Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The ‘Horror Story’ of Hazardous Waste in a Small Pennsylvania Town

News Feed
Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.Read Part I of this story here.YUKON, Pa.—When government inspectors arrived at the hazardous waste landfill here in 2023, they found themselves in a barren and alien landscape carved from western Pennsylvania’s green countryside.As they documented operations at Max Environmental Technologies, they climbed fields of blackened waste and photographed pits, mud, debris, stained walls and unlabeled storage containers. Their images offer a startling—and largely hidden—juxtaposition to the rolling hills, horse paddocks and chicken coops around the 160-acre site. What the inspectors captured confirmed the worst fears of Yukon’s residents, who have blamed the landfill for serious health impacts and called on regulators to intervene for years.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found rusted open containers of waste, clogged pipes and a containment building used to store untreated hazardous waste “in pretty significant disrepair.” They watched as rainwater mixed with that waste and flowed from the damaged building. “There was a hole in the roof and it was raining during the inspection,” said Jeanna Henry, chief of the air, RCRA and toxics branch in the enforcement and compliance assurance division of the EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region. RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates hazardous waste. The landfill accepts industrial waste like contaminated soils, acids and dust, as well as waste generated by the oil and gas industry that contains heavy metals and radioactive materials. Pennsylvania is the country’s second-largest producer of natural gas, and much of the industry’s solid waste ends up at landfills such as this one.After its March 2023 inspection, EPA alleged Max Environmental had failed to “minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste” at its Yukon site; failed to submit 26 required discharge monitoring reports; failed to report all sampling results of the waste the company had processed, or “treated,” to make it non-hazardous; failed to provide adequate training for employees; and failed to properly operate and maintain the facility in general, including leaks, damage and deterioration. Government inspectors conducted sampling at the Max Environmental landfill in October 2023 in Yukon, Pa. Credit: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection“The treated hazardous waste was not meeting the land disposal restriction requirements. It was actually still a hazardous waste, and samples that we took out of the landfill showed the same thing,” Henry said. “That’s very significant. So we have concerns that the treatment that Max is performing is not adequate.”Carl Spadaro, the environmental general manager at Max Environmental, said initial testing of its treated waste showed compliance “about 90 percent of the time,” which he called “consistent” with historical results in a statement to Inside Climate News.“Any treated waste that does not pass initial testing has always and continues to be re-treated until it meets required standards. This kind of practice is common in the hazardous waste management industry,” Spadaro said.During EPA’s March 2023 visit to the landfill, inspectors found that treated samples exceeded standards for cadmium, lead and thallium, a tasteless, odorless metal that was once used as a rodenticide but was banned because of its toxicity. Thallium can come from materials released by the oil and gas industry and a few other sectors.In 2024, EPA issued administrative orders under RCRA and NPDES, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, that require Max Environmental to fix problems inspectors found. The RCRA order temporarily halted disposal of hazardous waste on the site—that work has now restarted—and mandated that the company hire an approved third-party contractor to make repairs and test treated waste.In a November interview, Henry said the landfill was meeting its deadlines under the RCRA order but was not yet in compliance with its permit under the hazardous-waste law.Spadaro told Inside Climate News in late December that the company is “in compliance with our permits.” But on Jan. 16, the EPA said that was not the case: “Max is not currently in compliance with either RCRA or NPDES permits related to the Yukon site.”“We take this very seriously. There are significant violations at this facility,” Henry said. “Our mission is to protect human health and the environment. We do want to ensure that the residents have access to clean drinking water and their land is not being contaminated.”Lauren Camarda, a spokesperson at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said the state agency has “worked collaboratively” with the EPA on compliance and enforcement actions related to Max Environmental. “DEP will continue to support the EPA, which is the lead environmental agency on the consent orders, and will continue to inspect the facility to ensure MAX is in or comes into compliance with applicable laws and addresses the issues identified in the consent orders,” she said in a statement.Since those orders were issued in April and September 2024, residents have noticed a change in the landfill’s operations. “They have these great big spotlights that light up the facility. I haven’t noticed lately that they’ve been turned on,” said Debbie Franzetta, a longtime Yukon resident. She said she has observed less noise, dust and light in the last year.This is not the first time the government has cited the company and its predecessor for wrongdoing. From the late 1980s onward, the DEP noted violations at the site on more than 110 occasions, but little seemed to change. Given this history, residents are skeptical of the government’s commitment. As the Trump administration lays off hundreds of EPA employees and plans to roll back environmental regulations, what will happen to the agency’s orders for the Yukon landfill is a question mark.“I think they should close it,” Franzetta said of the site. But she worries about what would come next. “One of my greatest fears is that if that happens, they’re just going to get out of Dodge, is my comical way of saying things. But it’s not any laughing matter, believe me.”A Continuous Hive of IndustryA few minutes from the tangle of off-ramps where the Pennsylvania turnpike meets I-70 about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh, Yukon emerges as a cluster of homes and farms set on sloping Appalachian hills. Big yards are filled with tractors and trampolines.“This is really the heart, the fire hall back there,” said Stacey Magda, the managing community organizer at the Mountain Watershed Association, a local nonprofit that works to protect the Youghiogheny River watershed and has fought for stricter enforcement of the regulations governing the Max Environmental landfill.Magda sat in the passenger seat as her coworker, Colleen O’Neil, steered the MWA truck past the volunteer fire department’s nondescript building where they often hold meetings and through the area’s winding roads, the tree line bright with the copper foliage of October.Magda describes herself as someone with “roots stretched deep in the Pennsylvania dirt.” She grew up in a small town in the central part of the state and came to love the rivers and trails of the Laurel Highlands, a region of southwestern Pennsylvania that includes this county, Westmoreland.The drive through the community took her past heaps of coal spoil, where she said kids liked to ride bikes, and the ancient-looking stone ruins of the old coal company. Mining gave the town its name; one of the mines the landfill was built on top of is called “Klondike.” Yukon once lay at the center of a “continuous hive of industry”; a local history from 1906 describes a valley of hamlets in Westmoreland County where “manufacturing of almost all kinds is carried out” and “from almost every hill, coal mines, shafts, tipples may be seen in every direction.” Hundreds of coke ovens, burning coal, filled the horizon with smoke.In the early 20th century, the valley was roiled by a mining strike that lasted for more than a year and involved 10,000 miners protesting for better wages and an eight-hour workday. The strikers, many of them Slovakian immigrants, were defeated. In the Catholic cemetery next to the landfill, you can see this heritage in generations of chiseled Eastern European names. Except for the distant rumble of truck traffic on the highways, the valley was quiet as O’Neil and Magda drove, the sky a sharp blue.But that extractive past isn’t truly gone; it’s buried in the layers of the Max Environmental landfill. From coal mining and steel manufacturing to oil and gas drilling, the story of the landfill mirrors Pennsylvania’s.“There’s a lot of pride in this town about being a town where industry and coal mining is a part of their heritage,” Magda said, “but having Max Environmental come to town has been a whole different kind of side of industry that’s been really brutal on the people that live here. And it’s been going on for so long, over 40 years now.”A home beside the cemetery has two banners hanging out front. One is crammed with red and black text. “No more hazardous waste in our backyards,” it says, listing the violations found at Max Environmental by the EPA and the DEP in recent inspections. “No more excuses! No more chances! Shut down Max and clean it up!” The second sign is more concise: “Trump 2024: F— Your Feelings.”Some days the landfill’s outfall at Sewickley Creek, a tributary of the Youghiogheny River where treated wastewater is released, is barely dripping. But on other days, it foams and smells. “When the pipe is really full and running, it has a very yellow tinge and has a very strong effluent smell,” said Eric Harder, the Youghiogheny Riverkeeper at the MWA. “The most noticeable change is the amount of foam that is created where the discharge dumps into Sewickley Creek.”To Harder, his observations at the outfall and the monthly testing done by the MWA show that Max Environmental is still not doing enough to meet the standards outlined in its permits. EPA’s testing also shows violations for four of Max Environmental’s 10 total outfalls at Yukon between 2021 and 2024. As of January 2025, Outfall 001, the one at Sewickley Creek, was listed as non-compliant or in violation for more than 15 kinds of water pollution, including oil and grease, zinc, cyanide and cadmium.The Concerned Residents of the YoughThe MWA is only the most recent local group to call for change at the landfill. “Prior to us, residents in Yukon have been working on the issue of Max Environmental for many years, and they’ve been saying the same thing over and over and over again,” Magda said.In the 1980s, residents worried about the health impacts of the landfill, then known as