[Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We Must Attend!
Sheree
sheree at nycap.rr.com
Tue Jul 10 19:09:43 MDT 2007
Suggestion: steer the discussion by refusing to label the emissions "odors"
as if the SMELL is the problem, and the proof that there IS a problem. What
you don't smell can also hurt you... all toxins do not smell.
Allowing discussion to refer to emissions as "odors" can couch it as an
esthetic issue, not a health issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert" <bert.090355 at gmail.com>
To: "Lynne Jackson" <lynnejackson at mac.com>
Cc: <announce at nodumpinthepinebush.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We Must Attend!
Questions Questions Questions
Upcoming meeting Wednesday July 11th
With Fred Lebrun and Mayor Leak's discussion of a significant
reduction in odor complaints and the TU's mention that odor would have
been an obstacle, I believe the City will be using this to full
advantage in their landfill expansion permit. While we know why the
City finally working on the odor issue, we do not know how well this
will work for the future or what gases are released. The residents
and businesses and others affected on so many occasions for years to
the point of loss of business, use of property and sickness, and the
unknown affect the "toxic" fumes on health, the reduction of
complaints should not be a reason to stop any suit. I believe it is
all the more reason to explore the health issue via a survey as well
as pushing for a independent research of illness, cancer rates etc in
the community around the landfill and for those workers affected
greatly. This should include City workers.
I am not sure what Wednesday's meeting is about but assume it is
results of an air and hydrologic survey. I heard that this
un-advertised meeting intends to not cover the expansion of the
landfill though this does not make any sense.
Questions I wonder are:
Air – Qualifications and history of the sampling firm and testing
laboratory?
Sampling methods, number of events, before/after the plastic
cover?
Air testing under the cover, weather etc?
If the liner has a break, what might be released and how
toxic would it be?
Also, was the testing firm aware that many have been
sickened, sent home from work, children could not go out and
play, residents were woken from their sleep and that fumes often
resulted in Fire Dept and Utility Gas Co calls?
Is the testing firm aware that the number of events and
complaints are likely in
the thousands?
Were there any claims by businesses, residents, workers
for loss time or other claims as a result of the persistent and
frequent odor?
Were there any claims by the Fire Dept or Utility Co for
the many "false" calls?
Would there be an explanation of whether any prior testing
of toxic fumes and
what the results were?
Would there be any explanation or discussion of whether
fumes that were strong enough to sicken people inside their homes
or businesses would be toxic?
Is the firm aware of any studies of fumes sickening people
from other landfills?
Are they testing the cover materials (also wastes) and are
they aware what has been used in the past (different depending on
who (industries) paid the City to take industrial wastes as a cover.
Water – Qualifications and history of the sampling firm and testing
laboratory.
Was the firm aware of the principal aquifer and the nearby
6 Mile Water Works (Rensselaer Lake), whose water rights were
leased in 2002 by the Albany
Water Board from the City for $3.7 million for an
emergency water supply?
That there is a contaminated plume moving from the landfill from
the older unlined section of the landfill?
Or that there was a leak in a section of the lined area
that leaked required repair?
Is another Aquifer Variance required? And although
"permitted" by DEC with extensive discussion in the last landfill
expansion lawsuit, and although DEC's own regulations do not
allow landfills or expansions over a principal aquifer. While
not allowed, the issue of the Aquifer is not a done deal though the
City and DEC will likely point to the testing, lining and other
technologies, besides this one of the main points arguing for a
Variance was no use as a public water supply. The timing of the
last suit (lost) was the same year as the purchase of
the water rights – so it was known but not shared with DEC
or others. Is there a
legal issue here?
Waste- DEC indicated it would not have allowed the permit without
serious plans for alternate sites and solid waste management by the
ANWSERS community. The expansion was permitted due to "hardship" and
to allow time for development of another site.
With Coeymans being unacceptable, what are the efforts for other
sites, how significant was/is the research, how much was spent?
The hardship issue does not cover the intentional filling of the
landfill with wastes from outside the Answers community for increased
profit by the City and not shared with the Answers community. The
City calls all the shots and the Mayor himself agreed to lower
tipping fees. I read somewhere in the last application that the
tonnage double from about 500 tons a day to 1000. Is this the amount
of outside the Answers community? Not even to mention the known
facts about the Pine Bush Preserve or the sacrifice of this public
natural resource for $$$$.
Where is the data on how much is accepted from outside the
Answers wasteshed?
What is the waste and how is it verified? Including the DEC
requirement that
waste must come from NYS municipalities with recyling and
other programs? Is this being checked and by whom?
How does the requirement by DEC for Solid Waste Management
(reduction/recycling) by the Answers community related by the fact
that all so much waste is brought is ($$$) nullifying the hard work
for the reduction of waste when all the requirement does is make more
space to be sold to the "lowest" bidder? The action of which is
filling the "special hardship" permit for the last expansion faster.
There is no sharing of profit, the City's actions are not in the best
interest of the Answers community. The deals must be examined as well
as the data of outside sources.
Scoping – Environmental Review
The issue of outside waste is not mentioned. In fact the
Project description of
the Draft Scope for the landfill expansion refers to the
need for the ANSWERS community. This is a significant omission.
The Answers community is
negatively affected by the acceptance of outside waste for
profit.
There is also no mention of the long-term lease of nearby
6 Mile Water Works (Rensselaer Lake) under Water nor is it
mentioned whether another Variance is necessary for the Principal
Aquifer.
Bert
On 7/7/07, Lynne Jackson <lynnejackson at mac.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Date: Wednesday, July 11
> Time: 6:00
> When we need to arrive: We should all arrive at 5:45
> Location: Polish American Center
>
>
> Clough Harbor, the City of Albany's landfill consultant, has called a
> meeting on Wednesday, July 11 at 6:00 pm.
>
> I believe that Clough Harbor is going to explain all the things they
> have been doing to control the odors emanating from the landfill.
>
> We ALL MUST attend this meeting!
>
> We cannot let the City hold secret meetings!
>
> Please, everyone email be back to let me know whether or not you can
> attend. I want to have a good idea on how many of us can be there.
> Claire, can you bring shirts to sell? Can a couple of people
> volunteer to collect names and addresses for our mailing list? I
> will bring clip boards.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lynne Jackson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at nodumpinthepinebush.org
> http://nodumpinthepinebush.org/mailman/listinfo/announce_nodumpinthepinebush.org
>
_______________________________________________
Announce mailing list
Announce at nodumpinthepinebush.org
http://nodumpinthepinebush.org/mailman/listinfo/announce_nodumpinthepinebush.org
More information about the Announce
mailing list