Landfill Song by Andrew Woodland
On Friday, July 11, 2008 Northampton City Council President and Board of Public Works member Jim Dostal appeared on radio station WHMP. Regarding the Phase 5 landfill expansion proposal Mr. Dostal, who has historically supported landfill expansion, said that expansion is not a done deal, that the BPW has not made up its mind, and that it may not move forward and apply to the city council for the necessary special permit. In Northampton the city council has charge of special permits for heavy public uses.
However, former Northampton mayoral candidate Gene Tacy, who attended the July 14 joint BPW-City Council conference subcommittee meeting a few days later, alleges foul play. Mr. Tacy said that Ward 3 city councilor and former BPW member Robert Reckman stated at that meeting, “I have six city council members that will vote for the expansion of the landfill.” Reached by phone Mr. Reckman said, “That is absolutely not correct. What I said was that I believe there are at least six members of the city council that are open to the possibility of expanding the landfill after all of the information is in.” The other two council members of the joint conference committee, Ward 2 councilor Paul Spector and Ward 7 councilor Ray LaBarge were not present at the meeting. Reached by phone BPW chairperson David Reckhow said, “I did not write word for word what Bob said, but I do not believe Gene’s quote is accurate. Had Bob said something like that it would have raised flags for me.” DPW chief Ned Huntley replied in an email, “I would expect that all the City Councilors will be voting not six. They are the ones who will issue or deny the special permit an[d] as such, all will vote for the expansion (negative or positive), so that comment does not make sense to me. If that was Bob’s comment I do not recall the exact wording of it. Whatever he said did not raise my eyebrows as being improper nor anyone else present that I am aware of.” According to Mr. Huntley, DPW office manager B. J. Nubile reported that Reckman’s statement was not in her notes, “as she does not write everything verbatim in meetings.” Gene Tacy responded, “I was the only one that took minutes at the meeting. There were no reporters, just me. I was the only one that recorded the quote.”
Despite what may or may not have occurred at the BPW meeting, there remain concerns that raise reasonable doubts about the operation of the current landfill and the expansion proposal. For instance, when asked in July why he thought that Phoenix Environmental Laboratories, Inc. of Connecticut found elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead in well water samples taken on April 24, 2008 on the property of Mike and Lillian Fedora, abutters to the landfill, Mr. Huntley stated, “I can’t explain it.” Mr. Huntley offered that materials used in the plumbing could be a factor and further added that, “We will not move forward [with expansion] if studies show [negative] impacts on human health.” Reached by telephone Mike Fedora said that he removed all lead and plastic plumbing attached to the outlet of the well prior to testing on April 24.
Regarding toxins and groundwater monitoring a DPW PowerPoint presentation available on its website indicates, “Typically no values exceed primary standards established for health reasons,” and cites, “One exceedance for lead in Fall 06.” However, a report from Stantec dated April 25, 2008 revealed that 1,4-dioxane was found in two wells at levels exceeding the Massachusetts Drinking Water Guideline standard. The EPA lists 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen. From the same report it was stated that, “Concentrations of iron in two downgradient samples exceeded the secondary drinking water standard.”
In a letter dated August, 2007 addressed to Ned Huntley, the West Springfield engineering firm Fuss & O’Neill wrote that, “There appears to be no evidence that the private water supply wells have been impacted by the landfill.” Fuss & O’Neill then added, “There were three exceedences of the Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels (MMCLs) for drinking water in samples collected during the July 2007 sampling event.” The report cited elevated levels of lead in a sample collected at 696 Park Hill Road, elevated levels of cadmium in a sample collected at 238 Glendale Road, and elevated levels of arsenic in a sample collected at 981 Park Hill Road. It went on, “Several constituents were detected above a Secondary Maximum contaminant Level (SMCL) of the Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards in samples collected at private residences. In general, SMCLs are developed to protect the aesthetic qualities of drinking water and are not health based.” These findings included seven samples showing elevated levels of iron, three samples showing elevated levels of manganese, and nineteen samples showing elevated levels of sodium concentrates. During the forum Dr. Newton attributed high sodium levels as an indicator of leachate discharge. Since 2000 the DPW has awarded more than $42 thousand in contracts to Fuss & O’Neill, including $10 thousand for the Three County Fairgrounds traffic study in 2007.
