Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Robert McClellon <br /> Re: Forward Landfill Expansion/Approval of SWFP Revision <br /> November 18,201 1 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 4. It has been reported that the Landfill is currently taking gas measurements and <br /> performing its monitoring on this new site. Does this fulfill all of the Landfill's permit and <br /> monitoring requirements,and do measurements at this site produce accurate and reliable <br /> readings given their distance and elevation from the actual disposal site? Is this an attempt on <br /> the part of the Landfill to distort readings at the site in order to appear compliant with its <br /> various regulatory requirements? <br /> 5. Is it appropriate for the LEA to approve expansion of a landfill that has <br /> consistently been the subject of fines, lawsuits,and several violation notices over the life of <br /> its operation? <br /> 6. Will this proposed expansion ever come before the San Joaquin County Board <br /> of Supervisors for approval? <br /> 7. Has a Notice of Determination been approved and filed for the Negative <br /> Declaration in support of the SWFP revision? <br /> 8. How can the LEA approve this expansion when comments of the San Joaquin <br /> Council of Governments specify that potential waters of the United States are believed to <br /> occur on the site,and thus virtually any grading or similar activities on the site will require <br /> permits from either the Army Corps of Engineers or the Regional Water Quality Control <br /> Board'? <br /> 9. How does this expansion properly integrate with the San Joaquin <br /> Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan? <br /> 10. How (toes the Landfill intend to address the fact that any disposal on the new <br /> 184-acres of land would be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan and potentially FAA <br /> -uidance on siting of Landfills in close proximity to airports? <br /> 1 l. Why was the environmental impact of this expansion not considered <br /> cumulatively with the Draft EIR for expansion of the Landfill itself? Same question for why <br /> the gas to enemy project is undergoing separate,piecemealed environmental review? <br /> 12. What are the environmental impacts of allowing ten (10) additional open days <br /> at the Landfill facility,including noise,traffic,and other associated impacts,and why was <br /> there no detailed discussion of these impacts in the Negative Declaration? <br /> 13. Why is the Landfill allowed to continue to pollute Little John's Creek and <br /> degrade the surrounding environment? <br /> In addition to the above inquiries,we hereby request to be notified of the CalRecycle <br /> concurrence meeting. Moreover,should the LEA approve this expansion and permit revision, <br /> we also request additional information regarding the referenced appeals processes pursuant to <br /> Public Resources Code section 44307. As well,we respectfully request all information to be <br /> transmitted by the LEA to CalRecycle pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, <br /> title 27,section 21650. <br /> Finally,while this proposed revision to the SWFP states that there will be "no landfill <br /> activities,waste placement,disposal,composting,storage of equipment,or soil borrowing"on <br /> the new property and that there will be no increase in the permitted daily tonnage or refuse <br />