What it boils down to is that we have to wait until people have health problems, our drinking water is contaminated, etc., then we would have rights. Does this sound like justice served?
Note the words "likely", "believe" "does not believe" "approximately", "anticipated", "should" used throughout this document. EXCERPTS: On August 20, 2001 the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) made the following decisions: 1. The PCHB concluded that CROWD and the Wyerhaeusers have standing for this appeal. 2. They concluded that CROWD and the Weyerhaeusers have failed to prove the excess discharge violates the minimum functional standards applicable to this dump. 3. They concluded that CROWD and the Weyerhaeusers failed to prove the excess discharge constituted a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Concerning the problem of the excess water, Andy Comstock, Tacoma Pierce County Health Department's (TPCHD) principal staff liaison expressed concern in a letter dated February 16, 2001 to LRI."...he requested LRI to perform an 'in-depth evaluation of the LDCS discharge data and supporting documentation for the positions of Mr. Lakey', and 'address how LRI will detect potential leakage in a substantially more dilute sample.' He requested the report be submitted to the TPCHD by March 3rd." Kevin Lakey, LRI's paid consultant, "...explained the original seepage estimates were based on potential flow upward from the confined aquifer to the LDCS. He noted the increased discharges coincided with increased rainfall. He confirmed his belief the increased flow was predominately from the ponded surface water from the area of cell 2 and the saturated condition of the silty soils above the till." "Mr. Lakey anticipated the increased discharges would substantially decrease as the rainy season ended. LRI proposed to investigate the "optimization" of the pump settings as another means of reducing the volumes of discharge prior to the excavation of cell 2. Finally, LRI intended to propose a vertical physical barrier to the inflow of groundwater at the southern boundary of cell 2A." "Cris Matthews confirmed in his testimony Ecology, LRI and the TPCHD believed at the time the large pond of water on cell 2 was the primary source of the increased discharge of water to the LDCS." He ..."concluded the range of actions proposed by LRI to limit the infiltration was appropriate. He also wrote 'Ecology does not believe the additional flow-through in the LDCS represents a compromise of the integrity of the liner system or environmental protection at the site.'" "On March 21, 2000 the TPCHD approved the 2000 renewal of LRI's solid waste permit without any changes. There is no evidence the TPCHD, or any other agency undertook any independent State Environmental Policy ACT (SEPA) analysis in connection with this approval." "LRI applied to modify the solid waste permit on May 5th. The purpose of the modification was to remove any hydraulic connection between cells 1 and 2..." "Cell 2A would be deepened about 7 feet." "Prior to the application, Mr. Comstock advised LRI it would need to determine whether an addendum to the 1995 final supplemental environmental impact statement ("FSEIS") for the project was needed. After the TPCHD received the modification application, Mr. Comstock inquired of the Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Service ("PALS"), whether that agency considered the proposed modification to increase the depth of cell 2 to be consistent with the original and supplemental EIS's. Terry Belieu, an associate planner with PALS, sent Mr. Comstock an e-mail message explaining LRI would need to submit something to the TPCHD describing how the proposal is consistent with the FSEIS, for PALS to evaluate. She suggested Dan Syrdal, an attorney for LRI, could come up with something." "Mr. Syrdal wrote Andy Comstock a letter dated May 12th, in which he concluded the proposed modification would not have any adverse environmental impacts..." "...he explained the agency could use the existing environmental documents, under WAC 197-11-600, to comply with SEPA, where the proposed changes do not result in any significant adverse environmental impact." Andy Comstock e-mailed on May 31st the Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services (PALS) that he did not believe there would be any adverse environmental impacts associated with the modification. "Moreover, he conveyed the agency's belief the existing review, through the FEIS and FSEIS was sufficient; therefore no additional review was warranted." On June 5, Ecology wrote a letter recommending approval of the proposed modification of LRI's solid waste permit. Kathleen Larabee of PALS issued an Addendum on June 28, 2000 which expressed the TPCHD's opinion the proposed modification would not cause any adverse environmental impacts. On July 5, the TPCHD approved the modification. Cell 2A was constructed shortly thereafter and LRI constructed a clay plug to stop the excess water. Neither LRI nor the regulatory agencies considered this much inflow. But the PCHB concluded that this does not demonstrate they are volumetrically significant so as to harm or endanger the liner at any time. The PCHB stated the LDCS is likely to detect a leak of ammonia before it poses contamination of drinking water standards. It would take approximately 85 years for such a leak to penetrate through the till layer to the aquifer. From the aquifer, the contaminants would take an additional approximately 33 years to travel to the nearest well of a lower elevation. "The Weyerhaeusers and various members of CROWD live in the vicinity of the LRI landfill. A failure of the LDCS to properly detect contaminants to the sole source aquifer would more likely than not cause injury to them or their property." The PCHB stated: "We are unable to find from the evidence, however, any significant adverse environmental impact from the increased flows." End of excerpts