The New Milford Township meeting returned to its accustomed location on October 19th, with a decent sized crowd in attendance.  The format and regulations were applied according to the new normal, since the matter of the incinerator altered what had been a generally short and sparsely attended meeting. 

Mr. Briechle was called upon to give his usual update on the incinerator matter.  He related that he had no updates since the previous week, when a special meeting was held to appoint Liberty Environmental, Inc. as a consultant to the township. 

The meeting was then opened up to township residents who wished to speak.  Pat Birch was the first, and asked them to make a motion to include attorney Mike Ewall on the township's legal team.  He was, she said, ready to urge the case in court, he was experienced, he was an attorney, and she thought it would be a good idea.   Another woman also wanted to question; Mr. Ewall could be in the loop. 

Mr. Briechle replied, thanking them but saying that they had enough lawyers.  He said that attorney Ewall represented a group of the public, and it would be a conflict of interest to have him on the legal team.  He also cited attorney client privilege when they asked if attorney Ewall could see the ordinance.  He felt it was not appropriate. 

In response to the request that Mr. Ewall be kept in the loop, a supervisor noted that he had been kept in the loop. 

Ruth Ralston spoke up, but Mr. Briechle said that he had been told she wasn't in the township.  She contested this.  She was requested to show ID, and it was suggested the tax roll be conducted.  Eventually it was decided that she could speak.  She also asked for Mr. Ewall to be included on the legal team, saying that he had started the ordinance and they had kept it for five months.  She said he was experienced, and that the township had more rights than DEP was saying they had.  She asked people who agreed to stand;  a bunch of those present did so.  One woman spoke up and said that her sister lived in Ben Salem, and attorney Briechle had fought a unit for seven years there and was part of keeping it at bay.  Mr. Briechle said he would talk to Ben Salem's attorney.  

Mr. Briechle also reiterated his view that it would be a conflict of interest per ethical standards for Mr. Ewall to be a part of the township's formal legal team.  The public, he noted, could hire Mr. Ewall if they so chose.  When asked if he could be kept in the loop, Mr. Briechle, opined that to do so would violate attorney client privilege.

Mr. Briechle also made a point that while Mr. Ewall did provide the ordinance, it was ripped apart by DEP.  He and others had issues with it as originally written. 

Jaelynne Goff spoke up and said that she hadn't stood during the earlier informal poll because she agreed that it was a conflict of interest.  Ultimately, she said, it was about DEP and she urged those present to trust the attorneys and the environmental group that had been engaged. 

Mr. Briechle stated that he and Eckert Seamans had sent Mr. Ewall a seven page letter on August fifteenth, addressing questions about his ordinance.  He had never responded to these.  A member of the public rebutted that they knew about this, and that Mr. Ewall had said it would take hours and hours of legal work to do so.  Mr. Breichle said that they had moved on from that ordinance then, to drafting a new one.  He felt Mr. Ewall had two months to address their questions on his ordinance, and to defend it. 

After the initial public comment section ended, some visitors left and the regular meeting commenced.  Mr. Briechle reported on a letter which the township had received from the county.  New Milford Township, he said, had created an agricultural security area in the nineties.   There were some benefits for people who chose to enroll their land in it.  William and Laura Squire had requested to enter land into this program, which Mr. Briechle thought could involve a process including multiple hearings and advertisement of the request.  It also required the creation of an agricultural security area advisory committee to review the proposal and issue a report.  This committee had to have at least three active farmers, one citizen, and one supervisor on it.  The program was an agriculture land preservation program.  Mr. Briechle had reached out to the state, which he said could tell him he was mistaken on the process and requirements.  A man present added some information, saying he had read up on it.  To participate, he said, they would have to have 250 acres,  if they wanted to preserve it 500 acres were required.   He and another farmer present agreed to be on the board if needed. 

Notification had also been received from the county on clean and green rollbacks.  Initially the law had stated that if one acre was changed from agriculture or forest to commercial or industry, preferential treatment would be rolled back on the whole property, regardless of how many acres were changed to industry (such as drilling activities for a gas well).  The law had changed such that only the changed acres were subject to such rollback. 