Mill Service and under different ownership, formed a grassroots citizens’ group called CRY, for Concerned Residents of the Yough. Diana Steck was one of the founding members. When she moved to Yukon in 1978, she did not know about the landfill’s existence, though she noticed an orange glow in the sky near her house on some nights, and sometimes the air outside smelled terrible. Steck said she began to get frequent respiratory infections, coughs and hives. She developed joint pain and muscle weakness. Her infant son was stricken with nosebleeds, ear infections and asthma. Her daughter had seizures. Her husband came down with a chronic rash. Steck’s childhood asthma returned. She would later be diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, an autoimmune disease.It was only after reading a newspaper article about the landfill that she wondered if the health problems she and her family were experiencing could be connected to pollution. Steck was a nurse, and she set out to investigate the possible impacts of chemical exposure from the site. What she read convinced her that it was the cause of her family’s problems since coming to Yukon.Later, going door to door in her neighborhood with a petition about the landfill, Steck discovered she was not alone. “One street, almost every home, somebody had cancer. There were so many kids that were sick with asthma, chronic rashes, the nosebleeds, frequent infections, a lot of neurological problems, Parkinson’s, seizures, things like that,” she said. “I just couldn’t believe it.”Steck and the members of CRY held demonstrations and press conferences, requested state records, traveled to the state capital, fundraised and wrote letters to regulators and politicians. They sought help from environmental and public health experts outside Pennsylvania, including Lois Gibbs, the organizer who fought to raise awareness about pollution at her home in Love Canal, where her children’s elementary school had been built on top of a toxic landfill.None of it seemed to make a difference. “It was so frustrating,” Steck said. “I thought in my heart that if somebody elected to public office heard a mother telling them that this facility was making her kids sick, that they would shut it down, clean it up, and that would be the end of it. I was raised to think that the government’s there to protect you. Well, so much for that.” Steck said she was told by an EPA official in the 1980s that Yukon had been “deemed as expendable.” “She told me, ‘The waste has to go somewhere.’ Those were really hard words to hear,” she said.In 1990, members of CRY filed a lawsuit against the then-owner of the landfill alleging that residents “have suffered severe and substantial impairments to their health, property damage, damage to their livestock and pets.” According to CRY’s litigation records, housed at the University of Pittsburgh, the lawsuit was abandoned by the group in 1994 for financial reasons.Eventually, Steck said, her declining health forced her to move about 10 miles away from Yukon and resign from the group she had helped to found, but she continues to advocate for change at the landfill. “If you have a polluter like Max who is handling some of the most dangerous solid waste you can create in the eastern part of the United States, they should really be on top of their wastewater treatment system,” Harder said.The danger to residents and the environment isn’t just from one exceedance, he added, but from “the cocktail of all those exceedances mixed into one outfall.” Harder said he has seen toy shovels and pails on the shoreline downstream of the pipe.“Personally, I wouldn’t let my kids play in the water there.”John Stolz, a professor of environmental microbiology at Duquesne University, echoed Harder’s concerns. Stolz has accompanied Harder to Sewickley Creek to sample the water. “I was shocked at what the discharge was,” he said.Conductivity is used as an indicator of water quality, measuring how electricity moves through liquids, and changes can indicate increases in pollution. Stolz’s reading of 20,000 microsiemens was far beyond the EPA’s typical range for rivers in the U.S. of 50 to 1,500. It’s double the number the EPA gives for typical industrial water.After an October 2023 inspection, Spadaro emailed Sharon Svitek, program manager at DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management, to ask if the visit was prompted by “a request from the Mountain Watershed Association.”“Can you shed some light on why DEP sent a small army of people to conduct waste sampling at our Yukon facility today?” he asked in an email later released through a public records request. Spadaro called the inspection “unnecessarily disruptive to our operations” and said the company should have been given a “heads up.”Spadaro also asked why DEP had given the association a copy of the EPA’s July 2023 report about an earlier inspection of the landfill. “We don’t know why DEP would do that especially since it is an EPA document,” he wrote.DEP’s Svitek explained that the Mountain Watershed Association had obtained the document through an informal file review and the department was required to comply because it is a public record. The MWA later published the document on its website. Svitek clarified that the inspection was requested by DEP’s central office and had been used as a training opportunity for new employees.When news of the EPA’s inspection and consent orders reached the Mountain Watershed Association and Yukon residents, there were mixed feelings.“Everyone was validated. It was this moment of, ‘My gosh, every single person’s instinct was right,’” Magda said. “And that was horrifying.”“I was a 30-year-old mom when I was the most active, and I fought so hard and almost died. I never, ever thought that, here I am, at age 70, I’d still be in this fight.” She paused. “I just want to see justice done.”In 2022, at a hearing related to the company’s permit application to expand the landfill site, the testimony of resident Misty Springer transported Steck to when she was also a young mother trying to persuade the state government to acknowledge her family’s struggles.Springer said she had suffered six miscarriages after being exposed to runoff from the landfill. She had a question for the DEP: “How many people on your block have cancer? How many people in your town? Because I bet your town is bigger than mine, and I bet you my town has more people with cancer than yours.”Driving on Millbell Road, a narrow street that runs along the northern boundary of the landfill, Magda ticked off the cancers and illnesses of each home’s inhabitants. At least one of the houses sat empty.The MWA’s involvement has brought some residents a renewed sense of optimism. “I kind of gave up on the whole deal, until these kids from the Watershed got involved,” said Craig Zafaras, who has lived in Yukon for decades. “I commend them for their effort.”There is an easy affection between Magda, who is in her thirties, and the older residents she’s come to know through her work. She looks out for them, jokes with them, walks them to their cars.But rallying the town to speak out against Max Environmental has been difficult. Distrust in any information about the landfill is high. Residents are unconvinced of the government’s promises, and wary of hope. For so many of them, it has been a very long road.When Magda knocks on doors to tell residents about the next meeting or hearing, just as the women of CRY used to do, she has been laughed at by people who ask her, “What are you going to do about it?”“People have gotten older, and a lot of the community has died, and people just get discouraged,” said Debbie Franzetta, the longtime Yukon resident. “It’s kind of like banging your head against the wall. You knock on doors to try to get people to come to meetings. You spend the time to go and write letters, and nothing really comes of it.”Despite the obstacles in her path, Magda remains resolute: “I can tell you, we’re never going to give up.”“Our Battle Against the Dump”Residents wonder what will happen to the site and its six decades’ worth of waste. In 1985, the state shut down disposal at the Yukon site because of leaks and failure to abide by new rules governing waste, but the next year, Pennsylvania’s environmental protection agency approved a permit for expansion. Opened in 1988 and covering 16.5 acres, the Yukon site’s Landfill 6 is the last active impoundment and is nearing capacity.In 2024, the company estimated the impoundment would be filled by 2026. Max Environmental had planned a new expansion that would add space for more than 1 million tons of waste, but in 2023 it withdrew the permit application following resistance from residents and environmental groups, saying it would resubmit the application “at a later date.”Spadaro said the company withdrew because it did not have enough time to respond to comments from state regulators. “DEP has a very restrictive review timeline for new commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal permits,” he said.Spadaro said Max Environmental has “not scheduled any other plans for expansion at this time.” “We are focused on addressing all items in EPA’s consent orders,” he said.“EPA has no plans of going anywhere,” said Henry, the official at the EPA. “We’re going to be focused on this facility for quite some time.”She gave that interview in the waning months of the Biden administration, and it is unclear how the EPA will approach regulating Max Environmental and sites like it under the new Trump administration. EPA funding and staff have been early targets of its efforts to dismantle federal agencies, and 388 employees were cut in mid-February amid a push for large-scale layoffs and resignations. All of that could make it more difficult for the EPA to keep its focus on Max Environmental.In a 1998 scholarly article, Dan Bolef, an academic and activist who was involved with CRY, described the “torments” of Melbry and Tony Bolk, whose farm lay across the road from the landfill. The Bolks saw “their health deteriorate, their herd of cows strangely sicken and die, their rural world of peace and security shattered by the noxious effects of the dump,” he wrote. For Bolef, who died in 2011 , Yukon’s experience had become a “horror story,” an endless montage of people who tried to fight back but got sick, moved away or gave up, defeated by the intractable landfill. “What, then, is one to do? How are we to react when our community suffers?” he asked. “There is nothing left for us to do but continue the struggle.”By 1998, the site had been open for more than 30 years. Bolef echoed a sentiment that would sound familiar to Yukon’s residents today, 27 years later. Despite the impression locals had been given that the landfill would soon run out of space, he wrote, it increased its operations, even as the number of residents dwindled around it.“In our battle against the dump,” he wrote, “the dump usually wins.”

Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.Read Part I of this story here.YUKON, Pa.—When government inspectors arrived at the hazardous waste landfill here in 2023, they found themselves in a barren and alien landscape carved from western Pennsylvania’s green countryside.As they documented operations at Max Environmental Technologies, they climbed fields of blackened waste and photographed pits, mud, debris, stained walls and unlabeled storage containers. Their images offer a startling—and largely hidden—juxtaposition to the rolling hills, horse paddocks and chicken coops around the 160-acre site. What the inspectors captured confirmed the worst fears of Yukon’s residents, who have blamed the landfill for serious health impacts and called on regulators to intervene for years.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found rusted open containers of waste, clogged pipes and a containment building used to store untreated hazardous waste “in pretty significant disrepair.” They watched as rainwater mixed with that waste and flowed from the damaged building. “There was a hole in the roof and it was raining during the inspection,” said Jeanna Henry, chief of the air, RCRA and toxics branch in the enforcement and compliance assurance division of the EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region. RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates hazardous waste. The landfill accepts industrial waste like contaminated soils, acids and dust, as well as waste generated by the oil and gas industry that contains heavy metals and radioactive materials. Pennsylvania is the country’s second-largest producer of natural gas, and much of the industry’s solid waste ends up at landfills such as this one.After its March 2023 inspection, EPA alleged Max Environmental had failed to “minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste” at its Yukon site; failed to submit 26 required discharge monitoring reports; failed to report all sampling results of the waste the company had processed, or “treated,” to make it non-hazardous; failed to provide adequate training for employees; and failed to properly operate and maintain the facility in general, including leaks, damage and deterioration. Government inspectors conducted sampling at the Max Environmental landfill in October 2023 in Yukon, Pa. Credit: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection“The treated hazardous waste was not meeting the land disposal restriction requirements. It was actually still a hazardous waste, and samples that we took out of the landfill showed the same thing,” Henry said. “That’s very significant. So we have concerns that the treatment that Max is performing is not adequate.”Carl Spadaro, the environmental general manager at Max Environmental, said initial testing of its treated waste showed compliance “about 90 percent of the time,” which he called “consistent” with historical results in a statement to Inside Climate News.“Any treated waste that does not pass initial testing has always and continues to be re-treated until it meets required standards. This kind of practice is common in the hazardous waste management industry,” Spadaro said.During EPA’s March 2023 visit to the landfill, inspectors found that treated samples exceeded standards for cadmium, lead and thallium, a tasteless, odorless metal that was once used as a rodenticide but was banned because of its toxicity. Thallium can come from materials released by the oil and gas industry and a few other sectors.In 2024, EPA issued administrative orders under RCRA and NPDES, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, that require Max Environmental to fix problems inspectors found. The RCRA order temporarily halted disposal of hazardous waste on the site—that work has now restarted—and mandated that the company hire an approved third-party contractor to make repairs and test treated waste.In a November interview, Henry said the landfill was meeting its deadlines under the RCRA order but was not yet in compliance with its permit under the hazardous-waste law.Spadaro told Inside Climate News in late December that the company is “in compliance with our permits.” But on Jan. 16, the EPA said that was not the case: “Max is not currently in compliance with either RCRA or NPDES permits related to the Yukon site.”“We take this very seriously. There are significant violations at this facility,” Henry said. “Our mission is to protect human health and the environment. We do want to ensure that the residents have access to clean drinking water and their land is not being contaminated.”Lauren Camarda, a spokesperson at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said the state agency has “worked collaboratively” with the EPA on compliance and enforcement actions related to Max Environmental. “DEP will continue to support the EPA, which is the lead environmental agency on the consent orders, and will continue to inspect the facility to ensure MAX is in or comes into compliance with applicable laws and addresses the issues identified in the consent orders,” she said in a statement.Since those orders were issued in April and September 2024, residents have noticed a change in the landfill’s operations. “They have these great big spotlights that light up the facility. I haven’t noticed lately that they’ve been turned on,” said Debbie Franzetta, a longtime Yukon resident. She said she has observed less noise, dust and light in the last year.This is not the first time the government has cited the company and its predecessor for wrongdoing. From the late 1980s onward, the DEP noted violations at the site on more than 110 occasions, but little seemed to change. Given this history, residents are skeptical of the government’s commitment. As the Trump administration lays off hundreds of EPA employees and plans to roll back environmental regulations, what will happen to the agency’s orders for the Yukon landfill is a question mark.“I think they should close it,” Franzetta said of the site. But she worries about what would come next. “One of my greatest fears is that if that happens, they’re just going to get out of Dodge, is my comical way of saying things. But it’s not any laughing matter, believe me.”A Continuous Hive of IndustryA few minutes from the tangle of off-ramps where the Pennsylvania turnpike meets I-70 about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh, Yukon emerges as a cluster of homes and farms set on sloping Appalachian hills. Big yards are filled with tractors and trampolines.“This is really the heart, the fire hall back there,” said Stacey Magda, the managing community organizer at the Mountain Watershed Association, a local nonprofit that works to protect the Youghiogheny River watershed and has fought for stricter enforcement of the regulations governing the Max Environmental landfill.Magda sat in the passenger seat as her coworker, Colleen O’Neil, steered the MWA truck past the volunteer fire department’s nondescript building where they often hold meetings and through the area’s winding roads, the tree line bright with the copper foliage of October.Magda describes herself as someone with “roots stretched deep in the Pennsylvania dirt.” She grew up in a small town in the central part of the state and came to love the rivers and trails of the Laurel Highlands, a region of southwestern Pennsylvania that includes this county, Westmoreland.The drive through the community took her past heaps of coal spoil, where she said kids liked to ride bikes, and the ancient-looking stone ruins of the old coal company. Mining gave the town its name; one of the mines the landfill was built on top of is called “Klondike.” Yukon once lay at the center of a “continuous hive of industry”; a local history from 1906 describes a valley of hamlets in Westmoreland County where “manufacturing of almost all kinds is carried out” and “from almost every hill, coal mines, shafts, tipples may be seen in every direction.” Hundreds of coke ovens, burning coal, filled the horizon with smoke.In the early 20th century, the valley was roiled by a mining strike that lasted for more than a year and involved 10,000 miners protesting for better wages and an eight-hour workday. The strikers, many of them Slovakian immigrants, were defeated. In the Catholic cemetery next to the landfill, you can see this heritage in generations of chiseled Eastern European names. Except for the distant rumble of truck traffic on the highways, the valley was quiet as O’Neil and Magda drove, the sky a sharp blue.But that extractive past isn’t truly gone; it’s buried in the layers of the Max Environmental landfill. From coal mining and steel manufacturing to oil and gas drilling, the story of the landfill mirrors Pennsylvania’s.“There’s a lot of pride in this town about being a town where industry and coal mining is a part of their heritage,” Magda said, “but having Max Environmental come to town has been a whole different kind of side of industry that’s been really brutal on the people that live here. And it’s been going on for so long, over 40 years now.”A home beside the cemetery has two banners hanging out front. One is crammed with red and black text. “No more hazardous waste in our backyards,” it says, listing the violations found at Max Environmental by the EPA and the DEP in recent inspections. “No more excuses! No more chances! Shut down Max and clean it up!” The second sign is more concise: “Trump 2024: F— Your Feelings.”Some days the landfill’s outfall at Sewickley Creek, a tributary of the Youghiogheny River where treated wastewater is released, is barely dripping. But on other days, it foams and smells. “When the pipe is really full and running, it has a very yellow tinge and has a very strong effluent smell,” said Eric Harder, the Youghiogheny Riverkeeper at the MWA. “The most noticeable change is the amount of foam that is created where the discharge dumps into Sewickley Creek.”To Harder, his observations at the outfall and the monthly testing done by the MWA show that Max Environmental is still not doing enough to meet the standards outlined in its permits. EPA’s testing also shows violations for four of Max Environmental’s 10 total outfalls at Yukon between 2021 and 2024. As of January 2025, Outfall 001, the one at Sewickley Creek, was listed as non-compliant or in violation for more than 15 kinds of water pollution, including oil and grease, zinc, cyanide and cadmium.The Concerned Residents of the YoughThe MWA is only the most recent local group to call for change at the landfill. “Prior to us, residents in Yukon have been working on the issue of Max Environmental for many years, and they’ve been saying the same thing over and over and over again,” Magda said.In the 1980s, residents worried about the health impacts of the landfill, then known as Mill Service and under different ownership, formed a grassroots citizens’ group called CRY, for Concerned Residents of the Yough. Diana Steck was one of the founding members. When she moved to Yukon in 1978, she did not know about the landfill’s existence, though she noticed an orange glow in the sky near her house on some nights, and sometimes the air outside smelled terrible. Steck said she began to get frequent respiratory infections, coughs and hives. She developed joint pain and muscle weakness. Her infant son was stricken with nosebleeds, ear infections and asthma. Her daughter had seizures. Her husband came down with a chronic rash. Steck’s childhood asthma returned. She would later be diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, an autoimmune disease.It was only after reading a newspaper article about the landfill that she wondered if the health problems she and her family were experiencing could be connected to pollution. Steck was a nurse, and she set out to investigate the possible impacts of chemical exposure from the site. What she read convinced her that it was the cause of her family’s problems since coming to Yukon.Later, going door to door in her neighborhood with a petition about the landfill, Steck discovered she was not alone. “One street, almost every home, somebody had cancer. There were so many kids that were sick with asthma, chronic rashes, the nosebleeds, frequent infections, a lot of neurological problems, Parkinson’s, seizures, things like that,” she said. “I just couldn’t believe it.”Steck and the members of CRY held demonstrations and press conferences, requested state records, traveled to the state capital, fundraised and wrote letters to regulators and politicians. They sought help from environmental and public health experts outside Pennsylvania, including Lois Gibbs, the organizer who fought to raise awareness about pollution at her home in Love Canal, where her children’s elementary school had been built on top of a toxic landfill.None of it seemed to make a difference. “It was so frustrating,” Steck said. “I thought in my heart that if somebody elected to public office heard a mother telling them that this facility was making her kids sick, that they would shut it down, clean it up, and that would be the end of it. I was raised to think that the government’s there to protect you. Well, so much for that.” Steck said she was told by an EPA official in the 1980s that Yukon had been “deemed as expendable.” “She told me, ‘The waste has to go somewhere.’ Those were really hard words to hear,” she said.In 1990, members of CRY filed a lawsuit against the then-owner of the landfill alleging that residents “have suffered severe and substantial impairments to their health, property damage, damage to their livestock and pets.” According to CRY’s litigation records, housed at the University of Pittsburgh, the lawsuit was abandoned by the group in 1994 for financial reasons.Eventually, Steck said, her declining health forced her to move about 10 miles away from Yukon and resign from the group she had helped to found, but she continues to advocate for change at the landfill. “If you have a polluter like Max who is handling some of the most dangerous solid waste you can create in the eastern part of the United States, they should really be on top of their wastewater treatment system,” Harder said.The danger to residents and the environment isn’t just from one exceedance, he added, but from “the cocktail of all those exceedances mixed into one outfall.” Harder said he has seen toy shovels and pails on the shoreline downstream of the pipe.“Personally, I wouldn’t let my kids play in the water there.”John Stolz, a professor of environmental microbiology at Duquesne University, echoed Harder’s concerns. Stolz has accompanied Harder to Sewickley Creek to sample the water. “I was shocked at what the discharge was,” he said.Conductivity is used as an indicator of water quality, measuring how electricity moves through liquids, and changes can indicate increases in pollution. Stolz’s reading of 20,000 microsiemens was far beyond the EPA’s typical range for rivers in the U.S. of 50 to 1,500. It’s double the number the EPA gives for typical industrial water.After an October 2023 inspection, Spadaro emailed Sharon Svitek, program manager at DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management, to ask if the visit was prompted by “a request from the Mountain Watershed Association.”“Can you shed some light on why DEP sent a small army of people to conduct waste sampling at our Yukon facility today?” he asked in an email later released through a public records request. Spadaro called the inspection “unnecessarily disruptive to our operations” and said the company should have been given a “heads up.”Spadaro also asked why DEP had given the association a copy of the EPA’s July 2023 report about an earlier inspection of the landfill. “We don’t know why DEP would do that especially since it is an EPA document,” he wrote.DEP’s Svitek explained that the Mountain Watershed Association had obtained the document through an informal file review and the department was required to comply because it is a public record. The MWA later published the document on its website. Svitek clarified that the inspection was requested by DEP’s central office and had been used as a training opportunity for new employees.When news of the EPA’s inspection and consent orders reached the Mountain Watershed Association and Yukon residents, there were mixed feelings.“Everyone was validated. It was this moment of, ‘My gosh, every single person’s instinct was right,’” Magda said. “And that was horrifying.”“I was a 30-year-old mom when I was the most active, and I fought so hard and almost died. I never, ever thought that, here I am, at age 70, I’d still be in this fight.” She paused. “I just want to see justice done.”In 2022, at a hearing related to the company’s permit application to expand the landfill site, the testimony of resident Misty Springer transported Steck to when she was also a young mother trying to persuade the state government to acknowledge her family’s struggles.Springer said she had suffered six miscarriages after being exposed to runoff from the landfill. She had a question for the DEP: “How many people on your block have cancer? How many people in your town? Because I bet your town is bigger than mine, and I bet you my town has more people with cancer than yours.”Driving on Millbell Road, a narrow street that runs along the northern boundary of the landfill, Magda ticked off the cancers and illnesses of each home’s inhabitants. At least one of the houses sat empty.The MWA’s involvement has brought some residents a renewed sense of optimism. “I kind of gave up on the whole deal, until these kids from the Watershed got involved,” said Craig Zafaras, who has lived in Yukon for decades. “I commend them for their effort.”There is an easy affection between Magda, who is in her thirties, and the older residents she’s come to know through her work. She looks out for them, jokes with them, walks them to their cars.But rallying the town to speak out against Max Environmental has been difficult. Distrust in any information about the landfill is high. Residents are unconvinced of the government’s promises, and wary of hope. For so many of them, it has been a very long road.When Magda knocks on doors to tell residents about the next meeting or hearing, just as the women of CRY used to do, she has been laughed at by people who ask her, “What are you going to do about it?”“People have gotten older, and a lot of the community has died, and people just get discouraged,” said Debbie Franzetta, the longtime Yukon resident. “It’s kind of like banging your head against the wall. You knock on doors to try to get people to come to meetings. You spend the time to go and write letters, and nothing really comes of it.”Despite the obstacles in her path, Magda remains resolute: “I can tell you, we’re never going to give up.”“Our Battle Against the Dump”Residents wonder what will happen to the site and its six decades’ worth of waste. In 1985, the state shut down disposal at the Yukon site because of leaks and failure to abide by new rules governing waste, but the next year, Pennsylvania’s environmental protection agency approved a permit for expansion. Opened in 1988 and covering 16.5 acres, the Yukon site’s Landfill 6 is the last active impoundment and is nearing capacity.In 2024, the company estimated the impoundment would be filled by 2026. Max Environmental had planned a new expansion that would add space for more than 1 million tons of waste, but in 2023 it withdrew the permit application following resistance from residents and environmental groups, saying it would resubmit the application “at a later date.”Spadaro said the company withdrew because it did not have enough time to respond to comments from state regulators. “DEP has a very restrictive review timeline for new commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal permits,” he said.Spadaro said Max Environmental has “not scheduled any other plans for expansion at this time.” “We are focused on addressing all items in EPA’s consent orders,” he said.“EPA has no plans of going anywhere,” said Henry, the official at the EPA. “We’re going to be focused on this facility for quite some time.”She gave that interview in the waning months of the Biden administration, and it is unclear how the EPA will approach regulating Max Environmental and sites like it under the new Trump administration. EPA funding and staff have been early targets of its efforts to dismantle federal agencies, and 388 employees were cut in mid-February amid a push for large-scale layoffs and resignations. All of that could make it more difficult for the EPA to keep its focus on Max Environmental.In a 1998 scholarly article, Dan Bolef, an academic and activist who was involved with CRY, described the “torments” of Melbry and Tony Bolk, whose farm lay across the road from the landfill. The Bolks saw “their health deteriorate, their herd of cows strangely sicken and die, their rural world of peace and security shattered by the noxious effects of the dump,” he wrote. For Bolef, who died in 2011 , Yukon’s experience had become a “horror story,” an endless montage of people who tried to fight back but got sick, moved away or gave up, defeated by the intractable landfill. “What, then, is one to do? How are we to react when our community suffers?” he asked. “There is nothing left for us to do but continue the struggle.”By 1998, the site had been open for more than 30 years. Bolef echoed a sentiment that would sound familiar to Yukon’s residents today, 27 years later. Despite the impression locals had been given that the landfill would soon run out of space, he wrote, it increased its operations, even as the number of residents dwindled around it.“In our battle against the dump,” he wrote, “the dump usually wins.”



Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Read Part I of this story here.

YUKON, Pa.—When government inspectors arrived at the hazardous waste landfill here in 2023, they found themselves in a barren and alien landscape carved from western Pennsylvania’s green countryside.


As they documented operations at Max Environmental Technologies, they climbed fields of blackened waste and photographed pits, mud, debris, stained walls and unlabeled storage containers. Their images offer a startling—and largely hidden—juxtaposition to the rolling hills, horse paddocks and chicken coops around the 160-acre site. What the inspectors captured confirmed the worst fears of Yukon’s residents, who have blamed the landfill for serious health impacts and called on regulators to intervene for years.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found rusted open containers of waste, clogged pipes and a containment building used to store untreated hazardous waste “in pretty significant disrepair.” They watched as rainwater mixed with that waste and flowed from the damaged building.

“There was a hole in the roof and it was raining during the inspection,” said Jeanna Henry, chief of the air, RCRA and toxics branch in the enforcement and compliance assurance division of the EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region. RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates hazardous waste.

The landfill accepts industrial waste like contaminated soils, acids and dust, as well as waste generated by the oil and gas industry that contains heavy metals and radioactive materials. Pennsylvania is the country’s second-largest producer of natural gas, and much of the industry’s solid waste ends up at landfills such as this one.

After its March 2023 inspection, EPA alleged Max Environmental had failed to “minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste” at its Yukon site; failed to submit 26 required discharge monitoring reports; failed to report all sampling results of the waste the company had processed, or “treated,” to make it non-hazardous; failed to provide adequate training for employees; and failed to properly operate and maintain the facility in general, including leaks, damage and deterioration.

Government inspectors conducted sampling at the Max Environmental landfill in October 2023 in Yukon, Pa. Credit: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

“The treated hazardous waste was not meeting the land disposal restriction requirements. It was actually still a hazardous waste, and samples that we took out of the landfill showed the same thing,” Henry said. “That’s very significant. So we have concerns that the treatment that Max is performing is not adequate.”

Carl Spadaro, the environmental general manager at Max Environmental, said initial testing of its treated waste showed compliance “about 90 percent of the time,” which he called “consistent” with historical results in a statement to Inside Climate News.

“Any treated waste that does not pass initial testing has always and continues to be re-treated until it meets required standards. This kind of practice is common in the hazardous waste management industry,” Spadaro said.

During EPA’s March 2023 visit to the landfill, inspectors found that treated samples exceeded standards for cadmium, lead and thallium, a tasteless, odorless metal that was once used as a rodenticide but was banned because of its toxicity. Thallium can come from materials released by the oil and gas industry and a few other sectors.

In 2024, EPA issued administrative orders under RCRA and NPDES, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, that require Max Environmental to fix problems inspectors found. The RCRA order temporarily halted disposal of hazardous waste on the site—that work has now restarted—and mandated that the company hire an approved third-party contractor to make repairs and test treated waste.

In a November interview, Henry said the landfill was meeting its deadlines under the RCRA order but was not yet in compliance with its permit under the hazardous-waste law.

Spadaro told Inside Climate News in late December that the company is “in compliance with our permits.” But on Jan. 16, the EPA said that was not the case: “Max is not currently in compliance with either RCRA or NPDES permits related to the Yukon site.”

“We take this very seriously. There are significant violations at this facility,” Henry said. “Our mission is to protect human health and the environment. We do want to ensure that the residents have access to clean drinking water and their land is not being contaminated.”



Lauren Camarda, a spokesperson at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said the state agency has “worked collaboratively” with the EPA on compliance and enforcement actions related to Max Environmental. “DEP will continue to support the EPA, which is the lead environmental agency on the consent orders, and will continue to inspect the facility to ensure MAX is in or comes into compliance with applicable laws and addresses the issues identified in the consent orders,” she said in a statement.

Since those orders were issued in April and September 2024, residents have noticed a change in the landfill’s operations. “They have these great big spotlights that light up the facility. I haven’t noticed lately that they’ve been turned on,” said Debbie Franzetta, a longtime Yukon resident. She said she has observed less noise, dust and light in the last year.

This is not the first time the government has cited the company and its predecessor for wrongdoing. From the late 1980s onward, the DEP noted violations at the site on more than 110 occasions, but little seemed to change. Given this history, residents are skeptical of the government’s commitment. As the Trump administration lays off hundreds of EPA employees and plans to roll back environmental regulations, what will happen to the agency’s orders for the Yukon landfill is a question mark.

“I think they should close it,” Franzetta said of the site. But she worries about what would come next. “One of my greatest fears is that if that happens, they’re just going to get out of Dodge, is my comical way of saying things. But it’s not any laughing matter, believe me.”

A Continuous Hive of Industry


A few minutes from the tangle of off-ramps where the Pennsylvania turnpike meets I-70 about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh, Yukon emerges as a cluster of homes and farms set on sloping Appalachian hills. Big yards are filled with tractors and trampolines.

“This is really the heart, the fire hall back there,” said Stacey Magda, the managing community organizer at the Mountain Watershed Association, a local nonprofit that works to protect the Youghiogheny River watershed and has fought for stricter enforcement of the regulations governing the Max Environmental landfill.

