Toxic questions : Evaluators: SouthPass no immediate danger to human health; candidates Jordan, Clark want more info
Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2008
While evaluators won't say the city-owned landfill that is part of the SouthPass development is safe, they are willing to say it is not immediately dangerous.
"Whatever concentrations (of chemicals or compounds ) we have identified are not at a level that is immediately dangerous to anyone's health," said Claire Barnett, project manager, for EnSafe Inc., the Memphis, Tenn., company that evaluated the site for the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. EnSafe employees evaluated soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water in the stream for the closure assessment report. Soil gas and subsurface gas from decomposition at the landfill and other factors were also measured. The wooded and grassy site is at the base of Kessler Mountain, bisected by two streams.
"Our people were on the site. They wore regular work clothes. We don't send our people onto sites in those unless we feel like the site is safe," Barnett said.
She and Brian Mulhern, risk assessor for EnSafe, said the company is still evaluating the property. Their 443-page report from June and its August addendum can be found on the ADEQ Web site.
It identifies what Mulhern called "chemicals of potential concern," which is a specific risk assessment term. Barnett said the key to that terminology is potential concern.
"They're not necessarily immediately dangerous," Mulhern said.
Neither would say the Fayetteville landfill site is or isn't safe.
"It's not that cut and dry," Mulhern said. "I don't think you can make such a generalized statement either way."
Asked to characterize their findings, Mulhern said," I would be more concerned about tripping on some of the things that are out there."
"Or snakes," Barnett added.
"To put it in perspective," Mulhern said.
It is not a site that is immediately dangerous to anybody who walks on the site, Barnett said.
"I think the use of the word toxic is an extreme. It really is not a toxic landfill," she said. "There are some hot spots that need further evaluation, and they are being evaluated."
According to the EnSafe report, the C & L Land Co. Inc. landfill was operated from 1972-76. It allegedly received municipal solid waste and some construction / demolition debris from the city of Fayetteville, the University of Arkansas and the Campbell Soup Company.
The landfill site was inspected in 1981, twice in 1984, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008. In 2005, groundwater was sampled.
An example of the EnSafe findings is one location out of 20 where polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH ) were found to be more concentrated than the standard measurement.
Barnett said PAH are prevalent everywhere. They can be found in the ashes of forest fires or in products made from petroleum, such as tires and asphalt.
"If you live in a city, you're exposed to them, regardless of what you do because you're around cars," Barnett said.
That area where the PAH concentration was found could be considered by ADEQ for remediation or further evaluation, the EnSafe representatives said.
Barnett said the components identified in the evaluation were associated with potential ecological risk rather than human-health risk.
Debate The issue of the landfill's safety was raised at the mayoral debate Thursday. "I don't want my grandchildren playing on some sort of toxic dump," Ward 4 Alderman and mayoral candidate Lioneld Jordan said during the debate. "Well, I should have said'possible toxic dump, '"he said the next day. "When you have a minute to answer those questions, a few words slip away. "Jordan said he is concer ned that the city is responsible for that land. "That concerns me, that people could be playing or having recreation on something that could possibly be hazardous, which would leave the city, I think, responsible," he said. In 2004, Jordan seconded the motion that approved the contract with SouthPass developers, which included among its terms that the city would accept ownership of the landfill. The council vote of approval for the contract was unanimous and included Jordan. The deed from C & L Land granting ownership to the city was signed and filed in October 2005. SouthPass developers never owned the landfill site. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that at the time of the contract, August 2004, the city was looking for a private partner to help with what the contract described as the city's "desires to obtain a 200-acre Community Park for its citizens and tourists."
He said one of the things the city brought to the table for the proposed partnership was the potential future liability of the landfill.
During the debate, Mayor Dan Coody countered that the landfill was not a toxic waste dump and had been used for city waste, tires and construction equipment. He also noted the landfill site is separate from the regional park.
Coody said the park is the flat pastureland area on the southern side of the South-Pass development. The landfill is northwest and higher in elevation.
"It's not and never has been a toxic waste dump as has been alleged by Mr. Jordan," Coody said Friday. "The idea of using a scare tactic like that for parents is, I think, completely inflammatory, unnecessary and flat out wrong. "The mayor said ADEQ reports show the landfill site is not a problem. Coody said Jordan knows the area isn't toxic because, as a council member for seven years, he has had all the same documentation on which Coody has relied. "Last night (Thursday ), he told everybody it was a toxic landfill to make a toxic park, so either he knowingly brought that into the city or he was being disingenuous to the very people he was talking to," Coody said. "I don't know what's changed, but he voted for approving the contract four years ago," Coody said. Jordan said Friday he did hear that the state said the site was OK, but he still has concerns because there were few controls in the 1970 s when the landfill was used.
"You could have mercury lights in there; you could have pesticides in there, maybe old TV sets in there - any sort of stuff they don't allow in landfills now. We really don't know what's in that landfill," he said. Jordan said if his concerns could be eased he would look more favorably on the SouthPass development. "I simply just don't know. That could be a possibility, but I'm not going to know until they come in with more information on exactly everything that could be in there. I just want to be absolutely sure that that landfill is beyond the shadow of a doubt safe for people to be on," he said. Whether SouthPass is or is not approved, the city will continue to own the landfill as it does now. "We are now the proud owners of that landfill," Williams said during the Planning Commission meeting Sept. 8. At that meeting, the commission voted 7-1 to forward the project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Another mayoral candidate, Steve Clark, also referred to the landfill site as toxic during the mayoral debate. He said he used the word toxic," Because it was a landfill for, as the mayor said, tires, household waste and other products. I know what's under my kitchen sink. "Clark said he used toxic from the standpoint that he needed more information. "I had every fear that there's something there that could have an impact that was detrimental," Clark said. Like Jordan, he is concerned about the lack of controls when the landfill was used. "I do know if it was a household landfill filled with household products, 15 years ago or 20 years ago or 25 years ago, we were a whole lot less mindful of what we were throwing out and its impact on our environment," he said. Clark said he hasn't read state reports, but he knows the proposal for the landfill site is that it will only be used as greenspace. "Well, if it was only to be developed as greenspace, someone must have thought there was a reason to be at least watchful or mindful of that area," Clark said. Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation director, said Friday that at one time the area was shown as "passive only"and that it is currently drawn as a multipurpose field. "But who knows ? "she said. "We'll do exactly what ADEQ says. "Edmonston said no final plan for use of the area will be determined until the state has made a decision about remediation of the ground.
Remediation Doug Szenher, ADEQ spokesman, said the state is not at the point of doing remediation at the site, if remediation is necessary. "We are still reviewing this latest submission from EnSafe to determine what needs to be done out there and how we think it should be approached. We have not committed funds for that yet," he said. Szenher said he does not know how long that evaluation will take. Like Barnett and Mulhern, he would not say if the site is or isn't safe. "If we felt there was an imminent threat, we would take action on that," Szenher said. "There are some concerns about some of the findings, primarily with regard to the soil," he said. "But, at this point, there is no, really no conclusion that there is even a threat to human health or the environment that is being posed."
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
