Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10121993 - 1.54 RECEIVED City of Pittsburg P 2 7 {gg3 Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 a�r,©� t5 �` sG„� RA C Cpj o OFFICE OF THE MAYOR September 21, 1993 RECEIVE[) SEP 2 7 1993 Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 300 East Leland Road Pittsburg, CA 94565_ RE: STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG REGARDING THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY'S ("KCLC") REQUEST TO THE CONTRA COSTA 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO RECEIVE A "BLANKET" APPROVAL TO RECEIVE OUT-OF-COUNTY "SPECIAL WASTES" Dear Supervisor Torlakson: In her August 16, 1993 communication to you, Mary Erbez registered the concern of the City of Pittsburg regarding the Board of Supervisor's consideration of the KCLC request for "a general authorization” to accept "special wastes" from outside Contra Costa County. The following comments are submitted to detail some of the additional concerns of the City of Pittsburg related to this request by KCLC. To differentiate these comments from the statements of concern submitted by the City during the comment period for the Keller Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") process it should be pointed out that we are not now just concerned about the hypothetical risks of the facility. Our current concern is related to the actual operation of the Keller Landfill. We are concerned that the operating conditions of Keller .make it less than a "good neighbor" and worse that it has become a threat to the health of the City's residents living near the facility. Based on videotaped evidence of "fugitive dust" coming from the landfill it is our position that any new proposal to allow KCLC to receive out- of-county special materials such as asbestos, contaminated soils, military base contaminated clean-up materials, etc. must be deferred until the facility can be shown to be containing the waste in a manner which is in compliance with Keller's Conditions of Approval ("COA"). California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award • 1993 City of New Horizons Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 21, 1993 page two Keller's COA's specify in section 26.1 (PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, Safety Objective) that: The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which does not impair the safety of persons living in its vicinity, Landfill users, or Landfill employees. In section 25.1 of the COA (LITTER CONTROL, Litter Control Objective) it states that: The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which confines litter to the working face of the Landfill, which prevents litter from accumulating on other parts of the site, and which prevents litter from being blown. off the site. The videotaped and photographed documentation we have observed chronicles the dispersion of "fugitive dust" and litter which has "escaped" from Keller on the strong winds which are a common occurrence in the Pittsburg area. The subject of "fugitive dust" is of particular concern to the City because of the potential to damage the health of vulnerable individuals in the community. Children and adults with asthma and other respiratory ailments are particularly susceptible to the effects of additional particulate matter in the air. Additionally, the specter of "fugitive dust" which contains hazardous substances (asbestos, medical wastes, contaminated soils, toxic chemicals, etc.) which have been either deposited or created by combination at Keller make the facility more than a eyesore - they make it a degenerative influence on the environmental quality of the area. It is our understanding that there is reasonable, if not totally irrefutable, evidence that the health of individuals living in shadow of Keller has been negatively impacted by the operation of the facility. One probable cause of their respiratory symptoms is the dust which has emanated from the Landfill during the construction and operation of the facility. To move ahead to accept, without review by the Board of. Supervisors, more "special wastes" with the potential to add to the existing health risk of Keller would be an irresponsible action. It is our contention that the "fugitive dust" related to the construction and operation of Keller is now a threat to our community. It is our contention that if the health of even one member of our community is damaged by Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 21, 1993 page three "fugitive dust," or any other uncontained deposited waste or product of this facility, that Keller is operating in violation of its Conditions of Approval. We feel that any effort to accept additional "special wastes" should necessitate a new environmental review which would include a new risk assessment by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. We are also puzzled that the proposal to allow of Keller to accept out-of-county "specials wastes" without prior approval by the Board of Supervisors was not routed to the Keller Local Advisory Committee ("KLAC"). Such a proposal would be of obvious interest to this group which was established by the County to allow for discussion, consideration, and documentation of items of concern to the residents of the communities impacted by the Landfill. The lack of input by the KLAC is even more puzzling because the issue of the direct hauling of waste from the Gaylord site in Antioch was referred to this official landfill advisory committee. The Committee might not be inclined to reflect positively on the new "special waste" blanket proposal because it is our understanding that they had been told by County staff that the direct hauling of specialized industrial waste materials from Gaylord was going to be an isolated exemption from the normal route of access to the landfill. In support of the connection between the dust emissions emanating from the landfill and a negative impact on the health of vulnerable residents of the community is the fact that at least one Pittsburg realtor is advising clients that they will have to disclose the potential for health risk related to the proximity of their homes to the landfill. It is a serious blow to the residents of the Hillsdale neighborhood that in addition to the potential for odor, visual, and noise problems they must now declare the health risk potential of the facility as part of the home selling process. The City of Pittsburg reiterates our support for the careful monitoring and compliance enforcement of the Conditions of Approval for the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit (LUP 2020). It is our position that the most important provision of the COA (26.1) is being violated by the facility with its documented failure to contain dust and waste within the containment area of the landfill. The violation of the Conditions of Approval for the Keller facility begs the question as to whether KCLC should be allowed to continue accepting its current wastestream let alone allowing it to accept an increased Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors September 21, 1.993 page four flow of "special wastes." To move ahead to allow the "general authorization" to accept these wastes would certainly increase the risk to the community given the current operational conditions at the landfill. Si erely, Robert T. Le Mayor cc: S. Anthony Donato, City Manager Yolanda Lopez, Assistant City Manager Glen Williams, Keller Landfill Advisory Committee Chair Patricia Hilligoss, BAAQMD Board of Directors Chair Milton Feldstein, Air Pollution Control Officer Ralph Chandler, Executive Director CIWMB Harvey E. Bragdon, CCC Community Development Director Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Dr. William Walker, County Health Officer Contra Costa County Public Managers Association Michael Woods, City Attorney Michael Remy, Remy and Thomas