Magda sat in the passenger seat as her coworker, Colleen O’Neil, steered the MWA truck past the volunteer fire department’s nondescript building where they often hold meetings and through the area’s winding roads, the tree line bright with the copper foliage of October.

Magda describes herself as someone with “roots stretched deep in the Pennsylvania dirt.” She grew up in a small town in the central part of the state and came to love the rivers and trails of the Laurel Highlands, a region of southwestern Pennsylvania that includes this county, Westmoreland.

The drive through the community took her past heaps of coal spoil, where she said kids liked to ride bikes, and the ancient-looking stone ruins of the old coal company. Mining gave the town its name; one of the mines the landfill was built on top of is called “Klondike.” Yukon once lay at the center of a “continuous hive of industry”; a local history from 1906 describes a valley of hamlets in Westmoreland County where “manufacturing of almost all kinds is carried out” and “from almost every hill, coal mines, shafts, tipples may be seen in every direction.” Hundreds of coke ovens, burning coal, filled the horizon with smoke.

In the early 20th century, the valley was roiled by a mining strike that lasted for more than a year and involved 10,000 miners protesting for better wages and an eight-hour workday. The strikers, many of them Slovakian immigrants, were defeated. In the Catholic cemetery next to the landfill, you can see this heritage in generations of chiseled Eastern European names. Except for the distant rumble of truck traffic on the highways, the valley was quiet as O’Neil and Magda drove, the sky a sharp blue.

But that extractive past isn’t truly gone; it’s buried in the layers of the Max Environmental landfill. From coal mining and steel manufacturing to oil and gas drilling, the story of the landfill mirrors Pennsylvania’s.

“There’s a lot of pride in this town about being a town where industry and coal mining is a part of their heritage,” Magda said, “but having Max Environmental come to town has been a whole different kind of side of industry that’s been really brutal on the people that live here. And it’s been going on for so long, over 40 years now.”

A home beside the cemetery has two banners hanging out front. One is crammed with red and black text. “No more hazardous waste in our backyards,” it says, listing the violations found at Max Environmental by the EPA and the DEP in recent inspections. “No more excuses! No more chances! Shut down Max and clean it up!”

The second sign is more concise: “Trump 2024: F— Your Feelings.”

Some days the landfill’s outfall at Sewickley Creek, a tributary of the Youghiogheny River where treated wastewater is released, is barely dripping. But on other days, it foams and smells. “When the pipe is really full and running, it has a very yellow tinge and has a very strong effluent smell,” said Eric Harder, the Youghiogheny Riverkeeper at the MWA. “The most noticeable change is the amount of foam that is created where the discharge dumps into Sewickley Creek.”

To Harder, his observations at the outfall and the monthly testing done by the MWA show that Max Environmental is still not doing enough to meet the standards outlined in its permits. EPA’s testing also shows violations for four of Max Environmental’s 10 total outfalls at Yukon between 2021 and 2024. As of January 2025, Outfall 001, the one at Sewickley Creek, was listed as non-compliant or in violation for more than 15 kinds of water pollution, including oil and grease, zinc, cyanide and cadmium.

The Concerned Residents of the Yough


The MWA is only the most recent local group to call for change at the landfill. “Prior to us, residents in Yukon have been working on the issue of Max Environmental for many years, and they’ve been saying the same thing over and over and over again,” Magda said.

In the 1980s, residents worried about the health impacts of the landfill, then known as Mill Service and under different ownership, formed a grassroots citizens’ group called CRY, for Concerned Residents of the Yough. Diana Steck was one of the founding members. When she moved to Yukon in 1978, she did not know about the landfill’s existence, though she noticed an orange glow in the sky near her house on some nights, and sometimes the air outside smelled terrible.

Steck said she began to get frequent respiratory infections, coughs and hives. She developed joint pain and muscle weakness. Her infant son was stricken with nosebleeds, ear infections and asthma. Her daughter had seizures. Her husband came down with a chronic rash. Steck’s childhood asthma returned. She would later be diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, an autoimmune disease.

It was only after reading a newspaper article about the landfill that she wondered if the health problems she and her family were experiencing could be connected to pollution. Steck was a nurse, and she set out to investigate the possible impacts of chemical exposure from the site. What she read convinced her that it was the cause of her family’s problems since coming to Yukon.

Later, going door to door in her neighborhood with a petition about the landfill, Steck discovered she was not alone. “One street, almost every home, somebody had cancer. There were so many kids that were sick with asthma, chronic rashes, the nosebleeds, frequent infections, a lot of neurological problems, Parkinson’s, seizures, things like that,” she said. “I just couldn’t believe it.”

Steck and the members of CRY held demonstrations and press conferences, requested state records, traveled to the state capital, fundraised and wrote letters to regulators and politicians. They sought help from environmental and public health experts outside Pennsylvania, including Lois Gibbs, the organizer who fought to raise awareness about pollution at her home in Love Canal, where her children’s elementary school had been built on top of a toxic landfill.

None of it seemed to make a difference.

“It was so frustrating,” Steck said. “I thought in my heart that if somebody elected to public office heard a mother telling them that this facility was making her kids sick, that they would shut it down, clean it up, and that would be the end of it. I was raised to think that the government’s there to protect you. Well, so much for that.”

Steck said she was told by an EPA official in the 1980s that Yukon had been “deemed as expendable.”

“She told me, ‘The waste has to go somewhere.’ Those were really hard words to hear,” she said.

In 1990, members of CRY filed a lawsuit against the then-owner of the landfill alleging that residents “have suffered severe and substantial impairments to their health, property damage, damage to their livestock and pets.” According to CRY’s litigation records, housed at the University of Pittsburgh, the lawsuit was abandoned by the group in 1994 for financial reasons.

Eventually, Steck said, her declining health forced her to move about 10 miles away from Yukon and resign from the group she had helped to found, but she continues to advocate for change at the landfill.


“If you have a polluter like Max who is handling some of the most dangerous solid waste you can create in the eastern part of the United States, they should really be on top of their wastewater treatment system,” Harder said.

The danger to residents and the environment isn’t just from one exceedance, he added, but from “the cocktail of all those exceedances mixed into one outfall.” Harder said he has seen toy shovels and pails on the shoreline downstream of the pipe.

“Personally, I wouldn’t let my kids play in the water there.”John Stolz, a professor of environmental microbiology at Duquesne University, echoed Harder’s concerns. Stolz has accompanied Harder to Sewickley Creek to sample the water. “I was shocked at what the discharge was,” he said.

Conductivity is used as an indicator of water quality, measuring how electricity moves through liquids, and changes can indicate increases in pollution. Stolz’s reading of 20,000 microsiemens was far beyond the EPA’s typical range for rivers in the U.S. of 50 to 1,500. It’s double the number the EPA gives for typical industrial water.

After an October 2023 inspection, Spadaro emailed Sharon Svitek, program manager at DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management, to ask if the visit was prompted by “a request from the Mountain Watershed Association.”

“Can you shed some light on why DEP sent a small army of people to conduct waste sampling at our Yukon facility today?” he asked in an email later released through a public records request. Spadaro called the inspection “unnecessarily disruptive to our operations” and said the company should have been given a “heads up.”

Spadaro also asked why DEP had given the association a copy of the EPA’s July 2023 report about an earlier inspection of the landfill. “We don’t know why DEP would do that especially since it is an EPA document,” he wrote.

DEP’s Svitek explained that the Mountain Watershed Association had obtained the document through an informal file review and the department was required to comply because it is a public record. The MWA later published the document on its website. Svitek clarified that the inspection was requested by DEP’s central office and had been used as a training opportunity for new employees.

When news of the EPA’s inspection and consent orders reached the Mountain Watershed Association and Yukon residents, there were mixed feelings.

“Everyone was validated. It was this moment of, ‘My gosh, every single person’s instinct was right,’” Magda said. “And that was horrifying.”


“I was a 30-year-old mom when I was the most active, and I fought so hard and almost died. I never, ever thought that, here I am, at age 70, I’d still be in this fight.” She paused. “I just want to see justice done.”

In 2022, at a hearing related to the company’s permit application to expand the landfill site, the testimony of resident Misty Springer transported Steck to when she was also a young mother trying to persuade the state government to acknowledge her family’s struggles.

Springer said she had suffered six miscarriages after being exposed to runoff from the landfill. She had a question for the DEP: “How many people on your block have cancer? How many people in your town? Because I bet your town is bigger than mine, and I bet you my town has more people with cancer than yours.”

Driving on Millbell Road, a narrow street that runs along the northern boundary of the landfill, Magda ticked off the cancers and illnesses of each home’s inhabitants. At least one of the houses sat empty.

The MWA’s involvement has brought some residents a renewed sense of optimism. “I kind of gave up on the whole deal, until these kids from the Watershed got involved,” said Craig Zafaras, who has lived in Yukon for decades. “I commend them for their effort.”

There is an easy affection between Magda, who is in her thirties, and the older residents she’s come to know through her work. She looks out for them, jokes with them, walks them to their cars.

But rallying the town to speak out against Max Environmental has been difficult. Distrust in any information about the landfill is high. Residents are unconvinced of the government’s promises, and wary of hope. For so many of them, it has been a very long road.

When Magda knocks on doors to tell residents about the next meeting or hearing, just as the women of CRY used to do, she has been laughed at by people who ask her, “What are you going to do about it?”

“People have gotten older, and a lot of the community has died, and people just get discouraged,” said Debbie Franzetta, the longtime Yukon resident. “It’s kind of like banging your head against the wall. You knock on doors to try to get people to come to meetings. You spend the time to go and write letters, and nothing really comes of it.”

Despite the obstacles in her path, Magda remains resolute: “I can tell you, we’re never going to give up.”