It was related that DEP had reviewed a document in accordance with the Alternative Remediation provision of department policy, regarding a Southwest Energy violation on Houlihan Road.  This policy addressed spills and releases at oil and gas well sites or access roads.  No additional technical deficiencies were noted.  The response actions taken under this provision did not qualify for the relief of liability. DEP explained to Southwest that if they wanted to take additional actions necessary to meet all requirements, they would need to contact the Regional Program of Environmental Cleanup.

New budget, old sewer, new compressor station, old litigation.  Those were the major topics at the meeting of the Harford Township Supervisors on October 18th.  There were other items, however, with Conrad Owens presiding in the absence of Doug Phelps.  And all of it in barely over an hour.  Whew!

The township’s solicitor, Jamie Hailstone, attended, mostly for the executive session that followed the public meeting.  Executive sessions have been frequent lately; information about them is scant, but most of it probably has to do with various legal issues.  Dale Ferger asked for an explanation of attorney fees of $9,691 on the bill list.  Mr. Owens said that the charges were mostly for the Tyler Lake Road litigation, plus some related to the sewer system management issues.  Both of these matters are covered below.

The Supervisors met twice in prior days to develop a budget for the new year beginning in January, a budget which is now offered to the public for review, for one month.  The budget contemplates no new taxes.  It comes in 4 parts.

The “township budget,” covered by property taxes, earned income taxes, and various fees and such, anticipates spending almost $640,000 next year, up more than $100,000 over 2016.  The biggest chunk of the increase is for “Dirt & Gravel Road Grantwork.”  Expenses for those projects are somewhat ephemeral because they depend on the cooperation of the Susquehanna County Conservation District, which covers most of the cost in any case.  Some of the excess of spending over revenue will come from cash on hand expected at the end of the current year.  (The township has accumulated some $300,000 in surpluses over the past few years.)

The so-called “state” budget is paid for largely from liquid fuel subsidies from the state and covers a large part of the regular road maintenance.  As the township experiments with various types of maintenance procedures, sometimes expenses cannot be allocated to the “state” budget because the state places certain requirements on what it will pay for (“certified” road materials, etc.).  The new “state” budget is projected to show a small surplus at the end of the current year.

The sewer system is supposed to pay for itself, and it usually does.  Next year’s budget expects a slight deficit to be paid from a small store of cash on hand.  But there are larger issues facing the sewer system, so read on.

The fourth part of the budget focuses on the income the township has been receiving from “impact fees” assessed on natural gas operators in the state.  The township has been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from these fees for the past several years.  However, the Supervisors know that what the state giveth, the state can also take away.  So, while the money is available, the township has been spending large amounts to renovate some roads using contractors.  The budget hopes for a payment of over $350,000 next year, but does not break down expenditures in any detail because of the uncertainty of the funding source.  In the past the fund has also been used to cover small overruns in the township and sewer budgets.

One of the items listed in the “impact fee” part of the budget is “JHA Engineering.”  Harford Township signed on with JHA (the former Joe Hunt Associates) a few years ago for building inspection and on-lot sewage services, taking over those responsibilities from the county Council of Governments (COG).  Part of the arrangement with JHA is that Harford uses the company for a wide variety of engineering and consulting services.  JHA has helped out with, for example, the work yet to be done on Tyler Lake Road.  For more on that, read on.  And now JHA will be taking on the Harford Township Sewer System.

Last month the U.S. Attorney in Scranton charged David Klepadlo with violations of the federal Clean Water Act in a 16-point indictment relating to sewer system operations that he managed in Greenfield and Benton Townships, and Nicholson Borough.  The indictment did not mention Harford Township, whose 20-year-old sewer system was originally built, and is still managed, by Mr. Klepadlo’s company.  At the meeting, Mr. Hailstone said that Mr. Klepadlo’s license to operate such systems is now in jeopardy, so the township needs somebody else to step in to run it for Harford.

The founder of JHA, Joe Hunt, attended the meeting and said he was currently certified to operate waste water treatment facilities of any size, and that his education and experience in the field qualifies him to take over the Harford system.  He said that he would be meeting with Mr. Klepadlo and his employees to learn what he needs to know to take over management of the system.

