By AVON WATERS
Opponents of a proposed 13.5-acre landfill known as Mallard Lake northeast of Anderson fear it will contaminate the water aquifer and major waterways used for recreation.
Ralph Reed and his son Mark, president of JM Corp., say that’s not so. The land-use battle has raged since 1979 and continues as lawyers for JM and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management work through permitting issues.
Opponents organized Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association and waged their own war against the landfill in the courts. Scientific studies give both sides ammunition to make their cases. Some studies indicated less marginal land in other locations are available — should a landfill need to be opened at all.
“I have about as much faith in a landfill liner as I do a condom. It’s going to be exposed to very extreme leachate through the years,” said Sheryl Myers, president of the KCCA. “It’s just too close to our water supply to take a chance when there are so many other suitable places.”
Mark Reed said such views are unfounded. The proposed landfill will meet tougher standards instituted by IDEM. A permit was under consideration 20 years ago when standards required only compacted clay be used at the bottom of the landfill. New requirements place an 80-millimeter plastic liner over three feet of compacted clay. Above the liner is a perforated pipe and porous material that allows the water (the leachate) percolating through the trash to be collected. Like water over coffee grounds, as the ground water filters through the trash, it picks up what it touches.
“The old rules said we were safe (in 1983). With the new rules we’re even safer. The landfill complies with the new rules to protect the groundwater. Anyone to say it will contaminate the ground water, that’s an insult to IDEM.
“Our landfill, when it starts operating, is the only landfill in Indiana that complies completely with the new rules,” Mark Reed said.
He’s correct. The 36 existing landfills in Indiana used compacted clay liners until the new rules came into effect about 10 years ago, said Bruce Palin, assistant commissioner for IDEM’s Office of Land Quality.
JM has never finalized its permit, Palin said. The interpretation IDEM had taken was that JM needed to redesign the site to meet current requirements.
“There really isn’t anything that is going to give them 100 percent assurance,” Palin said of opponents. “Life isn’t like that. The designs provide the best state-of-the-art containment of the waste and for removing contaminates from the waste with the leachate to be collected. There are several layers of protection in the system.”
There’s quite a bit that is new, he said. Back in the 1980s, synthetic liners weren’t installed. Designs then depended on the geology at the site to protect ground waters.
“Back then we looked at 10 feet of dense clay soils,” Palin said. New designs have a compact clay layer over a porous drainage system for piping to collect leachate. Then under this the interior clay liner is a membrane liner with at least three more feet of compacted clay.
The piping will take away the collected leachate, Palin said. It then goes to a sump pump and goes to a tank, where it’s stored until taken to a wastewater treatment plant or emptied into sanitary sewers.
Every liner eventually leaks, said Crist Blassaras, Madison County Soil and Water Conservation district watershed coordinator. He also is vice president of the White River Watchers and serves on the state board of directors for the Indiana Soil and Water Conservation District Foundation.
Blassaras said he has read through about 1,000 pages of hydrology and geology reports from three separate studies for landfills and the Mallard Lake project.
“The diaper liners, they aren’t good forever,” he said. “Even with the clay underneath, they will fail. It’s not a matter if they will fail, it’s a matter of when.”
A U.S. Geological Survey study shows two aquifers under the proposed site, he said, as well as many gravel and sand deposits.
“We know it’s going to leak, because you have so much sand and gravel out there, and you have water close to the surface; why would you put a landfill in such a place?” Blassaras asked.
As a scientist, Blassaras likes the objectivity of a 1995 study done by Edwin Squiers of Taylor University for the East Central Solid Waste District. The study was independent of the landfill debate at Mallard Lake. Its intent was to assess suitable locations for Delaware, Grant and Madison counties’ future needs.
“But every single thing that’s mentioned in the Squiers study, says you wouldn’t place a landfill there because of the environmental damage that will occur,” Blassaras said.
There are too many hydrologists and geologists that say this isn’t where to put one,” Blassaras said.
“I’d be very concerned about future damage to those aquifers feeding Killbuck Creek and those aquifers feeding the wells,” he added.
Yet studies done by other professional geologists indicate the sand and gravel under the site do not connect, said Ralph Reed pointing to cross-section maps showing lens-shaped pockets of sand under the site. Who’s right?
The Reeds say as a result of all the concern and legal action, they’ve bored 50 locations when only five are required for a typical permit application. As a result of all the inquiry and concern, the borings further prove the location is safe, Ralph Reed said.