“Our Battle Against the Dump”


Residents wonder what will happen to the site and its six decades’ worth of waste. In 1985, the state shut down disposal at the Yukon site because of leaks and failure to abide by new rules governing waste, but the next year, Pennsylvania’s environmental protection agency approved a permit for expansion. Opened in 1988 and covering 16.5 acres, the Yukon site’s Landfill 6 is the last active impoundment and is nearing capacity.

In 2024, the company estimated the impoundment would be filled by 2026.
Max Environmental had planned a new expansion that would add space for more than 1 million tons of waste, but in 2023 it withdrew the permit application following resistance from residents and environmental groups, saying it would resubmit the application “at a later date.”

Spadaro said the company withdrew because it did not have enough time to respond to comments from state regulators. “DEP has a very restrictive review timeline for new commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal permits,” he said.
Spadaro said Max Environmental has “not scheduled any other plans for expansion at this time.”
“We are focused on addressing all items in EPA’s consent orders,” he said.

“EPA has no plans of going anywhere,” said Henry, the official at the EPA. “We’re going to be focused on this facility for quite some time.

”She gave that interview in the waning months of the Biden administration, and it is unclear how the EPA will approach regulating Max Environmental and sites like it under the new Trump administration. EPA funding and staff have been early targets of its efforts to dismantle federal agencies, and 388 employees were cut in mid-February amid a push for large-scale layoffs and resignations. All of that could make it more difficult for the EPA to keep its focus on Max Environmental.

In a 1998 scholarly article, Dan Bolef, an academic and activist who was involved with CRY, described the “torments” of Melbry and Tony Bolk, whose farm lay across the road from the landfill. The Bolks saw “their health deteriorate, their herd of cows strangely sicken and die, their rural world of peace and security shattered by the noxious effects of the dump,” he wrote.

For Bolef, who died in 2011 , Yukon’s experience had become a “horror story,” an endless montage of people who tried to fight back but got sick, moved away or gave up, defeated by the intractable landfill. “What, then, is one to do? How are we to react when our community suffers?” he asked. “There is nothing left for us to do but continue the struggle.”

By 1998, the site had been open for more than 30 years. Bolef echoed a sentiment that would sound familiar to Yukon’s residents today, 27 years later. Despite the impression locals had been given that the landfill would soon run out of space, he wrote, it increased its operations, even as the number of residents dwindled around it.

“In our battle against the dump,” he wrote, “the dump usually wins.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Guardian view on waste: the festive season is a good time to think about rubbish | Editorial

Weak regulation is to blame for disastrous failures in relation to pollution. But there are solutions if people get behind themA study suggesting that as many as 168m light-up Christmas ornaments and similar items could be thrown out in a single year, in the UK, is concerning if not surprising in light of longstanding challenges around recycling rates and waste reduction. Even if the actual figure is lower, there is no question that battery-powered and electrical toys, lights and gifts are proliferating as never before. Despite a great deal of commentary aimed at dialling down consumption over the festive season, especially surplus packaging and rubbish, strings of disposable lights and flashing figures have gained in popularity. Homes, front gardens and shopping streets grow sparklier by the year.Batteries and electrical devices present particular difficulties when it comes to disposal, because they cause fires. But they are just one part of a more general problem of excessive waste – and weak regulatory oversight. British plastic waste exports rose by 5% in 2024 to nearly 600,000 tonnes. A new report on plastics from the Pew Charitable Trusts warns that global production is expected to rise by 52% by 2040 – to 680m tonnes – outstripping the capacity of waste management systems around the world. Continue reading...

A study suggesting that as many as 168m light-up Christmas ornaments and similar items could be thrown out in a single year, in the UK, is concerning if not surprising in light of longstanding challenges around recycling rates and waste reduction. Even if the actual figure is lower, there is no question that battery-powered and electrical toys, lights and gifts are proliferating as never before. Despite a great deal of commentary aimed at dialling down consumption over the festive season, especially surplus packaging and rubbish, strings of disposable lights and flashing figures have gained in popularity. Homes, front gardens and shopping streets grow sparklier by the year.Batteries and electrical devices present particular difficulties when it comes to disposal, because they cause fires. But they are just one part of a more general problem of excessive waste – and weak regulatory oversight. British plastic waste exports rose by 5% in 2024 to nearly 600,000 tonnes. A new report on plastics from the Pew Charitable Trusts warns that global production is expected to rise by 52% by 2040 – to 680m tonnes – outstripping the capacity of waste management systems around the world.Some retailers in the UK and elsewhere have cut down on packaging. There is a booming online trade in secondhand clothes. But the biggest recent rows about waste in the UK have been about sewage, not consumer goods. An overhaul of water industry regulation is meant to sort this out, following a review in the summer. There is still a high likelihood that the worst-performing company, Thames Water, could collapse into special administration.But Ofwat is not the only regulator to face criticism for its performance in relation to pollution and waste. The Environment Agency is under growing fire as the problem of illegal rubbish dumping has moved from being a local issue in a handful of locations to a national one.In October, the House of Lords environment committee called for the government to urgently review its approach to this “critically under-prioritised” problem. An illegal dump at Hoad’s Wood in Kent is being cleaned up at a cost of £15m. But six similar sites in England are known to the Environment Agency. Campaigners believe that the situation is in danger of spiralling if enforcement efforts are not rapidly scaled up.Discarded strings of battery-powered fairy lights might seem insignificant in the context of vast heaps of toxic waste, or the 3.6m hours of raw sewage spills for which the water industry in England was responsible last year. But environmental organisations are right to draw attention to the role of consumers as well as industry. The Environment Agency ought to have been empowered in the context of the climate crisis – not undermined and underfunded as it was under the Tories. But individuals can make a difference when it comes to waste, both in their decisions about what to buy, keep and get rid of – and in their political opinions and choices.Another report, published by the consultancy Hybrid Economics last month, said the UK could end its reliance on plastic waste exports, and create 5,400 new jobs, if it invested in up to 15 new recycling facilities. The lights on buildings and trees are cheering in the run-up to holidays, but we shouldn’t ignore what happens when they are turned off.

UK and Europe’s hidden landfills at risk of leaking toxic waste into water supplies

Exclusive: Rising flood risks driven by climate change could release chemicals from ageing sites – posing threats to ecosystems‘I kept smelling a horrible nasty smell’: the risks of England’s old dumping groundsThousands of landfills across the UK and Europe sit in floodplains, posing a potential threat to drinking water and conservation areas if toxic waste is released into rivers, soils and ecosystems, it can be revealed.The findings are the result of the first continent-wide mapping of landfills, conducted by the Guardian, Watershed Investigations and Investigate Europe.Disclaimer: This dataset may contain duplicate records. Duplicates can arise from multiple data sources, repeated entries, or variations in data collection processes. While efforts have been made to identify and reduce duplication, some records may remain. Continue reading...

