Comments on: Community Engagement

By: Sandra Warnken of rural resident

Sandra Warnken of rural resident — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:57:02 +0000

We live about 2.5 miles from the local landfill. Though we are in a rural agricultural area the population is made larger by vehicles moving through on the highway, farmers/farmworkers working in the fields.

The site is, I supposed, financially stressed by the state of California mandate to reduce garbage to the land fill by 50%. The site took on a trial composting project back in the early 2000s. Somewhere along the way they started hauling food waste in for the project. We started smelling it by 2003. Being good neighbors we didnt complain until we discovered the site wanted to expand importation of food waste. In 2005 they received a permit to expand the tonnage of food waste coming in.

Even though CEQA allows for public comment, the county only required comment from anyone living a short distance from the site, even though there were complaints from a resident half a mile from the the east and slightly north. My husband and I showed up the night the planning commission voted to approve the permit. We heard the project was grandfathered in even though the ROG and VOCs were above limits. The consultant who was reporting the results on tests testified there was no smell coming of the compost. I suppose that is true when it was in a bag. However the site manager later admitted they knew they had an odor problem, but everybody was willing to over look it. The project was permitted due to a host of ‘overriding considerations’.

We have been attending stakeholder meetings for years contesting the smell issue. Slowly people are joining the group as they figure out there is a problem and want to do something about it.

The contention from state and local officials is that this smell is a nuisance and only is worth taking notice if the odor can be tied to illness. And they also like to pretend there is no odor. The problem boils down to a few rural residents taking a stand against a large employer in a cash strapped county.

Secondly, I have taken issue with a state beaurocrate over requiring inappropriate tests to determine the safety of the “organic” soil amendment. The compost facility is supposed to test for e coli and salmonell and heavy metals. The piles only need to go to 130 degrees. As a result of following these guidelines, the facility manager assures us their product is safe because it is tested. It is deemed “organic”.

The odd thing is this there is no interest in plant pathogens for a product that is sold as a soil amendment. There are studies showing that several plant pathogens survive composts taken to 160+ degrees F. In effect if present they are concentrated rather than destroyed. No testing is done to determine if pathogens like tobacco mosaic virus, verticillium and fusarium wilt are done to protect the tomato industry.

By: Diane of

Diane of — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:10:18 +0000

Mr. Maurer:

You said in your comments, “If the spill reaches a storm drain, or if the fire department is involved and determines there is a fire hazard, then flushing could be an acceptable method to reduce fire hazard.” Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program of the Clean Water Act, municipalities are instructed that they are to prevent oil and gas spills from entering stormdrains and flowing from there into the environment. Your statement seems to conflict with Clean Water Act requirements, which is why cities around the country are required to remove spilled oil from stormdrains with specialized vacuum trucks. Please clairify your comments. Thank you.

By: elizabeth of western washington university

elizabeth of western washington university — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:03:19 +0000

I agree that we should recycle 100% of everything that we produce, but unfortunately it is a very costly venture-economically speaking. Not all products are recyclable and even if they are it costs a lot of money in transportation and reproduction of that material. In order for recycling to be most beneficial, 100% of a product must be recycled, but that is not the case since we are recycling products after we consume them. All in all, recycling is something that everyone needs to take a part in so that it can be most beneficial and recycling systems need to be developed on a localized scale- not state wide or nation wide- becuase every community functions differently and will benefit from different systems of recycling.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:46:11 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by lisahoffmann: The EPA just started a blog. Could be interesting…http://bit.ly/75ozHF…

By: Yvonne of Citizen

Yvonne of Citizen — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:40:40 +0000

I think folks should be cautious to equate “economically disadvantaged” with “historically under-represented.” Although these concepts may overlap, they are not synonyms.

The question Don Eggleston asked holds merit and is still unanswered. What is EPA’s policy is using this (now overused) term: economically disadvantaged? This term started popping up a few years ago from EPA offices, but it’s not clear why. Heather can you, or someone from the Office of Environmental Justice, answer that question more specifically?

And while we are at it, what happend to the term Environmental Justice?

