It's true that WMI has done a very good job operating the landfill, as has every other landfill operator withing 3000 miles. Like all those other operators, WMI is compelled by state & federal regulations to provide the level of operations they do. Otherwise, they probably would not.

The big question for THIS proposed expansion is what is the break even point for the surrounding community? Does WMI's proposal offer a quid pro quo or does it simply require Simi Valley to accept whatever impacts follow, without any compensation? Who bears the burden if those impacts harm the community?

Another question is why does WMI need to consolidate its region-wide trash collection efforts here, in our community, when other cities and counties already have landfill operations that are operating as well and better than what is proposed here? Why can't LA, San Bernadino and other SoCal landfills manage their own waste?

And since waste collection & recycling trends seem to project that the present operation can continue indefinitely, without any need to expand, why the rush to seek early approval for a regional expansion that doesn't look like it's needed? The only two reasons I can think of are 1) that WMI is doing it to consolidate their regional operations so as to generate more profits and/or 2) that WMI plans to seek a future modification to take in waste from a much wider area.

Then there's the issue of the old, virtually forgotten toxic dump of 60,000,000 pounds of stuff, that no one knows what it is, lying under three feet of clay, underneath the existing landfill. We do know that PCBs comprise part of that waste. How much? How far have those PCBs migrated? Is it more widespread than at NY's PCB Super Fund site? Can those PCBs make their way into the aquifer through the network of cracks and fissures that define the geology underneath the site? Have they already?

Whether the Runkle Ranch data was flawed or not, the idea of a fourth toxic site will not sit well with east county voters.

gs - Do you have a link to a source on the toxic dump you say is under the current landfill? Thanks in advance.

The description of the landfill's former life as a toxic dumping ground is included in WMI's earlier application, I believe its the 2002 or 2004 volume.

I also believe its in Section 2, around page 18.

I gave my copy of the application back to the WMI Task Force months ago, so I can be sure about the pages.

However, it may be available from WMI's website.

GS,

I've found it difficult, at least for me, to take a position on what the compensation to the city should be based on the environmental impact of the expanded landfill. I don't think it's been fully determined what the environmental impact will be which is why I've never been inclined to press for or even expect definitive answers.

I didn't ask specifically about early approval, but I can assume based on their plans that an early approval of the expansion will allow them to begin immediately with their plan to move the GI Industries operation (all offices, trucks and fueling) to the Simi Landfill site and get them out of Easy Street. I could be mistaken, that's an assumption I made. Their plan to move GI to the landfill site involves taking over previously allocated landfill space for offices and parking. Approval of the expansion should allow them to safely re-allocate that property right away.

Regarding the toxic dump you made reference to, I have to admit that's news to me. I haven't heard that before. You can bet I'll be researching that further. Any help you can offer as far as pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated!

One of the problems with the difficulty of taking a position on compensation is that we don't know what the impacts will be. WMI's applications and early EIR discuss numbers and formulas but they don't really discuss what practical effects those things have on Frwy exit/entrance congestion, lies of sight, negative impacts on the City's proposed West end business park, etc. Unfortunately, it's up to the public to raise these questions...not WMI. On this matter there was little public notice that such a big change was coming to Simi Valley. Williamson's task force attempted to raise these questions, crudely at first but effectively, in the end. The responsibility now lies in the hands of the City Council and our County Supervisor.

One area of compensation that's due Simi Valley's residents is a reduction in their WMI fees. We now pay the highest residential fees of any Ventura city despite the fact that other cities truck their garbage to Simi. Nearby unincorporated areas pay even higher fees for less service. This is intolerable now and should be corrected ASAP.

I'm not certain why WMI hasn't already consolidated the GI operations up at the landfill. It would make sense to do so.

Again, the toxic dumping history if briefly discussed in WMI's earlier application for expansion. Check the 2002 or 2004 application under the section "History". After reading the document and speaking to WMI employees it appears that prior to 1978 an unregulated dump was located on the landfill site. In local context, this was a period when Rocketdyne's operators were busy disposing of materials from the plagued SSFL. There's no mention that Rocketdyne materials were dumped there but then there's no real information about anything that was dumped there except that when the County took it over it cataloged 60,000,000 pounds of toxic and hazardous waste, including unknown quantities of PCBs. Yet WMI's report is sketchy, so that figure has to be considered a minimum.

When the County passed operations over to WMI in the early 1980s a layer of clay was spread over the toxic dump and the existing landfill was built on top of the old dump. It's my understanding that the hazardous waste, including barrels of unknown substances, were left in place.

The underlying geological formations is porous and riddled with cracks and fissures. Any potential liquefaction holding PCBs or other toxins may be expected to migrate quickly off site. The addition of countless tons of pressure mounting atop the old dump may speed up the process.

I believe the prevailing direction of any such migration would move the toxins southwest, beneath the arroyo, affecting the river all the way to the sea. If the expansion moves ahead as planned, we may never be certain until another environmental/health crisis surfaces.

I agree that a reduction in collection fees is a more than reasonable request. Is there any suggestion that WMI would decline the request?

WMI hasn't moved the GI Industries operation to the Landfill site due to lack of needed space. It's not that the space isn't there, it's just allocated as landfill/dump space.

I'm definitely alarmed to hear about toxic material buried beneath the clay seal. At the risk of sounding uninformed, I'm well aware of the fact that the landfill was County operated until it was purchased by WMI. I also know that the proposed expansion into the former Unocal land requires some cleanup of their oil drilling efforts before it can be prepped for waste dumping (which seems like an ironic, but is truly necessary). But news of toxic materials buried beneath the landfill is something I haven't heard of.

So I can read about this in the documentation related to the original expansion (2004 I believe)??

There hasn't been a peep from either the city Council nor WMI regarding a reduction in fees. My position is that any discussions of fee reductions be separate from WMI's expansion application.

When the folks that SHOULD know what's buried under the landfill don't seem to have any answers we have a responsibility to ask hard questions, even if we risk sounding uninformed.

Yes, the applications are available for public review. Get a copy from WMI or perhaps you can contact task force member Louis Pandolfi for a peek at his. I'm sure he'd respond to a post, here on the blog.

I have Mr. Pandolfi's contact info, so I'll see if I can grab his attention. Thanks much!