Dump The Ash Dump
Opinions
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
The following is a recount
of an experience I had
at our farm in Franklin:
The Suggestion of Environmental Genocide
Recently I advertised a livestock feeder that I hoped to sell on the internet and was
approached by a young fellow that was interested in it. As with most sales of this
nature, the conversation turns to its usefulness and the location that it will be used in.
I was surprised at the proposed location. It was near a landfill closure that I worked
on some years back. As with the landfill closures of that era, they were clay lined with
fused impermeable membranes over the top.
Our conversation started to turn to a more personal nature because of a bumper
sticker I had displayed on my vehicle which simply stated “ Dump the Dump”. I went
on to explain to this young man my opposition to the siting of this proposed landfill
over an aquifer and its potential consequences. I observed a change in his
demeanor, his body seemed to wince for a moment and his eyes looked distant. After
a period of quiet, what seemed a long time but in reality may have been a few
moments, he began to speak softly. He went on to tell me of the difficulty he and his
wife had conceiving a child and when the baby did come, there were some problems.
He also went on to say that his well was contaminated and that the city provided him
with public water. I couldn’t but wonder what emotions a parent would feel knowing
that the water they shared was from a contaminated well close to a landfill. After
listening to his story, it only strengthened my resolve to oppose a landfill in close
proximity to any water source.
I’m sure this incident is not a single occurrence but may be more common than one
would think. The proposal of an ash landfill in Franklin or in any community is a game
of Russian roulette, knowing the outcome is always inevitable; sooner or later the
chamber with the fatal round will present itself.
A Concerned Citizen of Franklin
Hartford Courant Op-Ed - March 21- KEVIN RYAN and EDITH PRAGUE
of an experience I had
at our farm in Franklin:
The Suggestion of Environmental Genocide
Recently I advertised a livestock feeder that I hoped to sell on the internet and was
approached by a young fellow that was interested in it. As with most sales of this
nature, the conversation turns to its usefulness and the location that it will be used in.
I was surprised at the proposed location. It was near a landfill closure that I worked
on some years back. As with the landfill closures of that era, they were clay lined with
fused impermeable membranes over the top.
Our conversation started to turn to a more personal nature because of a bumper
sticker I had displayed on my vehicle which simply stated “ Dump the Dump”. I went
on to explain to this young man my opposition to the siting of this proposed landfill
over an aquifer and its potential consequences. I observed a change in his
demeanor, his body seemed to wince for a moment and his eyes looked distant. After
a period of quiet, what seemed a long time but in reality may have been a few
moments, he began to speak softly. He went on to tell me of the difficulty he and his
wife had conceiving a child and when the baby did come, there were some problems.
He also went on to say that his well was contaminated and that the city provided him
with public water. I couldn’t but wonder what emotions a parent would feel knowing
that the water they shared was from a contaminated well close to a landfill. After
listening to his story, it only strengthened my resolve to oppose a landfill in close
proximity to any water source.
I’m sure this incident is not a single occurrence but may be more common than one
would think. The proposal of an ash landfill in Franklin or in any community is a game
of Russian roulette, knowing the outcome is always inevitable; sooner or later the
chamber with the fatal round will present itself.
A Concerned Citizen of Franklin
Hartford Courant Op-Ed - March 21- KEVIN RYAN and EDITH PRAGUE
It is our opinion that this
proposed site is wrong,
if for no other reason
than it will be located on
top of a Class A
(drinkable as is)
moderate to high-yield
aquifer. The Global
Community has
recognized the need for
clean water. In many
parts of the world, large
corporations are buying
up water resources. It is
arrogant and short-
sighted to put a toxic
landfill over such a
increasingly valuable
resource.
proposed site is wrong,
if for no other reason
than it will be located on
top of a Class A
(drinkable as is)
moderate to high-yield
aquifer. The Global
Community has
recognized the need for
clean water. In many
parts of the world, large
corporations are buying
up water resources. It is
arrogant and short-
sighted to put a toxic
landfill over such a
increasingly valuable
resource.
TO: THE FRANKLIN GROUP
FROM: DAVE HAINES
5/22/08
THOUGHTS WHILE DRIVING (FOR WHAT THEY'RE WORTH)
CRRA AND DEP ARE SCHEDULED TO MEET IN THE NOT TO DISTANT FUTURE. I CAN ONLY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO CLARIFY THE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR A
PROPOSAL. AS I INDICATED BEFORE, I THINK FRANKLIN NEEDS TO GET INTERVENOR STATUS, AND SOMEONE SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO GO TO THAT MEETING. IT'S THE PUBLIC'S
BUSINESS AND SHOULD NOT BE A CLOSED DOOR SESSION. SOMEONE FROM FRANKLIN SHOULD GO TO EVERY MEETING WHERE DEP AND CRRA MEET.