JHA will also need to gather more information about the planning of the major renovation of the sewer system that had just gotten under way when the charges against Mr. Klepadlo were announced.  The $2 million project will be funded in part by loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the state’s Department of Community and Economic Development.  The plans submitted so far have been approved, and a line of credit from Peoples Security Bank has already been used to pay Mr. Klepadlo some $50,000 for work on the submission to DCED.

Mr. Hailstone reported that the dispute with property owners on Tyler Lake Road was settled just days before it was to go to trial in late September.  JHA (again) will be meeting with engineers retained by the property owners to go over details of the work to be accomplished.  The new project will complete work on the road that was stopped when the property owners complained about the scope and design of the original project that was to improve drainage in the area and help protect the lake.  There was no money involved in the settlement, but the work is supposed to be completed in a timely manner.

And that may depend on the availability of materials.  Eastern Industries (the old State Aggregates) is the township’s supplier of DSA (Driving Surface Aggregate), the material developed at Penn State that the township has been using to improve road surfaces over the past couple of years (and is to be used on the Tyler Lake Road project).  The company has said that the material “may not” be available until next Spring.  The Supervisors have a grant to renovate Lower Podunk Road that will cost upwards of $100,000 and includes the application of DSA.  The township will make an effort to secure sufficient material; if it cannot be found, the Lower Podunk and Tyler Lake road projects may have to be delayed or postponed.  In the meantime, the Supervisors accepted the low bid from Barhite Excavating at $1,800 per day to do most of the work on Lower Podunk including use of a paver to lay the DSA.  The work is estimated to take 3-5 days.  The township will be responsible for laying some pipe and providing some labor as “in-kind” contributions to the project.

The Supervisors also contracted with low bidder Rock Estabrook to lay some 40 loads of stone from a nearby quarry on Orphan School Road at the site of a drainage problem.  Estabrook Excavating will do the work for $5,800; the township will pay about $20 per load for the stone.

The Supervisors reviewed plans for two projects under consideration by the county Planning Commission.  One is a saw shop at a stone yard on Fair Hill Road, which requires sewage planning handled through JHA.

The other will be a new natural gas compressor station to be built by DTE Energy on Tingley Lake Road near Sweets Chapel corner at the site of the former Winemiller model airplane field.  The review package included a large collection of maps and drawings, but the Supervisors concluded that, since the county has ultimate jurisdiction over the development, they could not affect the project much unless there were significant objections.  And since the only person with property in the neighborhood at the meeting who might have an objection was this writer – who has no objection – they moved along without further comment.

Most other items on the agenda were set aside for the time being.  Supervisor Sue Furney said that she was primarily interested in getting the routine annual road maintenance completed before winter weather closes in.  These items included:

• a request by a new tenant at a property on Foltz Road who wanted the road widened slightly to allow his truck tractor to pass more easily – dozer work would cost about $1,000;
  
  
• a recommendation by Roadmaster Jim Phelps to rent a “side dozer” with operator for a week (at a cost of about $3,800) as a demonstration of what such a machine could do to help with drainage problems;
  
  
• a pending decision to hire at least one more full-time employee; Roadmaster Phelps said that only one candidate so far has returned a phone call, and will be interviewed soon;
  
  
• a pending decision about renting versus buying a roller; Ms. Furney expressed a preference for continuing to rent;
   
• should the township purchase more calcium chloride?  Ms. Furney said she would prefer to hold off on that now, since the township already has some in stock, and much wouldn’t be needed until next Spring.

The Township received a letter from the Susquehanna County Conservation District, signed by District Manager Jim Garner, announcing that Harford Township has been chosen the District’s “Outstanding Dirt, Gravel and Low Volume Roads Cooperator of the Year.”  Along with the honor comes an invitation for 4 representatives to attend the annual banquet in November at the Montrose VFW.

And finally, the Supervisors were asked once again to consider a resolution offered by something called the “Susquehanna Clean Air Network,” that would express opposition to the industrial waste incinerator proposed for New Milford Township.  Jacob Rosen, Co-chair of the organization, pleaded with the Supervisors to adopt the resolution, or something like it, at least to express solidarity with opponents of the project.  Attorney Hailstone didn’t advise his clients one way or another, only remarking that it “doesn’t do anything” and appeared to be something of a “political statement.”  The Supervisors took no action on it, but Mr. Rosen and Mr. Ferger asked that it remain on the agenda for next month.

