Look, let's be honest. Maybe 1 percent of the public about is going to read through and critically discuss documents like these provided to me by Barbra Williamson. Maybe if the task force gave away free ipods that would change. But until then good job on trying to bring more information to the debate.
Barbra Williamson's Task Force recently submitted a list of specific questions they want addressed in regards to the proposed expansion of the Simi Valley Landfill. Click on continue reading to look through them.
Here are the question's from the task force
SIMI VALLEY LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MODIFICATION OF C.U.P. 3142 LANDFILL EXPANSION
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE SIMI VALLEY LANDFILL EXPANSION TASK FORCE
JANUARY 10, 2008
1) WHAT IS THE PROJECT BASELINE DATE?
Characterize the current and projected future Southern California waste management system, including regional waste generation, disposal facilities, etc., and how changes in that system, including upcoming landfill closures, the development of landfill bioenergy alternatives, and changes in State recycling policy (increasing diversion mandates), may impact the nature and intensity of Simi Valley landfill operations. This analysis should cover the same timeline as the requested Conditional Use Permit.
The new Project Baseline analysis should additionally provide the data for a new and expanded traffic study. The traffic data supplied with the original initial study did not distinguish between the origin of tons for trash vs. "recyclables." Preparation of a GHG impact analysis in the EIR is necessary. This is important, since as the further afield waste is transported to the landfill, the GHG impacts will significantly increase on the Southern California air basins. The GHG analysis also has relevance for the evaluation of Alternatives, following, since the future development of clean technology bioenergy facilities at MRFs and/or closer to the sources of waste generation has major GHG gains when compared to landfill transport and megalandfill fugitive emissions.
2) WHAT NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE EIR?
Reestablishment of a Landfill Wasteshed Boundary must be considered. This alternative is to limit utilization of the landfill to waste generated in a specific and limited geographic area similar to a former Ventura County ordinance that restricted use of the landfill to Ventura County and areas west of Desoto Avenue in Los Angeles County. While the 1994 Supreme Court Carbone decision may impact mandatory restrictions, a voluntary wasteshed boundary should be considered. EIR alternative should analyzed the impact of such waste import restrictions on disposal capacity over time, including daily tonnages, truck trips, air quality, GHG, etc., including a reassessment of long-term disposal needs.
Alternatives of New Technologies should be evaluated. This alternative should examine the scenario of maintaining landfill operations under current permits through 2020 (no expansion), coupled with the development, within the next decade, of at least one conversion technology (bioenergy) facility in Ventura County capable of diverting 1,000 TPD of waste from the Simi Valley Landfill. This alternative should be further evaluated with respect to the impact of applying new engineering technologies at the landfill, such as bioreactor cells that can recycle existing airspace and thereby mitigate the need for lateral expansion.
3) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPING A LANDFILL OVER AN OIL FIELD AND IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A SEISMICALLY ACTIVE AREA?
Oil fields range from “tight� to those exhibiting vertical migration through unconsolidated strata, well bores and well casings. This presents a threat to neighboring developed land. For example, the Montebello, CA landfill was developed over an oil field. Methane and other toxic and carcinogenic chemicals migrated vertically from the oil field, deeper gas repository and municipal landfill into residential and commercial occupied structures. Certificates of Occupancy were revoked and homes were abandoned, and then purchased by government agencies and private interests, and the site deemed a significant health risk. The subject Simi Valley site may contain oil and gas wells, well boreholes, exploratory wells, water wells, natural seeps and is in close proximity to a significant active geologic hazard zone. This is a potential environmental as well as economic impact on the community of Simi Valley.
4) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EXPANDING THE LANDFILL INTO, AND ADJACENT TO, UNDEVELOPED LANDS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY’S GENERAL PLAN AS INDUSTRIAL?
The project cumulative impacts may pertain to loss of jobs, increased and sustained inter- and intra- commuting traffic to available jobs, increased economic loss sustained by that increased commute, degradation of air quality resulting from commutes, loss of corporate relocation and location into the Simi Valley sphere of influence. Other impacts include odor, noise and degradation of community services resulting from the loss of revenue otherwise available with industrial development, and impact at landfill closure.
5) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EXPANDING THE CLASS III LANDFIL OVER AND UPON A PREVIOUSLY UNCLOSED CLASS I LANDFILL?
Prior use of the subject site included development of a Class I landfill containing heavy metals, volatile organic solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other known and unknown toxic substances. Class III rubbish and other permitted and regulated nontoxic substances have been historically emplaced or otherwise dumped over the toxic substances to a degree that has been described by a previously completed EIR and governmental agencies as “unknown�, “to an unknown degree� and within an area “not known at this time�. While the current and proposed Class III landfill may include within its operations gas impermeable membrane and collections systems, physical impacts on buried Class I toxins, including migration, are unknown and have not been quantified.
6) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EXPANDING THE LANDFILL WITH DOMESTIC AND OTHER WASTE FROM JURISDICTIONS OUTIDE VENTURA COUNTY?
The current expansion application states, and otherwise implies, that the expansion is to meet the refuse needs of Ventura County. Nevertheless, historically 30 – 35% of the daily waste delivered to the landfill has come from outside of Ventura County and more particularly from Los Angeles, Orange and Santa Barbara Counties and from military bases transporting waste from the Middle East and particularly Iraq. Environmental impacts of concern may be, but are not limited to, spent uranium military shells and casings, lead from discarded electronic parts, economic blight on surrounding communities when the subject landfill reaches daily capacity, freeway and other roadway traffic and related roadway structural and cosmetic, deterioration, damage and safety impacts resulting from waste hauling over undefined and potentially long distances and negative impacts on the economy of Simi Valley resulting from the operations of this mega-landfill serving multiple counties and other wide ranging jurisdictions as suggested herein.
7) WHAT WILL BE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF THE FOUL ODORS EMANATING FROM THE REQUESTED INCREASED LANDFILL OPERATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS?
Simi Valley, historically known as Valley of the Winds, has significant and sustained winds of high intensity. Currently the subject landfill operates with chemical odorants dispersed into the atmosphere throughout the boundaries of the landfill proper. Information on the health risks caused by the sustained exposure to these odorants has not been provided. It is further unknown what the impacts of the requested added height and spread of the landfill will be on the dispersion of generated odors and chemical odorants into the community.
8) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON SIMI VALLEY AND ON THE COUNTY OF VENTURA WITH RESPECT TO THE “NO PROJECT� OPTION?
The project applicant suggests and otherwise concludes that the landfill is required for the refuse needs of Ventura County. Nevertheless, LAFCO and other growth figures prepared by governmental agencies conclude that the refuse disposal needs of the County will be met under current operations until at least the year 2024 or beyond and without any expansion. The project applicant has further suggested and concludes that another landfill within Ventura County will close or otherwise not expand thereby limiting local waste capacity. No data exists for this conclusion, however. Nowhere in the project description or the Initial Study do we find a detailed analysis of projected population growth and waste generation that supports this conclusion. Nor do we find any reference to other strategies in combination with the capacity available in existing 2020 permits which would alleviate the need for an expansion. Given the rapidly changing landscape in solid waste management and renewable energy technologies, the “No Project� alternative may meet existing CUP footprint and tonnage limits, implement selected improvements (such as the MRF, HHW facility, and LNG facility), incorporate a limitation on waste imports, and defer the decision on the expansion for at least five years when greater clarity on the alternatives to continued burying of waste is available.
9) DOES THE “BUFFER AREA� DEFINED IN THE PROJECT APPLICATION INCLUDE THE ARTIFICIALLY ENGINEERED BERMS AND SLOPES? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUFFER AREA? WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “BUFFER� AREA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PROJECT?
10) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND DEBRIS OPERATIONS? WILL COLLECTED CONSTRUCTION AND DEBRIS WASTE BE USED FOR ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER? IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROJECTED TONNAGE?