MY THOUGHTS THIS MORNING WHILE IN THE CAR WERE: 1.) THE LANDFILL PROCESS IS PROJECTED FOR 30 YEARS. THE ODDS OF SOMETHING GOING WRONG WILL BE VERY
SLIM IN THE FIRST YEAR, BUT THE ODDS WILL GET SHORTER WITH EACH YEAR OF LANDFILLING. ALL OF THE "ASSURANCES" FOR SAFETY CURRENTLY BEING MADE ARE
CONTINGENT ON TWO PLASTIC LINERS AND A FOOT OF COMPACTED FILL, A LEACHATE DRAINAGE AND HOLDING SITE, AND A WATER CLEANING OPERATION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE LINERS FAIL??? DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE SLUDGE WILL BE THIS YEAR, 10, 20, 30 YEARS FROM
NOW?? WILL IT BECOME POTENTIALLY DAMAGING TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE LINERS. ONLY 1/30TH OF THE AMOUNT AND WEIGHT WILL OCCUR IN THE FIRST YEAR. AFTER
THAT THERE WILL BE A COMPOUNDING FACTOR TO CONSIDER. WHAT HAPPENS 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS OUT IF THE SYSTEM FAILS???
SINCE CRRA IS A QUASI-PUBLIC AGENCY, WILL THEY STILL BE IN BUSINESS, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS FROM NOW. IF NOT, WHICH AGENCY OF THE STATE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAKING AMENDS BASED ON THE CURRENT "ASSURANCES" IF FAILURE OCCURS?? WHAT MAY BE FIXABLE AFTER A YEAR OR TWO WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY MOR DIFFICULT AS TIME
PASSES. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THIS THING WILL NEVER FAIL??? WHILE MANY OF US WILL NOT BE HERE, OUR KIDS, GRANDKIDS AND OTHERS WILL STILL LIVE IN THE AREA. WILL
SPRAGUE HAVE A NEW WATER SUPPLY BY THEN? WILL ANYONE BE REQUIRED TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF 'IT' DOESN'T WORK AS PLANNED???
SHOULD NOT CRRA BE REQUIRED TO POST A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE PERFORMANCE BOND (SAY $300,000,000 WITH A TWO PERCENT PER YEAR ANNUAL INCREASE FOR THEIR 30
YEARS OF PROJECTED OPERATION) IN ADVANCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION OR PREPARATION??
THANKS FOR LISTENING…
FROM: DAVE HAINES
5/22/08
THOUGHTS WHILE DRIVING (FOR WHAT THEY'RE WORTH)
CRRA AND DEP ARE SCHEDULED TO MEET IN THE NOT TO DISTANT FUTURE. I CAN ONLY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO CLARIFY THE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR A
PROPOSAL. AS I INDICATED BEFORE, I THINK FRANKLIN NEEDS TO GET INTERVENOR STATUS, AND SOMEONE SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO GO TO THAT MEETING. IT'S THE PUBLIC'S
BUSINESS AND SHOULD NOT BE A CLOSED DOOR SESSION. SOMEONE FROM FRANKLIN SHOULD GO TO EVERY MEETING WHERE DEP AND CRRA MEET.
MY THOUGHTS THIS MORNING WHILE IN THE CAR WERE: 1.) THE LANDFILL PROCESS IS PROJECTED FOR 30 YEARS. THE ODDS OF SOMETHING GOING WRONG WILL BE VERY
SLIM IN THE FIRST YEAR, BUT THE ODDS WILL GET SHORTER WITH EACH YEAR OF LANDFILLING. ALL OF THE "ASSURANCES" FOR SAFETY CURRENTLY BEING MADE ARE
CONTINGENT ON TWO PLASTIC LINERS AND A FOOT OF COMPACTED FILL, A LEACHATE DRAINAGE AND HOLDING SITE, AND A WATER CLEANING OPERATION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE LINERS FAIL??? DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE SLUDGE WILL BE THIS YEAR, 10, 20, 30 YEARS FROM
NOW?? WILL IT BECOME POTENTIALLY DAMAGING TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE LINERS. ONLY 1/30TH OF THE AMOUNT AND WEIGHT WILL OCCUR IN THE FIRST YEAR. AFTER
THAT THERE WILL BE A COMPOUNDING FACTOR TO CONSIDER. WHAT HAPPENS 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS OUT IF THE SYSTEM FAILS???
SINCE CRRA IS A QUASI-PUBLIC AGENCY, WILL THEY STILL BE IN BUSINESS, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS FROM NOW. IF NOT, WHICH AGENCY OF THE STATE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAKING AMENDS BASED ON THE CURRENT "ASSURANCES" IF FAILURE OCCURS?? WHAT MAY BE FIXABLE AFTER A YEAR OR TWO WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY MOR DIFFICULT AS TIME
PASSES. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THIS THING WILL NEVER FAIL??? WHILE MANY OF US WILL NOT BE HERE, OUR KIDS, GRANDKIDS AND OTHERS WILL STILL LIVE IN THE AREA. WILL
SPRAGUE HAVE A NEW WATER SUPPLY BY THEN? WILL ANYONE BE REQUIRED TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF 'IT' DOESN'T WORK AS PLANNED???
SHOULD NOT CRRA BE REQUIRED TO POST A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE PERFORMANCE BOND (SAY $300,000,000 WITH A TWO PERCENT PER YEAR ANNUAL INCREASE FOR THEIR 30
YEARS OF PROJECTED OPERATION) IN ADVANCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION OR PREPARATION??
THANKS FOR LISTENING…