Posted by: nevadansagainstgarbage | February 15, 2011


You can read about one Californians’ view by clicking here.

The shift from WMAC to Recology will save the City roughly $150 million compared to WMAC’s bid, according to Recology spokesperson Adam Alberti of Singer & Associates

Abe believes Recology should pay the county three to four times its existing fee; up to $18 a ton.

“Landfills leak; it’s only a question of time,” Paskowitz insisted. “Once groundwater is contaminated, there’s not a dialysis machine big enough that could clean it up,” the doctor-activist warned.

“My own personal opinion as a board member, given the strong opposition from Wheatland residents who I represent, and the issues being raised, is that a full EIR is necessary, to review and examine all the concerns and claims now,” he said. “When Recology first received its permit in 1996, the host fee was $4.40 a ton. It hasn’t changed since then. The landfill was only for the Yuba and Sutter communities. Since then, Recology has added surrounding counties

Since Recology opened its landfill in the 1980s it’s increased its size from 261 to more than 1,000 acres, takes in 800 tons of waste daily from five counties, and is permitted for 3,000 tons per day by 2030. The landfill rises up in a mountain 100 feet above sea level, and is allowed to go up to 265 feet. “Once the rail spur is in, there’ll be nothing to stop ‘em from bringing unlimited amounts of garbage. We only have a small window of opportunity to do something,” said Paskowitz.

According to Barnes, two crucial issues need to be addressed with Recology before the City approves the proposed landfill contract. “One, the Recology landfill is too close to Wheatland’s water table. I don’t know how it ever came to be sited in the first place,” said Barnes. Second, YuGAG claims that Recology’s “alternative daily cover,” or barrier material that will be placed daily on top of landfill waste, will consist of 25 percent treated sewage sludge, which includes human and pet waste, toxins, carcinogens, harmful chemicals, construction debris such as concrete dust and various other contaminants. Assmann responded with “this is absolutely absurd and illegal. There’s no way sewage sludge would go in the landfill. San Francisco’s sewage is a completely separate waste stream.”

“Recology is a master at getting permit amendments, going back and getting permits modified for highly questionable reasons,” Barnes said. “We are simply doing whatever we can to fulfill San Francisco’s mission to be the greenest city,” responded Alberti.

Read the entire Potrero View article that contains the above information  and see if it reminds you of any local issues, click here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: