Home
News
ajensen@tahoedailytribune.com
More questions than answers and calls for an extension of the public comment period peppered a U.S. Forest Service meeting on Thursday over capping vinyl chloride contamination at the Meyers Landfill.
Tom Bruin, a lawyer for the South Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority, and Tom Vandenburg, an attorney hired by El Dorado County, requested a further extension of the comment period, which has already increased from 30 to 45 days due to the complexity of the capping process.
"The county is not interested in delay. The county is interested in getting this site cleaned up," Vandenburg said at the meeting.
Extension requests were made because of the number of questions remaining after an informational meeting on May 24, which introduced the Forest Service's four alternatives for cleaning up the landfill. Written comments are due by July 25.
"I was a bit confused by some of the things that were said at the last meeting," said El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago.
Whether the site's future use should be determined as part of the current process was at the heart of Santiago's confusion. The county supervisor believes future site use should be determined as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act process now under way.
Forest Service officials have said the future use of the site will be decided under a separate process, despite a claim to the contrary from project manager Brad Shipley at the May meeting.
Also among the concerns of the more than two dozen people who attended the meeting on Thursday was the extent of the contamination at the landfill, mitigation and monitoring measures not explicitly spelled out in the proposed alternatives and the potential effects of native vegetation on the integrity of the cap.
"Can we get answers to any of these questions tonight?" asked Tom Millham, secretary/treasurer for Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care.
The answer from Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit officials was "no" because the meeting was intended purely as an avenue for the Forest Service to receive oral comments for the official record, not answer questions.
"We'll respond to the questions at a later date, once we've determined the full scope of the public comments," said Eli Ilano, deputy forest supervisor of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. "Before we can issue a record of decision, we have to answer the questions received during the public comment period."
More questions than answers and calls for an extension of the public comment period peppered a U.S. Forest Service meeting on Thursday over capping vinyl chloride contamination at the Meyers Landfill.
Tom Bruin, a lawyer for the South Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority, and Tom Vandenburg, an attorney hired by El Dorado County, requested a further extension of the comment period, which has already increased from 30 to 45 days due to the complexity of the capping process.
"The county is not interested in delay. The county is interested in getting this site cleaned up," Vandenburg said at the meeting.
Extension requests were made because of the number of questions remaining after an informational meeting on May 24, which introduced the Forest Service's four alternatives for cleaning up the landfill. Written comments are due by July 25.
"I was a bit confused by some of the things that were said at the last meeting," said El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago.
Whether the site's future use should be determined as part of the current process was at the heart of Santiago's confusion. The county supervisor believes future site use should be determined as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act process now under way.
Forest Service officials have said the future use of the site will be decided under a separate process, despite a claim to the contrary from project manager Brad Shipley at the May meeting.
Also among the concerns of the more than two dozen people who attended the meeting on Thursday was the extent of the contamination at the landfill, mitigation and monitoring measures not explicitly spelled out in the proposed alternatives and the potential effects of native vegetation on the integrity of the cap.
"Can we get answers to any of these questions tonight?" asked Tom Millham, secretary/treasurer for Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care.
The answer from Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit officials was "no" because the meeting was intended purely as an avenue for the Forest Service to receive oral comments for the official record, not answer questions.
"We'll respond to the questions at a later date, once we've determined the full scope of the public comments," said Eli Ilano, deputy forest supervisor of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. "Before we can issue a record of decision, we have to answer the questions received during the public comment period."
