The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About931597.tiff- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. STATE? OF: COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH co>[ Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado , o, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Budding (, "); Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 C. 1 I th Avenue Phone.(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 - (303)691-4700 - Roy Romer Governor Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPI I Executive Director March 31, 1993 Ms. Sharon Davis Western International Music, Inc. 3707 65th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634-9626 Re: Central Weld Landfill Dear Ms. Davis: I wish to take this opportunity to respond to your inquiry dated March 6, 1993 concerning the Central Weld Landfill. In response to your first concern, the Central Weld Landfill was reviewed in accordance with statutes and regulations that were in place at that point in time. The use of a liner was not required. A landfill is usually allowed to take all wastes from a municipality except for statutorily designated hazardous wastes and radioactive wastes. Non-friable asbestos wastes, various household pesticides and similar materials can and do go into landfills. It was not until 1980 that some of the current restrictions on commercial wastes such as pesticides became law. Sludges may not be accepted unless they are dry and they do not contain hazardous levels of metals of the constituents. The discovery of low level volatile organic compounds in the groundwater at the southeast corner of the site has been fairly recent. The allegation of wastes placed into 5 to 25 feet of standing water is contrary to evidence presented to this department. Seven piezometers were installed in 1991 to measure the level of groundwater and three indicate that groundwater levels in the base of the landfill are as follows: Piezometer Jan. 1991 April 1992 Dec. 1992 TP-1 +1.92 ft. +6. 34 ft. +3.03 ft. TP -6 +0.42 ft. -2 .75 ft. -2 . 67 ft. TP-7 dry dry +8. 14 ft. These numbers indicate water levels into the base of the trash. The department has asked for the installation of three more piezometers in the affected area to better clarify this issue. 101, Y 3-1-- id 4 4- 931597 led Peeper Sharon Davis March 31, 1993 Page 2 In reference to the special waste plan that has been given to the department, in June 1992 this document was hand delivered with a verbal request that it be kept confidential as proprietary business information. A letter was sent to Waste Management at the request of the Office of the Attorney General asking that the company affirm their claim to confidentiality per statute (see enclosed copy) . The department, by law, must honor the company's claim until such time a response is received. The fact sheet is public information and as such may be reproduced and distributed by anyone. It was drafted by the solid waste staff. Staff then asked the Water Quality Control Division, Weld County Health Department and Waste Management to review the draft. Comments that were received were considered when the final draft was prepared by staff. I hope that this response addresses your questions and concerns. Sincerely, • Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPH Executive Director PAN:nr enclosure cc: Governor Roy Romer Senator Hank Brown Representative Wayne Allard Representative Dave Owen Weld County Commissioners John Pickle, Weld County Health Dept. Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County Dept. of Planning Richard Evans, City Manager Solid Waste Program, CDH (SW WLD CEN) 932.0^;e` April 7,1993 Dear Mrs. Harbert, Ms. Kirkmeyer, Mr. Webster, Mr. Baxter, Thank you for voting for the hopes and dreams of my generation to have a good life with clean water! Ill always remember your vote on April 5th! Yound, t m Daniels Age 13 X132 ,27 y: , am CO 80143 rah, b,f / Randy Ahugatut 2114 14n Sauer ,Road 06m4y, eolo+a44, (0631 C031353-1231 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 April 8 , 1993 Dear Commissioners; I was saddened to read in the paper the other night that you had voted to have the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill move on to the next level of your county hearings. I can't believe that after hearing the factual evidence for the landfill that you are willing to waste our tax money on a second, and more expensive, hearing. The costs of this hearing will make it back to the tax payer in one way or another. This is shameful use of your elected power. I applaud George Hall for his courageous and sane vote. It is time for lawmakers to stand up to environmental scare-mongers and take a lucid approach to environmental concerns. Kowtowing to special interest groups, and using taxpayer money to do it, is unacceptable. I trust that you will not allow this charade to continue. I appreciate the safety, inexpensive costs, and care that our landfills in northern Colorado exercise. Please don't let one man's eccentric behavior, coupled with the power of a hand full of irrational eco-fanatics, deprive us of a safe, convenient, and affordable waste facility. Please vote in favor of the Central Weld Landfill and allow them to continue to operate in accordance with all relevant regulatory guidelines. Sincerely yours, A Randy Ad mson � / CIf2_ r. ii . : Dear Mr. Hall, I'm sure you just didn't understand that trash sitting in this water can cause bad pollution. Please vote next time for the river and my generation. Sincerly, / /? `, L Tom Daniels Age 13 23732'Wc.Zr'/2 gfiA"+kiwCO 80543 n - 6. 7-kik 7frait& k_akypc-ri . -- Attorneys At Law 1775 Sherman Street•Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)861-1963•Fax: (303)832-4465 April 8, 1993 Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson Weld County Commissioners 915-10th St. , P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Show Cause Hearing, Central Weld Landfill Dear Chairperson Harbert and Members of the Commission: On behalf of the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association, we thank you for ordering a show cause hearing on the revocation of the land use approval and certificate of designation for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill as a result of the Probable Cause Nearing held on April 5, 1993. As stated in our presentation we believe that waste materials have been and continue to be deposited in the landfill in violation of the County's resolution of October 6, 1971, and that illegally deposited materials should be ordered to be removed. We asked for an early hearing so that Waste Services, Waste Management and the citizens would have a full hearing, an early revocation of the permit, and the commencement of remedial action as soon as, possible. The fact that the hearing has been scheduled for October 13, 1993, in no way alters our view that Waste Services and Waste Management act at their peril in further depositing materials at the landfill while the hearing is pending. Our position is that the pending application by Waste Services and Waste Management for an "Amendment" is not an amendment at all but a new application which must be judged as though a new facility were being proposed. An "amendment" can only amend an exising engineering and operations plan and, since none exists, a new application for such a plan must be reviewed and processed, including full siting consideration as to suitability of the site for a landfill. � Xh; 171 x: � �� The information received by you at the April 5 hearing clearly shows that the siting of the landfill was posited on preparation of an engineering report and review and approval of a design and operations plan by the State Health Department prior to deposit of waste in the landfill and that the owners and operators, to this day, have never complied with this conition no. 1 of Weld County's land use resolution. The current land use approval must and should be revoked and consideration of any further use of the site by the Weld County Commissioners and the State Health Department can and should occur only as a separate process which is subject to full land use and special use permit review at the Weld County level and design and operations review and approval at the State level. Representations were made at the September 22, 1971, hearing that the landfill's life would not extend beyond 15-20 years, that waste materials would not contact groundwater and that if groundwater contamination occurred landfilling would cease, that the countour of the site would blend into surrounding farmland, and that the land would be farmable upon closure. These representations were material to the issuance of the land use approval by Weld County, are enforceable by the County, and in the absence of thereof can be enforced by the citizens of Weld County. In particular, it appears that Waste Services and Waste Management, with or without the County's approval, intend to operate the site another 12 years and will proceed vertically. If material representations such as those made at the September 22, 1971 hearing are not enforced the entire process of public hearing and regulatity in governmental decisionmaking is thwarted and made the subject of misrepresentation and fraud. As a result of the April 5 hearing, Waste Services and Waste Management are clearly on notice that its further landfilling activities are or may be in violation of the County's October 6, 1971 resolution which remains in effect and is the subject of the October 13, 1993 hearing. We ask that we be included on the mailing list for receipt of all notices, hearings, meetings, information and submittals made in connection with Weld County's and the State of Colorado's review and consideration of the "Amendment" being proposed by Waste Services and Waste Management. On behalf of Weld County citizens we hereby oppose the issuance of any authorization or approval by Weld County or the State of Colorado for further use of this site as a landfill, and we request that remedial action orders issue requiring prevention of ground and surface water contamination and removal of all waste material deposited at the site in contravention of the October 6, 1971 resolution. 2. At the April 5, 1993, hearing Waste Services and Waste Management placed great reliance on a September 18, 1992, letter from Austin N. Buckingham to Kent Hanson stating that landfills with a certificate of designation granted prior to the February 22, 1972, State regulations were grandfathered from the design and operations plan requirement. Of course, Ms. Buckingham wasreferring to the general principle and was unaware, apparently, that the certificate of designation for this site contained, by reason of the October 6, 1971, county resolution the following condition: 1. That any sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be approved the the State Department of Health (Exhibit A.D.-8) . Exhibit A.D.-3 in the record as part of the land use approval process leading to the October 6, 19771 County Resolution shows that the purpose of this requirement was to invoke section 4 of the then proposed State regulations pertaining to design and operation. As Ms. Buckingham's letter of September 18, 1992, says, certificates of designations, i.e. those issued prior to February 1992 were grandfathered according to their terms and the underlaying land use resolutions of the counties issuing such certificates. Ms. Buckingham's September 18, 1992, letter specifically notes that "To the Division's knowledge, no design or operations plan has ever been developed for the landfill, nor are any plans of this nature contained in the Division files. Again, it is our position that Waste Services and Waste Management's application to amend the existing Special Use Permit NO. 116 and the related Certificate of Designation No. 26 has no basis in State statutory law or in the zoning regulations and land use procedures and resolutions of Weld County. We ask that you treat the application as for a new use and that you proceed according to County and State law to revoke the existing land use authorization and certificate of designation. Please send to us as soon as possible County and State regulations, respolutions, requirements and policies which address new and amended applications for design and operations plans, Special Use Permits, and Certificates of Designation for our review. In the meantime we ask your staffs and attorneys to meet with us, to examine the applicable laws and procedures, and to postpone any processing or decision on Waste Services application for Amendment pending such review and analysis. The brief summary we submitted at the April 5 hearing is attached and we are proceeding to prepare further factual and legal analysis for your examination. We ask that you be vigilant to protect against any changes to County or State regulations which would allow Waste Services or Waste Management to make further "grandfathering" assertions. It appears that their approach is to claim exemption from regulations or to fashion /� 3. : "406° 3 which act in their favor and against the public interest. In particular, we ask that you carefully scrutinize the pedning revisions to the State's t on e solid waste management regulations and the Sat we ask t we be Board Health, andlist of the Solid Waste Advisoryo and any Other office or agency wherein the subject of landfill requirements, particularly grandfather proposals may be at issue. We object to Waste Services and Waste Management's attempts to change the rules and representations under which any further l this sll wasin vertical or certificated and we strenuously object height. We are now in preparation for the revocation of hearing of October 13, 1993, and in reliance thereon object to any surrogate or collateral implied or express authorization of furhter landfilling at this site. Best regards. Sincerely, \ / Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. for Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. Attorneys for Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association CC: Dr. Patricia Nolan Mr. Glenn Mallory Mr. John Pickle Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Mr. Lee Morrison Mr. Art Roy Mr. Gene Megysey Mr. Bill Hedberg cC1..n6 . tf it fit 6c mEmORAnDUm VI WILD lc. Board of County Commissioners April 1, 1993 To Dee COLORADO John Pickle, Health From Hearing - Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Subplot The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has been in operation at least since 1971. Waste Services Corporation took over the operation in 1989 and merged with Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. , in 1991. The site has been monitored over the years by the Colorado Department of Health, as well as Weld County Health Department. Our Department has In ddo maintain ur an inspection frequency of at least four visits per year. laboratory sampled Central Weld' s monitoring wells until the discovery of Volatile Organics indicated a more sophisticated monitoring program was necessary. In July of 1992, I met with Bill Hedberg of Waste Services at this facility. At that meeting we discussed the history of groundwater problems at this site and Waste Management' s efforts to control them to date. Mr. Hedberg also ed i formed vels me at that meeting that Waste Management's Laboratory had discof contaminantsa t would be forthcoming. He asked that in l nllight ls and that a full written report of these findings Central County r oring, and Weld allowed to discontinue agreement I readily oagreedt with this contract with a more sophisticated laboratory. proposal since our lab could not test for Volatile Organic Compounds. As clarification for the Board, Volatile Organic Compounds are contaminants commonly from landfill leachate, as well as underground storage tanks, agricultural runoff, and other sources. VOCs are common constituents in industrial and household solvents pesticides, and other chemical products. Toxicological studies have shown that some of these organics have the potential for carcinogenesis human beings.health concern. Consequently, their presence in the groundwater is of public In August, 1992, we received the Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization fr the Central Weld Sanitary iew an discussion l with Colorado Department of Healthl, Weld personnel,unty Colorado.pera nnel, we cited rthe vCentral Weld facility in October, 1992. (See attached Report and letters of August 17, and October 5, 1992.) Waste Management performed confirmation sampling at the Central Weld facility in September, 1992. The results confirmed previous finhe ddings Central submitted ted in the Sanittre Hydrogeological Characterization of July. (See attaOeeoatt, 1992.) Landfill Confirmation Groundwater Sampling, Golder Associates Inc. performed an Expanded Hydrogeological Inves u gation at oft this Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Colorado in October, 1992. The purpose P S3106'"a .n6'_ J L � investigation was to determine the extent of migration of the VOCs offsite. (See attached Expanded Hydrogeological Investigation. ) Since October, subsequent inspections, discussions with Colorado Department of Health personnel, and meetings with Waste Management have culminated in Weld County Health Department citing the Central Weld facility for four (4) violations, and requesting this Hearing. The Department contends that Central Weld Sanitary Landfill is in non-compliance with existing rules in the following areas: 1. The operators of the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill have not submitted a complete Design and Operations Plan. There is some question as to whether or not this was a requirement at the time this facility was permitted. Such a report was required in the 1971 Amendments to the Solid Waste Act prior to the hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, but the Act requires such a report only "as may be required by the [State Health] Department by regulation." The State appears to have decided that no report was necessary as they treated the landfill as a grandfathered site. Regardless of the State's position, it appears that the Board of County Commissioners expected such a review and that one never occurred. A review of the files does not show that there ever has been an "approval" by the State Health Department. The Board of County Commissioners requested a Design and Operations Plan for this facility by November 12, 1992. A partial submission was made by Waste Management. After review, this submission was considered incomplete. (See attached letter of February 22, 1993.) To date, the additional documentation has not been submitted. This is a violation of 30-20-103, Colorado Revised Statutes. (Copy attached) 2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to operate without required Discharge Permits. This fact is documented in letters from Waste Management, November 16, 1992, and Colorado Department of Health, November 17, 1992. (Attached) Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Division personnel have indicated that despite application for the required permits, the facility is in technical violation of the rules, but they are holding further enforcement in abeyance so long as the facility continues in good faith with the application process. Weld County Health Department agrees that this is a violation of Subsection 2.1.2 of the Solid Waste Regulations and 25-8-501, Colorado Revised Statutes, (Attached) , but it appears this condition is near final correction. 3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to contaminate the groundwater, and this contamination has migrated offsite. This fact is evidenced by Waste Management in two documents: The Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, July 1992, pages 41, 42, 55, and 57; and the Expanded Hydrogeological Investigation at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Colorado, pages 5, and 6. The Department feels that this is a violation of Subsections 2.1.2 of the Solid Waste Regulations, specifically, 3.11.5 of the Water Quality Commission Rules, and 2.1.4 of the Solid Waste Regulations. That this is a violation of 2.1.4 is also indicated in a letter from Colorado Department of Health to Waste Management dated December 21, 1992, specifically page 4, paragraph C.1. (Attached) That this is a violation is also further indicated in an Attorney General's Opinion dated March 5, 1993. (Attached) 4. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has allowed solid waste to come into contact with groundwater on this site. This is documented in the Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, July, 1992, page 34. This condition results in the production of leachate, a source of groundwater pollution and public nuisance. This is a violation of Subsection 2.1.4 of the Solid Waste Regulations. In addition, this too is indicated in the Attorney General's Opinion dated March 5, 1993. An inspection by our staff on March 2, 1993, indicated that the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill is still in non-compliance in the areas referenced above. Further, the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado Department of Health feel that items #3 and #4 constitute a public nuisance. We would ask that the Board of County Commissioners find that, on balance, there are sufficient facts shown to justify proceeding with a Show Cause Hearing. • x]..06'. 7 Kent Hanson, Attorney at Law Central Weld County Landfill September 18, 1992 Page 2 of 3 approval of the plan, the application shall be amended. The regulation does not state that the Certificate of Designation shall be amended. The County must utilize its own discretion or regulation as to whether an amended Certificate of Designation is required for facilities which amend their application, but continue to perform the same type of solid waste disposal. 2. The Central Weld County Landfill received a Certificate of Designation on October 6, 1971. At that time, the state had not promulgated solid waste regulations pursuant to the Statute. Between 1968 (the date the Statute became effective) and 1972, solid waste disposal sites and facilities complied with the minimum standards set forth in the Statute. The minimum standards detailed operational standards, but did not specifically require a design and operations plan. In 1972 regulations were promulgated pursuant to the Statute. That 1972 regulation set forth the requirement that all landfills with an existing Certificate of Designation were 'grandfathered,' that is they were required to meet the minimum standards of section 3, but not the standards of section 4 (which applied to all solid waste disposal sites and facilities that were designated after the effective date of the regulation). In 1983,when the regulations were revised to their current form. The Division concurs, and certainly Subtitle D will require, that the Central Weld County Landfill must develop an enhanced design and operations plan to bring the facility up to current standards. To the Division's knowledge, no design or operations plan has ever been developed for the landfill, nor are any plans of this nature contained in the Division files. 3. It is true, that ground water contamination has been identified off-site. The County has wisely chosen to allow the facility to take over the ground water monitoring activities at the landfill. The Central Weld County Landfill has expanded the list of ground water analytes, and through this effort has revealed the presence of volatile organics in the ground water. Golder Associates has recently submitted a hyrogeologic and geotechnical characterization report detailing and summarizing recent investigations. The Division is in the process of reviewing the report, and will work with Weld County and Waste Services Corporation to obtain a satisfactory resolution to the ground water contamination issue. 4. Waste Services Corporation does intend to submit (and is currently in process 4.06.11 y Kent Hanson, Attorney at Law Central Weld County Landfill September 18, 1992 Page 3 of 3 of developing) a comprehensive site development plan, and a design and operations plans. The Division has not been informed of any pending change in operations at the Central Weld County Landfill during this interim period. 5. The Division is not aware of any existing requirement or agreement that the final elevation of the landfill may not exceed the adjacent land surface. Hopefully, this letter responds to your issues. The Division is interested in pursuing, and will pursue the ground water contamination identified at the site, and in bringing the facility up to the State's standards. Thank-you for your letter and for the extension you were able to grant, so that an adequate response could be prepared. may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions or concerns. Si erely Aus in N. Buckingham Geologist Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Hedberg, Central Weld County Landfill B. Keimes, Waste Services Corporation G. Kennedy, Weld County Commissioners L. Morrison, Weld County Attorney D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department A. Scheere, Waste Management of North America K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning file: SW/WLD/CENTRAL J _ Teo/a+ Naabwr: • ROY ROMER Main 32244n6, Denver rr � ,... Wi- k' Governor (307)7TL9076 1° rr Purmigw Mee. Denver PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303)320.1729 Execu:;ve Director First National Bank Building, Denver (303)3554559 4 Hazardous Junction Office azardous Materials and Waste Management Division (303)248-7198 t � 4210 East 11th Avenue Pueblo Offwe COLORADO A IX) Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Pueb 543-8441 UJLVltt11-Jll (303) 3314830/ FAX (303) 331-4401 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH RECEIVED September 18, 1992 0CT 5 1992 KENT Etimo ly Kent E. Hanson Attorney at Law Clayton Center 1881 9th Street, Suite 216 Boulder, Colorado 80802 RE: Central Weld County Landfill Weld County • Dear Mr. Hanson: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has received and reviewed your September 11, 1992 letter regarding the Central Weld County Landfill. The following is the Division's response to the issues set forth in your letter. 1. Weld County is has no obligation under the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act (the Statute) to hold a public hearing for substantial changes in oprations, though Weld County may if they so choose. A Certificate of Designation is issued for a specific solid waste land use (i.e. incinerator, sanitaryandfill, or impoundment), and in this case the land use is a landfill. As long as the facility is a landfill and continues to operate as such, no public hearing is required. To date, the Division has no evidence to suggest that any other solid waste operation, beside landfilling, is occurring at the site. This same issue was the subject of a law suit between FSLIC vs the City and County of Denver, the Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County, Waste Management of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Health (1989). If you are interested in reviewing this document, please contact the Division to make an appointment for file access. The Division does, however, concur that any redesign or planned construction which would significantly change the planned design performance of a facility is subject to Division technical review. Following a recommendation for .9.310#1 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE MATTER OF THE CENTRAL WELD COUNTY LANDFILL April 5, 1993 SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION ASHTON-DANIELS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association is a citizens ' group of Weld County residents, including families adversely affected by the improper activities of the owners and operators of the Central Weld County Landfill since its inception in 1971. The landfill operation has been conducted illegally since 1971, and its certificate to operate should be revoked. This proceeding, occurring on April 5 , 1993, is to determine whether "a reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of" exists. ( "Weld County, Procedures for Probable Cause Hearings, " dated March 23, 1992. ) Thus, this proceeding is not an adjudicatory hearing on the merits. Its purpose is to determine whether an order to show cause shall be issued, by the Commissioners to the owners and operators of the Central Weld County Landfill, as to why the landfill's certificate of designation should not be revoked. The documentary evidence (see Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association Exhibits A.D.-1 through A.D.- 45 ) alone is enough to justify and require issuance of the order to show cause. Since the first dumpload of waste was deposited in the landfill, each owner and operator has dumped there in violation of the certificate of designation, contrary to the land use zoning laws and regulations of Weld County and the State of Colorado, causing a great public nuisance and environmental depredations. On January 18, 1993 (Exhibit A.D.-30) , and again on February 15, 1993 (Exhibit A.D.-31) , the Ashton- Daniels Neighborhood Association requested a hearing. On January 14, 1993 (Exhibit A.D.-28 ) and January 18 , 1993 (Exhibit A.D.-29 ) , the Weld County Health Department and the Weld County Department of Planning Services cited Waste Services, Inc. , a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. , for violations of Colorado's Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act (the "Act" ) , C.R.S. § 30-20-101 et seq. , and Weld County's Land use, zoning, and special use requirements. As of March 30, 1993 (Exhibit A.D.-30) , the facility continued to be in non-compliance, and a hearing on revocation of the certificate of designation should be 2 6 /� scheduled, resulting in a decision to revoke the certificate of designation and require closure and remedial action pursuant to the laws and regulations of Weld County, the State of Colorado, and the United States. I . SUMMARY OF FACTS WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION FOR THE CENTRAL WELD COUNTY LANDFILL SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED Pursuant to a public hearing held on September 22, 1971, before the Weld County Commissioners (Exhibit A.D. -6 , Transcript of Hearing 9-22-71) , a certificate of designation (Exhibit A.D.-9 ) was issued for the Central Weld County Landfill under the Act and under Weld County's land use and zoning authorities. Siting of the landfill could occur, under then existing legal authority, only as a use by special review. Prior to the September 22, 1971 hearing, the state's Solid Waste Act had been amended (as set forth more fully below) to require review and approval by the county, as to land use, and by the state, as to minimum sanitary, engineering, environmental and operational requirements. 3 /3 On July 15 , 1971 (Exhibit A.D.-1) , Mr. Orville Stoddard, P.E. , of the Colorado Department of Health requested the engineering report required by the State Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Colorado General Assembly earlier that year. The applicant for the landfill certificate of designation successfully resisted the pre-submission of "an engineering report concerning the design and operation of the site" unless he had assurance that the Weld County Commissioners would grant him the land use approval (Exhibit A.D.-3 . ) At the September 22 , 1971 public hearing (as more fully set forth below and in the presentations made at this hearing of April 5, 1993 by the Weld County citizens) , cogent and compelling testimony was presented (Exhibit A.D.-6) that the chosen site was not suitable for location of a landfill due to groundwater conditions prevalent in the immediate vicinity. Nevertheless, the certificate of designation issued, based on express representations of the applicant that no groundwater contamination would occur, that the facility's life would be 15 to 20 years at most, that disposal of the waste would be in the 4 ;':TO61:- /7 ground and not above the surface of the ground, that operations would cease if groundwater were contacted, and that the landfill surface would be returned to farmable ground compatible with surrounding agricultural ground within 15 to 20 years. An express condition of the Weld County Commissioners' resolution of October 6, 1971, granting the certificate of designation was: 1. That any sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be approved by the State Department of Health. (Exhibit A.D.-8 . ) This condition was expressly included as an integral part of Weld County's land use decision because the applicant represented that he would not commence operation until the engineering and operations approval of the State Health Department was obtained. This approval was to be based on an engineering report to be submitted by the applicant, taking into account sections 3 and 4 of the state's regulations which were then being developed (see Exhibit A.D. -3) and which were finalized early in 1972 (Exhibit A.D.-4) , not long after Weld County issued the certificate of designation based on the explicit condition of Health Department approval prior to construction of the landfill and 5 /5 initiation of disposal activities. Again, please note that condition number 1 of the October 6 , 1971 resolution is that state approval shall be obtained for the "sanitary landfill facility to be installed. " (Exhibit A.D.-8 . ) No engineering report was submitted or approved prior to the commencement of disposal operations, and the certificate of designation should and must be revoked for violation of a material condition precedent. This site is not suitable, and never was suitable, for disposal of waste because of prevailing groundwater conditions in the area. (See Exhibits A.D.-6, A.D.- 41', A.D.-422, A.D.-433 and A.D.-444. ) It is probable 'Glenn Billings, former Chairman of the Weld County Commissioners states that one of the reasons he voted against the landfill in 1971 was, "A high water table (such as the one around the Milliken (Central Weld County) Landfill) is not conducive to any landfill operations. " (Exhibit A.D.-41. ) 2Albion Carlson, a trained geologist and environmental scientist for the State of New Mexico, states, "The footprint of Central Weld Landfill is located in historic year-round wetlands and slough area, draining into the Big Thompson River and into historic Spomer Lake, adjacent wetlands, man-made ponds and ditches which function as areas of significant ground water recharge . . . " (Exhibit A.D.-42. ) 3According to the evaluation prepared by the Colorado Department of Health regarding landfills in Weld County, "All existing landfill sites are located in aquifer recharge areas, 6 is that preparation of a proper engineering report, upon review of the State Health Department pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the regulations applicant agreed to abide by, would have resulted in no approval by the State Health Department. Throughout two decades, the owners of the landfill have violated the condition precedent for landfilling at this site, an approved engineering design and operations plan (Exhibit A.D.-39) , with the consequence that all waste at the site has been disposed of illegally, to the detriment of the laws of Weld County and the State of Colorado and their residents and citizens. Only one remedy can suffice to serve the public interest and uphold the law inviolable against violation of express representations in gaining land use approval: that it be revoked as a result of a show flood plains or irrigated farmlands or are near population centers . . . The overall drainage pattern in Weld County is dendritic resulting in a high degree of interrelationship between streams and rivers. Pollution of any part may result in pollution of the whole . . . " (Exhibit A.D.-43 . ) 4The U.S.G.S map demonstrates that in the area in which the Central Weld County Landfill is located, "Liquid wastes or leachates from solid waste could be introduced directly into the ground-water system by water moving through landfills . . . resulting in degradation or pollution of the ground water. " (Exhibit A.D.-44. ) 7 n1.96'. /I cause hearing. II . THIS FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF COLORADO'S ACT AND WELD COUNTY'S LAND USE AUTHORIZATION The original Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1967 required any person who wished to operate a solid waste disposal facility to "make application to the Board of County Commissioners" of the county in which the facility is located. 1967 Session Laws, p. 759 . The application was required to include the location of the facility, the type of facility, type of processing to be used, "such as sanitary landfill, composting, or incineration, " the hours of operation, the method of supervision, the rates to be charged, "and such other information as may be required by the Board of County Commissioners. " Id. at 759-760 . The 1967 Act also provided that "designation of approved solid waste disposal sites or facilities shall be discretionary with the Board of County Commissioners, subject to judicial review. . . " Id. at 760 . The original Act also required all disposal sites to comply with the health laws, standards, rules and regulations of the State Health Department and the water pollution control commission, as well as all applicable zoning laws and ordinances. " Id. at 761 . 8 .' 1.0£' /8 In 1971, the Act was amended, effective July 1, 1971. Changes to the application provision required that the application contain scientific data required by the State Department of Health regulations. See C.R.S. § 30-20-103 ( 1) . It also provided for review of the application by the department based upon criteria established by the State Board of Health, State Water Pollution Control Commission, and the Air Pollution Control Commission. Id. The amendments added the further requirement that, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Designation, the Board of County Commissioners had to ensure that: 1) the application had been reviewed by the Department of Health; 2) the Department of Health had approved or disapproved the application; and 3) the proposed facility conforms to the comprehensive county land use plan, if any. See C.R.S. § 30-20-104 (3) (a) . The provision provided for notice of public hearing for review of all pertinent information before the county commissioners. The minimum standards provision of the 1967 Act was amended to provide, in part: 9 :1:x.06'. /9 "A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall provide means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions. . .and shall provide compacted fill material, adequate cover with suitable material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and water and wind erosion, prevent water and air pollution. . . " See C.R.S. § 30-20-110 . The Act, as amended, gave the Commissioners the power to revoke a Certificate of Designation for failure to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and resolutions or with any provision of the Act. See C.R.S. § 30-20-112. In this case, the Commissioners exercised their discretion based on the representations made to it by the applicant at the September 22, 1971 public hearing. The application was a one-page form that provided no information regarding design and operation of the landfill. (Exhibit A.D.-2. ) Applicant represented that all pertinent engineering and operational information and assurances would be forthcoming if land use approval were given. The representations were both material and materially misleading, induced issuance of the certificate of designation, and must be strictly enforced as binding on all subsequent operation, operators, and successors in interest. The 1971 public hearing transcript demonstrates 1O IaC ' �C numerous representations made by the applicant to the Commissioners and the community that the landfill would not contaminate underground or surface waters. Repeatedly, the applicant assured the Commissioners that if it encountered water, it would intercept and divert the water to avoid contamination. Transcript at pp. 8 , 9, 10 , 11, 13 , 30, 31, 34, 36 , 37 & 38 . According to the applicant's testimony, "Anything that occurs and drains from the fill area will be merely surface water and seepage water that is in good condition. " Transcript at p. 11. When Ralph Waldo, a community member opposing the opposition, asserted that the "whole hillside [where the landfill would be located] is seeping, " the applicant responded, "we are going to intercept that water. " Transcript at p. 13 .5 One community member in particular, Guy Shable, was very insistent that water seepage would be an unsolvable problem if the landfill were located at the proposed site. See transcript at p. 34. According to Mr. Shable, [who spent his entire life living and farming in the immediate area of the proposed site, ] 5The Weld County Commissioners based their approval of the application on their belief in assurances that there would be no water contamination. "The important thing that we will be looking at, of course, is to make sure that water pollution does not occur from this operation in any way, shape or form. " Transcript at pp. 30-31. 11 ,27 intercepting the seepage water would not work: "But you're not going to be able to cut it [seepage water] all off. " Transcript at p. 35 . When the applicant claimed that the landfill would not contaminate groundwater flowing below the site, Shable again challenged. "It's got to come up through your landfill. Why won't it come up through your landfill?" Transcript at p. 37 . The applicant again assured the Commissioners it could intercept the water and divert it around the landfill . Transcript at p. 38. Finally, after enumerating his concerns relating to water contamination, Mr. Waldo stated that the opponents of the landfill would like conditions placed on the certificate of designation to ensure that the landfill does not contaminate surface and ground water in the area. Transcript at p. 18 . The applicant assured the Commissioners that if the landfill complied with all applicable regulations, water quality would not be a problem. See Transcript at p. 18 . Not content with just the assurances of the applicant, the Weld County Commissioners required, as condition number 1 for installation of the landfill facility, that approval first be obtained by the Health Department. (Exhibit A.D.-8 . ) 12 ,22 Current information is that groundwater has been contaminated by the landfill operation. (Exhibits A.D.-28 , A.D.-29, A.D.-32, A.D.-41. ) Of course, this is not surprising. At the 1971 hearing, citizens of Weld County overwhelmingly attested to the boggy conditions of the site and surrounding area. So much dispersed water percolates through the area that it is impossible to capture it all. This information was available to the applicant, if not before the hearing, then certainly at the hearing and thereafter. The applicant chose to ignore the citizens' concerns, continuously asserting that it would have no trouble capturing and diverting the water. Additionally, the applicant represented at the hearing that the landfill would not exceed the normal grade and contour of the surrounding agricultural land. Transcript at p. 17 . The operation plan as presented to the Commissioners was premised on digging down, not piling up. " [W]e're talking about going to a depth of maybe 50 feet . . . we need depth for a landfill. " Transcript at pp. 24-25 . In fact, the lifespan of the site as represented at the hearing was premised on digging down. The applicant represented that the anticipated lifespan of 13 the landfill would be approximately 15 years, based on an 80 acre site with a depth of 45 feet. Transcript at p. 28 . According to the applicant, if the geography of the site permitted digging deeper than 45 feet, then it would likely keep the landfill open beyond 15 years. But if they could not dig that deep, the lifespan of the site would be shortened proportionately. "Now if it turns out that shale and sandstone is in there to the point to where it is not practical to move it, we've got to figure to balance the job out sooner . . . " Transcript at p. 28 . Operators of the landfill never excavated to a depth anywhere approaching 50 feet. Rather, they have disposed of garbage at the site to a level far in excess of the normal grade in comparison to surrounding agricultural land uses. The landfill has become a steadily rising mound of trash, creating a public nuisance and contaminating the environment, far exceeding the promised 15 year life. The applicant represented that the land upon closure would be returned to "a good piece of farm ground, " (transcript at p. 7) , so that farming could be recommenced there (transcript at p. 8) . 