FAQ

1) Will the Campo Landfill accept hazardous waste?

1) Hazardous waste is prohibited by tribal and federal regulations. In addition, the lease agreement and the cooperative agreement with the State of California do not allow hazardous waste disposal.

2) Didn't the project get stopped when Mid American Waste Systems went bankrupt?

2) The project was proposed and approved by the Campo Band. Mid American Waste Systems was selected a the operator by the tribe, but the project continuation was never conditioned on Mid American's participation. Economic conditions at the time of Mid American's bankruptcy were a much bigger factor in not immediately moving ahead with the project. (See history)

3) The primary lease is between the Campo Band and Muht Hei, Inc. That lease is still in operation. Muht Hei, Inc., can move ahead with construction under their existing lease at any time provided they get permit acceptance by the Campo EPA. However, due to the length of time since the last EIS the Campo Band has requested a Supplemental EIS be prepared for the project.

4) The Permit to Operate will be issued by the Campo EPA upon satisfactory completion of the required construction tasks and submittal of operational plans. Any required federal actions including the completion of the supplemental EIS will be needed before Campo EPA issues the permit.

5) The Campo EPA has a cooperative agreement with the California EPA that allows for State agency review of Campo EPA actions to ensure that Campo regulations and application are functionally equivalent to State standards.

6) The Band had approved the primary lease with Muht Hei over 10 years ago. If Muht Hei had moved forward without change their would not have been any approval. However, there have been changes to the agreement which required General Council approva. These changes were approved by the Tribe in 2004.

7) Campo is governed by a General Council consisting of all adult tribal members. The General Council has authorized this project on several occasions. Most recently in December 2004.

8) Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act the directors of approved state programs can approve flexibility under RCRA for certain specified elements of landfill designs. BAD sued EPA for allowing Campo to apply for this same authority that the states possess. The courts ruled that, indeed, EPA exceeded their authority and struck down the program approval of Campo.

When Campo met with EPA in 1989, EPA insisted that the tribe should apply for program approval. The Campo government did not feel it was necessary, but with the development of the Campo EPA there was a rising feeling that the additional involvement of EPA through an approved program would enhance the level of oversight and ensure a stronger regulatory program. Therefore, Campo decided to proceed. By striking down the program approval, BAD ensured that this element of oversight does not take place.

As for the flexibility approval provisions. These are prescriptive and must be done by EPA in lieu of an approved program. If the granting of the flexibility is challenged it now will be U.S. E.P.A. that is challenged, rather than Campo E.P.A. Other than that, it is essentially the same.