Special Baker City public meeting on Cryptosporidium outbreak raises as many questions as it answers

[Editing essentially finished and added 1st video 11:45 AM, 8/9/13]

 I attended and filmed the special Baker City Public meeting on the Cryptosporidium outbreak tonight [8/8/13].  I came away with more questions than answers as to how Baker City is to proceed in dealing with the crypto problem.  I am going to make this short, certainly not an exhaustive account of what occurred, as downloading and processing the video takes quite a bit of time for an almost 3 hour meeting, and I need to review it. It will take additional time to produce any YouTube videos. So this will be a rather bare summary and outline, and just what I consider to be the most important points until I decide to go to sleep (which won't be long)--video and most analysis will come later. (This account is from notes taken and memory as I was trying to film the event, so I will correct any errors after I am able to review the video.)

Mayor Langrell opened and explained the nature of the meeting before turning it over to City manager Mike Kee who presented the agenda and provided a summary timeline that was similar to the information in his August 2, 2013 Weekly Update. He also provided the results of the Cryptosporidium tests that have occurred during the Crypto "crisis."
Here is the video of City Manager Kee's introduction. It is somewhat dim and grainy due to low light on Baker City High School auditorium stage but best video possible under the conditions and the audio is acceptable. Best watched on YouTube by clicking this link:
Crypto Meeting Intro, Baker City, OR 080713



Alicia Hills, from the Baker County Health Department, spoke about the 15 confirmed Crypto cases and the "About Cryptosporidiosis" flyer that has been made available to residents and visitors which lists recommendations and suggestions for staying safe during Baker City's Crypto crisis. You can find the flyer here.

Michelle Owens, Director of the Public Works Department talked about the need for water use curtailment, while reminding everyone that this is a great community to live in. ;-)

Heidi Dalton talked about the decision to keep the Sam-O-Swim pool facility closed because the risks of keeping it open were too high. They will do the usual September maintenance during the current closure period.

Bill Goss from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program said that the outbreak was a naturally occurring event and that no one was to blame. He indicated that no one could predict when the no boil order would end as they will need tests results indicating that there are essentially zero Crypto oocysts in the water supply. He stated that an ongoing monitoring plan for Cryptosporidium will be instituted until a treatment facility is constructed that provides for 99.9% removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts, and that is must be in place by October of 2016. (The issue of why monitoring had not been continued after the initial round of testing ended in 2011 was brought up by citizens during the meeting.)

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Goss did not mention at this time that the state will be reviewing out treatment options which could result in the state imposing a treatment plan different from the 99.9 % effective UV treatment plan they had already recommended.

Michelle Owen talked about solutions to the Crypto problem that the city was looking at.  These included:

• Long-term plan for UV treatment of Cryptosporidium.
• Mid-term solution of finding or drilling additional supplementary water from wells (Wells are generally not be affected by Cryptosporidium.
• Short-term solutions that include boiling, and borrowing a portable non-validated membrane filter unit.

Brian Black from the HDR  engineering firm talked about the accelerated schedule for the UV treatment facility. The schedule was to include:

• Complete design and sighn-up contractor in early spring or earlier
• Begin construction in the summer of 2014
• Complete construction in summer of 2015

The accelerated schedule would bring in a 99.9% effective UV facility a year before the current deadline.

Mayor Langrell moderated a Q and A session with the audience but first discussed issues presented by some questions that had been submitted in writing by the audience. The ones he mentioned primarily had to do with whether the city [and its citizens], had a responsibility to compensate businesses that have suffered losses due to the present crisis.

Some citizens related the problems they had encountered while suffering from Crypto, and asked why the city had delayed moving forward with UV treatment when we were told as early as 2009 that treatment was required. One of these, Linda Wall of Baker City, also had members of the large audience raise their hands if they had been dealing with the symptoms of Cryptosporidiosis. She estimated that about 1/4 to 1/3 of those present raised their hands.

