This fall's air quality meeting, hosted by DEQ's Gary Andes and Waste Management (WM), will take place this coming Wednesday, October 23, at the Senior Center, 2250 NE McDaniel Lane in McMinnville. WM provides pizza at 6:00 with the meeting starting at 7:00.
Federal environmental law requires landfills to meet standards in an air quality permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act. Last December many members of the community testified at a DEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) hearing regarding proposed changes to Riverbend's air quality permit.
At Wednesday's meeting, Gary Andes will discuss these changes to the permit and take questions and comments. WM will try to wow us with their super-duper upgraded odor management, which doesn't seem to have made a difference out in the neighborhood. The dump is just too darn big!
One issue that neighbors have recently raised with DEQ and WM is "odor training." People who live and work near the dump and others who must drive by would be offered the opportunity to learn the different odors the dump gives off: garbage, gas (rotten egg smell), exhaust from the LandFillGasToEnergy plant (a hint of diesel), leachate, and perhaps others. We can raise this idea at the meeting.
Another topic to raise is the effect -- if any! -- DEQ's new Odor Nuisance Strategy might have on Riverbend's operations. Odor is defined as a nuisance in Riverbend's air permit, but DEQ has refused to enforce this condition. In 2013, following complaints about compost sites around the state, DEQ finally redefined its policy. You can judge for itself whether it is any better. Check out the Strategy at http://www.oregon.gov/deq/Pages/index.aspx; look under Quick Links on the right-hand side of the page.
We wish we could have warned you about this meeting earlier, but it was set at the last minute. Andes explained that the delay was due to the federal government shutdown. DEQ had asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve changes in WM's air quality permit that would have moved the fall meeting to November. The shutdown prevented the EPA from commenting on that change, so the meeting had to be scheduled quickly to comply with Riverbend's current permit, which requires a meeting in October.
See you there!
Where: McMinnville Senior Center
2250 NE McDaniel Lane
McMinnville
When: 6:00 - pizza and mingling
7:00 meeting begins
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Riverbend Expansion Is Back!
The
Yamhill County Planning Commission (PC) will hold a public hearing Thursday, November 7th
to consider Waste Management's latest move to expand Riverbend Landfill. The PC will meet at 7:00 PM at McMinnville
Civic Hall, 200 2nd Street at Baker in McMinnville.
The issue
before the PC is whether to rezone the landfill to farmland. Sounds crazy, but the dump can't be expanded
unless it sits on farmland. Should the
rezoning be allowed, the public will have virtually no way to prevent the
expansion of the dump. Each time the dump asks to expand, all that will be required is a site design review, a process that did nothing to prevent dump
expansion the first time around back in 2008-2009.
If the PC,
and then the Board of Commissioners, approve the rezoning, this regional
landfill will be able to pile out-of-county garbage next to our river for 20
more years.
Preventing
the landfill from being rezoned to farmland is what matters. Please come to the hearing on November 7th
to tell the Planning Commission that this rezoning is a very bad idea. The PC needs to hear how strongly the
community opposes this plan. A strong
turnout from expansion opponents will send a clear message to the Planning
Commission and the County Commissioners. You can testify in person and/or submit written comments via mail and email (send to
Planning Director Mike Brandt at brandtm@co.yamhill.or.us). Whether you speak up orally or in writing, your presence is important!
The PC
will be acting under Zoning Ordinance 867, which the Board of Commissioners
adopted in September 2011. That
Ordinance allows a landfill to expand onto adjacent farmland only if the
landfill itself is on EFU land. Here’s
where things get complicated. Riverbend
Landfill is currently NOT on EFU land. It is on land zoned Public Works Safety, the zone the Commissioners assigned the land back in the 80’s in order to allow the landfill to be sited
next to the Yamhill River in the first place.
Here is
the language from Zoning Ordinance 867 that explains how the dump can expand
onto adjacent farmland. Ordinance 867 allows:
“The
maintenance, expansion or enhancement of an existing site on the same tract for
the disposal of solid waste for which a permit has been granted under ORS
459.245 by the Department of Environmental Quality, together with equipment,
facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. The use must satisfy the standards set forth
in ORS 215.296(1)(a) and (b) and the standards set forth in Section 1101, Site
Design Review. The maintenance,
expansion or enhancement of an existing use on the same tract on high-value
farmland is permissible only if the existing use is wholly within a farm use
zone . No other Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance criteria or Comprehensive
Plan goal or policy shall apply as an approval standard for this use.”
