This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Palomar Airport: Part 4: The Whole Landfill Truth? Blog 66

Make no mistake.  SCS Engineers gets a B+ for its October 15, 2013 SCS Engineers Report: Evaluation of Possible Environmental Impacts of a Potential Aircraft Crash into the Landfill Cover at Palomar Airport Landfill.   The disclosures of the severe risks aircraft using Palomar can cause was informative. 

The report was certainly more candid than the County staff landfill comments of May 24, 2013 at a meeting the County asked me to attend.  

In June 14, 2013 I wrote a follow-up letter to the Board of Supervisors summarizing the discussion. County staff’s May 24 view, after conducting an “informal review” of landfill issues, was – despite substantial evidence to the contrary -  no Palomar landfill concern exists.   Moreover, staff thought the County budget did not justify a written landfill report.

Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Fortunately the Board disagreed and asked for the SCS study.  How much did the study cost?  According to SCS billings to the County, less than $7,000.

So we can applaud the Board for responding in part to the public’s landfill concerns.  But is the County telling the whole story?  Or is County staff limiting the information the Board needs to immediately correct Palomar problems?

Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Why a B+, Not an A Report?

The SCS Engineers report admits its limits:

  • A detailed review of the different types of chemicals, their locations and proximity to the runway and/or to the three landfill areas is beyond the scope of this preliminary evaluation.” [SCS report, page 5.]
  • SCS did not perform any energy or emissions calculations or assess the regulatory implications under this preliminary evaluation. [page 8.]
  • Analysis on whether or not the landfill cover itself could be penetrated by an aircraft impact and to what degree may be the subject of a future study. [page 8]

As SCS notes, the severe angle crash impacts into the landfill need assessment.  As do other scenarios.

Picture an aborted Palomar flight with the landing gear locked in place.   Does it take an expert to say that a 90,000 pound aircraft “raking” the landfill with gear down at 150 knots will disturb an intricate methane gas control piping system 2 to 7 feet under the landfill sand? [SCS, page 2].  

Perhaps Palomar engineers and consultants could just google “images of aircraft crash craters.”  You can.  See pictures of craters and ruts 5 to 10 feet deep.

Really?

I like the word “Really?”  As in: “You’re not serious.”  The thought comes to mind when the County says current Palomar landfill risks are ok.  The SCS Engineers report does not distinguish between existing and future Palomar conditions.

The County would have you believe that landfill issues arise only because the County wants to extend the Palomar runway 900 feet to the east into the landfill area putting the Palomar runway east-end directly in the middle of the Area 3 landfill piping.  In other words, no safety or environmental landfill issues exist today.  Only with an extended runway.  

Why the County distinction?  Because County staff knows that to say otherwise confesses 20 years of poor Palomar CEQA analyses that routinely avoided identifying or discussing landfill issues.

But a large aircraft leaving or arriving Palomar at 150 knots travels 253 feet per second. [Thank you, computer converter.]  In other words, Palomar aircraft near the east end runway are 1 to 3 seconds from a landfill crash that SCS Engineers say can cause drastic safety and environmental consequences.

Can the County convince Kimley-Horn or SCS Engineers to say in a written report: The 45% of FAA-rated C and D corporate jets now using Palomar in a runway safety and approach area that is a problem-plagued landfill designed for FAA-rated B aircraft present risks that need not be immediately remediated?

Really?    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?