Former Councilor and Judge Milo Pope laid the responsibility for delay on Former Mayor and current Councilor Dennis Dorrah (who did not attend the meeting), Councilor Roger Coles, and other Councilors who had delayed providing treatment.

There were many more interesting public comments that I will try to post as a YouTube video later.

The bottom line, in terms of how we will move forward came when Councilor Coles gave a spirited rebuttal to Milo Pope's comments and then Mayor Langrell validated Councilor Coles comments that he couldn't see going forward at the time because DEQ might suddenly change the requirements in  the future, even though Mayor Langrell had spoken about the accelerated schedule for UV earlier.  I commented that I thought using that sort of speculation was a scare tactic and that given EPA approval of UV and current state direction there was no basis for it.  Then, perhaps in response to questioning on that point by Councilor Mosier (have to check the video),  Bill Goss from the State Health Authority said that a change in requirements was a possibility because the state was going to review the present outbreak and could possibly change their recommendation to the much more expensive $17M to $20M water filtration requirement and plant that costs over $300,000/year to maintain.

I pointed out that we had spent the meeting talking about installing UV treatment, that is what the state has told us we need to install, and that filtration would cost significantly more than UV to install and maintain. I misspoke the figures as being in millions rather that thousands, but the point was that maintenance costs are still something like 25 times greater for filtration than for UV treatment, according to the 2009 figures provided to the city by HDR.

When I asked him after the meeting about this announcement, after 80% of the meeting had been about the accelerated schedule for constructing the UV treatment plant, he told me that his announcement had been timely as the outbreak had only been going of for a few weeks, and he was there to talk about other things (i.e., the boil water order). We discussed a few other issues related to the state's review, but it is late so those will be discussed later, as will numerous comments by a very engaged audience.

Given the late announcement of a state review, which Mr. Goss said will take about two months (or possibly 6 month to a year), I am at a loss to understand how the earlier presentations about an accelerated schedule for the installation of a UV water treatment facility were allowed to be presented, how they can move forward or be accomplished, and I am beginning to understand why local governments do not trust regulatory bodies like the DEQ or the Oregon Health Authority.  How can Councilors or staff, left in limbo, commit resources to any solution, when the regulatory agencies reserve the right to waste the time and resources communities have committed by changing their mind--especially when such regulatory changes can bring financial ruin to many low income citizens and potentially even the to cities they live in?

One searches for answers as to why the the feds and the state would impose such confusion and uncertainty on the cities and towns they have been given authority over when there are adequately safe, rational, and affordable solutions to the problems being faced. I also wonder if it isn't becoming clear that many government workers, from the federal to the local level, including as well some of our other financially comfortable citizens, have not simply become completely insensitive to the world and needs of low income people. I heard the folks tonight (now last night) who told their stories of not having health insurance and not being able to afford to go to the doctor, and some of those who could go to the doctor, couldn't afford the medications they needed to treat the cryptosporidiosis they suffered from. With the new push to force selection of unaffordable water treatment options, it is not clear whether some state, county, and city officials care if low income people can afford the quest for guaranteed safety at any cost that some of the comfortable apparently seek, and which ultimately places burdens [I. e., increases in water/sewer rates] on the poor that they cannot bear. Perhaps the regulators, developers, realtors, newspaper peddlers, merchants, and the wealthy, see an opportunity in ridding themselves of poor people by making their towns into places where the poor can't afford to live any more. A kinder, gentler, saner solution would be for them to buy a membrane filtration unit for their home and save the rest of us the expense of providing them with an incredibly small extra margin of safety.

:-) Don't Saddle Me,

I'm Safe With UV!

Buy Your Own Damn Filter! ;-)

Sorry about that, I'm in the sleepless zone.

More videos in a future blog when I figure out how to free disk space.