And no, there is no word on a new post office for Harford.

You have a month to comment on the township’s budget for 2017.  You can offer your comments on that – or anything else – at the Supervisors’ next public meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, beginning at 7:00pm at the Township office on Route 547.  Harford does not offer food or drink at its meetings, but the orange cupcakes were delicious.  Thanks, Sue.

Imagine that many years ago in a late-night session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly a law had been passed to make it illegal to chew gum and walk at the same time. No reporters were around. There was no internet. Few legislators had read the bill before it was passed. The public, as well as the authorities charged with enforcement, never got the memo on the new law, or just maybe it got lost in an avalanche of legislation. No one can possibly know all the laws, and no one can even count the number of laws that govern us.

With the above context in mind, consider the recent circumstances under which Susquehanna Community School District officials find themselves. SCSD officials were recently apprised of a 1949 law passed by the General Assembly. The state's school code calls for a "licensed medical provider" to authorize the prescription; but-and this is the hang-up-the State Board of Nursing declares that the "licensed medical professional" must be Pennsylvania-licensed. Because of that star-crossed complexity it is verboten for school nurses to administer medications counter to the State Board of Nursing's diktat. A New York State doctor's orders cannot be carried out (by SCSD's nurse) unless that NY doctor also holds a Pennsylvania medical license.

With SCSD being a border school district, and the school campus being a mere four miles from the state line, it is not at all unusual for many families to see doctors north of the border. In addition rural Northeastern Pennsylvania routine has few specialists. Medical specialists in Syracuse, in New York City, and in New Jersey often see patients from this area. Routine practice of the District, in the past, was to administer medication regardless of the prescribing authority's state licensure, so long as the doctor was licensed.

Former routine procedure is now to being consigned to the dust bin-and SCSD's revision to Policy 210, passed at the October 19 school board meeting effects this change. The school district, now informed of the legal status, had no discretion as to compliance. Non-compliance with the law would leave the district open to enforcement actions and revocation of the school nurse's licensure.

District Superintendent Bronson Stone is currently overseeing transition to compliance. Mr. Stone noted that a grace period, until December 2nd, has been established to bring the District into full compliance. This grace period will give parents a chance to find health care providers with Pennsylvania licenses to replace their children's current providers for whom the school's nurse may not dispense medication.

Superintendent Stone expressed his frustration that no compromise could be reached. Oh, and as a reminder, chewing gum while walking, as well as while sitting or standing, is also not permitted-at least while on school grounds.

PERSONNEL ACTIONS

Susquehanna Community School District Board Directors took the following personnel actions during their regular meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2016.

Approved hiring the following: Tiffanie Wolf - Girls JH Basketball clock for the 2016-17 season; Tiffanie Wolf - Track Helper for the 2017 season; Christen Beamer - Boys JH Basketball scorekeeper for the 2016-17 season.

Approved, pending all appropriate clearances, hiring of the following: Mary Kay Culnane, RN - Substitute Nurse for the 2016-17 school year; Kayla Day - Substitute Teacher for the 2016-17 school year; Charles Towner - JV/Varsity Boys Basketball Scorekeeper for the 2016-17 season.

Approved, pending all appropriate clearances, the following Volunteers: Julie Burns - School volunteer for the 2016-17 school year; David Bell Boys Basketball for the 2016-17 season; Dave Benson - Elementary Wrestling for the 2016-17 season; Wes Parks and John Dininny - Boys Grades 5 & 6 Basketball for the 2016-17 season.

Approved as a substitute driver: Terry Collins.

Approved the following resignations: Luke Falletta - JV/Varsity Boys Basketball Scorekeeper; Charles Towner - JH Boys Basketball Scorekeeper; Raymond Testa - Varsity Boys Basketball Clock and JH Girls Basketball Clock.

NOTE TO READERS: The phrase "pending all appropriate clearances" is directly linked to state law, effective January 1, 2015, requiring a heightened level of investigative background checks for all volunteers, district employees, and contractors.

Attendance at the various public meetings about the incinerator proposed for New Milford Township has been dwindling gradually over the past couple of months.  But the crummy weather on October 22nd didn’t stop 30-40 people from coming out in the late afternoon to hear what Dr. Michael A. McCawley had to say.  The event also drew a TV crew from Channel 16 to the auditorium at the Montrose High School.