14 Now is the time to enforce this express representation by remediation and closure orders pursuant to a noticed public hearing on revocation of the certificate of designation. CONCLUSION A show cause order should be issued to Waste Services, Inc. to show why the certificate of designation should not be revoked for 1) failure to submit an engineering report and design and operations plan and receive the approval of the State Department of Health prior to land fill installation, 2) creation of a public nuisance, 3) violation of the minimum sanitary, engineering, and operational standards of the Colorado Department of Health, and 4) non-compliance with Weld County land use, zoning, and special use resolutions and approvals. Dated this 5th day of April, 1993. Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. , #0009 Jennifer Russell, #22047 Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. 1775 Sherman St. , Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 Tele: (303) 861-1963 Fax: (303 ) 832-4465 ATTORNEYS FOR ASHTON-DANIELS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 15 -E, t� q1( c `c c_ XL_ Pte. Q 4 E o m ad V C } i3 y 3 no. �g3 a • yE mm LLa y 7r LJvm1 : = $j'5 d v• •p .mia O -� E coy .3u oo a . N g o y 3c c ° m. ., `o"J 3 4V i \ 233 a ; 82 5 20`>v i. Aye N 'wN...r +: . • m u E _ a3E Kag o , m ,,,.• � m • Eli -ua.3 r� 830 EL U 'o1 m',ao ` my E c3 t IV . S. 91d1cea mma 3 muo �LqqO > SOt bo " 81 !n'qU1! Eego _ �� +Y C •�m u i u . g.9s v r >. E.. Ea m o E -c= p 3 5 c- E M ` od ` 2 o x$ .. c 0 n .1. 4 < ri & in eC E . EL. .= ea m oA- 3 .'f" m ctn _le t 'r G `J C t U �-n53 e �g '1 ".- `-° 3� JN- "E' COS• tei -- .C aLN •� - cPr3a '5u� yr ,�`.,k _._ c= a.n ..: V c -p 3 C. CZ v c 8, 'i m7• r.sa1h ,ypa, ost a vu3 Eniq $= m e - HO st C •5 r5 1% f C `05Cz `o ESL =�CO ' cam ' 3uC gc5c` ' 7 = '7 E.c coo O cz 'em'Sm-> Ec-: mm .. Q3Zn)4 0. 1 3 5 _5 '▪ � e c E• c = Y: E 3 c 3 C ? y m G � -7 t • a o S rf. , X4. s • �3 Lt 2 a. 2 --- CoZv _ m .CID -4 J SO 54,:'-g; L G Al2 GREELEY(Colo.) TRIBUNE Tuesday,April 6, 1993 � . FROMPAGE141 LANDFILL moment with fmality,"said Lee Morrison,a Weld County attorney."The standard for this ( an engineering report. Mr. Moffat induced hearing is: Are there reasonable grounds, LAN �FILL AT A GLANCE the commissioners to issue gland-use permit based on the facts you've heard, to call a contingent on the filing of an engineering re- show-cause hearing,"he said. The Weld County Health Depart- Waste port that was Services esr aid the Hngin said. Waste Services had argued a show-cause ment claims the following laws and was eve listed as a stanndaernd&fo operation hearing was not necessary. regulations have been violated by in 1971 when the landfill was "Even if a violation occurs it does not nec- permitted,and Waste Services Corp., operators of operational and design plans for landfills essarily warrant a show-cause hearing,"said the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill: were not required by the state in 1971. Arthur Roy,attorney for Waste Services. ■The operators have not submitted Weld Service executives also noted clos- Even if the evidence does show probable a complete design and operations ing the landfill now would allow the compa- cause, it is based on evidence we produced, plan. ny to escape stricter closing procedures we promptly showed to the proper authori- • The operators have not obtained required under new federal regulations effec- ties, and we offered a plan to deal with the problem,"Roy said. the proper discharge permit for an use in October. underdrain on landfill property. The Waste Services has found volatile organic The increased federal regulations were the compounds in groundwater about 200 feet underdrain is carrying small quanti- primary reason Brad July 1991 said his family Man- south of the landfill,which is about 1'/miles ' ties of toxic volatile organic com- agemsold its t Inc., the in world's largest t Waste east of Milliken. The toxic compounds also pounds off the landfill property. posal company withrofs of$606 me lion have been found at an underdrain's discharge • Groundwater in a section in the profits of million m 1991• point near Spomer Lakes south of the land- southwestern part of the landfill has fill. "We as a family took a frank look at our been contaminated with volatile or- ability to meet the e law. But we realized we The volatile organic compounds appear- ganic compounds. needed added environmental expertise and ing at the underdrain's discharge apparently ■ Solid waste has come in contact increased financial ability,"he said. are vaporizing in the atmosphere and are not with groundwater in a northern por- If the landfill is ordered closed in October, present in Spomer Lakes, according Col- tion of the landfill. it would have to close under stricter Envi- orado Department of Health officials attend- —Staff Reports ronmental Protection Agency regulations ing the meer:ng. than those in effect now. Volatile -panic compounds present in the Whatever regulations are required, many landfill are typical of substances used in com- residents around the landfill said they would mon household products such as cleaning so- cant for the landfill,promised to file an engi- like to see it closed as soon as possible. lutions and aerosols. neering report with the state after receiving a "What's going on here is we are faced The landfill also is charged with operating permit for operation, according to Greg with an unsanitary, unlawful landfill in sog- the underdrain without a discharge permit,a Hobbs, attorney for the Ashton-Daniels gy ground,"said Jane Carlson. violation of state regulations.Waste Services group. "You bought this problem.Now it's your is in the process of applying for the discharge The plan was never submitted to the state, responsibility to fix it," she told Waste Ser- permit with the state. and Hobbs maintains the failure to submit the vices executives. The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Asso- plan violates the standards on which the land- "I don't see how making the problem ciation,formed by landfill neighbors worried fill was permitted. worse before cleaning it up would make it about problems at the landfill,also claims the "What happened to the original engineer- any better." dump lacks proper permits to operate. ing plan?Mr.Earl Moffat's application for a Waste Services has proposed operating the In 1971, Earl Moffat, the original appli- landfill was made contingent on submittal of landfill for an additional 12 years. 02a-LA27, 4.1021z7 —4—Cave e-YL o?- f.. ta ce ,,,urtiLe,021tvecLitr ,ccuta, ce-ce-14- ttr4"_9_,(4A.p.c,t ay taa ,N � - c4- &xJ ,b; s iO6- Attorneys At Law 1775 Sherman Street• Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 861-1963 • Fax: (303) 832-4465 xt. 123 April 19, 1993 Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson Weld County Commissioners 915-10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Order to Show Cause Hearing, Central Weld Landfill-- Request for Clarification and, in the alternative, Motion to Amend Resolution Setting Hearing Dear Chairperson Harbert and Commissioners: On behalf of the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association, we seek clarification of the issues that will be considered at the October 13, 1993, certificate of designation revocation hearing which the Commissioners ordered regarding the Central Weld County Landfill. Clarification is required because the action of the Board at the conclusion of the hearing, according to the minutes of April 5, 1993, and our handwritten notes of the motion made by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, demonstrate that the hearing was set for October 13, 1993, to consider the broad range of issues regarding compliance all applicable laws, resolutions, and regulations which apply to the landfill. The April 5, 1993, minutes at page 5 state as follows: After further questions of the Board were answered by Mr. Morrison, Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to find there is probable cause to set a Show Cause Hearing. After discussion, she included the date of October 13, 1993 at 10 : 00 a.m. in her motion. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion. On roll call vote, the motion carried four to one. . . Our notes of Commissioner Kirkmeyer's motion state that she moved for a determination that there is probable cause consisting of reasonable grounds to believe that facts exist that the Central Weld Landfill is not in compliance with Special Use Permit 116 . 931.06 b c A F I � Xhrd7� �� ; ,. � IJ �.._ Ms. Connie Harbert April 19, 1993 Page 2 The discussion, led by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, was that violations existed based on citations by the Weld County Health Department (at least 4 violations) and that the Colorado Attorney General 's Office had concurred that there is a violation of 2. 1. 4 of the minimum sanitary standards of the State of Colorado. The motion was concurred in by four Commissioners after the date was chosen. However, the ensuing resolution setting the hearing appears to say that there is only one issue to be determined at the October 13 hearing, whether the permit holder is in compliance with Condition of Approval #1 of Special Use Permit #116. This appears in the "Further Resolved Clause" of the Resolution following the primary resolved clause (which determined that a revocation hearing should proceed) : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that a Show Cause Hearing be scheduled to determine whether or not the Special Review Permit issued to Waste Services Corporation should be revoked. The further resolved clause would correctly reflect the evidence and information presented at the April 5 probable cause hearing if it said that "among the issues to be considered" is whether condition # 1 of the Special Use Permit had been violated. However, the use of the words "the issue to be considered" appears to be such that the State of Colorado, the Weld County Planning and Health Departments, and the citizens of Weld County would be precluded from presenting whatever evidence and issues of violation were pertinent in connection with the certificate of revocation proceedings. Certainly, the Commissioners did not intend such a result. The applicable statute of the State provides that the Commissioners are to hear and consider all alleged violations of law, resolution, or regulation when such a hearing is convened pursuant to public notice: REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE. The board of county commissioners, after reasonable notice of public hearing, shall temporarily suspend or revoke a certificate of designation that has been granted by it for failure of a site and facility to comply with all applicable laws, resolutions, and ordinances or to comply with the provisions Ex 6 Ms. Connie Harbert April 19, 1993 Page 3 of this part 1 or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto. C.R. S. 30-20-112 . Ashton-Daniels Exhibit A.D.-35 is a March 30, 1993, memorandum of the Weld County Health Department setting forth four violations (see attached) . These are the violations which Commissioner Kirkmeyer referred to in making her motion for determination that a Show Cause Hearing on revocation of the Certificate of Designation should be set. The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association requests that the Commissioners make it clear that the October 13 hearing will be open to presentation of whatever issues and evidence pertain to whether the certificate of designation should be revoked. The purpose of the April 5 probable cause hearing was to determine that the hearing should be held and not to determine the issues and facts in absence of a full public hearing on the merits. To restrict the Show Cause Hearing to only the issue of compliance with special condition # 1 would constitute a determination that the environmental contamination issues cannot be heard or determined at the hearing. Such a determination would be contrary to C.R.S. 30-20-112 and would deprive the citizens of Weld County of the scrutiny which the landfill operation facility and operation should undergo at the October 13, 1993 public hearing. On page 15 of the summary of its presentation the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association set forth its delineation of the issues to be considered at the Show Cause hearing on permit revocation. At the Probable Cause Hearing there was information and evidence presented on each of these issues. Accordingly, by appropriate further resolution the Board should clarify that the subject of the October 13, 1993, is intended to include whatever issues and evidence are within the scope of C.R. S. 30-20-112 and should set forth, by way of example but not by way of preclusion, those issues contained in Mr. Pickle's memorandum of March 30 (attached) (which was an exhibit in the hearing) , the two special conditions of Special Use Permit 116, and those issues set forth on page 15 of the Ashton-Daniels summary. Condition # 2 of the Special Use Permit is at issue because it requires compliance with Weld County's land use regulations and procedures, and the evidence shows that this use has been conducted in violation of such requirements, which specify that special review conditions, such as condition # 1, must be adhered to in order to have a valid land use on the subject property. EX. 4, Q4 ns Ms. Connie Harbert April 19, 1993 Page 4 Please serve us with all notices and information which the County issues on the subject of the Central Weld County Landfill. The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association, having appeared at the April 5 hearing, and representing neighboring landowners surrounding the landfill, and representing a public and citizen perspective on the enforcement of all applicable laws, resolutions, and regulations, is entitled to receive notice and be heard in all matters related to these proceedings. Sincerely, 4 Q Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. for Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. Attorneys for Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association /GJH c: Mr. Arthur Roy Mr. Gene Megyesy Ex 6 tf 423 Public Improvements 30-20-113 reset, if necessary, the fee limitation established in subsection (1) of this section. (3) All fees collected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the sludge management program fund, which fund is hereby created. The moneys in such fund shall be subject to annual appropriation to the department by the general assembly, which shall review expenditures of such moneys to assure that they are used to accomplish the purposes of this section. Any interest earned on moneys in the fund shall remain in the fund to be used for purposes of this section. Source: L. 86, p. 1042, § 1. 30-20-111. Departments to render assistance. The department and local health departments shall render technical advice and services to owners and operators of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities and to municipalities and counties in order to assure that appropriate measures are being taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the department has the duty to coordinate the solid wastes program under this part 1 with all other programs within the department and with the other agencies of state and local government which are concerned with solid wastes disposal. Source: L. 67 . 7 • 3-12• L. 71, p. 344, § 12. 30-20-112. Revocation of certificate. The board of county commissioners, after reasonable notice and public hearing, shall temporarily suspend or revoke a certificate of designation that has been granted by it for failure of a site and facility to comply with all applicable laws, resolutions, and ordi- nances or to comply with the provisions of this part 1 or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Sour . 7, p. 761, § 13; C.R.S. 1963, § 36-23-13; L. 71, p. 344, § 1 Quasi-judicial action must be preceded by Proper notice of quasi-judicial agency action reasonable notice. Under the solid wastes act must reasonably describe the subject matter of (4 § 30.20-101 through 30-20-116),quasi Judi- the hearing,any charges to be considered,and cial action by county commissioners must be the action contemplated. City & County of preceded by reasonable notice.City&County Denver v.Eggert,647 P.2d 216(Cob. 1982). of Denver v.Eggert,647 P.2d 216(Cob. 1982). 30-20-113. Enforcement - civil penalty. (1) Any solid wastes disposal site and facility found to be abandoned or that is operated, maintained, inactive, or closed in a manner so as to violate any of the provisions of this part 1 or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto shall be deemed a public nuisance, and such violation may be enjoined by a district court of competent jurisdiction in any action brought by the department, the board of county commissioners of the county wherein the violation occurred, or the governing body of the municipality wherein the violation occurred. (2) Disposal of solid waste at a location other than a site designated for such use by a county or municipality is a violation of this part 1, unless other- wise exempted by this part 1 or unless the person is disposing of his own L.)c. 6 I �f mEmORAI1DUm P 404 Chuck Cunliffe. Plannir • March 30. 1993To COLONADO John Pickle. Heal,;: from Central Weld Sanitary Landfill auopct On March 2, 1993, Trevor Jiricek of our staff inspected tha Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. The purpose of the inspection was to asa►es the facility's compliance ttw al Site's and with the "Regugated by the ns Solid Waste Drtaining te icpnaalolid aSitec and Facilities Act, Title 30, as Promulgated by Article 20, Part 1. C.R.S. The facility continues in a state of non-compliance as previously cited in my memo to ynu of 2-21-92: 1. The operators have not submitted a complete Design and Operations Plan. 2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to uyetaLe without roquircd Discharge. Cennits. 3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to contaminate the groundwater. 4. The Central Weld Sanitary Lane.^.ill has allowed Solid waste to come into cuuLecL with groundwater on this site. I met witlr 6111 Hedberg, Site Manager on March 23, 1993. Althese h we areasprimarily ril discussed oilier matters. no mention was made of any change a e compliance. In addition, I have received nothing t0 date with regard to same. If you have further questions, please contact Trevor Jiricek or me. 0 EXHIBIT • IA D . - c4: TOTAL PHOE.01T ** DATE: April 5, 1993 CASE NUMBER: ZCH-96 NAME: Waste Services Corporation, c/o Waste Management 40000 Weld County Road 25 Ault, CO 80610 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 SW4 and the SE4 SW4 of Section 32, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of the Town of Milliken. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that Condition of Approval #1, as approved for Special Use Permit #116, is not in compliance. Condition of Approval #1 states: That any sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department. Mr. John Pickle, in his memoranda dated February 22, 1993 and March 30, 1993, to Chuck Cunliffe and his memorandum dated April 1, 1993, to the Board of County Commissioners, has identified the items of noncompliance with Condition of Approval #1 for Special Use Permit #116. On April 1, 1993, Waste Services Corporation submitted applications for amended Special Use permit #116 and amended Certification of Designation #26. Bill Hedberg's letter of March 31, 1993, is attached. The Department of Planning Services is proceeding with the processing of the applications. Based upon the above information, the Department of Planning Services and Weld County Health Department recommends that the probable cause hearing be continued to December 1, 1993, to allow sufficient time for the amended Special Use permit and amended Certificate of Designation applications to be reviewed and considered by Weld County during the standard land-use application review procedures. .}:Irr Now is the time to enforce this express representation by remediation and closure orders pursuant to a noticed public hearing on revocation of the certificate of designation. CONCLUSION . A show cause order should be issued to Waste Services, Inc. to show why the certificate of designation should not be revoked for 1) failure to submit an engineering report and design and operations plan and receive the approval of the State Department of Health prior to land fill installation, 2) creation of a public nuisance, 3) violation of the minimum sanitary, engineering, and operational standards of the Colorado Department of Health, and 4) non-compliance with Weld County land use, zoning, and special use resolutions and approvals. Dated this 5th day of April, 1993 . Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. , #0009'- Jennifer Russell, #22047 Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. 