PALMER -- An Anchorage company this week lost a costly and contentious bid to put a 35-acre construction and demolition debris landfill on an old gravel pit near Palmer.
The Central Monofill Services proposal was rejected by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough planning commission Monday night in a tie vote during a six-hour meeting at the borough building attended by about 125 people.
Central is weighing an appeal to the borough's Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the company's attorney said.
Along with the Palmer facility, Central also hopes to build a similar fill site in Chugiak. Both are necessary, the company says, to take at least 8,000 tons a year of debris the company can't recycle and no longer wants to pay to dump at Anchorage's municipal landfill.
But Palmer-area residents testified Monday that the risk of underground or tire fires, diminished property values, wind-blown trash or asbestos dust, and fouled drinking water wells isn't worth the three full-time jobs the fill will create.
The 3-3 tie came without commissioner Bill Kendig, who was recused and asked to leave the room because he conducted a business transaction with the company and was later accused of "ex parte" conversations with them in violation of parliamentary rules, an accusation made over Central's objections.
The commission needed four votes to approve the conditional-use permit for the company's proposed monofill, as regulators call this kind of waste facility.
Voting against: Brian Endle, Tom Healy and Tomas Adams. Voting in favor: John Klapperich, Vern Rauchenstein, and Bruce Walden.
An attorney for Central Monofill called Kendig's recusal unfortunate.
"The problem, when someone's recused, it's an automatic 'no' vote," Anchorage attorney and Palmer property owner Bill Ingaldson said after the hearing just before midnight.
The company also still needs to get a permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. A public comment period on that process ends Dec. 29.
The "Central companies" -- the same owners also operate Central Environmental Services and Central Recycling Services -- sell steel, crushed asphalt, concrete and glass to Seattle and Alaska markets from a bustling industrial site at Ship Creek.
The Palmer facility wouldn't be open to the public or accept household or hazardous waste, according to permit application documents. It would involve an average of 12, but as many as 25, trucks a day dumping 25,000 tons of "inert" waste and 10,000 tons of regulated asbestos-containing material, 5,000 of it requiring special protections.
The planning commission last year voted 4-3 against the monofill, citing concerns about windblown garbage and groundwater contamination.
This year, commissioners contended with a technical, 4,200-page permit application. Partly based on new hydrology reports, planning staff found the application met borough requirements and recommended approval. Planners added 40 permit conditions including debris-catching fences and a 162-foot height limit.
That didn't sway commissioners who voted no.
Adams, an engineer, said he struggled with conflicting hydrology reports from a borough consultant who found the facility could contaminate drinking water wells and one commissioned by Central who said no such risk existed.
"I don't know how to define who's right," he said. "Is it the applicant's hydrologist? Is it the borough's hydrologist? Somewhere out there, there's an answer that's correct."
Healy, Palmer's public works director, pointed out the state's plans to widen the Glenn Highway near the monofill. That could remove 4 acres of land that includes a berm to block the facility from the highway and eat into the actual monofill site.
Generally, Healy said, he had "too many doubts" about the facility's location and cited several local comprehensive plan goals he felt the monofill conflicted with.
Klapperich, the commission chair, voted in favor because he didn't want to overrule the staff recommendation but faulted the quasi-judicial proceeding that doesn't allow officials to consult with participants except during meetings.
"I think that's a little flaw in the system," he said. "I really wanted to dig down deep. I couldn't."
Such "inert" monofills -- generally one type of waste goes into them and they're considered low-risk to the environment -- are lightly regulated in Alaska, which requires only that the materials sit 10 feet above the water table.
Critics say a growing body of research shows construction waste poses a far greater risk to the environment and to human health than the name suggests and that the waste stream is far from uniform.
Proposed for a spot near more than 200 homes in the Crimsonview, Pioneer Meadows and Canoe Lake subdivisions, the monofill drew criticism from opponents who say the area's unpredictable water table makes it the wrong place for such a facility, given the limited protections offered by state law.
Beyond concerns about water and air quality, opponents said the fill would create towering piles of sheetrock, carpet, plywood and other construction and demolition castoffs held back by bales of old tires -- an industrial eyesore at the gateway to Palmer.
They also said Central's history casts doubt on its future performance: Cited by the borough for dumping without a permit last year, the company didn't clean up the shredded waste involved until the state threatened an enforcement order, they say.
Several opponents including a Palmer firefighter mentioned a 2011 fire at the Alaska Demolition monofill next to the state fairgrounds in Palmer. The site prompts occasional reports of fumes and bad smells.
Critics pointing to unpredictable local water levels got some ammunition for that argument Monday from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The state is working with Central to resolve problems with water coming over a spillway that connects two ponds at the old gravel pit, according to state dam safety engineer Charlie Cobb.
The state never approved modifications Central made to the dam, which can affect water levels in nearby lakes, Cobb said. Residents have reported significant rises in Canoe and other lakes equating to millions of gallons.
"DNR concerns about the continued unauthorized diversion of surface water and integrity of the dam at the site are unresolved," he said.
Opponents testifying Monday called on the commission to add new provisions to any permit including a liner, monitoring wells and a permit renewal process shorter than 30 years.
Central owners and attorneys urged the commission to look past the emotion of the issue, saying the aquifers beneath the fill site were much shallower than those supporting wells. They also said monitoring would pick up any contamination before it hit drinking water.
"Most of it's people's opinions, not supported by science," attorney Glenn Price said. "The problem really is there's no zoning in the Valley."
The company recycles nearly 20,000 tons of waste a year at its Anchorage facility alone, co-owner Steve Jacques said.
Household recycling is a small stream compared to Central's operation, Jacques said. "This is how real meaningful recycling works," he said.
The property in question is owned by Central and centrally located, both for hauling debris from Anchorage and for the Valley area contractors who would serve as clientele, officials say.
Larry Helgeson, the monofill designer, balked at calls for a liner, saying the company's design relied on letting water move through the site where a liner could trap potentially contaminated leachate.
Co-owner Shane Durand, who would manage the Palmer monofill, spent much of the hearing bent over a yellow legal pad, at times barely hiding his exasperation as people likened the fill to Montana mine pollution Superfund sites and other environmental disasters.
Durand has promised to protect the local environment by keeping material covered with fill and gravel; closely tracking material coming onto the sites; and monitoring through test wells and on-site cameras.
The three planning commissioners who voted against the monofill facility will email their rationale to the commission clerk for compilation into findings of fact to support the denial.
The commission still needs to approve the findings within 30 days of the decision.