Dr. Michael A. McCawley

Dr. McCawley went to a lot of trouble to get here, driving all the way from his home in West Virginia.  He was familiar with the territory: born himself in Washington, DC in a family of Marine Band musicians, his kin are originally from Scranton, and he used the affinity of Scranton and pierogies as a metaphor to illustrate some of his points.

A professor and interim chair of the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences at West Virginia University (WVU) in Morgantown, Dr. McCawley earned a PhD in Environmental Health from New York University.  He worked for more than 27 years with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  He has conducted research in many parts of the world, publishing prolifically on a variety of topics in environmental health, with a focus on air quality.

The second in a series focusing on the controversial incinerator project, the program was sponsored by the League of Woman Voters of Susquehanna County, which promises a third featuring Wilma Subra, president of her own environmental consulting company, the date and venue yet to be announced.  Speaking for the League, and introducing the program’s agenda and featured speaker, League Director Julanne Skinner said that the developer, Tyler Corners LLP, was invited to participate but declined, although a Tyler Corners representative was said to be in attendance.

Dr. McCawley clearly demonstrated a winning classroom technique, combining a rigorous and logical progression with humor and plain speaking to outline a talk entitled “The ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of a Baseline Public Health Study,” but which he described as a version of the Public Health 101 course he teaches at WVU.  The lighting in the auditorium wasn’t ideal for his slides, and there was no microphone to help him, so he invited the smaller crowd to gather around him at the foot of the proscenium for a more intimate colloquy.

He began with a brief elaboration of his background, describing his work studying a similar “hazardous waste” incinerator built the early 1990’s in economically depressed East Liverpool, Ohio just across the Ohio River from West Virginia and not far from Morgantown.  He advised the West Virginia governor about that project, and, having taken a position as an outspoken opponent, disqualified himself from much further scientific objectivity about it.  In fact, while his talk in Montrose focused on the scientific data, it was clear by the conclusion that he had little sympathy for what he characterized as inept government regulators.  He urged listeners to make their views known.  “The government needs to know what you think” in order to determine policy, he said.

Beginning with elementary terminology of epidemiology, and describing himself as an “industrial hygienist,” Dr. McCawley quickly entered deeper waters with a chemistry lesson on dioxin, and some physics in the description of “ultrafine particles” (sometimes known as “nanoparticles”).

He said that “you get dioxin when you burn things.”  Burning organic materials (containing carbon) in the presence of the common halide chlorine results in the formation of a “volatile organic compound” known familiarly as dioxin, of which there are 17 types.  Dioxin was the primary component of “agent orange,” used as a defoliant during the war in Vietnam, and is related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  Although early determinations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (and thus of the United Nations) found “no definitive links to increased incidence of cancer,” more recent science has concluded that dioxin is supremely toxic in even the smallest concentrations so that the emission “standard” for dioxin has fallen over time.

Unfortunately, however, there is a known pervasive “background” level of dioxin which can be produced by natural combustion of virtually any organic material.  Obvious sources include forest fires, or burning of wood of any kind.  Dioxin formation is most “efficient” at temperatures around 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit), but can also be generated at higher or lower temperatures.

Dioxins accumulate in fatty tissues in animals, including humans; mammary glands are particularly vulnerable, so that milk can contain concentrations of the compounds.  Of course epidemiologically the incidence of cancers related to dioxins will vary with the level of exposure.  Dr. McCawley showed a map illustrating the known distribution of dioxins in the United States.  Pennsylvania is already in an area of highest concentration.

Moving on to the oft-mentioned issue of “nanoparticles,” Dr. McCawley said that they are defined as particulate solids less than 0.1 micrometers in diameter.  They are so small – much smaller than the diameter of a human hair – that they are able to penetrate the bodies of cells, causing inflammation.  Ultrafine particles are not currently regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Dr. McCawley excoriated the U.S. government, and especially the EPA (overseers of all environmental regulation in the country, through regulatory agencies in each state – the Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania) for basing policy on science that is more than 60 years old.