1775 Sherman St. , Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 Tele: (303) 861-1963 Fax: (303) 832-4465 ATTORNEYS FOR ASHTON-DANIELS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 15 b ?2*i_06 - y' April 19, 1993 ^: n5 Governor Roy Romer 136 State Capital Bid. Denver, CO 80203 Dear Governor Romer: We wish to adamantly object to Mr. Glenn Mallory's proposed changes to the Solid Waste Regulation Draft Amendments, specifically section 3. 1. 10 as written December 30, 1992. They state, "Continued operation of sites and facilities that have placed waste into groundwater is prohibited. " Subtitle D has been highlighted for a long time as the screening process for eliminating problem landfills. On February 4, 1993, comes Leonard J. Butler, Waste Management Inc. , in a letter to Glenn Mallory complaining that the rules should be changed so Waste Management Inc. 's landfills could be allowed to continue to operate despite the obvious intent of Subtitle D. We quote Mr. Butler, "We recommend . 3. 1. 10 be reworded to state the operation of sites and facilities that place waste into groundwater after the effective date of these regulations is prohibited. " Further comments of Mr. Butler are attached. Mr. Glenn Mal" ory, Colorado Department of Health, complied with Mr. Butl' r's wishes. Mr. Butler sounds like a sibling telling his parents, "It's not fair. " This is ludicrous. We're not dealing with a child's sense of "fair. " We are dealing with a lethal matter. How many Globevilles, Lowry landfills, or Summitville mines do we need before Colorado tries the "ounce of prevention"? Let's live up to the letterhead of Colorado Department of Health: "Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado. " Thus, we will ensure that our beautiful state with its land and water can remain so for our children and grandchildren. (continued) ° xh;b/f 7 2 NO MORE GLOBEVILLES, ROCKY FLATS, ARSENALS, LOWRY LANDFILLS, OR SUMMITVILLE MINES! ! ! WE MUST SAVE THE BIG THOMPSON AND SOUTH PLATTE, NM ! ! Sincerely, 354-StriA-ji. The Daniejs (Madeline, Harold & prom) 23732 WCR 27 1/2 Milliken, CO 80543 339-0629 cc: Senator Hank Brown Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell Representative Wayne Allard Senator Thomas Norton Attorney General's Office Mr. Dave Owen, State Representative Mr. William Jerke, State Representative Mr. Patrick Sullivan, State Representative Weld County Commissioners Environmental Protection Agency Colorado Department of Health Weld County Health Department City of Greeley Town of Milliken Town of Evans x. 7 111: :1.0S'- Z $= a . ?gii lair, ?�;1 =, " _ �i 54111G 1241luil . org s6 gli hgugest .,sgrgK 3 mi kill; pi!" 1 : , In E 8 e UrJT'rr! # SRS R ib kiifl 0 a 't sir, If g iv f lit i " ^* I � � "+� ' ,vy a 4! 1 : A ` y; it } 3! het t? it! ;;itUuIfiflui1it Y4 a .3 Pik ili RRal 4 lief III 10sh gig@ � g'q ° cF Ili7i� R61i n Row EyAa lobo v. A fD � 1tWit ySi ga 'ij B tile. m ffi: r jm I% lag lfl 8 '€' N '4% $ Sj 1l 3 " v L g Wl g2 Q �`°o 1111111111111 7 ' 3 X15 cab .. � 5 .gE° D � f8 if 4 1 : 1 a glisgl a Q s n��' v � .e � � �e d a R N z , V ' G e. R g mS 8a 8 RM.1 _3al O (D o b ,. sa ,. n og _eiR 1 r ex 7 9:106474. 3 1 r l/ C W ------ le (ti ft \ lillit DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH-. 1577.78 AVENUE COURT GREI.EY,COLORADO 80631 C ADMINISTRATION (303)353-0585 HEALTH PROTECTION(303)Ic3-0e1.5 COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353-0839 April 2, 1993 Mr. Glenn Mallory Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Glenn: k This letter is in regard to the Draft Solid Waste Regulations, specifically ,¶ section 3.1.10 as written in the December 30, 1992 Draft. Please be advised that I total support this section aswritten, and as placed in the Draft. I base this support on the practical experience of dealing with this problem at the Central Weld facility over the past year. Further, I speculate that you will encounter this same problem in several of the older landfills all over the State. It is my understanding that the pu ose of Subtitle D was to upgrade and/or weed out those facilities that are potential problem sites. Certainly one of the areas of greatest concern in these older sites is poor site selection, based on the standards of site selection in use at present. This is further complicated when these poor sites, by operation, create even less adequate sites. Lets look at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill specifically, as an example. Given the history of groundwater problems at this site, (much less the proof of these problems we see at present), one can hardly argue that this site would not be approved under today's site selection criteria. Furthermore, operations, (operations which were violations of the standards even of that day) , have created even a less desirable site. As you are aware, it is hardly economically feasible to excavate previously filled areas. This would be especially true in those areas where solid waste have been placed into the groundwater. Since this condition cannot be remedied, it would seem logical that it be considered a site consideration. Whether or not a current operator created this _sort of problem seems to me to be of no concern. The site is either suitable, or it is not. If it Is not_--- suTtabf, it should not be allowed to continue to operate under Subtitle D. Consequently, I feel very strongly that section 3.1.10 of the December 1992 Draft of the revised Solid Waste Regulation is very applicable, and should be left as written. t I feel that I am commenting from experience on this matter, and I hope you consider that fact in your deliberations. I also appreciate the opportunity to present my views to you. Very Truly Yours, • hn S. Pickle, M.S.E.H. Director Environmental Protection Services Division Waste Management of A th America,Inc. . . // Western Region • V Rocky Mountain Satellite Office 5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.•Suite 400 Englewood, Colorado 80111 303/770-3324 February 4, 1993 - `?' si 0 1 1993 i J • Mr. Glenn F. Mallory - 1— Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health . - ' 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South • Denver, CO 80222-1530 RE: Draft Solid Waste Regulations . Dear Mr. Mallory: In response to your memorandum of December 30, 1992, I have prepared the following questions and comments for your consideration regarding the draft Solid Waste Regulations dated December 24, 1992: Section 1.2. . .. . Recommend that it would be dearer to delete"for solid wastes dispose since the following list of items include transfer stations, and sludge sites, which are clearly not 'facilities for solid waste disposal? Section 1.2.6 l Recommend placing a comma after 'Transfer Stations" to make it dear that the following clause refers to all transfer stations not just to some. For clari9icaticr,this r^otion shot ild specifically reference the applicable standards as the operations standards discussed in Section 7. Section 1.5.3.3 . Under Type E Processing/Storage Sites and Facilities, Category 3 includes special waste and non-exempt transfer stations. A definition for these terms are necessary to • determine the applicability of the fee since pursuant to Section 7.1(B), it is dear that all transfer stations are exempt from permit requirements. f...•. _ _ Section 2.1.3 • FEB 0 .5 1993 The operating standard cited in Section 7.2.3(D) states: r r t _i 11.:,._„n' ,. .- I w`L111 Y Hs'r:b 1.. '. 1 3 \ x.7 :9:1064.15 cr ` Mr. Glenn F. Mallory February 4, 1993 Page 2 "Nuisance Conditions. All reasonable measure shall be employed to collect, properly contain, and dispose of scattered litter including frequent policing of the area, and the use of wind screens where necessary. The facility shall be managed In such a manner that noise, dust and odors do not constitute a hazard to human health. The facility shall be managed In such a manner , that the attraction, breeding and emergence of birds, insects, rodents and other vectors do not constitute a health hazard.' This this stSections andard brings consistency to the Intent of ensuring nuisa nuisance conditions The use o are abated. Section 3.0 This section requires a compliance schedule between the Department, Owners/Operator and the Local Governing Authority to obtain full state-wide compliance for all facilities by October 9, 1996. It Is recognized that Section 3.1.1 through ou hSection 3.1.5 restate the location restrictions identified In Subtitle D. However, ththis date standards described In Sections 3.1.6 through 3.1.10 may not be implementable by t many Colorado sites because of their ambiguity Section 3.1.6 The Section 3.1.6 requirement that the topography of the landfill maximize protection against prevailing winds Is very subjective. Further,her, t is se ection Duequires minimizing the amount of precipitation catchment area upgradient in of the site. between the subjective nature of these requirements which may regulators, this standard should be deleted. Operating criteria cited in Section 3.3 and the Minimum Standards existing in SecLks7 2 adoquat`'Y `"dd` ss the issue. Section 3.1.7 The flood plain location restriction should repeat the standard required in 40 CFR • 258.11. As proposed, this section is not implementable, since no definition has been provided for the size of the base flood. This term is defined in 40 CFR 258.11. 1Section 3.1.8 The This section is unenforceable because of the lack of definition of terms. requirements cited in Section 3.2.5 are standardsy. Since whichere as no re e designed quanti to protect aquifers for regardless r the hydraulic cob,your co groundwater flow in section 3.1.8,your consideration of deleting this section is requested. Mr. Glenn F. Mallory February 4, 1993 Page 3 Section 3.1.9 This standard of "emphasizing favorable geologic conditions over engineered improvements of marginal geologic conditions" is subjective in content and has been difficult to define for many years in public hearings and In litigation. No definition exists for the regulators or the regulated community. It is recommended that given incorporation of the more restrictive Subtitle D standards into Colorado's regulations, this subjective requirement be deleted. Section 3.1.10 Since this is an operational, rather than a locational, standard, we recommend that it be moved to Section 3.3. This standard requires clarification to indicate that placement of waste into groundwater is prohibited. We recommend that the second sentence of Section 3.1.10 be reworded to state that 'The operation of sites and facilities that place waste into groundwater after the effective date of these regulations is prohibited." As currently drafted, this regulation would penalize owners/operators that identify surface water or groundwater In contact with waste. Only about one-third of the solid waste disposal facilities in Colorado currently monitor groundwater. Facility data may not be available for the remaining sites to ascertain site conditions. Further, historic practices or artificial influences in the surrounding groundwater table may have caused groundwater to infiltrate waste regardless of past or present waste placement activities. The remainder of the existing unit or lateral expansion of the site may be lined or planned for construction of liner material. Section 7 A definition stNetion regs.dhng terms s,uc-h as meter'el recovery facility, intermediate processing center and active operating area should be developed for clarificatiur, of terms. The following definitions are offered: t rial v , if M : A facility designed to receive and process,recyclable; -t materials. • .4. . • Intermediate Processing Facility: A facility designed toiremove • # unprocessed municipal solid waste. �• * i Active Operating Area: An area that includes all areas of unloading, ball • ••. storing and out loading. a :i tat;Cildrigif44 e 4 • Mr. Glenn F. Mallory February 4, 1993 Page 4 Section 7.2.2(A)(6) This section requires truck wheel curbs. Our experience has shown that curbs may be unnecessary if trucks are not permitted to back close to unloading areas. Therefore,this requirement should be more performance related to state"measures shall be provided to prevent backing into pits while unloading'. • u gar Ci6:t. :u;.i ".! lick:; ArnAp Fiequiremarsts (236.52) We recommend that the requirement '... ground water samples shall not be field- filtered prior to laboratory analysis' be deleted in Section B since the previous sentence indicates: (1) that analytical methods shall be according to Colorado Department of Health guidelines or an EPA approved method; and (2) a proposed rule lifting the ban on field filtering is being considered by EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and participate in the development of the draft Solid Waste Regulations to incorporate Subtitle D requirements. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these comments and questions with you further if any clarifications are required prior to the March, 1993 hearing date. Sincerely, 04624UtteileatitL Leonard J. Butler, P.E., DEE Vice President - Environmental Management :44 4`a+. 4e cc: Tom Schweitzer, WMC ?i r:` ' '+ Y1 Bruce Ciabaugri, WMC4. L * . ai` • it#v .0Yr 1.. ;i‘�c+l ( t.FCJ3t t (Jt'•t.. Charles Bayley, WMC . tr, ti " w:. ft Subtitle D/Colo. 2.3 9:106° 6 Arthur r 11. ,Rug c April 22, 1993 Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Attorney at Law 1775 Sherman Street, #1300 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Central Weld Landfill - Waste Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Hobbs: Thank you for providing me with copies of your correspondence to Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson, Weld County Commissioners, dated April 8, 1993 , and April 19, 1993 . I appreciate you represent parties who are interested in the future operation or closure of the Central Weld Landfill but your clients are not parties to any matters pending before the Weld County Commissioners. The Weld County Commissioners are conducting a quasi-judicial proceeding to determine whether or not the Central Weld Landfill is in violation of its zoning permit. Weld County and Waste Services, Inc. , are the parties to this proceeding. The decision to be reached by the Weld County Commissioners must be made on the record at the hearing. I will urge on October 13, 1993 , that presentations be limited to the parties to the proceedings and that an open forum with evidence, comments, and argument from others on matters outside the notice denies fundamental due process. Unsolicited communications between counsel and the Commissioners containing factual representations and legal argument, whether related to the issues or not, are, in my opinion, inappropriate. In your letter of April 8, 1993, you essentially continue to argue facts concerning which there is a considerable dispute and you continue to argue points of law concerning which there is substantial disagreement. My client will, of necessity, have to respond to your letter of April 8, 1993, to correct the factual allegations and refute the legal argument to avoid the appearance that it concedes either. A continuing discourse in this manner is not in the interest of anyone. With respect to your letter of April 19, 1993 , it appears to be your perception that Waste Services, Inc. , is not entitled to notice of the issues to be heard at the hearing to be held October 13 , 1993 , as evidenced by your statement "that the Commissioners The Law Building - 1011 11th Avenue - P.O. Box 326 - Greeley, Colorado 80632 tt Telephone (303) 356-5400 - FAX (303) 356-1111� 1 ..L l6". �.. ((��``,w YJ / Cc P€r , NL , b acC- Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. April 22, 1993 Page 2 make it clear that the October 13 hearing will be open to presentation of whatever issues and evidence pertain to whether the Certificate of Designation should be revoked. " Not only is this statement a blatant misstatement of the law it is designed to deny Waste Services, Inc. , an essential element of substantive due process which is, as you well know, notice. The resolution of the Board of County Commissioners dated April 5, 1993 , fairly and accurately sets forth the motion of Commissioner Kirkmeyer whose discussion was limited to whether or not the site had been approved by the State Department of Health in 1971. To the extent, if any, the motion of Commissioner Kirkmeyer requires interpretation or construction of the findings set forth in the written resolution of April 5, 1993 , fully clarify the matter. It would seem appropriate to me that all counsel reserve further comment or argument until the hearing October 13, 1993 , before the Weld County Commissioners or to such other hearing at which they may, e heard either prior to or following the hearing of October L3", 1 3 . % 1 Your s/truly,i) 71 L.et,.;ut l Arthur P. Roy Attorney at Law APR:elh pc: Marian King Bill Jeffrey William Hedberg Lee Morrison Weld County Commissioners 041'4 flin 26 April 1993 C,, Mr. John Pickle Weld County Health Department 1517 16th Ave. Ct. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Pickle, This is to confirm my complaint in writing concerning blowing dust and debris from the landfill on April 19, 1993, in the early afternoon. Yellow plastic, plastic bags, diapers, newspapers, invoices (from as far as Riverton, Wyoming) , junk mail, paper cups, lids, etc.--all "sticky and dirty"--lined our fences, landed in our trees, lined our irrigation ditches, and barrow pits. Debris was flying 50 feet in the air. Undoubtedly, not very many complaints were received by your office. Bear in mind, the neighbor to the east and the one directly south have a lot of cash to lose if they make waves. Their fences, fields and ditches were likewise "trashed out. " That leaves us, when the wind is from the north, and concerned citizens who notice and care but are not being trashed out directly, to file a complaint. I personally got extremely nauseated and had to leave home. With the facility taking medical waste, contaminated soil, and household hazardous wastes, how do we know what contaminates are blowing through and around our property? The facility now has a "dream" of taking "SPECIAL WASTES" from all over the United States and Canada. I don't think there is a chance of our county approving this! If their absurd "dream" was approved and became an environmental nightmare, what air quality could we expect? How far does the air contamination go? This is an area of extreme winds. In the past five years, we have replaced three storm doors due to north winds, tin and shingles blow off buildings, storm windows are broken, and everything has to be tied down. Our son's 6 ft. plastic swimming pool flew 600 feet to the area of our well a few years ago! This area is not only unsuited for a landfill due to hydrology and geology, but also due to wind patterns. Fxh/):f 9 .fie: PL; r+� 2 Please take this matter seriously, and provide adequate protection for the health and safety of Weld County citizens. We need to close and clean up this facility before any more damage is done to the environment. Sincerely, 2110241-1 Madeline Daniels 23732 WCR 271/2 Milliken, CO 80643 339-0629 cc: Governor Roy Romer Attorney General ' s Office Colorado Department of Health Weld County Commissioners Weld County Planning/Engineering Senator Hank Brown Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell Representative Wayne Allard Mr. Don Bain Senator Thomas Norton Mr. Dave Owen City of Greeley City of Evans Town of Milliken :?3106' .Ex 67 2 • �' y EN, c M 0. l O i O o- o. C • 071:1, '. t _ ..- _ 'N• a:. ;'.y'C.:c .,.:J Y �.. yF • - i' 'Alpapriplit . '44:\•:i---i--.. ‘-t.. \ :4 .0 .-..‘*.#1,7 ....,,j_, . rir474....,t , a . . .. . „„,...: :, .__; 4 _.„ .,...,, . _....0._( /4., ‘4,e7,tn.„., e_. 0.4.4..) ..., . ..,_,. • . ...., :,...... _I ,..i..• •---.0\6k ,, .,,,,,',/,„1, ..„,e.t•..%ii'D --'-' \ /..,.,7. '''., 0 ".4' ,AP474-6_ filliVi . it.,A., riginx.w4L., 4,*,;, , ,,,,,:26_,.._0„, ,j ,e.j ,, diz,z- --- r I 1 tf! ria1I airs ram >r1147�� _ ,j � j■ o..u�i.r�r.jrnc�ssr.ww �f w�L� �.,• �'..e.e.„‘..4-4__i iii � �� Mi> .. 0 .lf�7v.y•u:�Clirra ,fe` r Kw.... ■ /.YaaFwmfo. rw t L miasma wrnormswam s,. aa' 1- I' it, ID ��r lLi�.r •a1r a 4- 4,4)1A-t---4-/ lika. 1 - r ��: ,/1 •'�� 'J'•iii.■ ....c....,1/44.7.. ...,-4.,• . f�)if o - 3 04),,. ...... ..< .�A�Y� r) LJ x 3 rO.4 �., 1t�la gym,t�' � `''sj �y�y c ° -a..4,,,,, 1 CO ..4� �'1!S.7� w- t F � 2.71404.4., '6" LC) t ,®°� Ana aMI �� L•f►.. ...., , ' «o //I+a! G,J�G.dd /Y✓ �1 V • 1� •c f. i to • - . / !,, ' \ ',-. -77: X 9 -7-77L-- .. , , . .., ...: ( . 6- •:;.,,----,:' !--_-,._. ` o %) -titk, ,:,:"' •••• iz--Ar-: _... , .f. , ,: ,,,, _ a 44, Cq e. O''''.:' 0 ° 5°-, — 0 •, ,,,, Tit t < o -w , X;. - �s • i..� �� r O O CO•�' .: t0 1I( u17 1 �,• ;° ;- 1, }' t v i o'-o f O O N.2 '.-l'o Z` 0 i '..� Illy • I� N i N I el C7 1. i at k i..,,r,i1„,,„2, tir ii.. r.? :/..y... . ....40177 ,.s.- — 1\00702c,),____t1H-c, 0 ,,,,i.0 t_ 0.010.),, ,. , ,,,,o : ,.. , ,,. T.:.7..,. ..,. .i. / .. ,,.... ,,t...,,, k. ,i4-.:..„ ,.., .,,, 0_ 0 . 7 , . 2.10 it...1?. °,0-- J 7ais.` * ` ,.� mC 19{ ` 3 ^� '• .; j`} I.rr■F' • t ` y. •� �,`•G2+ cv i •� -- .� (k ..,N.,_ Jfff . . •i •• .ti. if :-•-•.!;------.. .<;_,-----_, ,'mowNig) •®�'..�+Js . • N j • tip z� 1 •:` J �'W i)1' y J- 'J '-• 1 r.. •\"�. •M mi. h ' � s� f: �' •1 J'�� ' ( .. �."' 000hi,,,,,•, ,,o,::‘,.. ,,.1.,r,„„•,. ,o a • • ii I - 1, .,•• . ,S.:- ,• ...'.. c.\;:c.. '''.•: ,4....4.';',•, ...'• g gr ,?...t-t-12,.•- 't•;;.., „oils..k,,.)F4 071.. .)..1....,,,,I,...,7 , t..:0,,,,,.140:..,..,..s,, i .. ,_, ,,,, - : _-- • ittA,/ t• ?li. ,-.- - d C_ irvit 'olio— • --,. 1 •' .' .--'' Egi.- et.'4.: \• '' . ' ,,v4e r '.iii,,, Num ... ‘.3,1....;, ,i,,,.", a� - T � ,:, �) f" • _ �b /r- ,N Ai)' 1 6 7r% rn . 9 - z`L.•�1 •R.. i .--..�'a°rt V") aw r� • . �.9 1'• .-.. C ~ S--/ 613,)%-)' ' CG'C )�� rig: '^�... 1.77-''1_ d.'-r . ( 0=P-* .-.---i 1....)