State law ORS 215.296(1)(a) and (b) provide that the use must be
compatible with farming. Section 1101 is
the portion of the Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance that sets standards for site
design review. Neither are as strict or
comprehensive as the standards for a rezoning.
Now is the time your voice must be heard!
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Letter from Leonard
Note: Leonard Rydell, former engineer at Riverbend Landfill, has been sharing his thoughts with government officials and the public for several years. Here is his latest take on the dump.
October 4, 2013
Dear Friends,
When I first started my investigations into Riverbend Landfill, I was advised by two people that I respect to be diplomatic and to try to not ruin people's reputation, as people make mistakes in life, and one mistake should not overshadow decades of positive efforts. I took that to heart.
Early on, I tried to do that with Yamhill County Commissioner Kathy George, but once the words "Riverbend Landfill" were mentioned, she declined the meeting. I didn't even try with Mary Stern as it was well known that she had recused herself.
I have tried calling the Commissioners several times, but when "Riverbend Landfill" was mentioned, none would take the call. When I asked them to call back, they didn't. When I e-mailed them on a public safety issue last February, County Counsel left a voice mail requesting that I quit contacting them. I have the recording.
In December 2012, I filed formal written zoning and land use complaints and sent them by registered mail to the Yamhill County Commissioners, Planners Mike Brandt and Ken Friday, and the Yamhill County Planning Commission. Ken Friday did call me and said that he "didn't see a problem." When I started asking specific questions, he stated, "I hope that you have a nice day, a very nice day" and hung up. He has hung up a few times since. I asked a Planning Commissioner if he had received a copy of my complaint, and he said, "No."
I called and talked to the Yamhill County Code Compliance Officer, and he told me that he was instructed to not investigate or respond to my complaint.
I have great respect and am on a first name basis with the Yamhill County Commissioners and the Yamhill County Planning staff. I work with them frequently, find them very knowledgeable, and am proud that they generally represent my best interests. However, with Riverbend Landfill, they are pursuing expansion at any cost and contrary to good engineering judgment and our local planning regulations. Consequently, Riverbend Landfill has evolved from a facility that was to meet our needs for 50 years through the year 2032 and was to be returned to farming, into the present 160 foot high unstable plastic covered pile of garbage. This is not right.
Many of my concerns are planning related, i.e. why is Riverbend Landfill allowed to ignore original approval conditions, setbacks and height limits? Or other engineering and environmental standards such as unapproved mining in the floodway, failure to meet earthquake standards, and unapproved fill in the floodway and flood plain? Why does Riverbend Landfill Company get special treatment when the rest of us have to live by the rules? I see disparities in my engineering practice. This week, I turned down a client who needed a no-rise certificate for a house he built in the flood plain. He probably won't be able to get it. Yet, Riverbend Landfill Company has built a 160 foot high pile of garbage in 40 acres of the floodway and flood plain.
I finally sent an e-mail to the Commissioners on Monday, 30 September 2013 asking them to respond to my past complaints by 5:00 pm yesterday (3 October 2013). As a result, I did receive a couple of phone calls from the current County Counsel Chris Boenisch requesting additional information. I sent him a mass of information including my formal complaints and Riverbend Information E-Mails. However, by of the end of yesterday, I had not received any further communications from him or the Commissioners.
Is it ethical for our elected and hired public officials to ignore public safety issues? Is it ethical for them to unequally apply planning regulations? Is it ethical to not respond to a complaint or even be open to discuss the issues?
Is it ethical for myself, a Professional Engineer in the State of Oregon with professional responsibilities to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, to not raise concerns when I know that I am right?
I can fully understand that Yamhill County and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality are already 30 years down the road of endorsing and approving poor practices, and it is difficult for them to admit that they created a problem and are wrong, but is that the right answer and in Oregon's best interests?
When you are in a hole, shouldn't you stop digging?
I would appreciate your comments and questions.
Thank you.
Leonard
Leonard A. Rydell, P.E., P.L.S., W.R.E.
601 Pinehurst Drive
Newberg, Oregon 97132-1625
Home Office: 503-538-5700
Fax: 503-538-9167
Mobile: 503-781-4138
October 4, 2013
Dear Friends,
When I first started my investigations into Riverbend Landfill, I was advised by two people that I respect to be diplomatic and to try to not ruin people's reputation, as people make mistakes in life, and one mistake should not overshadow decades of positive efforts. I took that to heart.
