Study Cites Chemical Seepage at Jail

Chemicals seized in PCP drug arrests and illegally dumped in roadside pits at the Pitchess jail in the 1970s are seeping into ground water, according to a new study conducted for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department estimates it could cost as much as $50 million to remove all the chemicals, but the report said more study is needed to determine the most cost-effective way to deal with the problem.

The preliminary draft study, prepared by Montgomery Watson, a Pasadena environmental consulting firm, concludes that the problem is so localized that it now poses no health risk to the employees or inmates at the Pitchess Detention Center, nor to residents of the Santa Clarita Valley.

“The nature and extent of the chemicals . . . in soil and ground water beneath the . . . landfill will require some level of future remedial action and long-term environmental management,” the report said. “However, the presence of these chemicals do not currently pose an immediate or imminent threat or endangerment to human health or the environment.”

The report will not be submitted to the supervisors until more research is completed, said Ralph Judkins, project manager for the Sheriff’s Department.

“What we’re trying to do now is rectify the problem,” Roger Anderson, facilities director at the jail, said. “The sheriff is committed to cleaning this up.”

Lance Ralston, who is coordinating the cleanup efforts for the county, said three pickup truck-loads of chemicals including ethyl ether, a toxic solvent used in the production of PCP, were buried in three or four of the 116 pits--many dug crater-to-crater--along an old dirt road at the facility.

The pits were dug with a backhoe and the chemicals dumped and covered with sandy backfill, according to previous investigations.

“It’s not good that the material is leaching into the ground water,” Ralston said. “[But] it is a remote canyon far from drinking water supplies.”

Options under consideration by the Sheriff’s Department range from simply fencing off the area and periodically monitoring ground water levels to manually digging up the chemical-tainted soil, Judkins said.

Judkins said the cost of various options would be presented to the Board of Supervisors within two months. Only in the worst-case scenario--requiring removal of all the chemicals--would the bill climb into the millions of dollars, Judkins said. It may be more cost-effective to let the chemicals simply remain in the ground, monitoring them indefinitely, he said.

“We can go anywhere from an archeological dig [total removal] to something [where] we do nothing,” Judkins said.

The consultant’s report suggested that jail officials continue to restrict access to the canyon and continue to use sandbags and plastic covering to prevent erosion of the soil, which would carry the chemicals elsewhere and that a feasibility study weigh the alternatives for technical effectiveness and cost.

“Removal of the waste from any of the pits is not recommended” until the risk assessment and feasibility study are concluded, the consultants recommended. “In our opinion, removal of the waste before understanding the issues outlined above may be technically unnecessary, costly and potentially dangerous.”

Supervisors have already allocated more than $900,000 to study the site, situated in a canyon adjacent to a licensed landfill once operated by the Sheriff’s Department.

The problem dates to the 1970s, when Sheriff’s Department criminologists buried the chemicals--seized in raids on illicit drug-making laboratories--in three or four pits in a remote site outside the limits of the licensed landfill. It is not known why.

The other pits were used for a vast array of trash, including medical waste from the jail dispensary, animal carcasses from the once-flourishing dairy operation, homemade weapons seized from jail inmates, and obsolete office equipment.

The burial pits were discovered accidentally in 1991, when wells were sunk to check for contamination from the licensed landfill in the adjacent canyon.

“It was a dumb move on their part,” Ralston said. “[But] if we tried to go back in time . . . there wasn’t the same level of [environmental] awareness that we have today . . . obviously it wasn’t a suitable location.”

Investigators had a firm idea of what was buried in the Pitchess pits even before the preliminary draft of the study was completed in February because department personnel involved in the burial cooperated with the investigation.

Prosecutors investigated the possibility of filing criminal charges when the dumping was discovered five years ago, but determined there was no criminal intent and that too many years had passed for a successful prosecution.

In rejecting the case, Deputy Dist. Atty. Anthony Patchett wrote: “The [U.S.] Department of Justice knew about this disposal in 1977 since their agency and the DEA were involved in the seizure of these chemicals from illicit drug labs. . . . There was never criminal intent involved in this disposal. Numerous law enforcement agencies were also bringing illicit drug chemicals [to the jail pits] at the same time.”