Over the summer California based Brown and Caldwell Engineering began analyzing iron oxide flocculants found in the unnamed tributary located on the Fedora property that feeds into Hannum Brook. The DPW has awarded Brown and Caldwell $27 thousand in contracts for the month of June for work related to the Fedora property. Recent tests by Gradient Corporation on behalf of Stantec show that this, “iron floc” is rich in arsenic. Since April 2007 Gradient has been awarded $32.7 thousand in contracts by the DPW for disease cluster analyses and an epidemiology study. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “iron floc,” is usually observed as orange-yellow deposits in surface streams with excess iron content. Though apparently modest amounts of floc were observed decades ago near the greater Hannum Brook area, what once was a home for fingerling trout is today a tributary of rust-colored sediment. Yet a 2007 DPW PowerPoint presentation prepared by Mr. Huntley and Mr. Laurila that is available on the city web site states that the “brook is a healthy ecosystem and supports sensitive aquatic wildlife and wetland plants,” with, “widely distributed fish and invertebrates.” When I asked Mike Fedora to verify this as a long time property owner of land immediately adjacent to the landfill, he said, “Sure, Hannum Brook may be that way north of the landfill, but the tributary that runs on my property that feeds Hannum Brook is orange and I haven’t seen any fish in it in twenty-five years. When I bought the land there was no rust color to the water and there was fish in the tributary, but not anymore. As far as I can tell the [Hannum] brook is starting to turn orange south of my property too.” He further added, “There may be a stray frog now and then, but I haven’t seen any wildlife near the water on my land and I sure wouldn’t eat any of it.”
The PowerPoint presentation further states, “All leachate is collected and treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.” To the contrary, Boston attorney Peter Koff argued in a legal notice of intent regarding landfill zoning enforcement filed by forty-two complainants against the DPW, that escaping landfill “leachate has mobilized arsenic from the aquifer into the springs emerging from the ground.” Previously Huntley and Laurila acknowledged that there is high iron staining, but also asserted that this posed no health risk. Mr. Huntley restated this belief due to the findings of Stantec’s contaminant fate transport model. However, an addendum to the 2007 Hannum Brook Evaluation Update provided by Stantec dated March 10, 2008 states that the two most recent water sampling rounds showed the highest levels of iron concentration recorded since 1995, when the first unlined cell of the landfill was capped. Dr. Newton argues that these levels are increasing and, “we don’t know why.”
Landfill odors pose an ongoing problem. The local media has focused on the costs associated with, “sniffers,” which are trained personnel hired by the DPW to respond to odor complaints. Per contract the DPW may spend tens of thousands of dollars to respond to complaints and detect odors on a pay as needed basis. The state Department of Environmental Protection mandated this course of action and encouraged residents to call in odor complaints, which was opposed by Linda Hiesiger who resides near the landfill because she favored a more scientific approach. Ms. Hiesiger stated that she asked the DEP to require a 24-hour summa canister air test similar to the three-second summa canister air grab taken at her home south of the landfill by the DPW, but that the request was denied. A summa canister is a stainless steel vessel designed to test air for volatile organic compounds. The three-second air grab was analyzed by Tech Environmental in September 2007 and shows that levels of the carcinogens Benzene and Methylene Chloride (AKA Dichloromethane) exceed allowable limits for ambient air. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, children exposed to Benzene may run a greater risk of contracting leukemia than do adults exposed to similar levels. Additionally, the EPA believes that the principal releases of Methylene chloride on land are from the disposal of Methylene chloride products and containers in landfills. Huntley asserts the obvious, that it is vital to get these odors under control if the expansion is to move forward. If the DPW can’t prove that it can control the odors of the existing landfill, how could it be expected to control odors if the landfill is expanded? At the same time, DPW attorney Thomas A. Mackey of Boston, whose firm retains $124 thousand in contracts with the DPW for legal fees related to the landfill, asserted at the June 26 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the landfill zoning enforcement request, that people have been living with problems from the landfill, including odors, for twenty-five years.
Finally it appears the costs of expansion will not be subsidized by the state as has been done previously. During the June 26 ZBA hearing city solicitor Janet Sheppard informed members of the Zoning Board of Appeals that it cost the city $6.2 million to convert the municipal dump into a regional landfill in 1990. Ms. Sheppard also told the ZBA that business is declining at the landfill because of competition in the free market. Mr. Laurila clarified these remarks in an email, “The cost of the lined landfill (Phase 1), leachate treatment plant, force-main and related work was about $6.2 million,” and added that, “the majority of the costs were paid for by the state.” According to Mr. Laurila, “The cost of the first lined area in Phase 5 was last estimated to be about $3.4 million. This estimate was published in the Draft Environmental Impact Report Sept. 2005. The state DEP does not have a construction grant or loan program for new landfill construction.” In other words, absent state assistance the proposed expansion will be paid for by ongoing landfill receipts which means that the operation must maintain a certain level of solid waste intake in order to pay for itself.
