Letter to the editor: Still concerned about DEQ findings at CC landfill

I would like to address some misconceptions raised by the “No evidence of leakages from landfill, CC report indicates” article appearing in the most recent edition of the Chronicle. Unfortunately, the article and quotes of Supervisor Coada and County Administrator Trogdon might be misconstrued to suggest that reports by the county’s environmental consultants, CH2MHill, corrected and definitively addressed the questions I presented to the Board at its September 3rd “town hall” meeting. In my allotted three minutes, I focused only on an enforcement “Order by Consent” signed by Waste Management on January 22, to resolve violations observed in an April 16 inspection by a DEQ Solid Waste Inspector, not a report.

The order contains several findings of fact, none contested by Waste Management. First, the order states that “numerous leachate seeps were observed on the lower slopes of the previously closed portions of the Phase I and Phase II disposal areas, as well as Phase III.” Leachate is water that has contacted waste and may contain any of a wide variety of contaminants. The order goes on to find that the leachate “was observed entering the subsurface conveyance system which discharges to [two] storm water basins”, was “observed collecting in the storm water conveyance ditches at the bottom of the slopes outside the lined disposal area” and “entering the [storm water] basins from the subsurface conveyance pipes and subsequently discharging from the basin outfalls to surface water streams. Second, the order cites the stockpiling of contaminated dredge spoil without cover “on a lined portion of the Facility outside of the active working face on top of portions of Phase II and Phase ii”, and notes “ the material was observed spread without cover on external Phase III slopes.” These also are serious problems.

I noted that Waste Management had agreed to pay a “civil charge” of $28,652 in resolving the alleged violations — something Mr. Coada said that he hadn’t heard about. I asked whether the Board and its consultants were aware of the odor and these issues. The Board said they would look into my questions.

I regret that I was out of town when the Board met on September 23, but it is apparent that my concerns were not addressed. The order remains uncontested and undisputed. It still is not clear whether the ordinary groundwater monitoring CH2MHill conducts at the landfill is in a location or at a depth that would or would not indicate whether the leachate seeps, exposed dredge spoil and potential for contaminant migration at the landfill has affected groundwater.

The apparent confusion of the board, staff and public that followed my comments and questions presented to the Board might well have been avoided if the board had made an audio or video recording of its meeting. It’s my understanding that this hasn’t been done for a long time.

David Ledbetter
Charles City