Early on, I tried to do that with Yamhill County Commissioner Kathy George, but once the words "Riverbend Landfill" were mentioned, she declined the meeting. I didn't even try with Mary Stern as it was well known that she had recused herself.
I have tried calling the Commissioners several times, but when "Riverbend Landfill" was mentioned, none would take the call. When I asked them to call back, they didn't. When I e-mailed them on a public safety issue last February, County Counsel left a voice mail requesting that I quit contacting them. I have the recording.
In December 2012, I filed formal written zoning and land use complaints and sent them by registered mail to the Yamhill County Commissioners, Planners Mike Brandt and Ken Friday, and the Yamhill County Planning Commission. Ken Friday did call me and said that he "didn't see a problem." When I started asking specific questions, he stated, "I hope that you have a nice day, a very nice day" and hung up. He has hung up a few times since. I asked a Planning Commissioner if he had received a copy of my complaint, and he said, "No."
I called and talked to the Yamhill County Code Compliance Officer, and he told me that he was instructed to not investigate or respond to my complaint.
I have great respect and am on a first name basis with the Yamhill County Commissioners and the Yamhill County Planning staff. I work with them frequently, find them very knowledgeable, and am proud that they generally represent my best interests. However, with Riverbend Landfill, they are pursuing expansion at any cost and contrary to good engineering judgment and our local planning regulations. Consequently, Riverbend Landfill has evolved from a facility that was to meet our needs for 50 years through the year 2032 and was to be returned to farming, into the present 160 foot high unstable plastic covered pile of garbage. This is not right.
Many of my concerns are planning related, i.e. why is Riverbend Landfill allowed to ignore original approval conditions, setbacks and height limits? Or other engineering and environmental standards such as unapproved mining in the floodway, failure to meet earthquake standards, and unapproved fill in the floodway and flood plain? Why does Riverbend Landfill Company get special treatment when the rest of us have to live by the rules? I see disparities in my engineering practice. This week, I turned down a client who needed a no-rise certificate for a house he built in the flood plain. He probably won't be able to get it. Yet, Riverbend Landfill Company has built a 160 foot high pile of garbage in 40 acres of the floodway and flood plain.
I finally sent an e-mail to the Commissioners on Monday, 30 September 2013 asking them to respond to my past complaints by 5:00 pm yesterday (3 October 2013). As a result, I did receive a couple of phone calls from the current County Counsel Chris Boenisch requesting additional information. I sent him a mass of information including my formal complaints and Riverbend Information E-Mails. However, by of the end of yesterday, I had not received any further communications from him or the Commissioners.
Is it ethical for our elected and hired public officials to ignore public safety issues? Is it ethical for them to unequally apply planning regulations? Is it ethical to not respond to a complaint or even be open to discuss the issues?
Is it ethical for myself, a Professional Engineer in the State of Oregon with professional responsibilities to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, to not raise concerns when I know that I am right?
I can fully understand that Yamhill County and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality are already 30 years down the road of endorsing and approving poor practices, and it is difficult for them to admit that they created a problem and are wrong, but is that the right answer and in Oregon's best interests?
When you are in a hole, shouldn't you stop digging?
I would appreciate your comments and questions.
Thank you.
Leonard
Leonard A. Rydell, P.E., P.L.S., W.R.E.
601 Pinehurst Drive
Newberg, Oregon 97132-1625
Home Office: 503-538-5700
Fax: 503-538-9167
Mobile: 503-781-4138
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Waste Management Unveils Landfill Expansion Plans
Waste Management gave the public a preview of their plans for the dump at a meeting tonight.
The corporate owner of Riverbend Landfill proposes asking the County to rezone both the PWS (brown area on map below, except for Whiteson) and RC (pink) zones to Exclusive Farm Use. The landfill itself would then expand onto the 25 acres to the west of the existing dump, ie, the triangle in R5501-00400 above the boundary line for R5501-00401. Those acres are north of the famous No-Name creek, so WM would not have to move the creek. WM might also ask to rezone 12 acres north of the existing landfill adjacent to the portion of R5501-00101 that is now zoned PWS (brown).
R5501-00401 would become "landfill operations" (another 25 acres), including access to Hwy 18. West of that parcel are yet another 25 acres that would be set aside for "green technology." WM explained that its operations area and the green tech would be "ancillary" to the landfill itself and therefore permitted under state and local land use law.