Thousands of landfills across the UK and Europe sit in floodplains, posing a potential threat to drinking water and conservation areas if toxic waste is released into rivers, soils and ecosystems, it can be revealed.The findings are the result of the first continent-wide mapping of landfills, conducted by the Guardian, Watershed Investigations and Investigate Europe.Patrick Byrne, of Liverpool John Moores University, said: “With increasing frequency and magnitudes of floods and erosion from climate change, there’s a greater risk of these wastes washing into our environment.“This includes physical waste like plastics and building materials, but also toxic metals and chemicals such as Pfas [‘forever chemicals’] and PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls].”Kate Spencer, professor of environmental geochemistry at Queen Mary University, said: “We’ve identified wide-ranging wastes at an eroding coastal landfill [in Tilbury] including what looked like hospital blood bags, and we are talking about tens of thousands of sites that if they aren’t lined and are at flood risk, then there’s multiple ways for it to get into groundwater, surface water and the food chain.”Across the EU there are estimated to be up to 500,000 landfills. Roughly 90% of them, including 22,000 sites in the UK, predate pollution control regulations such as landfill linings to prevent leaching. Modern landfills which are well managed are likely to pose a low risk.More than 61,000 landfills have been identified across Europe, with 28% located in areas vulnerable to flooding. Modelling indicates the true number of flood‑risk sites could be as high as 140,000. This mapping effort, based on requests for landfill data from 10 countries and supplemented with open-source information, highlights a deeper issue: EU institutions lack centralised landfill records, while data from individual member states remains fragmented, inconsistent and often inaccessible.“We have inadequate records, differences in ways of categorising these sites and that makes it really difficult to deal with,” said Spencer.“It’s the worst possible scenario. Most landfills will be fine, but you only need a small number of sites which contain very toxic chemicals to be a problem. We just don’t know which ones.”More than half of the mapped landfills are in areas where groundwater fails to meet chemical quality standards, suggesting the landfills may in some cases have contributed to the contamination.The EU landfill directive, adopted in 1999, banned unlined landfills and created strict waste acceptance criteria. But before this there were few or no pollution containment measures.Many older sites across the UK and Europe were built before modern protections. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Global Warming Images/Alamy“There could be many other sources of pollution, such as farming and industry, but one of the main ways chemicals migrate away from landfills is through groundwater,” said Byrne.Byrne found leachate leaking from the historic landfill at Newgate nature reserve in Wilmslow, Cheshire, into a small stream. His tests found toxic Pfas “forever chemicals” at 20 times the acceptable levels for drinking water. In Greece, tests found levels of Pfas many times above drinking water standards, as well as mercury and cadmium leaching into the Nedontas river from the former Maratholaka landfill site in the Taygetos mountains, which are visited by thousands of hikers every year. The local mayor of Kalamata says the site has ceased to operate since June 2023 and that “there is currently no evidence or data to substantiate any environmental impact from the operation of the site”.Some of these waters could be sources of drinking water and analysis found almost 10,000 landfills in drinking water zones in France, the UK, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. More than 4,000 of these are historic landfills in England and Wales and are therefore unlikely to have pollution controls. It was not possible to confirm whether landfills in Europe predated regulations or not.“We don’t and won’t know how much risk to human health and our drinking water there is until you can identify where all the landfills are, what is in them, whether they’re leaching and if treatment processes are filtering them out” said Byrne.A spokesperson for the European Commission said that “under the drinking water directive the quality of the water has to be ensured ‘at the tap’ in the whole EU. The directive includes several parameters to be monitored and the corresponding limit values have to be complied with. In case of exceedances of these limit values, member states must ensure that the necessary remedial action is taken.”In the UK, water companies undertake risk assessments and monitoring of their public water abstractions under regulatory guidelines.Landfills that are most visibly at risk of exposure are those along the coast. The analysis found 335 landfills in coastal erosion zones in England, Wales and France, and 258 landfills across Europe within 200 metres of the coast, which could be at risk of erosion or exposure from storm surges.“This is the tip of the iceberg,” said Spencer, who is helping the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to rank the most high-risk landfills out of 1,200 identified priority sites in England and Wales. She tested two eroding landfills on the coast and found Lynemouth in the north-east released elevated concentrations of arsenic, and Lyme Regis in the south-west discharged high levels of lead, both of which could cause ecological harm.“We now need to understand the potential risks of climate change and associated pollution release at all our historic landfill sites, not just the coastal ones,” she said, adding that money will be needed to tackle these sites.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Essentially we are all living on a garbage dump,” said Spencer, who explained that about 80% of the British population lives within 2km of known landfill sites, and disproportionately in the most deprived parts of the country.A report from the UK’s Health Security Agency last year concluded that living close to a well-managed municipal active or closed landfill site does not pose a significant risk to human health, although the picture for historic sites is less clear due to the lack of data.Wildlife may also be at risk, as more than 2,000 European landfills are in protected conservation areas.“We know plastics are accumulating in wildlife, humans and environments and there’s emerging evidence of negative health impacts,” said Byrne.“A key thing with chemical pollution is where the chemical leachate goes. We have important wetlands around these areas, so if the leachate goes there it could accumulate in wildlife.”Illegal waste dumping is also a significant problem, which Europol has identified as one of Europe’s fastest-growing areas of organised crime. In February, Croatian authorities arrested 13 people suspected of illegally dumping at least 35,000 tonnes of waste from Italy, Slovenia and Germany in Croatia, generating a profit of at least €4m for the criminals.In England, Environment Agency data shows 137 open investigations into illegal dumps, involving more than 1m cubic metres of material.In the Campania region of southern Italy, illegal toxic waste dumping by the mafia has been blamed for the increased death and disease rates in the area.In England and Wales, at the current pace of use our remaining landfill capacity could run out in about 2050. New sites often face environmental concerns and public opposition.An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “Our job is to protect people and the environment, and we are working closely with the landfill industry, water companies and across government to better understand the impacts from Pfas chemicals in landfills.“Environment Agency teams are undertaking a multi-year programme to improve evidence about the sources of Pfas pollution in England. Alongside this, we are also running further studies to investigate the potential contribution of Pfas in landfill leachate to a limited number of sewage works.”A Defra spokesperson said: “We want to prevent waste from occurring in the first place, but where waste occurs, we need to manage it in the most appropriate way.“We are committed to reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfill, supported through our collection and packaging reforms. Alongside this, the forthcoming circular economy growth plan will outline measures to drive greater reuse and recycling, safeguarding the value of our resources and preventing the nation’s waste going to landfill.” Disclaimer: This dataset may contain duplicate records. Duplicates can arise from multiple data sources, repeated entries, or variations in data collection processes. While efforts have been made to identify and reduce duplication, some records may remain.

UK can create 5,400 jobs if it stops plastic waste exports, report finds

Campaigners say closure of loophole making it cheaper to export rather than recycle will boost circular economyThe UK could end its reliance on exporting plastic waste by 2030 to support the creation of 5,400 new jobs and take responsibility for the environmental impact of its waste, according to research.The report said up to 15 new recycling facilities could be built by the end of the decade, attracting more than £800m of private investment. The increase in capacity would help generate almost £900m of economic value every year, providing at least £100m in new tax revenues annually. Continue reading...

The UK could end its reliance on exporting plastic waste by 2030 to support the creation of 5,400 new jobs and take responsibility for the environmental impact of its waste, according to research.The report said up to 15 new recycling facilities could be built by the end of the decade, attracting more than £800m of private investment. The increase in capacity would help generate almost £900m of economic value every year; providing at least £100m of new tax revenues annually.The report by Hybrid Economics comes as Britain’s plastic exports rose by 5% in 2024 to nearly 600,000 tonnes of waste.Exporting plastic creates environmental problems for many countries that receive it, as they do not have the ability to recycle it. It also, the report argues, removes valuable feedstock for a British recycling industry.Campaigners want the loophole that makes it cheaper to export plastic waste rather than recycle it in the UK, closed.Exports have soared in the first part of this year to Indonesia in particular – a country struggling with an environmental crisis from plastic pollution – amounting to more than 24,000 tonnes.The report said that by exporting the unprocessed plastic waste it produces, the UK is evading its responsibility to deal with its own waste and was denying itself an economic opportunity.The Guardian revealed last month that, in the past two years, 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down owing to the scale of exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap products from Asia.Neville Hill, partner at Hybrid Economics, which produced the report, said the UK was only using half of its potential for recycling plastic waste. He said: “Ending exports of unprocessed plastic packaging waste by 2030 would allow the UK to take control of its environmental responsibilities and seize a clear economic opportunity.“Our analysis shows the sector can expand significantly with no call on public funds, provided government sets the right framework.”The way payments are made up at present incentivises the export of plastic waste, rather than encouraging businesses to keep it in the UK to be recycled.James McLeary, the managing director of Biffa Polymers, which commissioned the report, said the company had recycled 10bn plastic HDPE milk bottles in the last 20 years. He described this as a circular economy success story.“The lesson is simple. When the right conditions are in place, UK recycling grows, investment follows and the environmental and economic benefits build year after year. The UK can replicate that success across all plastic packaging and take responsibility for processing its own waste onshore.”The report is calling for an increase in the plastic packaging tax, which is imposed on producers who fail to include at least 30% of recycled plastic in their products, to 50% and a total phasing out of exports of unprocessed plastic packaging waste.

‘We’ve got to find answers’: Corby families affected by cancer searching for truth about toxic waste sites

Alison Gaffney believes her son’s rare leukaemia was caused by dumped toxic waste from the town’s steelworksAlison Gaffney and Andy Hinde received the devastating news that their 17-month-old son, Fraser, had a rare type of leukaemia in 2018.Two years of gruelling treatment followed, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy, before a stem cell transplant. Fraser, then aged three, made a “miraculous recovery” from the surgery, before doctors declared the cancer in remission. Continue reading...