Courthouse Update--Commissioner Warner's Statement on Air Quality Issues

In This Issue:

- Courthouse Update
-----Includes Commissioner Warner's Statement on Air Quality Issues
-----Asbestos Issues
-----Employee Rights & Oregon OSHA
[Edited 1/9/11]
__________


Courthouse Update
Fred Warner's Statement on Air Quality Issues

After reading Jayson Jacoby's fine article (County closes Courthouse basement) in the New Years Eve Herald, some of the statements by County officials left a lot of people, including County and State employees who work in the building, with more questions than answers. Some of the questions had to do with whether the County was even going to be privy to the full air quality test results, and if they weren't, how could the Commissioners, who are the responsible heads of County government, be assured that their employees and the public were safe. It seemed outrageous, if not completely absurd, that a public government entity could be denied access to test results necessary to proper governing, by an insurance company that was hired by the County to insure and protect itself and its employees from risk.

On Monday morning, I sent an e-mail to Karen Spencer, Fred Warner Jr., and Mark Bennett [oops--or was that Bark? Sorry Mark] , which asked a number of questions (see below) concerning the County's relationship with City County Insurance Services (CIS) and CIS's service providers, as well as questions about air quality in the Courthouse. In a Monday afternoon phone call, Karen Spencer told me she had had no success in getting CIS to release information to her and that it would take someone higher on the chain to get them to do it. She also said she had asked Commissioner Warner for a response to some of my questions. In the meantime, I was contacting state agencies to ask a few more questions.

Also, when I was still waiting for a response from the County to Monday's questions, The Baker City Herald ran an editorial (Time to come clean) On Wednesday, stating that Commissioner Warner did speak with them that morning and said that he had first seen the test results on Monday. They also noted, accurately I think, that "... both employees and contractors did occasionally go into the basement between the holiday and Dec. 23. They deserve to know what was in the air they breathed, or what might have been."

Well finally . . . on Friday, four days after I sent the questions in, I received answers to them from Commissioner Warner.

Here are the re-numbered questions with Commissioner Warner's answers interspersed:

Commissioner Warner's preamble:

First off, I do commend my staff for dealing with a trying situation. They did yeomans work to work with our insurance company, our employees, the contractors and the public to assess the damage, create a plan of action to deliver needed public services,and to protect the health and welfare of our employees and the public.

1. Is the article in the Herald accurate as to statements by County officials?
Ans:

The article by the DH is essentially correct. What all County officials said was accurate information. The crux of the matter is that our insurance company, CIS is running the remediation and restoration of the Courthouse. They are doing the contracting and paying the bills. They have there processes and abide by them. The insurance company does keep the County, me specifically, in the loop on what they are doing and who is doing things. Prior to Jan. 1st, we had multiple people interfacing with the insurance company but I am the lead on the project specifically. Nothing sinister about this, just that I represent the Board of Commissioners and we are the accountable body.

On Dec. 19th, CIS hired a firm to do air quality tests to monitor spore and/or mold in the air. They tested 3 areas on the 2nd floor (circuit court area), 3 areas on the main floor (lobby and offices) and 3 areas in the basement. The test was for low, moderate and high levels for potential mold growth. 7 areas tested as low.

One test area, basement entry tested moderate and the basement vault tested high. The word we got from the testing company was that drying those 2 areas was the recommended action. Both areas had wall moisture readings of over 90% humidity. The decision was made to close off the basement to allow for consistent drying and we did not want anyone in the area because of potential air quality issues. All of the professionals involved in this decision still reiterate to the County that the air is not toxic but in need of drying out and further testing. I continue to believe that the County acted prudently with the information that we had and still have. Busy Bee is continuing to dry the basement and is making considerable progress in lowering the moisture content in the vault.