Provide a complete description of the C&D operations including license franchisees, identification of debris, sorting, re-use, disposal costs, control and off-site hauling.
11) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM A PROPOSED HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY?
Provide cleaning mechanisms to remove toxins including, but not limited to, oil, antifreeze, transmission fluids, brake pads, etc.
12) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROCESSING OF UP TO 500 TONS PER DAY OF RECYCLABLES? HOW MANY TRIPS PER DAY OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL DELIVERED TO THE SITE, AS WELL AS OFF-SITE DELIVERY POST PROCESSING, WILL OCCUR? WHERE WILL THESE MATERIALS BE TRANSFERRED TO? HOW MANY TONS OF THIS MATERIAL WILL REMAIN ON-SITE AS WASTE AND INCLUDED IN THE LANDFILL WASTE MATRIX?
13) WILL MEDICAL WASTE BE DISPOSED OF IN THE SUBJECT LANDFILL?
Environmental impacts from potentially dangerous, explosive, flammable or otherwise hazardous chemicals are unknown.
14) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM GREENHOUSE GASES?
Provide source, type and amount of air pollution generated from carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and volatile chlorinated solvents for the life of the project.
15) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT PROJECT? WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NOT USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE DIESEL EMISSIONS?
Specific technologies to reduce air pollution have not been identified by the applicant.
16) WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED GAS FLARES AND THEIR EMISSIONS?
Atmospheric impacts from carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and resulting hydrochloric acid require evaluation.
Here is a question indirectly related to expansion. Why is our yard waste not recycled into mulch? We separate it; we are charged extra for it; I just saw another raise in cost of service. If we cannot trust WM to recycle what the community believes is being recycled, how can we trust anything they say about the impact of the proposed expansion?
And why not put a ballot measure before Simi Valley and Moorpark? It may be County property but it will have a direct effect on traffic and quality of life right here, not Ventura where the Board of Supervisors meet to decide our future.
We are asked to be good citizens, support environmental efforts and forced by law to pay for these green waste bins.
For the past fifteen years or so that we've been paying the extra $3-$4 per month for green waste bins we've been led to believe those materials were mulched and recycled for re-use by my community Apparently we weren't just wrong. We were bamboozled. Locally, our green waste is dumped directly on top of each day's trash, adding to the amount of materials placed in the landfill. WMI takes all those monthly fees and hands most of it over to its shareholders. If any other business tried to do the same thing they'd be drawn-and-quartered by the State AG and fined hundreds of millions of $$$. Then a bus load of class action attorneys would put the screws to them and put them out of business.
I'm not saying that's what should happen to WMI since they have given tens of thousands of $$$ to the favorite charities of many of our local elected officials. But I am saying that we should be compensated for being bamboozled out of so much money. My rough guesstimate is that WMI collected anywhere from $12M to $16M each year off the Big Green Bamboozle. That could amount to about $200M overall, plus interest. If we can't get it back into our own pockets then the County and Cities could sure use that money. I suggest they take steps to recover it. And as a penalty, perhaps WMI can step up and pay for an ethics and civics curriculum to be added to our school programs and, with the change left over, they can cover the cost of remodeling the Seabees museum.
Yep, it is a swindle. Ever wonder why Waste Mgt. has been convicted of over 200 felonies? They can't be trusted. How about the scam they have been pulling over the Neighborhood Councils by not telling the truth about the expansion? Their day will come, and soon! The expansion is to take LA garbage and for no other reason.
What is WM's side of the green-recycling story?
Actually, that IS the firm's side of the story, at least as it was explained to us by WMI and shown to us during our tour of their facility. As incredulous as it sounds, they basically said (para) "No, we don't recycle green waste. We use it to cover the trash."
The law allows WMI to do this but the point is we've been led to believe we are sacrificing $4/month for the better good of the environment, by recycling our green waste. We are not. Instead we are being forced to provide WMI with a $200M plus interest windfall.
