Officials suggest LCSWMA pay “host fees” to Harrisburg for unrelated projects to avoid incinerator environmental assessment and cleanup
Amid growing concerns that a pre-sale environmental assessment could scuttle or complicate the proposed sale of the Harrisburg incinerator, officials involved in various capacities with the deal appear to be doing their best to ignore or skate around the issue and change the subject.
The unspoken concern is that a thorough environmental assessment has the potential to destroy the planned high-stakes bailout of Harrisburg using Lancaster County bond money.
That’s all the more odd because state law requires an environmental assessment before a permit can be issued for a municipal incinerator.
The Harrisburg Authority is in negotiations to sell its long-financially and -environmentally plagued incinerator to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, or LCSWMA.
With the purchase of the incinerator, LCSWMA plans to become a regional trash authority, with a 20 year agreement to process Dauphin County’s solid waste.
But, before that can happen, Chapter 271 of the Pennsylvania Code, Municipal Waste Management, “§ 271.126 Requirement for environmental assessment,” states, an “application for a municipal waste disposal or processing permit shall include an environmental assessment on a form prescribed by the Department.”
A strict reading of this law, officials fear, may not only trigger an environmental assessment of the incinerator grounds, but also a protracted ‘harms/benefit’ test, akin to an environmental impact statement, that could ensnare the Lancaster and Harrisburg authorities in lengthy environmental litigation and cleanup of the incinerator.
To get around the requirement, officials instead are suggesting LCSWMA “may wind up having to pay some sort of ‘host fee’ to the city of Harrisburg” that may designate money for other environmental projects in the capital city.
Former Harrisburg Receiver David Unkovic first proposed this unusual “host fee” mechanism in his 2012 recovery plan.
Unkovic resigned from the job in early 2012, citing, among other issues, widespread fraud in Harrisburg’s previous bond deals, and pressure from Gov. Tom Corbett’s office to ignore the same.
Unkovic explained in his plan:
“The City (of Harrisburg) and THA (The Harrisburg Authority) have an agreement for the use of Host Fees available to the municipal host of the (incinerator). The current agreement provides for the provision of in-kind and other services to the City from the Authority in lieu of a monetary fee. Under current Commonwealth law, the host fee may also be applied to each ton of refuse and paid to the host municipality as a per ton cash fee.
“The City and THA shall amend the current municipal waste disposal agreement between the City and THA to provide for a monetary payment of the host fee to the City’s General Fund. The proceeds from this host fee shall be used for administrative support and program development through grants and other programs for environmental projects and environmental education projects that benefit the City. The City shall consider the formation of an advisory council to assist in the development of these programs and educational support to ensure that the host fee funds are expended in a manner that benefits the City’s environmental improvement efforts.”
Officials appear to be reading Unkovic’s provisions for ‘host fees’ earmarked for unrelated environmental programs both as a ‘sweetener’ to gain favor for, and approval of, LCSWMA’s offer, as well as a means of distracting attention away from the nettlesome problem of a time-consuming incinerator environmental assessment, and the potential for an expensive cleanup at the site, should dangerous pollution be found.
Under this complicated plan, rather than find or clean up pollution on and off the incinerator site, LCSWMA would pay “host fees” to the City of Harrisburg’s general fund.
One Harrisburg official, off the record, has suggested the “host fee” paid by LCSWMA could be used for diverse projects including a public art advisory board, and “green infrastructure” projects in the city.
As we’ve reported at NewsLanc, documents at the state Department of Environmental Protection reveal that Harrisburg city officials for years illegally processed hazardous waste at the incinerator.
In 2000, an EPA administrator wrote that “there is no doubt that (the Harrisburg incinerator) is one of, and perhaps, the most significant single source of dioxins/furans in the United States.”
In years past, among the biggest advocates of an environmental site assessment at the incinerator was Harrisburg environmental attorney Bill Cluck.
In March 2003, Cluck filed a Notice of Appeal with the DEP and the Harrisburg Authority recounting how the required ‘Form D Environmental Assessment’ paperwork was never filed properly in connection with the incinerator at various times in its troubled history.
Cluck wrote, “According to Section 271.126 of the Department’s municipal waste management regulations, ‘Except as provided in subsection (b), an application for a municipal waste disposal or processing permit shall include an environmental assessment on a form prescribed by the Department.’ 25 Pa. Code Section 271. 126(a). The exceptions listed in subsection (b) do not include applications for permit renewals.”
As such, Cluck wrote at the time, “Issuance of the Renewal was an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable and contrary to law because the applicant did not affirmatively demonstrate the permit application was complete and accurate. Among other reasons, the application did not include a Form D environmental assessment and an operating plan addressing operations during the ten year term of the Renewal.”
The sale of the incinerator, and the issuance of a new permit to LCSWMA, are not stated exemptions to the law requiring an environmental site assessment.
Ironically, environmental lawyer Cluck today is chairman of the Harrisburg Authority.
Cluck is leading secret negotiations to sell the incinerator to LCSWMA.
Bill Cluck, Esq.; Chair of the Harrisburg Waste Authority, to Bill Keisling:
“Let’s set the record and facts straight. The ‘host fee’ is $1/ton of waste processed at the incinerator. It is a statutory requirement under Act 101, 53 P.S. Section 4000.1301. Once the City was no longer the operator of the incinerator, the host fee kicked in. However, former Mayor Reed signed away the fee and in lieu of the dollars going to the city, they were diverted to pay utilities on the city building housing artifacts and the city’s vehicle maintenance center. Receiver Unkovic recognized the inequity and required the Harrisburg Authority and City to amend that agreement and have the host fee go toward environmental projects in the city.
“As for the harms/benefit analysis required for certain transactions involving the incinerator, the statutory $1/ton host fee is not a benefit in that analysis, since it is required by state law.”
Bill Keisling’s response:
“Bill, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I know how hard you’ve been working to right the Harrisburg Authority. I, and others, greatly appreciate your hard work.
“Now, let’s get to the point: when can we expect a thorough environmental assessment at the incinerator, and when can we expect to clean up ‘Mount Ashmore’? Or are we only concerned about making another bond deal, facts be damned? How is that any different from the past?
“Environmental documents clearly show the city of Harrisburg for years processed hazardous waste at the incinerator. A dozen years ago the EPA wrote, ‘there is no doubt that (the Harrisburg incinerator) is one of, and perhaps, the most significant single source of dioxins/furans in the United States.’
“These are long-lived toxins. Where did they go? That’s what a site assessment — on and off the grounds of the facility — will tell us.
“The incinerator malfunctions and massive debt are not the only symbols of bad government on that site. ‘Mount Ashmore’ is every bit a symbol too. We could, for example, ask the EPA to designate the ash field a Superfund cleanup site. But we can’t do that if we’re in denial, and if we don’t ask.
“In a rush to get this bond deal done, legitimate environmental concerns of a lot of people over a lot of years are being ignored, and scoffed at, by both authorities. And that’s too bad.
“If we’re going to do things differently this time, then let’s do it differently. Let’s listen to people’s concerns and make a genuine effort to fix this properly.”