2. Has the County asked City/County Insurance Services to release the results of the air sampling tests to the County? If so, did they refuse to release them?
Ans:

On January 3rd, I received a copy of the air quality tests. I read them and they are quite technical. I communicated with CIS about the nature of the tests and the propriety of the tests. They are their test results. I believe that a summary of the tests is in the public interest. I have attempted to give that summary. It is that all of the Courthouse except the basement vault and the entryway have low levels of air borne spores. The hallway has moderate levels of air borne spores. The basement vault has high levels of air borne spores. Until, the moisture content gets below 15-20%, their will be moderate to high levels of air borne spores.

Access is restricted in the basement of the Courthouse. All personnel were moved from the basement after the leak. Employees and contractors have moved in and out of the area moving files and we had the mailboxes in an undamaged area of the basement until we had the air quality test. When we learned of the test results, we moved the mail room to North Baker.

3. Does the County think they have a right to the air sample results?
Ans:

I believe that we have a right to be told about any results which affect the ongoing operation of the County and if any employees or the public could be at risk because of those results. I believe that CIS has kept the County in the information loop.

4. Is there now, and has there ever been in the past, any concerns about asbestos in the building?
Ans:

Asbestos is always a concern. Initially, it was one of the concerns prior to the tearing out of the damaged areas. The professional people(Sid Johnson & Co., Busy Bee and the insurance adjuster) determined that asbestos was not an issue. The potential for tile with asbestos was apparent and Johnson handled the tile as if it had asbestos. It was water soaked and that is the preferred way of disposing of it. They bagged it and disposed of it.

5. Does the air sample testing test for asbestos, volatile organics, and other potential contaminants other than mold?
Ans:

The air sampling tests did not test for asbestos, volatile organics and other potential contaminants. I asked the professionals this question and they said based on their assessment this was not needed.

6. When does the County plan to tell citizens what the costs have been to date, what the cost of repairing the damage is estimated to be, and how much of these costs will be covered by City/County Insurance Services?
Ans:

The costs to Baker County will be minimal. We have a $1000 deductible. We have no copay. We are billing CIS for all moving expenses, additional operating expenses, equipment damaged and any other covered costs. I do not have that dollar figure, but it will all be reimbursed by CIS. The bids to reconstruct I believe are due today to CIS. They have told me they will discuss the bids with us before awarding the contract. We have been involved with the scope of work to make sure we pick carpet, tile , paint etc. CIS will be putting the building back as it was. They will not doing additions which were not there prior to the damage. Baker County will be responsible for upgrades if we want during the rebuilding. The only costs that we will incur are that we will be doing some additional wiring and internet line consolidation while the walls are out and will take out redundant pipes and lines while the building is opened up. All costs for reconstruction will be borne by CIS.

[I might add that my understanding of the costs incurred up to Christmas is that they amount to about right at $100,000.00. - Chris]

7. When does the County plan to explain to citizens what the chain of events was that led to the flooding of the Courthouse? I don't think that has been done beyond the valves cracked about the time we had the low, but not unusually low, temperatures in November.
Ans:

A valve in the ceiling of the 2nd floor broke on a weekend. My concern is could it happen again. We are taking steps to make sure it cannot happen again. This particular pipe went to a heater (we have 52 heaters in the courthouse) in the ceiling above the Judges chambers. It had not worked for a number of years. Presumably, since it did not work, the water flow through that valve and pipe were less than other pipes. I have been assured that we have no heaters that are out that have water coming to them. The new protocol being if a heater is out of service we drain the water from that loop. Additional, our new heat monitoring system has the ability to have sensors which monitor pipe pressure. If we have a droppage, it will trigger calls to County personnel. We have also insulated all ceiling pipes. I am also going to ask CIS to send their risk people to assess the entire attic and areas where we have water systems.

Baker County Commissioners (L to R): Carl E. Stiff, M.D., Fred Warner, Jr., Tim L. Kerns
_____

Asbestos Issues

It was brought to my attention that asbestos [a good history here] might be an issue in the 101 year old Courthouse, but not having read up on it since mid 2004, I did some searching and ultimately ended up calling the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

As many people know, asbestos can cause lung and mesothelioma cancer, and asbestosis.