WM also unveiled its "green" tech: a plant that will take the non-putrescible waste brought to the dump (minus substances like dirt) and compress these to make pellet fuel. The organic smelly stuff would still go into the expanded landfill. WM estimates that about 35% of what comes to Riverbend today (approximately 520,000 tons/year) is suitable for use in this new technology (ie, about 180,000 tons), though the plant itself will be scaled to handle 1,000 tons/day (260,000 - 365,000 tons depending on whether the plant operates 5 or 7 days a week).
To hear that the smelly stuff would still be going into the landfill was very disappointing.
We believe WM will file for the rezoning within the next few days.
The corporate owner of Riverbend Landfill proposes asking the County to rezone both the PWS (brown area on map below, except for Whiteson) and RC (pink) zones to Exclusive Farm Use. The landfill itself would then expand onto the 25 acres to the west of the existing dump, ie, the triangle in R5501-00400 above the boundary line for R5501-00401. Those acres are north of the famous No-Name creek, so WM would not have to move the creek. WM might also ask to rezone 12 acres north of the existing landfill adjacent to the portion of R5501-00101 that is now zoned PWS (brown).
R5501-00401 would become "landfill operations" (another 25 acres), including access to Hwy 18. West of that parcel are yet another 25 acres that would be set aside for "green technology." WM explained that its operations area and the green tech would be "ancillary" to the landfill itself and therefore permitted under state and local land use law.
WM also unveiled its "green" tech: a plant that will take the non-putrescible waste brought to the dump (minus substances like dirt) and compress these to make pellet fuel. The organic smelly stuff would still go into the expanded landfill. WM estimates that about 35% of what comes to Riverbend today (approximately 520,000 tons/year) is suitable for use in this new technology (ie, about 180,000 tons), though the plant itself will be scaled to handle 1,000 tons/day (260,000 - 365,000 tons depending on whether the plant operates 5 or 7 days a week).
To hear that the smelly stuff would still be going into the landfill was very disappointing.
We believe WM will file for the rezoning within the next few days.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Waste Management to Announce Expansion Plans
Waste Management will reveal its plans for expansion of Riverbend Landfill at another of its "pizza meetings" this Tuesday, September 24.
The company's website invites the public to "Come learn about plans for our green technology plant and future landfill operations."
Over the summer, Paul Burns of WM informed Stop the Dump members Susan Meredith, Susan Watkins, and Brian Doyle that WM was considering an energy-producing facility for the Riverbend site. Burns declined to discuss the nature of the proposed facility other than to say that it would convert ordinary MSW (municipal solid waste, the stuff people throw away) into energy.
Using MSW as an energy source is big news, because MSW makes up the bulk of landfill garbage and also produces the most odor and gas as it decays. Developing an efficient conversion process that does not in turn pollute air and water is one of the holy grails of waste handling.
According to Burns, the conversion process WM is proposing will not be able to utilize all categories of waste brought to Riverbend. As a result, WM will continue to seek landfill expansion.
The Stop the Dump Coalition suggests several "baseline" commitments WM should make in any expansion proposal:
The company's website invites the public to "Come learn about plans for our green technology plant and future landfill operations."
Over the summer, Paul Burns of WM informed Stop the Dump members Susan Meredith, Susan Watkins, and Brian Doyle that WM was considering an energy-producing facility for the Riverbend site. Burns declined to discuss the nature of the proposed facility other than to say that it would convert ordinary MSW (municipal solid waste, the stuff people throw away) into energy.
Using MSW as an energy source is big news, because MSW makes up the bulk of landfill garbage and also produces the most odor and gas as it decays. Developing an efficient conversion process that does not in turn pollute air and water is one of the holy grails of waste handling.
According to Burns, the conversion process WM is proposing will not be able to utilize all categories of waste brought to Riverbend. As a result, WM will continue to seek landfill expansion.
The Stop the Dump Coalition suggests several "baseline" commitments WM should make in any expansion proposal:
- Place all WM/Riverbend-owned lands at the site into a permanent easement that prohibits landfill-related uses in perpetuity;
- Explicitly protect waterways that border or cross WM/Riverbend-owned lands from landfill-related activities;
- Monitor emissions at the landfill perimeter and optimal off-site locations and allow public access to the data in real time, and promptly correct any problems;
- Monitor ground water quality on neighboring properties, share data with landowners, and promptly correct any problems;
- Require loads to be sorted for recoverable material before the load will be accepted at the landfill;
- Ensure that "green technology" utilized at the site truly is green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)