“During all of this, our geologist and IDEM’s geologist, they’ve been on the same page and had the same findings,” Ralph said. “The studies show there’s ground water where you can drill a well, but the aquifers here aren’t the type that could support the city of Anderson.”
That’s not the point, said Blassaras. There are wells in the area that can be contaminated one day when there are leaks.
“Once the cat is out of the bag, the damage is done,” he said. “I don’t understand how anyone in their right mind would consider taking a chance to poison an aquifer. There are plenty of letters (from experts) stating there are better locations. The scientists are doing their job, they don’t have a vendetta against the Reeds. They are just doing their job.”
Blassaras refers to documents sent by geologists to state officials. One such letter, written in 1983 by Rose Mary Harvey, a geologist and environmental planner for the Region 6 Planning and Development Commission, stated there are better locations in the county for a landfill.
“She did not believe such a marginal site as Mallard Lake should be approved,” Blassaras said.
The Squiers study examined the homes, wells, aquifers, transportation, rise and fall of the land, soil types and more, Blassaras said. The study concluded that the ideal location was in the northeastern section of Madison County where it could serve three counties. The study concluded the corridor along Interstate 69 where Madison, Grant and Delaware counties meet to be the least populated and had the best soils and underlying ground features for a landfill.
“Mallard Lake was listed as one of many marginal areas,” he said.
The liner will fail eventually and the leachate will eventually migrate to the aquifer through the clay, Blassaras said. The beauty of the Squiers study is, there’s clay under the area to the northeast, but there are no aquifers, he added.
“There are aquifers under the proposed sites and you just don’t put a landfill over an aquifer,” Blassaras said.
Mark Reed points to the evidence scientists have given JM Corp. He held up a long cylindrical clump of white clay called hard pan. The borings indicate much of the ground under the landfill contains this highly impermeable type of clay. It’s what protects the aquifers from contaminates that exist in the environment today such as agricultural and lawn chemicals.
“Ninety-nine percent of the leachate is collected,” Mark Reed said. “That leaves 1 percent that will stay at the bottom of the landfill and held by the liner. We’re not talking tens of thousands of gallons of this stuff. It takes years before the rain water and liquid percolate through the layers of trash and clay.”
He held the clay up again and said how a hole can be dug on top of the clay and water poured into it and it will sit on top of the hard pan.
“IDEM requires three feet of this stuff under the landfill, Mark Reed said. “It takes years for even a small amount of water to get through an inch of this clay and we have three feet.”
Mark Reed said remonstrators want the public to believe three things; “they want you to believe that the aquifer is a raging river — it’s not. Water in an aquifer moves very slowly.
“Secondly, they want you to think there’s no contaminates in the water now,” Mark Reed said. “The ground water upstream from them already has pesticides, runoff from asphalt and chemicals in it now.”
Water tests scan for more than 60 chemicals to create a baseline for water quality, he added.
Third, remonstrators want the public to think the landfill will contaminate the water in wells of Killbuck subdivisions. It won’t, he said, because the water flows away from the school and the housing.
“I don’t think a lot of people realize that,” Mark said, pointing to locations on a map. “It’s an undisputed fact the ground water flows northwest, away from the remonstrators.”
IDEM requires the wells be tested semiannually after the landfill begins operation, Palin said. Because water moves through the trash slowly and any leak that develops takes time to permeate the layers of clay, there’s enough time to react to find solutions before an aquifer or a body of water is affected.
JM has 11 monitoring wells in place.
“Let’s just say, suppose everything went wrong,” Mark Reed said. “If you have leachate sitting on top of the clay, it will move maybe an inch. But the clay acts like a filter, the same as a charcoal filter. After it goes through a foot of it, it purifies the water, you could drink it.”
The landfill is a quarter mile from Killbuck Creek. Mark Reed said it is in the best interest of the businessperson to monitor the wells and see that everything is operating as it should. Ralph Reed feels the debate over contamination isn’t understood.
Ralph Reed said, “Our well is 150 feet deep and we’re about 80 feet in elevation above Killbuck Creek. Water in this area is 50 to 200 feet deep.”
Should all backups fail, the water still must permeate many feet of clay that acts as a purifying filter, he said.
It’s the unknown and unexpected that concerns Myers.
“When you have a very beautiful potential for growth in that part of the county, I don’t think it’s worth jeopardizing the area,” she said. “Most animals will not foul their own nest and I think that’s what the potential of this is. It’s way too close to where we live.”