DEQ maintains a very informative site about asbestos, building survey requirements, abatement rules, and other protective regulations at Air Quality Asbestos Program. One of the links, DEQ’s Building Survey Requirement, is a simple but informative fact sheet that explains when building owners need to do an asbestos survey of their building.

Was an Asbestos Survey Required?

One of the state DEQ officials told me that a building survey was not required for the situation at the Courthouse, although he felt one should be done. Of course this same official told be the "Courthouse will be demolished soon," which has been denied by Commissioner Warner. The following is an exchange via e-mail concerning the need for an asbestos survey prior to the removal of water damaged materials inthe courthouse:

Official:

They did not complete an asbestos survey for the building - nor are they required to have the asbestos survey done. The Oregon asbestos rules require a survey to be completed prior to demolition or major renovation (the removal of at least one load supporting member). The Federal rule requires surveys to be completed in K-12 public schools and updated every three years. As this building does not meet any of the criteria above, a survey is not required (but still should have been done).

My response:

The Asbestos Survey Fact sheet says:

What is the survey requirement?
DEQ’s survey rule requires that an inspection be performed before any demolition or renovation activities to determine the presence of friable and nonfriable asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).

[My emphasis]

The above language seems to indicate that a survey may have been required if it meets other criteria in the fact sheet, because removal and renovation was the plan.

Who must get a survey done?
All facility owners, including but not limited to manufacturing facilities, public and private building owners, . . . undertaking a demolition or renovation project will be affected by this rule.

The above language seems to indicate that a survey may have been required of the owner if it meets other criteria in the fact sheet pertaining to the definition of renovation.

What is a demolition or renovation project?
Demolition is defined as wrecking that involves the removal of load-supporting members and/or intentional burning. Renovation is defined as altering in any way one or more facility components that does not involve removing a load-supporting member.

[My emphasis]

The above language seems to indicate that a survey should have been required of the owner because it meets the criteria in the fact sheet pertaining to the definition of renovation. (An intention of building demolition has been denied by Supervisor Warner) It appears that the removal of a load bearing member is not required to trigger the survey requirement for a renovation. They have removed wall coverings, ceilings, and floors in large areas of three floors. I believe it also meets the renovation size criteria I saw somewhere because the renovation covers much more than a few to several square feet. It involves major sections, entire ceiling and wall covering in good sized rooms on three floors.

If you would, please explain to me again why there would be no requirement for an asbestos survey in this case, given that it seems to meet the criteria when a major renovation is involved.

Thanks,

Chris

Renovation Work in Just One Room--Judge Baxter's Chambers
[See also: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010
Cole Case (18 months probation) & County Court House Damage for more photos.]

Official's Response:

This building was not demolished and no major renovation took place. Water damage was caused due to an act of God. I understand that a large volume of material was removed during cleanup. I understand that a portion of a load supporting member was removed. But it was not completely removed. Therefore no major renovation took place and an asbestos survey is not required.

Note that the official did not reply in logical or rational fashion to the argument I presented--he simply made another declaration without applying DEQ's definintion of "renovation." Removal of a load supporting member is part of the definition of "demolition," not "renovation."

I have taken this question up with others at DEQ to see if they would be kind enough to show me where I've erred in my logic or if there is information I'm unaware of that would make the first official's interpretation seem logical and reasonable. It may be, for example, that an important piece of information is missing from the fact sheet which would make it more clear that a survey is not required. Hopefully the interpretation of the rules can be settled to the satisfaction of all in the next week or so. I will report back on this as I become more familiar with the rules.

In any event, whatever the case with asbestos surveys, Commissioner Warner said on Friday that "If we missed a step along the way, then we'll correct it."

