Engineer Greg Bartow, the author of a controversial October report on the landfill, was bombarded with questions at the Dance Palace about the dump and a "plume" of pollutants downstream noted in the report.

The report found volatile organic compounds above drinking water levels in the landfill's groundwater, and inorganic salts more than a mile downstream from the landfill in Tomasini Creek.

The report states the levels in the creek are "below those that can affect aquatic organisms."

Despite the incessant barrage, Bartow maintained that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has made "significant advances in the environmental protection of that site."

"We see something potentially developing at the landfill and we want to do something about it," Scott said. "That's a lot different from a situation where you go and drink the water and you die.

"This is, frankly, an early action," he added, referring to the corrective measures recommended in the staff report.

These recommendations include installing horizontal wells and building a underground cutoff wall at the foot of the dump, which would collect the leachate from the waste. That leachate would then be treated before release into Tomasini Creek.

The cut-off will be built in 1997, although the horizontal wells will be dug this winter.

He continued: "You've got a plume from the landfill a mile downstream - what are you going to do about it?"

Noting that a 1991 study found that the dump was leaking into Tomasini Creek, Point Reyes Station resident Joe Soule said, "It's taken four years for you guys to say the dump is leaking. What took you so long?"

Bartow didn't immediately respond, but later noted that the state issued a clean-up order at the time to take care of the problem: "It didn't take us long at all."

Eugene Kojan of Point Reyes Station claimed Bartow was misinterpreting the facts from a Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) report, and that water was not flowing up into the landfill from below - as Bartow stated - but down into the groundwater through the bedrock.

Bartow disagreed, saying he would justify his findings to Kojan after the meeting. At which point Decker cut in, saying Bartow should demonstrate his findings "on the record."

(Bartow and Kojan did meet afterwards but still disagree about the findings, Bartow told The Light.)

Other points of contention were the monitoring wells at the landfill, which some said are located in the wrong spots and don't adequately measure the dump's leakage.

Waste Watch member Michael Mery said he was "uneasy" about using surface-water wells to check for leachate, since water below the bedrock would get ignored.

Bartow responded that pollutants mostly accumulate in surface water. "It would be my opinion that you'll find even lower levels in the [bedrock]," he said.

Bartow allowed that the level of groundwater contaminants were "slightly" above federal drinking-water standards.

For example, the allowable level of vinyl chloride is 0.5 parts per billion. The October report showed groundwater readings at the landfill of 7.7 parts per billion.

"You keep talking about regulatory levels," complained Soule. "We want that water downstream of the landfill to be pure anyway. We deserve pure water."

Neighbor Phil Fradkin also protested, saying the board should be "very, very careful" in basing any conclusions on summer testing.

Bartow responded that the board tests the creek four times a year, which is twice as often as state regulations dictate.

Insisted Kojan at one point: "We are going to demand there be a moratorium on any additional load on that landfill until the problems there are addressed."

Bartow replied that might actually hurt landfill opponents: "You'd also be stopping the ability [of the landfill owners] to raise money to address these problems." At the end of the meeting, Bartow was asked whether he would be available to answer questions the next day.

"I'm taking tomorrow off," he said, shaking his head and smiling weakly.