On December 13, 2004, the Marshall County Commission voted 5 to 0 to DENY the request for a C&D landfill permit at the Bishop property. We thank the commission for listening to the voice of the people and protecting us from further harm. We are looking forward to their continuing diligence in resolving this issue by securing a source for funds, through government sources and/or through litigation against the past and current owners, to properly close, seal, and monitor the landfill. Additionally, we request the Marshall County Commission to propose a plan for investigating and documenting the long-term health effects of the landfill on the citizen's of the Pleasant Grove community, and including all citizens of Marshall County that may be affected by the landfill due to water table contamination and/or possible contamination to Lake Guntersville and the whole of the Marshall County population.

PARTICIPANTS

Marshall County Commission

Mr. Billy Cannon - Chairman
Mr. Charlie McClendon - District 1
Mr. R.E. Martin - District 2
Mr. C.W. "Buddy" Allen - District 3 (Landfill resides in District 3)
Mr. Tim Bolinger - District 4

Marshall Recycling:

Mr. Tommy Gamble - Owner, also owns Marshall C&D and Gamble Construction
Mr. Larry Beech - Intended general manager
Mr. Buel Hunkapillar - An engineer hired by Gamble and also a Guntersville city engineer

Marshall County Environmental Action Group

Citizens of Pleasant Grove in Marshall County
Mr. James Bonds
Ms. Marsha Duffey

Bishop Landfill

Mr. Phil Bishop

ADEM:

Mr. Larry Bryant, head of the Solid Waste Branch of ADEM’s Land Division

EPA:

Paul Cassidy - EPA MSW landfills (703-308-7281)
Gwen DiPietro - C&D landfills (703-308-8285)

1. We believe the owner of the landfill is legally responsible for properly closing the landfill. If Marshall Recycling owns the land (there is some doubt if the deed transfer has taken place) then they should have already begun closure proceedings. The fact that they have not, demonstrates that they are not being proactive in their legal requirements to close the landfill. It has been stated and reported in The Advertiser Gleam that "Mr. Gamble has said he would cover the cost of closing out the landfill if he is allowed to operate a C&D landfill there." Please note the big IF in Mr. Gamble’s statement.


2. Despite what might be the popular image, a C&D landfill is NOT a benign operation. Some of the many hazardous wastes that can be found in a C&D landfill and are PERMITTED to be dumped in a C&D landfill include: PCB, lead, chromium, barium, sulfuric acid, mercury, arsenic, asbestos, and sulfates along with a multitude of others. In fact, the EPA has stated that lead paint can be dumped in a C&D landfill but lead paint is NOT permitted to be dumped in a MSW landfill even with Subtitle D (liners) in place. With the questionable dumping that has taken place at Bishop’s Landfill over the past 30 years, the C&D operation will take place on top of existing portions of the landfill that have NOT been built to Subtitle D specifications. In effect, C&D debris (including lead-based paint) will be dumped on top of MSW, violating EPA requirements!



3. Marshall County Commission Chairman Mr. Cannon has publicly declared his strong emotions regarding the health risks at the old landfill, which include "enough methane gas to blow-up the surrounding area" and "that a doctor has declared that an infant’s liver disease is due to the ground water surrounding the landfill". Not even proper closing of the landfill will eliminate both of these problems. The methane gas will continue to be produced. Certainly, proper venting and burning of the gas should lessen the possibility of a tragic explosion, but the risk will always be there. In addition, no amount of proper closure proceedings will clean the ground water to eliminate the potential for disease from the polluted ground waters.


4. In a Marshall County Commission meeting in 2003, a representative of ADEM volunteered that if budgetary cutbacks continued, ADEM could not continue their controlling/monitoring role in solid waste disposal in Alabama. Without an adequate and detailed local solid waste policy with the appropriate authority to enforce the policy, landfill owners in Alabama will have a free reign to do whatever they please with the land in Marshall County, regardless of how it affects the lives of Marshall County citizens.


5. Traffic to and from the C&D Landfill will follow the hilly, twisting Pleasant Grove road approximately 4 miles from US-431. This road is treacherous and has claimed lives. There is a mixture of heavy commuter traffic, along with occasional farm tractors and trucks associated with the poultry industry. Adding the C&D traffic to this already dangerous mix is inviting tragedy. With an increase in heavy, dust generating debris from construction and demolition, the residents all along Pleasant Grove, US-431 and surrounding roads can expect a dramatic increase in the hazards of this situation. It should also be recognized that there is no way to control the increase or effect of this extra traffic, since there is no mechanism for ADEM, the Commission, or others to limit this flow.


6. There have been numerous references to a $3.5 million bond to ensure proper closure of the landfill. Mr. Beech has publicly stated that they don’t feel it will cost that much. Subsequently, a second bond will have to be issued to cover the 30 year monitoring of the landfill. Studies have indicated that the costs may be much higher than what has been initially proposed. For instance, California is pushing for financial assurance bonds to be increased to reflect the true cost of long-term landfill maintenance. They say that some provisions are as low as $5 million, which it says is barely enough to mow the lawn for the first 30 years of mandated post-closure care.


7. No matter how good the initial intentions or perceptions are, there are just too many ways a refuse-based business can grow into a huge, undesirable, blight on a community. For instance, a 'recycling' concern once operated at the Bishop site was able to avoid regulation by ADEM because recycling is covered by the health department. The enterprise never produced a viable product, but instead added many cubic yards of processed refuse to the landfill. Another example was the processing of leachate. When the old landfill operators were unable to find a disposal service for the nasty residue, it was simply pumped back onto the garbage from which it had oozed. A third example was when an employee claimed to be gravely injured by exposure to chemicals in drums at the site, but once the claim was settled and sealed, the barrels were apparently never examined for the claimed prohibited chemicals. These are but 3 of many very scary concerns raised but never answered in Pleasant Grove. The most disturbing part of all is the great effort that the community must go through to get rid of such an unpopular process.


8. We have identified many unknowns with regard to the permitting of the C&D landfill. What really scares us is the unknown unknowns. What has been dumped in the landfill over the past 30 years? What damage has already been done to the environment in and around the landfill? Are the proposed bonds enough to cover these unknown unknowns? If not, what happens then? Or, better yet, what DOESN’T happen then?