It should also be noted that, accordingto the fact sheet:

Who can perform the survey?
The rule requires that an accredited inspector perform the survey. DEQ wants to ensure that the individual doing the inspection is qualified and understands what they need to look for to complete the survey. This training is in accordance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) program regulations and the Model Accreditation Program training rules in 40 CFR Part 763.

Here is the list of accredited asbestos survey inspectors maintained on the DEQ website. There are no accredited inspectors from Baker County listed, so it is uncertain if any evaluations by local contractors could serve in place of an asbestos survey by an accredited inspector.
_____

The Employee's Right to a Safe Workplace & OSHA

Back in 1970, before the corporations has solidified their takeover of the entire world, one of our leading environmental Presidents, Richard Nixon of all people, signed into law The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 . It gave workers rights to a safe workplace and tools to help enforce those rights.

Because Oregon DEQ does not regulate indoor air quality, except for asbestos, OSHA is the worker resource to seek out for other indoor air quality issues. Employees who work for state and local governments in Oregon are covered by Oregon OSHA. During this last week, I spoke with people at Oregon OSHA who assured me that even if the general public could not easily force disclosure of the air quality tests at the Courthouse, affected employees could. The spokesperson stated that it was the employer's responsibility to ensure that the insurer makes test results available to employees if requeted. Employees also have the right to file a complaint if they feel their safety related concerned are being ignored by an employer.

Workers' rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act

Workers are entitled to working conditions that do not pose a risk of serious harm. To help assure a safe and healthful workplace, OSHA also provides workers with the right to:

Ask OSHA to inspect their workplace;
Use their rights under the law without retaliation and discrimination;
Receive information and training about hazards, methods to prevent harm, and the OSHA standards that apply to their workplace. The training must be in a language you can understand;
Get copies of test results done to find hazards in the workplace;
Review records of work-related injuries and illnesses;
Get copies of their medical records;

Alert: Baker Sanitary Solid Waste Permit Comments Due Tomorrow

In This Issue:

- About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit

- Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing

- Thanks Ahead Of Time For Sending DEQ an Email Requesting A Public Hearing

About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit

The DEQ issued a request for comments on the "Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill" back around Halloween, and it has been traveling under the radar ever since. I just found out about it this morning because Planning Commission Chair Randy Joseph alerted members of a local support group for small land rich ranchers, comfortable retirees, small business people and government workers (Oregon Rural Action) about it on Saturday morning. Comments are due TOMORROW, Monday, December 1st, by 5 PM.

This should concern people in Baker County because a large regional landfill has major impacts to people and the rest of the environment. Baker Sanitary has been cited in the past for non-compliance on permitting, maintenance, and for failure to properly monitor pollution of ground and surface water for possible cancer causing chemicals. The current requirements allow them to continue to monitor themselves for health endangering pollution, a strategy that is fraught with potential dangers. Contaminated ground and surface waters could conceivably end up in local drinking water wells and in the Sutton Creek drainage which ultimately ends up in the Powder River before it enters Baker City, on its polluted route to Richland and the Snake River.

A brief scan of the available documents shows that the actual plans will be submitted after the permit has been issued, so we have little indication, from the provided documents, what the scale of this dump is going to be. Right now, we are already on the receiving end of out-of-county garbage, including large quantities coming from La Grande.

The documents also do not require any improvement in garbage container sizing/rate restructuring or recycling opportunities for local citizens, nor do they include any other benefit in return for allowing a large, privately operated, local monopoly dump to operate on our doorstep. Costs to our quality of life, like water and air pollution, increased traffic, etc., are externalized for us to bear, while the wealth created by the dumping of thousands of tons of garbage goes largely to the private trash industry.

As large a problem as an expanded doorstep dump may be, there is perhaps an even larger one that really puzzles me. How did it come to be that normally concerned individuals are just finding out about this one or two days before comments are due? That is obviously not enough time to respond to a 46 page permit document, a 5 page report, and the original 3 page announcement.