\ . \\.,,,,.. A....._ �' ' R, V., E9 -�` _ I „__.?.:4°'''.31.1 I. _ . ___./: .,.'.. riv_.. ..__ '.. .. • . . .i R ....! — EXPLANATION INTRODUCTION The depth to the water table is a hydrologic factor that can be used by Sta DEPTH TO WATER TABLE IN UNCONSOLIDATED ALLUVIAL and local officials to assist them in making decisions regarding land-u: DEPOSITS;IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE conversion in the rapidly urbanizing Boulder—Fort Collins—Greeley art '`"''•` Less than 5 (index map) r:�.f 5 to 10 10 to 20 i Greater than 20 --i'-----__-- AREAOF'-- THIS REPORT I AREAS WHERE UNCONSOLIDATED ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS Fort Collins o ARE NOT PERENNIALLY SATURATED—Depth to seasonal I �"� Greeley water table generally ranges from 5 to 20 feet.Where areas are Boulder Il not irrigated,the deposits usually are drained by mid summer. I i Where areas are irrigated, seasonal water table may remain I DENVER I through the growing season with drainage of deposits occur- ring during the autumn I AREAS WHERE LOCALIZED WATER-TABLE AQUIFERS Grund Junction i I OCCUR IN COLLUVIAL, LANDSLIDE, AND WIND 4 oCoiorado Springs BLOWN DEPOSITS,AND IN CONSOLIDATED SEDIMEN- I I TARY ROCKS WHERE ROCKS NEAR LAND SURFACE i I Pueblo ARE FRACTURED AND WEATHERED—Aquifer materialsCOL I may not be perennially saturated;depth to water table gener- O R A D O ally ranges from 5 to 20 feet; depth to seasonal water table I I generally less than 10 feet `'.≤ "o AREA WHERE LOCALIZED WATER-TABLE AQUIFERS -----------�-- -`--- `' OCCUR IN FRACTURED CRYSTALLINE ROCKS—Frac- MAP SHOWING AREA OF FRONT RANGE URBAN CORRIDOR tures may not be perennially saturated; depth to water table may be more than 100 feet I Depth to water table generally less than 20 feet in localized areas of unconsolidated alluvial deposits (not shown on map)occurring in stream valleys traversing fractured crystalltne rocks. -- CONTACT BETWEEN UNCONSOLIDATED ALLUVIAL DE- POSITS AND OTHER DEPOSITS AND ROCKS.—Dashed This report presents the results of a 2-year investigation to determine the dept where approximately located to the water table,water-table fluctuations and trends,and to relate the resul of the investigation to urban planning.The report is one of a series of geolog EASTERN OUTCROP LIMIT OF FRACTURED CRYSTAL- and hydrologic reports prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey t LINE ROCKS demonstrate the usefulness of earth-science information in urban plannin ,14.2 WELL WHERE DEPTH TO WATER TABLE WAS MEASURED In the Boulder—Fort Collins---Greeley area, the principal water-tabl IN 1976 OR 1977—Number is depth to water table, in feet aquifers consist of thick unconsolidated alluvial deposits that are perenniall below land surface. saturated.These deposits occur in present and ancestral stream valleys and i CS, Well completed in consolidated sedimentary rocks terraces both along present stream valleys and on slopes of the foothills east t F, Well completed in fractured-crystalline rocks the Front Range (diagrammatic section). W, Well completed in windblown deposits All other wells completed in unconsolidated alluvial deposits €3.6 WELL COMPLETED IN UNCONSOLIDATED ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS WHERE DEPTH TO THE WATER TABLE WAS MEASURED FOR AT LEAST 4 YEARS DURING 1971-75.—Number is average depth to the water table for the period, in feet below land surface (Data from Major, Kerbs, n\( COLLUvwL OR LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS WINDBLOWN INS N DEPOSITS f':; and Penley, 1975) 't. LoeelliedwetenteMe sgwbrs aptA+.ra y, Uncololidat.d allwisl deposit.drained , O WELL COMPLETED IN UNCONSOLIDATED ALLUVIAL 'p'"l"°p'rr"""'Y'" '1.; PRWCIPAL WATERTABLE AQUIFERS DEPOSITS WHERE DEPTH TO THE WATER TABLE WAS Unconsotidued alluvial deposits MEASURED BETWEEN 1955 AND 1975 :s a pvenn"I"saturated TERRACES PRESENT TERRACES STREAM VALLEY (flood Omni y • DIA?M wATeq a IZpe ' W riN WIE elE�s NdP UNCQNSOLD . Q LM,,�x 1rwr1 erEpld ALLUVIAL DEPOSR . =N 16- T.8N.,R.68W.,Sec.33 u Terrace DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION SHOWING OCCURRENCE 17 I ' 4 OF WATER-TABLE AQUIFERS 2 ▪ 1a 17.4 m 1958 1960 1965 1970 1975 1977 0C RELEVANCE TO URBAN PLANNI *-- li,e depth to the water table is a relevant factor In „anning for urban development as Indicated by the following examples: A. Dec'h to the.eater table is less than 5 feet either seasonally or annually: 1.T..e effectiveness of individual domestic waste-disposal systems could be reduced and untreated wastes could enter the ground-water system.Some of the biochemical reactions as nriated with individual waste-disposal systems occur in the unsaturated zone below or adjacent to the system.Because the reactions do not occur in water,the greater the depth to the water table,the greater the possibility that these reactions will complete the conversion of waste to an effluent that is not a health hazard. 2. Road and highway stability could be affected. Public access to lands might be limited where marshy ground exists. 3.Soil-salinity problems could exist The types of vegetation that could be . grown in these areas would be dependent on the degree of the salinity, but even without any salinity problems,many types of vegetation could not grow in these areas. SELECTED REFERENCES 4.Unstable soil structure,which often limits the use of land,could exist. -- Colton, R.B., 1978, Geologic map of the Boulder—Fort Collins—Greeley tb 5.Construction of structural or building foundations could be hampered area,Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous InvestIgatlons Map y the flow of ground water into the construction excavations. 1-855-6. 6. Basements could be subject to collapse from water pressure and Jenkins,E.D., 1961, Records and logs of selected wells and test holes,and flooding. chemical and radiometric analyses of ground water in the Boulder area, The situations described in items 4,5,and 6 also could occur in areas Colorado:Colorado Water Conservation Board Basic-Data Report 5,30 p. where the depth to the water tablets not more than 10 feet either seasonally or Major, T.J., Kerbs, Lynda, and Penley, R.D., 1975, Selected water-level annually. records for Colorado, 1971-75: Colorado Water Conservation Board B. Depth to the water table related to depth of installation: Basic-Data Release 37, 356 p. 1. Liquid wastes or leachates from solid waste could be introd Schneider,P.A.,Jr, 1962,Records and logs of selected wells and test holes "reedy Into the ground-water system by water moving through landfills an and chemical analyses of ground water in the South Platte River basin in related types of facilities,resulting in degradation or pollution of the ground western Adams and southwestern Weld Counties, Colorado: Colorado water.The possibility of degradation or pollution would be dependent on the Water Conservation Board Basic-Data Report 9,84 p. type and amount ofwaste,the depth of burial of the waste,and the seasonal or Schneider,P.A.,Jr.,and Hershey,L.A., 1961,Records and logs - l^cted annual depth of the water table in the area of the landfill or related type of wells and test holes,and chemical analyses of ground water In the lower facility. Cache la Poudre River basin, Colorado: Colorado Water Conservation 2. Ground water could enter leererodrary sewers, resulting"M a """Y°x`"Board Basic-Data Report 8, 60 p. significant Increase in the volume of waste to be processed by waste-treatment Schneider,P.A.,Jr.,and Hillier,D.E., 1978,Hydrologic data for water-table facilities. The volume of water entering a leaky sanitary sewer would be aquifers in the Boulder--Fort Collins--Greeley area, Front Range Urban dependent on the depth of burial of sewer and the seasonal or annual depth to Corridor, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-567, the water table. 55 p. 3.The placement of electric and telephone utility lines below ground and the type of insulation and conduits required for below-ground installation would be, in part, dependent on the depth to the water table. DEPTH TO THE WATER TABLE Measured depths to the water table during 1976-77 in the unconsolidated alluvial deposits ranged from 0 to 45.6 feet Generally the depth to the water table in the flood plains of present streams was less than 10 feet and,in many localities, it was less than 5 feet. The depth to the water table in ancestral stream valleys,such as Beebe Draw,and in the terraces ranged from 0.5 to 45.6 feet. Water levels in wells completed in windblown deposits, _ METRIC CONVERSIONS consolidated sedimentary rocks, and fractured crystalline rocks were Moulin.), BY TO OBTAIN measured only in Boulder County.In the county,the depth to the water tableFoo - --- -- -Meter in the windblown deposits ranged from 3 to 12 feet; in the consolidated Mile 0.609 ilo Mile 0609 Kilometer sedimentary rocks,it ranged from 1 to 29 feet and in the fractured crystalline Acre 0.4047 Hectare rocks, it ranged from 9 to 193 feet eNr or• tie cQii, Vin t ro• ♦'t O r 'r Rroa re ebtoOIOP��J for sale 5y Snort of Distribution,U.S.Geeinglcal Survey. Ilex 252Fn,fede,al Comer.Denver,CO 50225 Permeability, cm./sec. 102 10 1 10'I 10'2 10-3 10-4 30-3 10-6 10'7 10'8 is-9 I 1 1 I I I I 1 L I I Clean sands Very fine sands; silts Clean gravel mixtures of clean Mixtures of sand, silt and clay; Unweathered sands and gravels glacial fill; stratified clays; etc. clays I ► I I I I I I I ► I 106 106 304 103 102 10 1 10_I 10-2 10-3 30-3 Permeability, gal./day/ft.2 FIGURE 4. Permeability ranges of different soil classes (Hughes and others, 1971; modified from Todd, 1959, __ 'Mc 6: rte /cy — M1 /liken Land Pi ll Lo Lt. bull t' i ,IV Landfill butt Under- re arc( sprici s r- 1 ,1 the middles table is ! Water V i 0T" ci., Geuina1c/ c1nec✓ Zf is /6 „Hit -E're .n Wt.- Pond �.. . . FR '` . • t. ' ^�Yll l- - • • ' •, . . . ' Stream O . ., .: FIGURE 5. Generalized movement of leachate through the land phase of the hydrologic cycle (from Schneider, 1970,.: p. F6). Arrows show flow of ground-water; dots show dispersion of leachate. slot 48 Lx '? 5.' ;1.06_" z HANSEN DISPOSAL METHODS Of the ground-water gradient with virtually no ais- persion upstream. Most solid waste is disposed of in one of five Figure 6 depicts the very simple but very common general ways: in open dumps, by incineration, by condition in which solid waste is dumped into an on-site methods, by recycling, and in sanitary exhausted gravel pit; the leachates go directly into landfills. the ground-water and disperse downstream. Even if The open dump is a problem because it is an the fill is normally above the water table, a attraction for vermin, insects, and other disease- seasonal rise of the water table would induce a carrying organisms. It causes visual blight and is reaction between the ground-water and the waste a source of pollution, off-site, to the environment. material, and even a qualified organic chemist could Many cities, large and small, now have regulations not predict all the possible chemical combinations that prohibit open dumps, but compliance is difficult that would result. Microbial and chemical decomposi- to enforce. tions of the waste material generate various gases. Incineration is coming into the fore, partly be- One of the more common reactions in an aerobic en- cause sites for sanitary landfills are becoming f vironment is the production of carbon dioxide from harder to find. Methods of incineration vary greatly, ( the breakdown of the cellulose. The CO2, in the and nowadays power is even being generated as a by- /// presence of water, produces carbonic acid which product. Depending on the efficiency of the inciner- reacts with many components of the dump, which in ator system, the waste can be reduced by as much as turn tends to raise the hardness of the water and 90 percent by volume or as little as 40 percent. In increase the biochemical oxygen demand (Schneider, either event, the residue still has to be rehandled 1970, p.• F4). Anaerobic decomposition leads to the (Office of Science and Technology, 1969, p. 50). production of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.. On-site disposal is largely limited to industry, All these reaction products make their way into the but much garbage and some combustible waste are now hydrologic regimen or escape to the atmosphere. ii handled in the home. But in-home disposal' only Figure 7 illustrates another fairly simple passes the problem on to somebody else, because the example that is very prevalent in the mountain com- residue is just flushed down the drain and sent munities of Colorado, the case in which leachate rl__\e, . '.. elsewhere for further processing. travels down directly to the water table. Shortly �, Recycling is still somewhat utopian, but in a below, a zone of fractured bedrock provides ideal C1', modest way it has been going on for a long time. A channelways for the long-distance migration of �:... great deal of garbage, for example, has been fed to leachates. In the rare but more nearly ideal case, ,.,, - hogs in the past and is being fed to them today. the solid waste is deposited in an environment of '-`' Feeding garbage to hogs, however, carries a real very low permeability and porosity and essentially danger of spreading disease, and legislation in the is contained within the waste disposal site iteself. ,. past few years has tended to require that edible Prior geologic studies can help find such settings. refuse be boiled or cooked before being fed to the animals. Composting is another useful but statis- THE SANITARY LANDFILL tically insignificant form of recycling. The sanitary landfill , at the present time, is Just what is meant by a sanitary landfill? The the most satisfactory widespread method of disposal , study by the Office of Science and Technology (1969, but it presents many problems. p. 59) reviewedmore than 6,000 landfills throughout PROBLEMS OF LANDFILLS the United States and found that only about 6 percent of them were, indeed, sanitary. The intent of the sanitary landfill procedure is to confine the leach- Geology plays a key role in the proper location ates--the waste byproducts--essentially to the land- and design of sanitary landfills, especially with re- fill site; to cover the site daily so as to dis- spect to ground-water movement, and therefore, to courage the proliferation of vermin and minimize off-site pollution. Figure 4 is a logarithmic scale offensive odors and visual blight; and, finally, to showing permeability of tight, unweathered clay on restore a ground surface that can be used for other the one hand, and clean gravel on the other, with purposes after the landfill is completed. gradations between. Permeability rates, of course, In Pits are much higher for clean gravel than for clay, and Oftentimes the fill is emplaced in three separ- it is ironic that most of our landfills are located ate lifts for better control (Figure 8). Common in areas near the lefthand side of the Figure--in practice is to emplace about four feet, or four units, sands and gravels. These are the areas where cyclic of compacted fill to one unit of cover material per land use has resulted in the removal of gravel and day. Finally, a minimum soil cover about two feet sand for other purposes and has left convenient thick is used to top the completed landfill . In an holes in the ground where we tend to dump our waste actual example in the Denver area, a gravel pit was and where we have the greatest problems with ground- worked right down to a claystone bottom. The same water contamination. In the simplest case, Figure 5, claystone was used to provide an impervious membrane the water table follows the slope of the land; on the walls of the pit, to cover each individual ground-water moves down a gradient which, in general , lift, and finally, to restore the surface with a is parallel to the slope. The landfill in the upper final cover. A "plumbing system" was devised to lefthand corner is releasing leachates that travel carry away seepage and rainwater. Demolition waste, vertically downward through the soil until they which usually lacks many of the undesirable reach the water table; they then move in the direction characteristics of ordinary landfill refuse, was not 45 .cx ? 7 HANSEN SOLID WASTE ....le:: 'Solid and.0nel _ — =—Shale== -- FIGURE 6. Effect on ground-water resource of solid waste disposal in a permeable environment (from Schneider, 1970; p. F8). SOLID WASTE = =_Sond and silt _.==WATER TABLE—_1--------=`;-=,-- =sirs — — _- 7— Fractured rock= FIGURE 7. Effect on ground-water resource of solid- waste disposal at a site underlain by fractured bed- rock (from Schneider, 1970, p. F9). FlNSHED SURFACE C 7(MIN)FINAL EARTH CO/ER LF L I 6"DAILY EARTH COVER 2ND LIFT INTERMEDIATE) I EARTH COVER L S COMPACTED REFUSE 6' IIIIH I FIGURE 8. Diagrammatic cross section of a three-lift sanitary landfill (from MCCollough and Pacey, 1971, p. 54) . 49 /lc 1.0 PURPOSE Waste Services Corporation (WSC) recognizes that Federal, State, and local regulations need to be supplemented by an internal control program which ensures that all waste streams from industry and commerce receive attention commensurate with the risk associated with managing the waste. This access control plan as required by Special Review Permit Condition 3 (d) for waste identification and screening program has been developed to identify commercial and industrial wastes that require special handling from a regulatory or employee-safety perspective, and serves as a hazardous waste and PCB screening mechanism that prevents these waste streams from entering the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. Compliance with the Waste Screening Program will also ensure compliance with the waste screening reauirements of the Federal Subtitle D regulations (40 CFR Part 258.20(a)(1)-(3)). 2.0 DEFINITIONS Director of an Aooroved State - In accordance with 40 CFR 258.2, "the chief administrative officer of a State agency responsible for implementing the State municipal solid waste permit program or other system of prior approval that is deemed to be adequate by EPA under regulations published pursuant to sections 2002 and 4005 of RCRA." Emotv Container - A container that meets the following description: All wastes have been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from the type of container (e.g., pouring, pumping, or aspirating), rug An end has been removed (for containers larger than 25 gallons), No more than 1 inch of residue remains on the bottom of the container or inner liner, or No more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner (for 110-gallon containers or smaller), or No more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner (for containers larger than 110 gallons). Containers which once held acutely hazardous wastes (as defined by Federal, or State regulations) must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by an equivalent method to be considered • empty. Alternatively, the container's liner may be removed and managed as a hazardous waste by, while the outer shell is managed as a special waste. Containers which once held pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act must be emptied according to label instructions. Cylinders of compressed gas are empty when the pressure in the container is substantially equivalent to atmospheric pressure. Friable Asbestos - In accordance with 40 CFR 61.141, 'friable asbestos material means any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using the method specified in appendix A, subpart F, 40 CFR 763 section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy, that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. If the asbestos content is less than 10 percent as determined by a method other than point counting by polarized light microscopy (PLM), verify asbestos content by point counting using PLM." RMRJN2 Page 1 of 6 O'nl Hazardous Waste - A waste determined to be a "hazardous waste" by Federal, State (including h origin the State of waste or the State in which the proposedmanagement facility is located). This definition also includes any waste whose management requires approval or a license from an agency of the federal government (e.g., PCB waste, radioactive waste). Hazardous Waste Facility - A facility which has received all required Federal, or State approvals, licenses, or permits necessary to receive and manage hazardous waste. Industrial Process Waste - Special waste generated by manufacturing or industrial processes (e.g., waste from the production of paper, glass, electricity, etc.). This definition does not include wastes such as empty boxes from a shoe store, food scraps from a restaurant, etc. Incidental to the Load- Quantities of special waste (excluding friable asbestos) which may be managed without special handling because the quantity does not materially change the physical chemical characteristics of the load and the material is not regulated as a hazardous waste, radioactive waste or regulated PCB waste. Liquid Waste - Any waste that is determined to contain "free liquids" as determined by Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test), described in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" USEPA Publication SW-846. According to 40 CFR 258.28, this definition does not include waste in containers similar in size to that normally found in household waste, or waste in containers designed to hold liquids for use other than storage. Management - Transportation, transfer, storage, treatment, reclamation, incineration or disposal of waste. Special Waste - Any waste which may require special handling or management due to regulatory requirements and/or employee safety. These may include any discarded material from a non-residential source, which is non-hazardous and meeting any of the following descriptions. a. Waste from an industrial process (including process sludges). b. Waste from a pollution control process (e.g., baghouse dust, treatment plant sludge, filter cake, sedimentation pond cleanout, etc.). c. Waste containing free liquids (see definition of "liquid waste') d. Residue and debris from the cleanup of a spill of a chemical substance or commercial product or a waste listed in (a) through (c), or (e) through (g). This definition applies to spills of any size. e. Contaminated residuals from the cleanup of a facility generating, storing, treating, recycling, or disposing chemical substances, commercial products, or wastes listed in (a) through (d), (f), or (g►• f. Any waste which is non-hazardous as a result of treatment pursuant to RCRA Subtitle C. 9• Chemical-containing equipment removed from service, in which the chemical composition and concentration are unknown. 