vision2020
RE: Letter to the editor...
Hello Charlie,
Thanks for providing me an opportunity to respond to points that may be
shared by others. As one commissioner determined to get to the "facts" in
front of me prior to making a decision on a waste disposal system option of
the county I have gained the following information.
First a progress report on where the information gathering is:
1. The county is informed of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Municipal Solid Waste (MSLWF) Criteria. A booklet is available from
EPA that " ...discusses the major reqwuirements of these regulations, who
is required to comply and when, how the rule will be implemented and
enforced, and where to obtain information. States and Indian tribes are
expected to adopt these federal standards and implement the regulations
through their own permit programs."
Present federal regulations concerning the siting, development, and
operation assures me that while there is no such thing as a complete
guarantee against the unforseen, the present standards are designed to be as
good as it can be given the present store of knowledge and technology.
2. The Board of Commissioners (all three) have placed a 50,000 tons of
garbage/anuum cap in addition to the county's 18,000 tons. The additional
amount may come from Whitman county (at a future time, e.g., five to six
years from the year 2000) and Benewah county. At the moment, Don Bafus, the
county's solid waste management coordinator is getting a "count" of who and
how muchg garbage may be there that are as yet uncommitted to a disposal
site. He is finding that there is not a queue of would be solid waste
disposers.
3. The landfill option being considered anticipates a private business
undertaking the site permitting (or predevelopment) processes with DEQ/EPA
in Lewiston, engineering and design, operation procedures, including
reporting and monitoring rules, actual development or construction of cells
and other relevant activities, and subsequent operation of the landfill and
paying for the costs of these. In return the county will have the operator
use the land the county anticipates to own for an agreed upon host fee which
will provide for among others the required financial assurance costs
(maintenance of monitoring structures and closure and post closure
activities) and underwrite solid waste programs that one hopes would benefit
residents of the county. I will be pointing some more of the programs that
the county can provide to the public funds permitting.
Concerning deterioration on roads and bridges, Don Bafus, estimates
approximately three to four additional trucks on the local roads to the
three to four that ply state highways in Latah at this time. In the
transfer of Latah's waste to a site 240 miles one way, much more resource
is consumed in addition to the wear and tear on highways, albeit some are
not Idaho's.
Again, I will agree that one cannot predict to the minutest detail the
content of the waste, load present or anticipated. I will restate that
there are rules designed to minimize or prevent such happenstance. Current
hazardous waste in Latah county is disposed of formally via the once a year
hazardous waste day disposal; it is likely that some citizens of Latah
county are disposing of some hazardous waste, wittingly or not in illegal
ways. One of the programs Latah county hopes to have conjointly with the
City fo Moscow and other cities is a provision for receipt and proper
disposal of these hazardous waste, say once a week or as is needed.
The short-term profitability you speak of does not accurately describe the
county's reasons for investigating an in-county landfill. The
profitability is true only in that if successfully implemented the county
will no longer subsidize, with levy monies, programs (bulky waste,
educational, proper disposal of illegally dumped waste, etc) for rural Latah
and Cities. It is hoped that any "extra" money can be used to support
programs currently lacking in Latah's small communities: Bovill, Deary,
Potlatch., Kendrick-Juliaetta, Genesee and others that are not of the
incorporated status as cities, e.g., bulky waste sites that are managed and
built appropriate to local contexts; recycling and composting in the
different municipalities of rural Latah; a "reuse" facilities that
facilitate exchange of still usseable materials such as wood , furniture,
household utensils and other items; possibly a tire grinding machine at the
landfill site to do acceptable tire reuse; etc.
On possible landfills leaking, I am assured that EPA and the North Central
Health District have standards designed to prevent such failures. In the
eventuality of one, the financial assurance funds each landfill owner must
have can be utilized to mitigate or correct failures as these may happen,
provisions which heretofore were nonexistent. As I get more information on
the extent of failures, if any, of landfills in Idaho which have been
developed and operated under present EPA regulations, I will pass these on
to you.
And do I want Latah county to be known as a regional landfill? in the
sense that additional 50,000 waste will be taken in from counties other than
Latah? I am more optimistic than you in that I don't think Latah will be
known primarily for its regional landfill. The serious consideration of the
site next to the present transfer station and the old landfill (constructed
and utilized prior to the new EPA regulations) are based on two reasons:
the present use is not too removed from the landfill option being
considered; a transfer station is a collecting and holding facility of waste
that is eventually trucked to another site. With an in-county landfill such
waste will be less than a mile to a landfill cell, hence minimizing road
travel and usage of energy as a result. The old landfill closed prior to
the advent of present EPA regulations remains unmonitored, is unlined, and
constructed absent the criteria demanded of new landfill constructions.
Establishment of new landfill cells in the vicinity according to new
standards will enable the county to install monitoring wells that will
check on the state of waste in the old.
The site being considered is approximately 320 acres and will be require an
EPA permit before any construction begins. Likewise an agreement between
the county and private operator-developer will be negotiated prior to
proceeding with a landfill development. As additional precaution and
consonant with your concern over intentional or unintentional mixing of
hazardous waste in the waste for landfilling, agreements can be instituted
among the outside depositors, the county, and the operator to state the
rules of disposal and the appropriate penalties for violation of the terms
of the agreement.
It is estimated that the landfill site permitting and development
processes will take at least four years to complete. Hence the county's
effort to get to the facts now and make the appropriate call years before
the terms of the present waste export contract expires. I will be mailing
you all of the information the county presently has
and leave the judgment to you. For my part, I will continue to keep the
conversation open and search for information that will enable me to make the
best call on behalf of latah county. On a decision as important as solid
waste management I cannot afford to do less.
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Sincerely, Loreca
-----Original Message-----
From: Charle5170@aol.com [mailto:Charle5170@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:01 PM
To: smcclure@dnews.com
Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Letter to the editor...
Dear Editor:
All Latah County citizens should call or write their county commissioners
now
and voice opposition to building and marketing a regional landfill here.
Here's why.
First, whenever you import other people's garbage you import other people's
problems, both now and in the future. On top of the extraordinary costs of
site preparation, monitoring, operation, and maintenance there are the
issues
of increased traffic to and from the facility. This results in increased
infrastructure deterioration to our roads and bridges.
One cannot predict what substances we now use that will later create
environmental problems in the future. We may in fact be begging other
cities
around the Northwest to concentrate as yet undetermined hazardous waste in
Latah County--and we'll own it.
Of course this assumes the additional waste stream required for short-term
profitability will be "clean," of current hazardous wastes. What if it's
not? Hazardous waste that makes its way to Latah County by accident or
criminal intent will nonetheless belong to the county--forever.
All landfills leak. They leak over the top and through the bottom. If they
don't leak now, they will later and we will own the landfill, the leachate,
fugitive wastes, and the problems they may cause.
Do we really want Latah County to be known as a home to a regional landfill?
Isn't one of the primary reasons people live here the quality of life we now
enjoy? And if a regional landfill is such a good idea, why not tuck it
right
next to Moscow instead of dumping it on our rural neighbors?
Sure, we'll still generate solid waste and we'll have to deal with that.
Maybe we'll even have to pay more. But I'm happy to continue to have some
other small-minded, shortsighted community take our waste into THEIR
regional
landfill.
Charlie Powell
Moscow, Idaho
882-1134
Back to TOC