Randy Joseph is the Chair of the County Planning Commission. Are we to believe that the Commission and its chair are just finding out about this? What about the County Commissioners? Do they think we just don't care? The City seems concerned about the effects on City charm of having a large transmission line in the nearby viewshed, about how we maintain our property, and about how we burn or dispose of our trash; don't they care about improved recycling or the negative impacts of a massive trashpile right down the road? Why haven't either the Herald or the Record Courier put this on the front page? I could not find a single article in either paper. I realize how important articles glorifying ranchers, showcasing mainstreet, and paying tribute to a militarist culture are, but you'd think they'd have found room in there among these articles for something about the public's opportunity to comment and list their concerns about an expanding dump in their back yard.

What can we do???

According the the DEQ announcement:

"DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing." (Sample letter below.)

It looks like ORA is going to request such a hearing. In case they don't, or simply to help in that effort, 10 of us can send in individual emails requesting a public hearing in the matter of the:

Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility

You can send the request and any comments via email or fax to:
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan
That is straughan.john@deq.state.or.us

An email is all it takes. Additional help can be sought from other groups, such as Hells Canyon Preservation Council. They too can ask for a public hearing. Send or copy the email to:
Greg Dyson, Executive Director
greg@hellscanyon.org

Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing

Here is my email to DEQ requesting a public hearing. You can use it as a template for your own comments or simply cut, paste and change the name and address to your own.

November 30, 2008

Christopher Christie
1985 15th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
541-523-2376
refugee2000@gmail.com

John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: straughan.john@deq.state.or.us


Dear Mr. Straughan:

Just this morning, I became aware of DEQ's public permitting process for the Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill. I can not recall seeing an announcement about this project, and no article about it was featured in the local papers. Other citizens are not, or are just becoming, aware of it. There is no time left for most to respond in detail.

I have concerns about the scale of the project, about air and surface/groundwater pollution, monitoring, and about a lack of improvements in choices for collection of garbage and recyclables by the operators of the facility. Additionally, the efforts to publicize the permit process, so as to give the public ample opportunity to respond to possible impacts to their lives, were inadequate.

For these reasons, I am requesting that DEQ schedule a public hearing for the residents of Baker County and other affected areas. DEQ should extend the comment period for a few weeks after the hearings.

Thank you for your just consideration of this request.

Christopher Christie
Baker City, OR
---------

THANKS!

If you have time, you can include any other concerns you may have about the facility and permitting process. You can get additional information from these DEQ sources:

Announcement of Proposed Renewal Permit
Draft Permit
Review Report

The following is from the announcement:

Notice Issued: 10/30/08
By: Liz Clark
Public Notice: Request for Comments
Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste
Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility

The purpose of this notice is to invite you to provide written comments on this proposed permit renewal.

DEQ’s Role:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for protecting and enhancing Oregon’s water and air quality, for cleaning up spills and releases of hazardous materials, and for managing the proper disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. One way DEQ does this is by requiring permits for certain activities. DEQ issues permits to regulate the type and amount of waste disposed, and leachate and landfill gas produced at a regulated facility.
Notice issued: October 30, 2008.
Written comments due:
Written comments due: 5 p.m., December 1,
2008.

Where can I send my comments or get
technical information?
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan

Where can I get background information?
Information about this project is viewable online
by clicking the following link(s):
Draft Permit
Review Report
You can review hard copies of the draft permit
and related documents at:
Baker County Courthouse
1995 Third Avenue
Baker City, OR 97814
Monday-Friday from 8am- noon and 1:00pm-
5pm
or
Department of Environmental Quality
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
For a review appointment, call Gail Perry at
(541) 276-4063 or 1-800-304-3513

What is proposed?
DEQ proposes to renew the existing Solid Waste Disposal Site permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and is inviting public comment on the proposed action.
In addition, the permit renewal includes authorization for siting, construction and operation of a permanentmobile Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility at the Baker Sanitary Landfill site. The site is subject to written Department approval of engineering design, construction, operations, waste handling and emergency response plans.
During the comment period the public is invited to make comments related to specific conditions within the proposed permit.