By: RafaelPG of R5, EPA

RafaelPG of R5, EPA — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:38:39 +0000

Consideration should be given to a methodological approach involving procedural justice to public involvement in natural resource decision process. Public involvement literature reveals a variety of reasons for involving public, in the decision process. However, little attention is given to the effects of procedures on the very communities we are trying to engage with … Until we address the procedural activities at the regional level … we may be lost at sea for a while, if not far longer than we should be if we do not set procedures to engage, or reorganize the current applications of engaging the community with the current philosophy.

By: Daniel Poull of Sustainability Advisory Board, Lawrence, KS

Daniel Poull of Sustainability Advisory Board, Lawrence, KS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:23:40 +0000

Thank you for providing this forum.
I would suggest that the EPA use all of the incentives and penalties at their disposal to help communities:
1. Decrease waste. Their should be a nationwide campaign to make greater use of recyclable materials. There should be actual standards as to what actually can be disposed in a landfill. There should be a campaign to lessen packaging on retail goods sold in the U.S.
2. Increase local economies. Lessen the impact of pollution and carbon that is created by consumer goods and food that are shipped nationally and internationally that could otherwise be created locally.
3. Greater incentives for local and sustainable power production. Every area of the country has a type of energy they can produce, whether it is solar, wind, bio-mass, or other types. We should fund at least the pilot projects for these kinds of local power systems.
4. Stricter controls on coal-fire power plants. After the coal ash accident in Tennessee, we know there are numerous ways in which coal-fired power plants put people at risk. Tighten standards on all aspects of detrimental wastes and carbon produced from the burning of coal.

By: Heather Case of USEPA Office of Environmental Justice

Heather Case of USEPA Office of Environmental Justice — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:58:07 +0000

“Economically disadvantaged” is a general term used to describe a community or a population who does not have the income/assets for a secure and adequate livelihood. Being “economically disadvantaged” may also pre-dispose people to greater impacts from pollution (e.g., because they can’t afford health care) or may prevent their meaningful participation in governmental decision-making processes (e.g., because they can’t afford transportation to attend a public meeting). Administrator Jackson set an expectation early in her tenure that EPA, “…take special pains to connect with those who have been historically under-represented in decision making…” Extra effort should be invested to reach people who may not have the economic means, or who are experiencing other circumstances, that may prevent their participation in decisions that could impact their health or environment.

By: Jeff Maurer of USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Jeff Maurer of USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:30:54 +0000

While I don’t have specific knowledge about the incident to which you’re referring, I can give you EPA’s general view of acceptable ways to clean up a gas spill. All spills must be contained, collected, and disposed of according to state and local regulations. If the spill reaches a storm drain, or if the fire department is involved and determines there is a fire hazard, then flushing could be an acceptable method to reduce fire hazard. However, if there is a gas spill at a gas station, kitty litter is often used as an absorbent; this is considered an acceptable way to clean up the spill.

That said, there are a number of techniques that are used to control oil spills and minimize their impact on human health and the environment. Which technique is used depends on the nature of the spill. Our response techniques can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/learning/oiltech.htm

To answer your question about whether this type of spill is reportable, without knowing all the details of the incident, I would say yes. Typically, to report a spill you should call the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802), but if there is the risk of an explosion due to the spill, you should call 911.

By: cwlujan@yahoo.com of Ohkay Owingeh

cwlujan@yahoo.com of Ohkay Owingeh — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:25:01 +0000

Provide the necessary first responders with the proper equipment.
In these troubled economic times it is even harder for Tribes and rural American that do not have sufficient capacity/resources makes it even more paramount that ARRA funds sould have been used be to disasdvantaged tribal nations as well as rural communities that are severly disadvantaged by lacking the population numbers nor the capacity to submit proposals that have any likelyhood of receiving the funding as more populous areas.
This does not mean that they lack to fortitude to accomplish the goal of heath and safety only that they lack the resources (contnued funding) and in rural US most are vollenteers.
Belnda Fowler expressed basicaly the same thought however there is more of a Gov-to Gov policy that seems to be more guidance than providing training to Upper Management and staff on what “fidiciary responsibility” really means. As well as Evironmental Justice.
Soley my thoughts not tribally appoved. Only as a citizen.