Dr. McCawley said that EPA has issued “guidance” that the design and construction of incinerators like the one proposed for Susquehanna County should be preceded by the collection and analysis of 2 years of weather and other data for the proposed location.  The “guidance,” however, is not a regulation, and the EPA has never required it, not even for the East Liverpool facility.

In Europe, the standards for particulate emissions are much more rigorous.  There the major source seems to be diesel engines.  In this country, diesel engines in trucks, locomotives – and in natural gas compressor stations that use diesel engines of locomotive size – are a similar source of nanoparticles.

If sources of dioxins and ultrafine particulates are so common, he was asked, then would stopping the incinerator project make much of a difference?  “Do we have bigger fish to fry than the incinerator?” asked one.  Dr. McCawley said that an incinerator would be a minor contributor in comparison to the activities related to the natural gas industry in our area.  On the other hand, he said, “another source … [pause] … is another source.”  He said that, while the science about the dangers has improved, so has the technology for mitigating the consequences.  There are only two ways to minimize an incinerator’s emissions: very high constant temperature, and capture of the remnants.

In any case, he said, governmental policy in these areas involves determining the level of risk such a facility poses, and the level of risk the community is willing to accept.  So, while Dr. McCawley began his presentation as a scientist, he clearly concluded as a citizen with a concern for the public health, the focus of his professional and academic careers.

Tyler Corners developers promise that the proposed “industrial park” and accompanying “industrial waste incinerator” they want to build in New Milford Township will provide jobs for the community.  It already has: the township has been hiring armed security guards at $30 an hour to help keep order at its meetings since the project came to light, last summer.

So far this year, New Milford Township has also accumulated over $15,000 in legal expenses directly related to the controversial project, with lots more to come.  Two months ago, the township Supervisors hired an outside law firm to help solicitor Michael Briechle in the effort to draft an ordinance that many hope will block the project.  And at a special meeting on October 13th, at Mr. Briechle’s request, they hired a consulting firm, Liberty Environmental, Inc., of Reading, to provide additional expertise at a cost of up to $5,000.

All of the effort and expense so far has been directed toward developing a “clean air” ordinance that might protect the community in the event that such a facility is eventually built.  It is yet unclear, however, just who has jurisdiction in matters of environmental regulation in New Milford Township.

The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the governor’s Office of General Counsel seem to think that neither the municipality nor the county have any role to play in environmental regulation.  Other interpretations seem to allow a local municipality to enact regulations as long as they are more stringent than state or federal law.  There has been no estimate of the potential costs of enforcing such an ordinance.  No one is even certain just what might be the result of a tug-of-war in court between DEP, local regulators, and developers.  In Mr. Briechle’s words, they are working in “uncharted territory.”

A model ordinance drafted by Mike Ewall, co-director of Energy Justice Network, a non-profit environmental organization that focuses on issues like this, was reviewed in detail by Mr. Briechle and his associates, and found wanting.; that effort “did not work out in any way, shape or form,” and was “unworkable,” said Mr. Briechle.  At the October meeting of the township Supervisors on the 19th, Mr. Briechle said that he had submitted a package of questions to Mr. Ewall hoping to clarify what Mr. Briechle considers some of the ordinance’s “significant” shortcomings, but had as yet received no adequate response.

That didn’t seem to matter to a group of people attending the scheduled October meeting who stood in unison to support a move to “add Mr. Ewall to the legal team” drafting the ordinance.  Mr. Briechle responded by saying, “I think there’s enough lawyers on this” already.  He said that he could only advise his clients, the township Supervisors, who could in any case decide otherwise.  However, he said that as an advocate for the opposition, Mr. Ewall would present a potential “conflict of interest” and a challenge to legal ethics.  He said that opposition groups are, of course, free to engage Mr. Ewall to represent them at hearings that are sure to be held if the project goes forward.

The ordinance under development is expected to establish regulations that would govern the operation of a facility like the proposed incinerator, in an effort to protect the health of the surrounding community.  Nevertheless, Mr. Briechle noted, as he has before, that it “doesn’t mean that this thing won’t be built. As long as [the developers] follow the regulations,” the project cannot be legally blocked.

For as long as the incinerator project is in play, the costs – to the New Milford Township budget, and to the goodwill of the community – will continue to mount, and the security guards will stand by to ensure that passions do not spill over into violence.