Permit expiration
Oregon law requires facilities with a Solid Waste Disposal Site permit to renew that permit every ten (10) years. Upon renewal, this permit will be effective for eight (8) years, expiring on September 30, 2016.

Who is the applicant?
Baker Sanitary Service, Inc.
PO Box 169
Baker City, OR 97814

Where is the facility located?
Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection
Facility
39144 West Sutton Creek Road
Baker County Oregon

Who might have an interest?
People who work, live, and recreate in the area.

DEQ-DC1
What does the Baker Sanitary Landfill
and HHW Collection Facility do that
affects land quality?
Baker Sanitary Landfill disposes of municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste and sharps from Baker and Union Counties. It is also proposed to collect and transport out of county for disposal or recycling HHW waste and
conditionally exempt generator waste.

What legal requirements apply?
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 and Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340
Division 93 give DEQ the authority to issue solid waste permits.

How does DEQ determine what requirements go in the permit?
Various federal and state regulations apply to a facility depending on the type of industry, the type and amount of waste disposed and the location of the facility. All applicable regulations must be contained in the permit, including the appropriate recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with these rules.

What are the known health effects or environmental impacts of the permitted waste disposed of at the Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection Facility?
Precipitation can percolate through the buried waste leaching out contaminants and possibly transporting them to groundwater. Also, decomposition of MSW waste can generate landfill gas which has the potential to migrate from the landfill to adjacent property and groundwater. Landfill gas contains approximately 50% methane which, under certain conditions, can be explosive. Household, small business and agricultural hazardous wastes have the potential to cause human health impacts and environmental contamination through improper collection, storage, transportation and final disposal. Proper collection and management of these wastes, in strict compliance with Federal, State and DEQ Permit requirements, will avoid the potential for harmful health and environmental impacts.
. . . .
How are the permitted substances measured?
By the tons of waste received.

Compliance history:
The Department issued a Notice of Noncompliance on July 31, 1998, for failure to apply daily cover and for failure to maintain the surface water diversion channel. Both of these violations were satisfactorily addressed. The Department again issued a Notice of Noncompliance on September 4, 2001, for failure to submit plans and specifications and obtain Department approval prior to laterally expanding a landfill unit and for failure to collect, analyze and report groundwater, surface water, or leachate quality data in accordance with the approved Ground Water Monitoring Plan (GWMP).

The first violation was a result of placing waste outside of the approved footprint of the landfill.

The second violation was a result of semi-annual monitoring reports that showed that ground water sampling was not conducted in accordance with the GWMP. These violations resulted in the Department issuing a Notice of Violation,
Compliance Order, and Assessment of Civil Penalty on April 23, 2002.

Both of the violations were satisfactorily addressed as indicated in a letter dated May 24, 2002. The violations were addressed by payment of the Civil Penalty and completion of the tasks outlined in the Compliance Order.

What are the special conditions of this permit?
Prior to start-up of the HHW Collection Facility the permittee will be required to prepare and submit to the Department a HHW Operations and Emergency Response Plan. This plan must be approved and a final inspection of the facility performed by the Department before the HHW facility can begin receiving waste.

What other DEQ permits are required?
No other permits are required by the Department.

DEQ-DC1
What similar activities take place in the vicinity of the facility?
None.

What happens next?
DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing.
If a public hearing is not requested, DEQ will consider and provide responses to all comments received at the close of the comment period. DEQ may modify provisions in the proposed permit, but the permit writers can only modify conditions of the permit in accordance with the rules and statutes under the authority of DEQ.

Participation in the rulemaking or the legislative process is the only way to change the rules or statutes. Ultimately, if a facility meets all legal requirements, DEQ will issue the facility’s Solid Waste Site Disposal permit.
. . . .