10.4R 3/02 Page 2 of 6 1.0€ h. Friable asbestos from building demolition or cleaning; wall board, wall or ceiling spray coverings, pipe insulation,etc. Non-friable asbestos (e.g., asbestos-containing floor tiles, brake pads, roofing products, etc.) is not a special waste unless it has been processed, handled, or used in such a way that when dry, it becomes crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder. Commercial products or chemicals which are off-specification, outdated, unused, or banned. This category includes containers which once held commercial products or chemicals unless the container is "empty" as defined in this section. Outdated or off-specification uncontaminated food or beverage products in original consumer containers are not special waste unless management of such products is restricted by applicable regulations. j. Untreated medical waste -Any waste capable of inducing infection due to contamination with infectious agents from a bio-medical source including but not limited to a hospital, medical clinic, nursing home, medical practitioner, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital, animal testing laboratory, or medical testing laboratory. Any sharps from these sources must be rendered harmless or placed in needle puncture proof containers. k. Treated medical wastes - Any wastes from a bio-medical source including but not limited to a hospital, medical clinic, nursing home, medical practitioner, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital, animal testing laboratory, or medical testing laboratory which has been autoclaved or otherwise heat treated or sterilized so that it is no longer capable of inducing infection. Any sharps from these sources must be rendered harmless or placed in needle puncture-proof containers. Residue/sludges from septic tanks, food service grease traps, or washwaters and wastewaters from commercial laundries, laundromats, and car washes. m. Chemical-containing equipment removed from service, in which the chemical composition and concentration are known (e.g., oil filters, cathode ray tubes, lab equipment, acetylene tanks, fluorescent light tubes, etc.). n. Waste produced from the demolition or dismantling of industrial process equipment or facilities contaminated with chemicals from the industrial process. o. Incinerator ash generated at a Resource Recovery Facility that burned only non-hazardous household, commercial, or industrial waste and qualifies for the hazardous waste exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b). SW-846 Methods - The third edition of "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" USEPA Publication SW-846. Ultimate Management Facility - A facility at which a waste is either disposed or managed in another manner such that additional management of the original waste is not required. WSC - Waste Services Corporation, an affiliate of Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. WMNA - Waste Management of North America, Inc. or any division or subsidiary thereof. RMR 3/92 Page 3 of 6 7 SPECIAL WASTE IDENTIFICATION 3.1.a Special Waste Identification Program WSC will implement and document the results of a special waste identification program that identifies special waste produced by Central Weld Sanitary Landfill and its commercial and industrial customers. Identification may be made by physically reviewing commercial and industrial processes, written survey, phone questionnaires or other methods which will accurately identify regulated wastes, such as hazardous waste, PCB wastes, radioactive wastes or special wastes. Hazardous wastes that are identified during the special waste identification program will be referred to a permitted hazardous waste transfer, storage, disposal (TSDF). 3.1.b Prohibited Wastes Hazardous waste, radioactive wastes, or Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) wastes, which are subject to U.S. or State regulations are prohibited at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. These wastes will be managed by a permitted TSDF. 3.2 SPECIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS An acceptance decision to approve or disapprove special waste management will be clearly documented for each special waste stream WSC is requested to manage. At a minimum, the following requirements must be met prior to WSC facilities managing special waste: • The customer must provide information about the waste and sign the 'Generator's Waste Profile Sheet". (Attachment A) • WSC will review the GWPS and associated information, ensuring the generator that information adequately characterizes the waste not to be a regulated hazardous waste, contain regulated quantities of PCBs or is a radioactive waste. The information must be adequate to assign conditions/limitations on managing the waste, ensuring that the facility is permitted to accept the waste. • An expiration date for the Special Waste Management Decision will be assigned and will not exceed three years from the date that the waste stream was approved for management and must be renewed if the process generating the waste changes. • WSC will notify the customer in writing of all conditions/limitations that apply to managing the waste, and the customer will be required to comply with all conditions/limitations. 3.3 Special Waste Decision Renewal Process Prior to the expiration date of a Special Waste Management Decision, the underlying facts concerning the waste stream will be re-examined and a decision rendered in accordance with section 3.2 whether to continue managing the wastes and whether expanded service is required. NIA 3/92 Page 4 of 6 93106" t2( • 3.4 SPECIAL WASTE DOCUMENTATION The "Generator's Waste Profile Sheet"(GWPS) must be completed and signed by the customer for all special waste streams managed by WSC. The generator must complete the form to the best of his/her knowledge but may leave certain portions incomplete if other generator supplied information adequately characterizes the waste. 3.4.a Changes or Additions to Paperwork Any changes made to the written information provided by the customer will be initialed and dated by the WSC personnel making the changes, and the reason for the changes will be noted. When practical, the customer should acknowledge these changes by initialling and dating in proximity to the changes. If these changes affect the precautions, conditions, or limitations of the Special Waste Management Decision, the customer will be informed in writing of the changes. 4.0 LABORATORY USAGE 4.1.a Acceptable Laboratories The following laboratories, listed in order of preference, will be used for conducting analyses of special waste: • A WSC affiliated laboratory. • A commercial or private laboratory, using SW-846 or equivalent approved test methods acceptable to WSC. 4.1.b Analytical Requirements As part of the Special Waste Management Decision process, WSC personnel will evaluate as applicable, corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, toxicity (TCLP), to determine if a special waste is a hazardous waste. Although generators may not be obligated by law to provide these analytical results, WSC personnel will obtain proper.analytical results or equivalent information (i.e., 40 CFR 262.11 allows generator's knowledge of the waste and process generating the waste) to ensure that WSC is not managing hazardous waste or other prohibited wastes. Analyses must have been conducted within 12 months prior to the date on the "Generator's Waste Profile Sheet" and within the SW-846 holding times for the parameters to be analyzed, but not to exceed 90 days from the sampling date. Q TRAINING WSC employees will be trained in the identification of special waste. Spotters and equipment operators will be present at the active face at all times that waste is unloaded, to check for peculiarities (e.g., hot loads, sludges with high liquid content, etc.) in the waste stream. Waste shipment records, manifests or other recognized mechanisms will be implemented to ensure that incoming special waste has been properly identified, that hazardous wastes are not accepted at the facility, and that other unacceptable wastes are managed properly. All associated documentation will be maintained at the facility. MIR 3/92 Page 5 of 6 t-x u::�.nfs' /3 All employees responsible for waste acceptance or inspection will be trained, at a minimum, to recognize and properly respond to hazardous waste, PCB waste, and other unacceptable wastes. 12 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS If unacceptable wastes are identified, the material will be segregated until adequate documentation is obtained to determine the appropriate management method. Appropriate agencies will be notified as required. Additionally all efforts will be taken to identify the generator of the material. If the quantities of unacceptable wastes are incidental to the load and are non-hazardous, non-radioactive and non-PCB contaminated waste may be accepted without completion of a GWPS. 7.0 SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM RECORDS Records will be maintained in accordance with applicable regulations. All documents will be maintained at the facility and will not be destroyed without concurrence of the WSC legal counsel. R°""'re= Page 6 of 6 0 ' 4 n6' cx 9 I17. GENERATOR'S WASTE PROFILE SHEET INSTRUCTIONS Information on this form, is used to determine if the waste may be transported, treated, stored or disposed in a legal. safe, and environmentally sound manner. This information will be maintained in strict confidence. Answers must be provided for all sections of this form, and must be printed in ink or typed. A response of "NONE." or -NA" (not applicable) can be made, if appropriate. If additional space is needed, indicate on the form that additional information is attached, and attach the information to the Generator's Waste Profile Sheet. Shaded areas of the attached form are for Contractor's use only. If you have questions concerning this form, please contact Contractor's sales representative. PART A. WASTE GENERATOR INFORMATION 1. GENERATOR NAME - Enter the name of the facility where the waste is generated. 2. SIC CODE - Enter the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification Code for the facility where the waste is generated. 3. FACILITY ADDRESS — Enter the street address (not P.O. Box) of the facility where the waste is generated. 4. GENERATOR CITY, STATE/PROVINCE — Enter the city and state or province where the waste is generated. _ 5. ZIP/POSTAL CODE — Enter the generating facility's zip or postal code. 6. GENERATOR USEPA/CANADIAN FEDERAL ID—Enter the identification number issued by the USEPA or CANADIAN FEDERAL AGENCY to the facility generating the waste (if applicable). 7. GENERATOR STATE/PROVINCE ID — Enter the identification number issued by the state or province to the • facility generating the waste (if applicable). a. TECHNICAL CONTACT — Enter the name of the person who can answer technical questions about the waste. 9. PHONE — Enter technical contact's telephone number. PART B. WASTE STREAM INFORMATION 1. NAME OF WASTE - Enter a name generally descriptive of this waste (e.g., paint sludge, contaminated soil, incinerator ash, untreated medical waste, friable asbestos, fluorescent bulbs). 2. PROCESS GENERATING WASTE—List the specific process/operation or source that generates the waste(e.g., paint spray booth, spill clean up, incineration of municipal refuse, asbestos removal, building maintenance). 3. ANNUAL AMOUNT/UNITS — Enter the amount of waste that will be generated and transported annually. Use 3- appropriate units to describe this volume (e.g., cubic yards, gallons, kilograms, pounds). 4. WASTE TYPE - Based upon reading the Contractor's Definition of Special Waste that is included in section 8.5 of these instructions, determine whether your waste is a "Type A Special Waste" or a "Type 8 Special Waste". Indicate the proper response in the space provided. I 5. SPECIAL HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS/SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION — For all wastes, describe any special handling requirements and any additional information that you feel would assist in determining the proper Athod(s)for transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste. For Type B Special Waste, provide the "supplemental information" requested after each applicable definition. CONTRACTOR'S DEFINITION OF SPECIAL WASTE a. "Special Waste" means Type A or Type B Special Wastes as defined below. b. "Type A Special Waste" means any waste from a commercial or industrial activity meeting any of the following descriptions: i. A waste from an industrial process. H. A waste from a pollution control process. iii. A waste containing free liquids. iv. Residue and debris from the cleanup of a spill of a chemical substance or commercial product or a waste listed in i.-iii., or v.-vii. of this definition. v. Contaminated residuals, or articles from the cleanup of a facility generating, storing, treating, recycling, or disposing chemical substances, commercial products, or wastes listed in i.-iv., vi., or vii. of this definition. vi. Any waste which is non-hazardous as a result of treatment pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). vii. Chemical-containing equipment removed from service, in which the chemical composition and concentration are unknown. I WMNA-4151 (02/92) Siide 1 of 4 F Ex 7 .11S7�'.• !a . :o • c. "Type B Special Waste" mt ; any waste from a commercial or ,dustrial activity meeting any of ,the I following descriptions: i. Friable asbestos waste from building demolition or cleaning; wall board, wall or ceiling spray coverings, pipe insulation, etc. This does not include nonfriable asbestos unless it has been processed, handled or used in such a way that asbestos fibers may be freely released. Asbestos—bearing industrial process waste is a "Type A Special Waste". Supplemental Information — List the source (e.g., building demolition, pipe insulation removal) of the asbestos or asbestos containing material(s) and the type of asbestos containing material (e.g., pipe insulation). List the proper USEPA or Federal (and/or state or provincial) waste identification code (if applicable). List the wetting • agent(s) used to wet the asbestos material before packaging and include its chemical composition or a current Material Safety Data Sheet. List the size and type of container(s) that will be used to contain the asbestos: Indicate whether the asbestos has been contaminated with any other wastes, and if so, list them. ii. Commercial products or chemicals which are off—specification, outdated, unused, or banned. Outdated or off—specification uncontaminated food or beverage products in original consumer containers are not included in this category, unless management of such containers is.restricted by applicable regulations..Containers which once held commercial products or chemicals are included in this category unless . an end has been removed (for containers larger than 25 gallons), and the container is empty as defined by RCRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or other applicable regulations. •• RCRA considers a container to be empty when: all wastes have been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from the type of container (e.g., pouring, pumping or aspirating), and no more than 1 inch (2.54 centimeters) of residue remains on the bottom of the container or inner liner, or no more than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner (for containers < 110 gallons), or no more than 0.3% by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the the container or inner liner(for containers > 110 gallons). Containers which once held ACUTELY HAZARDOUS WASTES must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by an equivalent method. The pressure in cylinders of compressed gas and aerosol cans must be substantially equivalent to atmospheric pressure. • Containers which once held pesticides regulated under FIFRA must be emptied according to label instructions. Supplemental Information - List the commercial product or chemical and include the proper waste identification code (if applicable) for that material. List whether the commerical product or chemical has been banned, if so, • why and by what agency. List whether the commercial product or chemical is off-specification and why. Attach copies of the most current Material Safety Data Sheets, if they exist. Indicate the current state of the waste (e.g. sludge, liquid, solid). iii. Untreated medical waste - Any waste capable of inducing infection due to contamination with infectious agents from bio-medical sources including but not limited to a hospital, medical clinic, nursing home, medical practitioner, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital, animal testing laboratory, or medical testing laboratory. Sharps from these sources must be rendered harmless or placed in needle puncture-proof containers. Supplemental Information - List the source from the list above. List the specific waste type(s) and include appropriate warnings for the handling of these wastes. Indicate any special requirements for the labeling, packaging and storage of these waste types. iv. Treated medical waste - Any wastes from a bio-medical source including but not limited to a hospital, medical clinic, nursing home, medical practitioner, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital, animal testing laboratory or medical testing laboratory which has been autoclaved or otherwise heat treated or sterilized so that it is no longer capable of inducing infection. Any sharps from these sources must be rendered harmless or placed in needle puncture-proof containers. Residue from incineration of medical waste is a "Type A Special Waste'. Supplemental Information - List the source from the list above. Specify how the waste was treated. WMNA-4151 (02/92) Cnii.O Side 2 of 4 v Residue/sludges ro tanks, and wastewaters from commercial l food grease traps, laundries. Laundromats, and car washes, unless rs these wastes are managed at commercial or public treatment works. Supplemental Information — Indicate the physical state of the waste (e.g., liquid, sludge, solid). List the specific source(s) (e.g., septic tank pumpings from hotel) of the waste and indicate whether there are any industrial discharges incorporated into the waste. Indicate whether or not a commercial laundry cleans clothing that may be contaminated with chemicals from an industrial facility. List the types of vehicles cleaned at car washes. Include a statement that indicates whether the interiors of any truck, or the exteriors of bulk chemical or waste tank trucks are washed. vi. Chemical—containing equipment removed from service, in which the chemical composition and concentration are known (e.g., acetylene tanks, cathode ray tubes, lab equipment, fluorescent light tubes, etc.). Supplemental Information - List the specific equipment removed from service and any additional information pertaining to the chemical contained in that equipment, including type, concentration and volume. vii. Waste produced from the demolition or dismantling of .industrial process equipment or facilities contaminated with chemicals from the industrial process. Chemicals or residues removed or drained from such equipment or facilities are "Type A Special Wastes". Supplemental Information — List the waste type(s) (e.g., piping, pumps, tanks) and the process type(s) from which they came. Indicate whether there are residuals contained in the process equipment. Describe the process used to decontaminate the equipment and list any chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that were used in the cleaning process. Attach a copy of the most current Material Safety Data Sheets for each of the chemicals used in the original process, the end product of the process, and the chemicals or mixtures of chemicals used in the cleaning process. Indicate whether this waste is contaminated with asbestos or asbestos insulation. viii. Incinerator ash generated at a Resource Recovery Facility - that burned only non—hazardous household, commercial, or industrial waste and qualifies for the hazardous waste exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b). If the regulatory authority does not recognize the household hazardous waste exclusion, then the ash is a "Type A Special Waste". Supplemental Information — If the ash is wetted during storage or transportation, list the wetting agent(s) used and include its chemical composition or provide a current Material Safety Data Sheet. 6. INCIDENTAL AMOUNTS OF SPECIAL WASTE —The Contractor recognizes that many customers will prsduce some "Special Waste," as defined above. Incidental quantities of special waste (i.e., quantities that do not materially change the physical or chemical identity of the load or make it hazardous waste), do not require the customer to sign a Generator's Waste Profile Sheet. However, the customer must identify the type and amount of special wastes which will be provided to the Contractor in incidental amounts. PART C. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION 1. METHOD OF SHIPMENT — Indicate the anticipated method of shipment by checking the appropriate box. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL SHIPPING INFORMATION — Enter any additional shipping information. 3. INDICATE IF THIS WASTE IS A USDOT(see 49 CFR 171)OR CANADIAN FEDERAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. If so, answer Questions 4, 5, and 6 below. 4. HAZARD CLASS/ID—Enter the proper USDOT or Canadian Federal hazard class/enter the proper USDOT(see 49 CFR 172) or Canadian Federal Identification Number. 5. REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ)/Units (lb/kg) — Enter the RO established by 40 CFR 302.4 or equivalent Canadian regulation for this waste. Indicate the appropriate units of the RO. 6. SHIPPING NAME - Enter the proper USDOT or Canadian Federal shipping name for this waste. • PART D. TECHINCAL MANAGER DECISION — To be completed by Contractor's representative only. PART E. MANAGEMENT FACILITY INFORMATION/DECISION—To be completed by Contractor's representative only. PART F. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE - If Part B.4 was checked "Tvoe B". qo directly to Part J. 1. COLOR - Describe the color of the waste (e.g., blue, transparent, varies). 2. ODOR - DO NOT SMELL THE WASTE! If the waste has a known incidental odor, then describe it (e.g., acrid. pungent. solvent, sweet). Side 3 of 4 WMNA-4151 (02/92) :x 9 .06". 77 3. PHYSICAL STATE — If the for• 'loxes provided do not apply, a descripti\ hrase may be entered after "Other"(e.g., II gas). • 4. LAYERS - Check all applicable boxes. Multi-layered means more than two layers (e.g., oil/water/sludge). Bi- layered means the waste is comprised of two layers which may or may not be of the same phase (e.g., oil/water, . solvent/sludge). Single phased means the waste is homogeneous. • 5. SPECIFIC GRAVITY- indicate the range. The specific gravity of water is 1.0. Most organics are less than 1.0. Most inorganics and paint sludge are greater than 1.0. 6. FREE LIQUIDS — Check "YES" if liquid is usually present when packaging for shipment and estimate the percent of I liquid volume. CHECK "NO" if there are no free liquids as determined by the Paint Filter Test (Method 9095 of SW- 846) or direct observation. ` 7. pH - Indicate for liquid portions of the waste. Check the appropriate boxes which cover the pH of the waste. Use the ■ "Range" space if appropriate. For solid or organic liquid wastes, indicate the pH of a 10% aqueous solution of the - waste if applicable. Check "NA' for non-water soluble materials (e.g., foundry sands). 8. FLASH POINT - Indicate the flash point obtained using the appropriate testing method. PART G. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION • 1. List all organic and/or inorganic components of the waste using special chemical names. If trade names are used, attach Material Safety Data Sheets or other documents which adequately describe the composition of the waste. For each component, estimate the range (in percents) in which the component is present. In addition, indicate whether any of the TCLP constituents are present in the waste. The total of the maximum values of the components must be greater than or equal to 100% including water, earth, etc. 2. If this waste contains PCBs, cyanides, or sulfides, indicate the concentration(s). If this waste does not contain these constituents, indicate by checking the "NO" box(es) which applies. If the concentration of these constituents is unknown, please indicate "UNK" under "ACTUAL." 3. Indicate whether the method used to determine the chemical composition in G.1. was the TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) method, an analysis to determine the total concentrations, or another method. Specify the other method. PART H. SAMPLING SOURCE — Describe exactly where the sample was taken (i.e., drum, lagoon, pond, tank, etc.). 1 PART I. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE CERTIFICATION — This section only needs to be completed when orovidino a waste samole to Contractor for testing.' Some Special Wastes require analytical data to determine their chemical composition, regulatory status. and if they are acceptable for transportation, treatment or disposal. The sample should be collected in accordance with "Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,' SW-846, USEPA, and/or 40 CFR 261.20(c), or equivalent rules. A suitable sample container for most wastes is a wide mouth glass bottle with a • plastic cap having a non-reactive liner. Plastic containers are recommended for strong caustics or fluorides. Fill to approximately 90% of capacity to allow for expansion during transportation. The sample must be packed and shipped in accordance with U.S. DOT or Canadian equivalent regulations and any specific requirements imposed by the carrier. Improperly packaged samples may be disposed upon receipt. I1. PRINT SAMPLER'S NAME - Enter the sampler's name. 2. SAMPLE DATE — Enter the date that the sample was collected. 3. SAMPLER'S TITLE - Enter the sampler's title. 4. SAMPLER'S EMPLOYER - Enter the name of the sampler's employer. II 5. SAMPLER'S SIGNATURE — The sampler must sign in the space provided. PART J. GENERATOR CERTIFICATION — By signing this Generator's Waste Profile Sheet, the Generator certifies iv IMI— that the statements in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are true and accurate with respect to the waste streams listed. 7. SIGNATURE — An authorized employee of the Generator must sign this Generator's Waste Profile Sheet. 8. TITLE - Enter employee's title. 9. NAME - Enter employee's name. 10. DATE - Enter the date signed. KEEP A COPY OF THIS GENERATOR'S WASTE PROFILE SHEET FOR YOUR RECORDS. SEND THE ORIGINAL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR'S SALES REPRESENTATIVE. WMNA-4151 (02/92) P;,„ firA. Side 4 of 4 .s.ia�,,/ _ SAUNDERS, SNYDER, Ross & DICKSON, P.C. LAW OFFICES JACK F. ROSS JEFFERSON V. HOUPT WAYNE J. FOWLER 707 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 3500 ROBERT D.COMER W.B.TOURTILLOTT,JR. CARMEN M. SOWER WILLIAM J. KIRVEN III DENVER, COLORADO 80202 JAMES W.SANDERSON (303) 292-6600 WILLARD S. SNYDER EUGENE F. MEGYESY,JR. JOHN M. DICKSON CHRISTOPHER R. PAULSON FAX (3031 292-5902 OF COUNSEL DEBORAH L. FREEMAN DAVID C.HALLFORD GLENN G. SAUNDERS DAVID E.9ELLACK (1904-19901 PEGGY E. MONTANO HOLLY I. HOLDER AFFILIATED WITH KRZYTEWSKY&KRZYZEWSKY CHARLES B. HECHT VORCSMARTY TER 3.(LUXUS-HAZ) SPECIAL COUNSEL May 3, 1993 10510351 V.HUNGARY 011 FAX 011-36-1-I 1S-61-05 Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson _ Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street - P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Show Cause Hearing on Central Weld Landfill t., Dear Ms . Harbert and Commissioners: L) This letter is filed on behalf of Waste Services Corporation ( "Waste" ) in response to the April 8, 1993 letter submitted by the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association ( "Association" ) regarding the above matter. We regret that the Association has chosen to continue to submit material to the Commissioners, even though the probable cause hearing has been concluded and the Commissioners have set a future hearing which has not yet commenced. Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated conclusions and misstatements of the Association force us to submit the following clarification. We hope that future correspondence will not be necessitated and that the Association will follow the procedures of the Commissioners . We request that, since the probable cause hearing was closed on April 5 and since the show cause hearing was not begun, the Association' s April 8, 1993 letter not be included in the record of either of these proceedings . In the absence of a ruling from the Commissioners on the above, we are obliged to make the following brief comments and corrections in response to the Association' s April 8, 1993 letter: 1 . The Association requests the Commissioners to order the removal of deposited materials from the Landfill and the immediate commencement of remedial action. These requests go beyond the Commissioners ' authority in this proceeding and are not to be the subject of the show cause hearing. The Commissioners recognized this in the resolution dated April 5, 1993, wherein the subject of the show cause hearing acs y o /7-x/),/2, 1- /C �s .O6. Ms. Connie Harbert May 3, 1993 Page 2 is properly notified as dealing with Condition 1 of the Resolution requiring approval by the State Department of Health. The Association seeks the commencement of remedial action, but, at the same time, opposes the Application for Amendment of Special Use Permit filed by Waste Services Corp. In fact, the amendment application contains the elements for upgrading the facility and provides the vehicle for addressing environmental conditions at the facility. The Association' s objection to that process is contrary to their stated desire to commence remedial action. 2 . There is no basis for the Association's assertion that Waste may not file an application to "amend" the existing approval, but can only apply for a new permit. The holder of the permit, license, or certificate of designation may always request that the terms of the approval be "amended. " In addition, the site is being operated pursuant to a permit, and certainly the Association would not argue that a permittee does not have the right to voluntarily propose an amendment of that permit and subject itself to more specific and detailed permit conditions. This is precisely the nature and purpose of the pending application. 3 . The letter contains numerous misrepresentations as to statements made at the 1971 hearing before the Weld County Commissioners, upon which the Association seeks to revise or revoke the approval of the Landfill . The various statements cited by the Association do not accurately reflect the transcript of the hearing and cannot serve as the basis for revising the approval. In fact, the 1971 resolution approving the Landfill cannot now be revised to reflect conditions that opponents of the Landfill desired to have included in 1971 and, failing that, are again raising. The Association cannot have the 1971 approval invalidated or altered as that would be illegal and unfair. The 1971 resolution has two conditions, and it is only those two conditions that could be subject to review at this time. We concur with the Weld County Commissioners ' Resolution of April 5, 1993, wherein they determined that the show cause hearing will only pertain to Condition of Approval No. 1 in the 1971 Resolution. We strenuously object and oppose the insertion of other irrelevant issues suggested in the Association's letter. We also disagree with the assertion that the various issues raised at the hearing, but not included in the approval, were material to the issuance of the land use approval in 1971 and that they are enforceable by citizens. It is our position that certain parties t j /C, 5.C1.06s"t Ms. Connie Harbert May 3, 1993 Page 3 attempted to include additional conditions in the 1971 approval, but they were unsuccessful . Consequently, the absence of those conditions in the 1971 approval demonstrate that they were not intended to be conditions of approval and that they cannot now be added as conditions after the fact. 4 . We disagree with the Association's arguments as to compli- ance with the Department of Health approval requirement of Condition 1 of the resolution. Our position is that we are in total compliance with Condition 1 . Furthermore, this particular issue will be the specific subject of the show cause hearing. 5 . We object to the Association's characterization of Waste' s efforts to respond to citizens ' concerns as attempts to modify rules. In fact, it is the opponents of the Landfill who testified in 1971 and again in 1993 who are attempting to revisit and impose their will upon a certificate 27 years after they were unsuccessful in stopping or conditioning the Landfill ' s approval. 6 . References were made to an opinion from an attorney in the Colorado Attorney General 's office regarding interpretation of certain portions of the Colorado Department of Health's regulations as applied to the Central Weld Landfill. It was asserted that the opinion has found a violation of section 2 . 1 .4 of the regulations. In fact, the opinion states that the Colorado Department of Health has made a claim that the Landfill "appears to violate this section. " The Attorney General ' s office only concluded that if facts exist support- ing that claim, then a violation would lie. The determina- tion of whether or not a violation exists requires proof by the Colorado Department of Health of the facts needed to support the asserted violation, which we do not believe has yet occurred. Finally, we hope that future actions dealing with this Landfill will proceed as ordered by the Commissioners and that the show cause hearing will not be preempted by future letters, submittals, etc. , to the Commissioners prior to the show cause hearing. It is inappropriate, burdensome, and prejudicial for the Association to try its case through these submittals prior to the scheduled show cause hearing. However, in order to be able to protect our rights, we request to be furnished with copies of all correspondence and submittals to and from the public and/or their counsel dealing with any matter pertaining to the Central Weld Landfill . "x 0 9_n� / Ms . Connie Harbert May 3, 1993 Page 4 We hope and hereby offer our cooperation to address the issues of concern and to resolve these matters with the Commissioners and the citizens without undue burden upon the Commissioners, and we would like to avoid the need for further submittals, assertions, and arguments prior to the scheduled hearing and outside the normal process . Very truly yours, SAUNDERS, SNYDER, ROSS & DICKSON, P.C. ne F. Me e y, EFM:cps 20099.1.m cc: Dr. Patricia Nolan Mr. Glenn Mallory Mr. John Pickle Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Mr. Lee Morrison Gregory J. Hobbs, Esq. O �.! C 1 -r /C: /L e.;- r©�& 7?94 Ilj P C Attorneys At Law - ?. 7 1775 Sherman Street•Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)861-1963•Fax: (303)832-4465 May 2, 1993 Mr. Arthur P. Roy Attorney at Law 1011 11th Avenue P.O. Box 326 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Your letter of April 22, 1993, Regarding Central Weld Landfill Dear Mr. Roy: Thank you for your letter of April 22 . It was most surprising to learn that my clients, who include property owners adjacent to the Central Weld Landfill and who continue to suffer the public nuisances caused by the landfill, are being subjected to an argument that they do not have standing to be heard at the public hearing which the Weld County Commissioners scheduled for October 13, 1993 . The applicable statute under which the Certificate of Designation Revocation hearing will be held, C. R.S. 30-20-112, specifically provides for a "public hearing" . Your notion that the public can be excluded from participating in a public hearing is novel . I have copied you with my correspondence to the Weld County Commissioners precisely because our participation in the April 5 hearing and the granting of the October 13 hearing demonstrated the standing of our clients to raise all issues germane to the illegal operation of the Central Weld County Landfill, including those issues contained in our letters of April 8, 1993 and April 19, 1993 . As to Commissioner Kirkmeyer' s motion and the issues to be considered at the October 13, 1993, hearing, I am requesting by copy of this letter to the Weld County Commissioners that they examine the original of Commissioner Kirkmeyer' s motion and amend the ensuing resolution setting the hearing, so as to embrace all matters of non-compliance at the facility. Due process for your clients and my clients can only be served by a full and fair hearing. To that end I am suggesting that we agree to reciprocal discovery. Further, I must insist on behalf of my clients that your clients suspend immediately all operations at the Central Weld Landfill . That facility is presently operating in violation of condition no. 1 of the special use permit which required approval /TX Ain/t // (c : N,t, f/ , ,9DCc: 9ZiOE by the Health Department, is causing trash to be blown on my client ' s property, constituting trespass as well as nuisance, is operating without a required pollution discharge control permit, and is leaching contaminants into groundwater. C.R.S. 30-20-112 provides that the Commissioners "shall temporarily suspend or revoke" the certificate of designation upon failure of the facility to comply with "all" laws and regulations which apply to it after "reasonable notice and public hearing" . Reasonable notice and public hearing occurred on April 5, 1993, and there were admitted violations consisting of VOC groundwater contamination and the lack of a discharge permit. Evidently you and your clients do not wish to have another "public hearing" . We have ordered the transcript of the April 5 hearing; it provides the immediate basis for at least temporary suspension of the Certificate of Designation. Upon receipt of the transcript we will be asking the Commissioners to review it and suspend the Certificate of Designation. Your attempt to have my clients and other members of the public excluded from the October 13, 1993, hearing and the fact that the facility is in non- compliance each day of its operation, demonstrates the necessity of the Commissioners protecting the public interest. Please call me at your earliest opportunity regarding a discovery schedule. Sincerely, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. for Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. c: Weld County Commissioners Mr. Lee Morrison Mr. Gene Megyesy Mr. Glenn Mallory ='x r/ '."3 1nf Arthur P. Rug 4 R�'vet Hoeg, April 22, 1993 TR0UT&9q(�993 C Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Attorney at Law 1775 Sherman Street, #1300 Denver, CO 80203 RE; Central We1.R Landfill - Waste Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Hobbs: Thank you for providing me with copies of your correspondence to Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson, Weld County Commissioners, dated April 8, 1993, and April 19, 1993. I appreciate you represent parties who are interested in the future operation or closure of the Central Weld Landfill but your clients are not parties to any matters pending before the Weld County Commissioners. The Weld County Commissioners are conducting a quasi-judicial proceeding to determine whether or not the Central Weld Landfill is in violation of its zoning permit. Weld County and Waste Services, Inc. , are the parties to this proceeding. The decision to be reached by the Weld County Commissioners must be made on the record at the hearing. I will urge on October 13, 1993, that presentations be limited to the parties to the proceedings and that an open forum with evidence, comments, and argument from others on matters outside the notice denies fundamental due process. Unsolicited communications between counsel and the Commissioners containing factual representations and legal argument, whether related to the issues or not, are, in my opinion, inappropriate. In your letter of April 8, 1993, you essentially continue to argue facts concerning which there is a considerable dispute and you continue to argue points of law concerning which there is substantial disagreement. My client will, of necessity, have to respond to your letter of April 8, 1993 , to correct the factual allegations and refute the legal argument to avoid the appearance that it concedes either. A continuing discourse in this manner is not in the interest of anyone. With respect to your letter of April 19, 1993, it appears to be your perception that Waste Services, Inc. , is not entitled to notice of the issues to be heard at the hearing to be held October 13, 1993, as evidenced by your statement "that the Commissioners The Law Building - 1011 11th Avenue - P.O. Box 326 - Greeley, Colorado 80632 e Telephone (303) 356-5400 - FAX (303) 356-1111 9h6a EX // Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. April 22, 1993 Page 2 make it clear that the October 13 hearing will be open to presentation of whatever issues and evidence pertain to whether the Certificate of Designation should be revoked. " Not only is this statement a blatant misstatement of the law it is designed to deny Waste Services Inc. , an essential element of substantive due process which is, as you well know, notice. The resolution of the Board of County Commissioners dated April 5, 1993, fairly and accurately sets forth the motion of Commissioner Kirkmeyer whose discussion was limited to whether or not the site had been approved by the State Department of Health in 1971. To the extent, if any, the motion of Commissioner Kirkmeyer requires interpretation or construction of the findings set forth in the written resolution of April 5, 1993, fully clarify the matter. It would seem appropriate to me that all counsel reserve further comment or argument until the hearing October 13, 1993, before the Weld County Commissioners or to such other hearing at which they (jtrulYl? e heard either prior to or following the hearing of October 3. Arthur P. Ro Y Attorney at Law APR:elh pc: Marian King Bill Jaffrey William Hedberg Lee Morrison Weld County Commissioners Zx // O ti s _ i Mays .k @3 Dear Connie Harbert, Recently I have learned that the Greeley-Milliken Landfill, operated by Waste Management, Inc. is an operation which might not be in the best interests of the people around it, as well as downstream water users. I would like to voice my concern that more investigating be done to discover the full extent of the damage being caused by this landfill in order to stop it and keep it from happening again in the future. It has been shown that there is lead, mercury, arsenic and several other dangerous chemicals in nearby wells. Water from holding ponds nearby the landfill is diverted into the Pig Thompson river, that is, when it's not used to irrigate farmland. This landfill is in danger of contaminating the local water supplies which could pose a problem for people living locally who use this water everyday. Reports and documents state that over the years numerous dangerous materials have been dumped in this landfill. Many companies have disposed of contaminated _oil as well as the possibility of many tons of pesticides during the seventies. The operators of the landfill feel that they should be allowed to continue to operate without interruption and I feel that investigation should be done as to what exactly has been put into this landfill before any expansions be allowed. A concerned citizen, 453344-0 Derek Barvoets 2125 6th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Exh/bil- CC ,QnCf_, Art1Iur J. fang 1i May 14, 1993 Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Attorney at Law 1775 Sherman Street, #1300 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Central Weld Landfill Dear Mr. Hobbs: I am in receipt of your letter of May 2, 1993 . It is regrettable that we are continuing a debate by correspondence which is best left to the hearing. I would much prefer to argue within the process established by the Weld County Commissioners. Let me correct misinterpretation of my earlier correspondence and reply to your more recent comments and suggestions. I do not expect that the public will be excluded from attending or participating in the public hearing even though there may be a question with respect to standing. I continue to believe, however, and will urge that evidence, comments, and arguments must be limited by the issues framed in notice of hearing. The presentation of matters outside the notice is inappropriate and would result in the denial of fundamental due process rights relating to a vested property right. There is no provision for discovery in these matters and discovery does not appear to be either necessary or appropriate. Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. , and Waste Services, Inc. , have been open and candid with Weld County and the Colorado Department of Health with regard to the operation of the Central Weld Landfill. All of the information provided with regard to the past, present, and proposed future operation of the facility are public records subject to inspection in accordance with applicable law. In addition, discovery in the manner envisioned by the civil rules would be burdensome, expensive, subject to abuse without supervision which the Weld County Commissioners are not equipped to do, and would be largely duplicative with regard to the vast amount of information already in the public record. There are no present plans to close or suspend operations pending resolution of the proceedings. It is the position of Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. , and Waste Services, Inc. , that the facility is being, and has been, operated in compliance with the The Law Building - 1011 11th Avenue - P.O. Box 326 - Greeley, Colorado 80632 CA ��C4 Teleohone (303) 356-5400 - FAX (303) 356.1111 •i V Ex A/1- /3 ziecc , ix-, /� Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. May 14, 1993 Page 2 Special Use Permit and the Certificate of Designation and that the proceeding to terminate have not been completed. In addition, closure or suspension of operations is not advisable from either an environmental, service, or business perspective. There will be no closure or suspension of operations unless, and until, an appropriate order has been issued and all appeals therefrom either waived or exhausted. My clients will follow the terms of their existing approval and fully cooperate with Weld County and the Colorado Department of Health in this matter. I wish to proceed with this matter in an orderly and appropriate fashion. Continued bickering, posturing, and exchange of rhetoric with copies to the public officials who will ultimately determine the tter continues to be, in my judgment, inappropriate, digni ied, and unnecessarily expensive. Yours r '1 La J Arthur P. Roy Attorney at Law APR:elh pc: Marian King Bill Jeffrey William Hedberg Lee Morrison Weld County Commissioners S 1061 EX. r3 IES-: ran. R_ , P C 1( ' n, r— IX 719 n• Attorneys At Law b 1775 Sherman Street•Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)861-1963•Fax: (303)832-4465 Ext . 123 May 19 , 1993 Ms . Linda Shearman Colorado Board of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222- 1530 Re: Supplement to Our Letter of May 17 , 1993 Proposed Solid Waste Regulations Board of Health Hearing May 19 , 1993 , Fort Collins Dear Ms . Shearman: This letter supplements our letter of May 17, 1993, and we ask that both letters be included in the record of your consideration regarding the proposed solid waste regulations . We ask the Board of Health to adopt the proposal we made in our May 17 letter and ask you to remove the "grandfathering" provision that has been placed into proposed section 3 . 1. 10 at the request of Waste Management Inc. which owns and operates the Central Weld County landfill . By letter of December 21, 1992, attached, Mr. Roger Doak and Mr. Glenn Mallory notified Waste Management Inc. that the Central Weld County landfill was in violation of section 2 . 1. 4 of the existing regulations prohibiting water pollution and that "solid wastes have been placed into ground water at this facility" , p. 4, letter of December 21, 1992 . Waste Management' s response of February 4, 1993 , attached, included a proposal to reword proposed section 3 . 1. 10 of the solid waste management regulations to provide that "The operation of sites and facilities that place waste into groundwater after the effective date of these regulations is prohibited" , p. 3, letter of February 4, 1993 . The March 30 , 1993 , draft of the proposed regulations contains, word for word, Waste Management Inc. ' s grandfather provision. This provision was and is intended by Waste Management to remove legal requirements applicable to the Central Weld County facility and render unenforceable representations made by the applicant in 1971 in the course of obtaining the certificate of designation from the Weld County Commissioners for its siting. inch 'id' / 7/ cc : .c-3"cc, /-?L, ,&4_ 931061 Waste Management ' s attempt to repeal protections for the environment and the public should be soundly and thoroughly rejected by the Board of Health, and section 3 . 1. 10 should be revised to include the language we proposed in our May 17 letter. A central issue in the September 22, 1971, certificate of designation hearing before the Weld County Commissioners was whether trash would contact groundwater and cause water pollution. Residents of the area who had farmed for generations testified that the landfill could not be operated successfully at the site because of the high groundwater table. The applicant ' s response was that it would be bound by the proposed rules being considered by the State Board of Health at that time which, when adopted, would require a design, engineering and operations plan, that trash would not contact groundwater, and that water pollution would not occur at the site: "Also, the Department is required to develop and promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to the engineering design and operation. These are to be presented to the Board of Health at their regular meeting in October for adoption. " Hearing Transcript of September 22 , 1971, p. 5 (Earl Moffat for the Applicant) "Well, Ralph, like I explained a while ago, we' re so bound down and so tight now by regulations, supervised by qualified engineers of the State, Norm Parson, that, sure there' s nothing there that we can do that would be, that will make, a problem. . . " Hearing Transcript of September 22 , 1971, p. 7 (Earl Moffat for the Applicant) Orville Stoddard of the State Health Department assured the Commissioners and the public that if water pollution occurred the operation would be shut down: "The important thing that we will be looking at, of course, is to make sure that water pollution does not occur from this operation in any way, shape or form. Hearing Transcript of September 22, 1971, pp. 30-31 (Orville Stoddard for State Department of Health) After hearing these representations, the Weld County Commissioners included the following provision in the resolution which authorized issuance of the certificate of designation: 2 . Ex. �� ; 106 z 1 . That any sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be approved by the State Department of Health. Resolution of October 6, 1971, Weld County Commissioners Having received the Certificate of Designation, the owners and operators of the Central Weld County landfill did not file a design, engineering and operations plan and did not receive the approval of the Health Department prior to commencing operations at the site. In a letter to Kent Hanson of September 18, 1992, Austin Buckingham of the State Department of Health stated that: "To the Division' s knowledge, no design or operations plan has ever been developed for the landfill, nor are any plans of this nature contained in the Division files" . Letter of Austin Buckingham to Kent Hanson, September 18, 1992, p. 2 Waste Management ' s response is that the facility was grandfathered from the State' s design, engineering, operations plan requirement and any need to obtain the approval of the State Health Department prior to operations, despite the specific assurances of the applicant that it would be bound by the State regulations which were in draft form in October of 1971 and were subsequently adopted in February of 1972 . The Weld County Commissioners have scheduled a public hearing, after finding probable cause for revocation of the certificate of designation, to be held October 13 , 1993, regarding compliance with the condition of its October 6, 1971, resolution requiring approval by the Health Department . In accordance with C.R.S. 30-20-112, the certificate of designation revocation hearing should also include issues of violation of the State Department of Health regulations, but Waste Management Inc . is seeking to exclude the Department and citizens of Weld County from bringing these matters into the certificate of designation revocation hearing. what the State of Colorado and the citizens of Weld County face is a concerted attempt by Waste Management to continue operations at site which is unsuitable for a landfill operation, to grandfather the operation from all applicable representations, standards, and legal requirements, and to change the legal requirements applicable to the site. 3 . ET . /g 3 We implore you to issue regulations and orders which require closure and remediation of facilities like the Central Weld Sanitary landfill . Sincerely, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. for Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C. cc: Dr. Patricia Nolan Weld County Commissioners Mr. Lee Morrison Mr. John Pickle Ashton-Daniels Neighorhood Association Ex. ,9 a n DEC-23-92 WED 12:48 P. 05 Bill Hedberg Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 4/5 6. Table 5.1 in the "Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado" is inadequate. The following parameters shall be added to Table 5-1: all 34 volatile organic compounds ('VOCs) included in the "tlydrogeotogical and Geotechnieal Chruacte izatlon for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill; carbon disulfide; dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane; radionuclides; chromium; barium and nickel. Table 5-1 shall be changed to read "Groundwater and Surface Water Parameter List Central Weld Sanitary Landfill? 7. AU piezometers shall be monitored for depth to ground water. Monitoring shall be conducted during each quarterly sampling event and data submitted to the Division. 8. The Division requests that those constituents identified from monitoring well GWMW-5N(target parameter list)be analyzed on a monthly basis. Sampling shall commence during January 1993 and continue for twelve(12)consecutive months. Routine quarterly sampling of this well shall continue for the established suite of parameters. If additional constituents are identified during quarterly sampling they will be added to the target list The Division will evaluate sample frequency and parameters after completion of this sampling schedule. C. AREAS OF NON-COMPI1ANCE I. Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has contaminated the ground water. This is a violation of subsection 2.1.4 of the Regulations. Regulations eg P eons der state a site and facility operated as a sanitary pollution. Please provide a corrective action plan which addresses the contamination issues on and off site. 2. Solid wastes have been placed into ground water at this facility. The Purpose, Scope and Applicability as defined in Section 3 of the proposed revised State's Solid Waste Regulations, defines standards for new landfills,existing landfills and lateral expansions. Subsection 3.1.11 (draft of Noovembe�r 5, 1�ser�" "landfills shall not place wastes below or into surface gr Ex i4' o§ r- ..„,-.., .... -caa�.. r_7 GI ndh1�7F r--r- DEC-23-92 WED 12:48 P. 06 Bill Hedberg Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 5/5 Please be aware, the Division fully expects the proposed revised Solid Waste Regulations will become effective in the very near future. At that time Central Weld Sanitary Landfill will be in violation of area 'C, point #2 as detailed above. As the owner and operator of this facility, Waste Services Corporation, is notified that the areas of non-cornpllance described above are a public nuisance. Please be advised that the Division will take whatever action is deemed appropriate and accessary to obtain correction of these violations and protect the public health and environment. These conclude the Division's comments concerning issues raised about Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. Please respond to the issues detailed above in a comprehensive document within two weeks of the receipt of this letter. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 303.692.3437. Sincerely, • I Rege,5 Doak Glenn . Mallory Geologist Section Leader Solid Waste Section Solid Waste Section Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Waste Management Division cc: r. Pickle, Weld County Health Department L. Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney A. Scheere, Waste Management of North America B. Taylor, CDH, WQCD L Perrault, Attorney General's Office Weld County Department of Planning Weld County Commicsloners Bile; $W/WLD/CEN/Correspondence Mr. Glenn F. Mallory February 4, 1993 Page 3 Section 3.1.9 This standard of 'emphasizing favorable geologic conditions over engineered Improvements of marginal geologic conditions' Is subjective in content and has been difficult to define for many years In public hearings and In litigation. No definition exists for the regulators or the regulated community. It Is recommended that given incorporation of the more restrictive Subtitle D standards Into Colorado's regulations, this subjective requirement be deleted. Section 3.1.10 Since this is an operational, rather than a locational, standard, we recommend that fr it be moved to Section 3.3. This standard requires clarification to Indicate that placement-c ste into groundwater ltprohihitnd / Vile recommend that a stt�econd sentence of Section 3.1.10 be reworded to state that 'The operation of sites and facilities that place waste into groundwater after the effective date of these regulations is prohibited.' As currently drafted, this regulation would penalize owners/operators that Identify surface water or groundwater In contact with waste. Only about one-third of the solid waste disposal facilities in Colorado currently monitor groundwater. Facility data may not be available for the remaining sites to ascertain site conditions. Further, historic practices or artificial influences in the surrounding groundwater table may have caused groundwater to infiltrate waste regardless of past or present waste placement activities. The remainder of the existing unit or lateral expansion of the site may be lined or planned for construction of liner material. Section 7 A definition section regarding terms such as material recovery facility, intermediate processing center and active operating area should be developed for clarification of terms. The following definitions are offered: Material Recovery Facility (MRF): A facility designed to receive and process recydabie materials. Intermediate Processing Facility: A facility designed to remove recyclable!' ham unprocessed municipal solid waste. Active Operating Area: An area that includes all areas of unloading, ballbc corrtplp. storing and out loading. Ex- / ii)Z1.06': 7 Mr. Glenn F. Mallory February 4, 1833 Page 4 Section 7.2.2(A)(6) This section requires truck wheel curbs. Our experience has shown that curbs may be unnecessary if trucks are not permitted to back close to unloading areas. Therefore, this requirement should be more performance related to state "measures shall be provided to prevent backing into pits while unloading'. B.3 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Requirements (258.52) We recommend that the requirement '... ground water samples shall not be field- filtered prior to laboratory analysis' be deleted in Section B since the previous sentence indicates: (1) that analytical methods shall be according to Colorado Department of Health guidelines or an EPA approved method; and (2) a proposed rule lifting the ban on field filtering is being considered by EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and participate In the development of the draft Solid Waste Regulations to incorporate Subtitle D requirements. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these comments and questions with you further if any clarifications are required prior to the March, 1993 hearing date. Sincerely, OttgateigieWS Leonard J. Butler, P.E., DEE Vice President - Environmental Management cc: Tom Schweitzer, WMC Bruce Clabaugh, WMC Charles Bayley, WMC fi Subtitle D/Colo. 2.3 n X. 1y to .�i.�.o1�J6s y J __ Kent Hanson, Attorney at Law Central Weld County Landfill September 18, 1992 Page 2 of 3 approval of the plan, the application shall be amended. The regulation does not state that the Certificate of Designation shall be amended. The County must utilize its own discretion or regulation as to whether an amended Certificate of Designation is required for facilities solid waste amend their 'r application, but continue to perform the same type l. 2. The Central Weld County Landfill received a Certificate of Designation on October 6, 1971. At that time, the state had not promulgated solid waste regulations pursuant to the Statute. Between 1968 (the date the Statute became effective) and 1972, solid waste disposal sites and facilities complied with the minimum standards set forth in the Statute. The minimum standards detailed operational standards, but did not specifically require a design and operations plan. In 1972 regulations were promulgated pursuant to the Statute. That 1972 regulation set forth the requirement that all landfills with an existing Certificate of Designation were 'grandfathered,' that is they were required to meet the minimum standards of section 3, but not the standards of section 4 (which applied to all solid waste disposal sites and facilities that were designated after the effective date of the regulation). In 1983,when the regulations were revised to their current form. The Division concurs, and certainly Subtitle D will require, that the Central Weld County Landfill must develop an enhanced design and operations plan / to bring the facility up to current standards. To the Division's knowledge, no� design or operations plan has ever been developed for the landfill, nor are any plans of this nature contained in the Division files. 3. It is true, that ground water contamination has been identified off-site. The County has wisely chosen to allow the facility to take over the ground water monitoring activities at the landfill. The Central Weld County Landfill has expanded the list of ground water analytes, and through this effort has revealed the presence of volatile organics in the ground water. Golder old r Associates has recently submitted a hyrogeologic and g l characterization report detailing and summarizing recent investigations. The Division is in the process of reviewing the report, and will work with Weld County and Waste Services Corporation to obtain a satisfactory resolution to the ground water contamination issue. 4. Waste Services Corporation does intend to submit (and is currently in process Fx /y fi""2.n i Kent IIanson, Attorney at Law Central Weld County Landfill September 18, 1992 Page 3 of 3 of developing) a comprehensive site development plan, and a design and operations plans. The Division has not been informed of any pending change in operations at the Central Weld County Landfill during this interim period. 5 final elevation ivision is not aware of any existing requirement that the of the landfill may not exceed the adjacent land surface. Hopefully, this letter responds to your issues. The Division is interested in pursuing, and will pursue the ground water contamination identified at the site, and in bringing the facility up to the State's standards. Thank-you for your letter and for the extension you were able to grant, so that an adequate response could be prepared. may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions or concerns. Si erely Aus in N. Buckingham Geologist Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Hedberg, Central Weld County Landfill B. Keirnes, Waste Services Corporation G. Kennedy, Weld County Commissioners L Morrison, Weld County Attorney D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department A. Scheere, Waste Management of North America K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning file: SW/WLD/CENTRAL Z5 , ,V ,rr ... /o Hello