Alison Gaffney and Andy Hinde received the devastating news that their 17-month-old son, Fraser, had a rare type of leukaemia in 2018.Two years of gruelling treatment followed, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy, before a stem cell transplant. Fraser, then aged three, made a “miraculous recovery” from the surgery, before doctors declared the cancer in remission.It was at this point, as Fraser started to recover and grow stronger, that Gaffney, 36, began to look for answers. She could not stop thinking about comments made by hospital staff at the time of her son’s diagnosis. “It keeps us up at night wondering how Fraser got his cancer,” a consultant had told her.Fraser started to recover after two years of gruelling treatment and a stem cell transplant. At this point, Gaffney began looking for answers. Photograph: Fabio de Paola/The GuardianThe botched disposal of millions of tonnes of contaminated waste after the closure of Europe’s largest steelworks in Corby, Northamptonshire, in 1979 had “always been a known thing”, said Gaffney. A 2009 civil case linked the council’s negligent clean-up of the site to a string of birth defects in local children in the 1980s and 1990s. It was later dramatised in the 2025 Netflix series Toxic Town.Increasingly, Gaffney started to link the case to her own. “[Fraser’s cancer is] not genetic,” she said. “So what are the reasons? … It’s got to be down to the town. All these kids [with] cancer.“Everybody in this town knows somebody who’s got a child [with] cancer. That’s not normal.”Gaffney and Hinde started to connect with other families in Corby with similar stories to theirs – including some of Gaffney’s former classmates at Brooke Weston Academy – and the group began compiling detailed records on those affected. They now lead a campaign representing about 130 families with cases of childhood cancer dating back to 1988.The group has been calling on the local authority to investigate any links between cases of childhood cancer in Corby and the decommissioning of the plant. At the end of this month, public health officials are set to publish their analysis of whether the town has had a disproportionate number of cases of childhood cancer for its population of 70,000.“All we want is to try and protect future people so they do not have to endure the pain that we’ve been through,” said Gaffney.Fraser, his brother, Archer, and their parents. Gaffney and Hinde started connecting with other families in Corby with similar stories to theirs and the group began compiling detailed records on those affected. Photograph: Fabio de Paola/The GuardianThe judgment in the 2009 civil claim accepted that, between 1983 and 1997, millions of tonnes of contaminated materials from the steel plant were transported “almost invariably” from the south of Corby to Deene Quarry in the north – with “large quantities” of toxic waste carried and dropped on public roads and “substantial quantities” of dust created by the reclamation.However, it also cited reports from the Environment Agency in 1997 that found stockpiles of contaminated material that had been left at Deene Quarry were later removed in “large quantities”.Gaffney believes waste was not only dumped at the Deene Quarry site but in other parts of the town. On Thursday, she welcomed a “major step forward” after North Northamptonshire council said it would test land that could be contaminated and investigate where toxic waste was dumped.Gaffney said council staff admitted in the meeting that they did not know where the sites of contaminated waste could be. “They said: ‘We don’t know where these sites are. We have no documentation, we have nothing on it.’”In a statement to the Guardian, North Northamptonshire council said the information they had seen from that time “says that the waste was disposed of in Deene Quarry, a former landfill site on the outskirts of Corby”, but added: “People have recently raised concerns on potential areas of contaminated land where they believe waste could also have been historically disposed of.“We are thoroughly reviewing historic records to see if there is any information which suggests that disposal could have taken place elsewhere. This work will take time.”A play area in a housing development that was built after the steelworks closed down. Gaffney believes toxic waste from the steelworks was dumped at sites other than Deene Quarry. Photograph: Fabio de Paola/The GuardianGaffney said the transparent nature of the meeting with the council shocked them. “Local authorities don’t normally hold their hands up and take this on but we’re really proud of them for doing so and saying they want to protect their people, like we do.”The council’s announcement was also welcomed by Tonia Shalgosky, a pastoral lead at a primary school, whose nine-year-old daughter, Bella, was diagnosed with blood cancer in June this year.“I had to shave my nine-year-old daughter’s head because her hair was falling out from the drugs she had to take to kill her cancer. So actually it’s in our interest, it’s in Bella’s interest [for the council] to share that information,” she said.“There are so many people in the town that have been diagnosed with childhood cancer and I just feel it’s too much to ignore – it needs looking at it. This can’t be normal.”Meg Lyons, 31, who works in sales and now lives in London, said families deserved “complete and utter truth and transparency” from the council.Lyons’s 11-year-old sister, Eve, died on 24 June 2017 after being diagnosed with a rare bone cancer at the age of nine. Eve, who fundraised for Stand Up To Cancer, was “one of the most lovable, funniest and kindest” people, Lyons said.Her mother remembers the impact of the closure of the steel plant on the town, Lyons said. “She said you couldn’t put your hand in front of your face because [of] the red ash.”Meg Lyons’s sister, Eve, died in June 2017 after being diagnosed with a rare bone cancer at the age of nine. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian“This has been going on since I’ve probably been about three years old. It’s an excessive amount of time and it is negligence toward the people of Corby.”Lyons’s cousin, Maggie Mahon, was one of several families involved in the 2009 claim against the then Corby council after her baby was born with clubfoot. Her husband, Derek, was one of the lorry drivers involved in removing waste from the steelworks. Their story was depicted in the Toxic Town series, and showed Maggie beating the dust from her husband’s jeans.Gaffney said the campaign group has been approached by whistleblowers who were involved in the dumping of waste in the town.One of those involved in the waste removal was Gaffney’s father. “He drove the lorry and dumped [the waste in a] pond,” she said. “At the time, everyone had lost their jobs so everyone took on any job that you could.”“He wasn’t even licensed to drive a lorry. He said: ‘Me and the other guys weren’t licensed but they had us drive these big lorries through the town, just dumping it,’” she said.Gaffney says the campaign group has been approached by whistleblowers who were involved in the dumping of waste in the town. Photograph: Fabio de Paola/The GuardianThe lawyer involved in the 2009 civil claim, Des Collins, is now representing Gaffney and other cancer families. He said only a statutory public inquiry would ensure the full truth is uncovered.“Environmental testing, in order to rule out causation, is a highly complex process requiring stringent parameters and oversight to allow for reliance on its findings,” he said.“No matter how genuine the council’s new approach, I am compelled to point out that, in my experience, only a statutory public inquiry has the capability both to reassure the public that the full truth has been uncovered and to set out the lessons to be learned.”In a statement the leader of the council, Martin Griffiths, said the meeting with Gaffney and Hinde “marked the start of the parties’ commitment to work together in an open, positive and constructive way for the benefit of Corby residents”.The council said it was committed to full transparency and would set up a working group, which will include Gaffney, to examine public health and contamination issues in Corby.Gaffney is hopeful testing on land in Corby will begin once the group has been established. “Now, every family that comes through, I’m listening to their stories and it’s so hard. If anything, it just gives us that further fight,” she said.“Each time it just chips away and then makes your fight stronger, because you’re thinking: ‘We’ve got to find answers for these children.’”

Nazi bombs, torpedo heads and mines: how marine life thrives on dumped weapons

Scientists discover thousands of sea creatures have made their homes amid the detritus of abandoned second world war munitions off the coast of GermanyIn the brackish waters off the German coast lies a wasteland of Nazi bombs, torpedo heads and mines. Thrown off barges at the end of the second world war and forgotten about, thousands of munitions have become matted together over the years. They form a rusting carpet on the shallow, muddy seafloor of the Bay of Lübeck in the western tip of the Baltic Sea.Over the decades, the Nazi arsenal was ignored and forgotten about. A growing number of tourists flocked to the sandy beaches and calm waters for jetskiing, kite surfing and amusement parks. Beneath the surface, the weapons decayed. Continue reading...

In the brackish waters off the German coast lies a wasteland of Nazi bombs, torpedo heads and mines. Thrown off barges at the end of the second world war and forgotten about, thousands of munitions have become matted together over the years. They form a rusting carpet on the shallow, muddy seafloor of the Bay of Lübeck in the western tip of the Baltic Sea.Over the decades, the Nazi arsenal was ignored and forgotten about. A growing number of tourists flocked to the sandy beaches and calm waters for jetskiing, kite surfing and amusement parks. Beneath the surface, the weapons decayed.A shore crab in a video taken by a submersible. Photograph: DeepSea Monitoring/GeomarWhen the first scientists went looking to see what they were doing to the ecosystem, “some of us expected to see a desert, with nothing living there because it was all poisoned”, says Andrey Vedenin, from the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt am Main, who led a team of scientists to catalogue for the first time what life is able to survive on underwater weaponry.What they found astonished them. Vedenin remembers his colleagues shouting with surprise when the submersible first sent the images back. “It was a great moment,” he says.Thousands of sea creatures had made their homes amid the munitions, creating a regenerated ecosystem more populous than the sea floor around it.This underwater metropolis was testament to the tenacity of life. “It is actually astonishing how much life we find in places that are supposed to be toxic and dangerous,” he says.More than 40 starfish had piled on to one exposed chunk of TNT. They were living on metal shells, fuse pockets and transport cases just centimetres from its explosive filling. Fish, crabs, sea anemones and mussels were all found on the old munitions. “You could compare it with a coral reef in terms of the amount of fauna that was there,” says Vedenin.The munitions host a regenerated ecosystem of fish, crabs, sea anemones and mussels. ‘A lot of species that are otherwise rare or declining, such as the Baltic cod, are thriving,’ says Andrey VedeninAn average of more than 40,000 animals were living on every square metre of the munitions, scientists wrote in their paper on the discovery, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment in September. The surrounding area was much less diverse, with only 8,000 individuals on every square metre.It is ironic that “things that are meant to kill everything are attracting so much life,” says Vedenin. “You can see how nature adapts after a catastrophic event such as the second world war and how, in some way, life finds its way back to the most dangerous places.”What the researchers found in the Bay of Lübeck reveals a surprising truth about how underwater life can repurpose human debris.Typically “urban sprawl” is considered bad for nature, but underwater, the script can be flipped. This is because every day, an average of 1m dumper trucks of rock, gravel, clay and silt are removed from the marine environment. These hard surfaces provide homes for corals, sponges, barnacles and mussels, as well as nursing grounds for fish.Before the war, this area of the Baltic Sea was full of boulders and rocky outcrops, but virtually all of them were removed for construction, to build homes and roads.Things that are meant to kill everything are attracting so much life … You can see how nature adaptsArtificial structures such as shipwrecks, offshore windfarms, oil rigs and pipelines can provide substitutes, replacing some of the lost habitat. This study shows that munitions could be similarly beneficial – the bloom of life on those in the Bay of Lübeck is likely to be repeated elsewhere.Between 1946 and 1948, 1.6m tonnes of arms were dumped off the German coast. Thousands of people loaded them in barges; some were dropped in designated sites, others just thrown overboard en route. This is the first time researchers have documented how marine life has responded.The seabed of the North and Baltic Seas off Germany are littered with munitions from the first and second world wars, such as shells once fired from German warships. Photograph: SeaTerraBut the phenomenon is not restricted to weapons. In the US, decommissioned oil and gas structures have turned into coral reefs; the Rigs-to-Reefs programme encourages authorities to leave the clean and stable structures underwater for the environmental benefits. Sunken ships from the first world war have become habitats for wildlife along the Potomac River in Maryland.These places become even more important for wildlife as the oceans are increasingly denuded by fishing, bottom trawling and anchoring. Sunken ships and weapons dump sites “essentially act as protected areas – they are not national parks, but almost any kind of human activity is prohibited”, says Vedenin. “Therefore a lot of species that are otherwise rare or declining, such as the Baltic cod, are thriving.”Anywhere where military conflict has occurred in the past 100 years, surrounding seas are usually strewn with munitions, says Vedenin. Millions of tonnes of explosive material lie in our oceans.The locations of these munitions are poorly documented, partly because of national borders, classified military information and the fact that records are buried in historic archives. They pose an explosion and security risk, as well as risk from the ongoing release of toxic chemicals.In the 1990s, academics started warning about the “danger from the deep”, and the need to remove potentially explosive material. Pressure to remove the weaponry also came from a growing demand to use the seabed for something else, such as dredging or offshore infrastructure such as windfarms, cables, and oil and gas pipelines.A black goby (Gobius niger), which feeds on the small crustaceans, fish, molluscs and worms living on the munitions in the Baltic Sea. Photograph: DeepSea Monitoring/ GeomarAs Germany and other countries embark on removing these relics, scientists hope to protect the ecosystems that have formed around them. In the Bay of Lübeck munitions are already being removed.“We should replace these metal carcasses left from munitions with some safer, some non-dangerous objects, like maybe concrete structures,” says Vedenin.He now hopes that what happens in Lübeck sets a precedent for replacing material after munitions removal elsewhere – because even the most destructive weaponry can become scaffolding for new life.Tank tracks that have become home to coral off Asan beach, Guam, came from US equipment lost during the invasion of the Pacific island in 1944. Photograph: National Park Service via GuamFind more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.