds identified in soil, and the Site-Specific standard for the compounds identified in ground water.”
This was not going to be the public hearing for a report concerning the rail yard location feasibility that the neighborhood has clamored for and long been deprived.
Another panelist made an oblique reference to the Lancaster Newspapers misreporting the DEP’s press release.
More importantly there was the issue of 30 drums illegally dumped that were found in one location, 25 filled with what appeared to have been a toxic adhesive or glue. According to attorney Bill Cluck who represents CAARRT, despite it being DEP’s obligation to try to determine the culprits so that the source could be held financially responsible for the cleanup rather than taxpayers who are heavily subsidizing the undertaking, not even the most cursory questions were raised. They were just packed up and shipped to Ohio. Oh well, what is recouping $20 million to $30 million to the tax payers.
After a slip of the tongue when a panelist referred to what will happen after the report was approved which he quickly corrected to if the report approved, another went on to explain that these reports are at most modified, because the work is properly performed under the supervision of qualified engineers.
Apart from the mysterious drums, there was one other piece of minor drama: A member of the audience cited the history of the site from the year 1700 and how the then owner, Henry Muhlenberg, had first identified the bog turtle, now an ‘endangered species.’ The panelists duly noted the possible but unlikely omission of a requirement to do an on-site survey for bog turtles, not that there weren’t ample bog turtles elsewhere which meant, according to the panelist, a variance would almost certainly be provided.
Cluck provided the panel and others with a copy of a five page letter plus exhibits suggesting the following concerns:
1) Failure for executive summary to meet “plain language” requirements of the law.
2) Failure to better investigate the nature and source of the drums that were illegally dumped. (Cluck noted he was told that similar material was often used by printing companies but hastened to say that he wasn’t accusing Donnelly of anything.)
3) Failure by F&M to meet the “public involvement” requirements by F&M and DEP to keep CAARRT in the loop.
4) Unanswered questions about asbestos contained in the materials.
5) Premature release of sponsors of liability for groundwater pollution.
Despite the mindless threats from an official at the commencement of the meeting about ejection of spectators who didn’t follow the rules and possible cancellation of the meeting, the civility of the panel was fully matched by the courtesy of the audience.
In short: The DEP got a whipping, the bog turtle got stomped, and F&M and LGH continued to get away with the civil equivalent of ‘murder.’