Perhaps there's more to it than WMI explained and if the firm has a better spin I'd sure like to hear about it.
Speaking of "spin", at the Neighborhood Council meeting Waste Mgt. gave a reason for why Simi Valley residents should accept garbage from Los Angeles and beyond. They said the following: "since Simi Valley gets its food and water from other parts of the Country, it is only fair that we take the trash from other parts of the Country. We all have to do our part."
Now that makes sense. Now I support the expansion of the dump.
Did they really say that???? When we get food & water from LA we give them money in return. When we get trash from LA, WMI gets the money and we get to live with the consequences. I don't see WMI's logic.
Did they really say that???? When we get food & water from LA we give them money in return. When we get trash from LA, WMI gets the money and we get to live with the consequences. I don't see WMI's logic.
Let's face it! It seems there's only ONE reason for WMI's expansion plans and that is to consolidate their operations so they can increase their profits. Expanding the landfill isn't enviro-friendly. It doesn't improve the quality of our lives. It provides no additional revenues to either the City or the county. It creates no new jobs. It may make it impossible for the City's West End revenue-generating, job-creating business park to ever be realized (an estimated $6M per year in revenues). It provides virtually no benefits except to WMI and its shareholders. In fact, this area would be better off if the landfill doesnt expand.
So why the push to bamboozle Ventura County & Simi Valley into making a terrible one-sided deal??
Gary, I have an adequate penalty for WM. The get there landfill cover via our green waste and in turn they sacrifice their expansion. That should cost them plenty. What a scam.
I'd rather see them return the monies they collected under this scheme, plus interest and penalties.
As Supervisors Foy & Parks suggested, we're heading into some difficult financial times. A nice rebate from WMI could be saved for that rainy day.
How does the proposed expansion not create new jobs?
WMI's proposal is to consolidate existing operations by moving its 400 existing employees to the landfill site. Their documents state the expanded facility will accommodate 400 employees so that suggests there's no indication of any expansion of jobs.
Elsewhere, the closing of other landfills and waste operations as part of WMI's consolidation efforts could well result in job losses.
Also, the presence of a growing trash mountain and the cumulative effects of traffic, noise, debris, smell and other negative factors will have a direct impact on the decisions of any firms deciding whether or not to invest in relocation to Simi Valley's west end. The City could be giving up an estimated $6M or more in future tax revenues and a lot of jobs if WMI's present plans come to life.
We should start a pledge where local politicos pledge not to take one dollar from WM or its employees so that we all know it is a fair vote.
We should STOP the friggin' expansion.
If you stand at the Rocky Peak overpass to the westbound 118, you will see WM trucks heading into Simi Valley. Where are they coming from? Is the dump already receiving waste from outside the county?
About 35% of the garbage going into the dump currently comes from outside of Ventura County.
Great News! I heard that the expansion of the dump will include a replica of the Statue of Liberty built out of garbage that will sit on top of Mount Trashmore in Simi. The inscription will read "Give us your trash, all of your trash from L.A. County and places beyond, even from Iraq. Give us your trash, we will keep it in the hills of Simi forever and ever and hopefully we will not suffer the way we did from Rocketdyne."
Yes, the Statue will be a fantastic addition to our community. It will be to the west end of the City what the new Welcome to Simi Valley $130,000 sign is to the east end; an addition to which we will all look with pride.
I believe Waste Management was lucky to land in Simi Valley. Anywhere else they would get crushed by a onslaught of angry citizens. Most companies conduct business and they leave. Waste Managements' Expansion keeps giving long after they leave. W.M. wants to fill that hill with as much trash a possible and leave. Let's not fool ourselves of anything different.
On the County level:
Most Ventura County Supervisors fell for the excuses in departments with serious problems they gave them raises.
What makes you think they are not going to fall for Waste Managements' sales pitch and deep pockets?
WMI's giving one of those sales pitches tonite at City Hall...7:30PM
Why not stop in for a listen and see if a mega-dump is for you!