HomeMy WebLinkAbout931598.tiff 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.
931 598
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
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
:1061.
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
71.061
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
:10g1
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. )
'Albion 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. )
'According 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
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
71.08*.
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
r,.:11.061
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. 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
21.04:.
"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
10
931061
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
931061
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
931061
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
931061
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
931061
931061
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. H bbs, Jr. , 41109
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
931061
•
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH •
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND SANITATION
ACTIVITY REPORT Code MS-6
Section Engineering
County Weld
FILE REFERENCE: Weld County - MS-6 Earl Moffatt. Contractor
INDIVIDUAL OR
ESTABLISHMENT: Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site.
ADDRESS:
NARRATIVE: A meeting was held at the proposed sanitary landfill site located
approximately 9 miles south and west of Greeley. The estimated area
of the site is 106 acres. Present were William Gahr, Orville Stoddard
and Ron Schuyler of the Colorado Department of Health; Dr. Cleaver
and Glen Paul of the Weld County Health Department, and Earl Moffat,
Contractor and site operator.
The purpose of the meeting was to review in general the suitability
of the site and the submittal of an engineering report required by
the State Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended in 1971.
Earl Moffatt described in general terms:
1. Location and access relative to centroids of a generation.
2. Traffic control to and from the site for an estimated 500
vehicles per day.
3. Method of site operation, areas to be excavated, areas to
be filled, and the depth of the excavation.
4. Finish topography and planned land use.
5. Stock piling of top soil and cover material.
6. Construction and location of fences to control blowing refuse.
Also the use of stockpiled cover material as a natural barrier.
7. Personnel and equipment at the site to provide daily cover and
'H means to prevent and control fires.
8. The methods for controlling surface drainage.
9. The results of previous soil borings indicate underground water
problems to be minimal at this location.
The requirements for an engineering report describing design and
operation of the site, public hearings, recommended approval by the
Weld County Commissioners prior to operation were discussed.
A kit containing a check list for reviewing an "Application for Cer-
tificate of Designation," and "County-wide Disposal" and copies of
the State Solic Waste Disposal Act with a draft of rules and regula-
tions was transmitted to those present. These are to provide guidance
in the development and review of the required engineering report.
LETTER TO FOLLOW: ( ) OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:
pEXHIBIT
DATE: July 15 1971 REPRESE
A
P , Qe —
ES: 7 (Rev. 6-70-100) 931061
ACTIVITY REPORT
Section: Engineering Date: July 15, 1971
Code: MS-6
County: Weld
Reference: Weld County - MS-6
Earl Moffatt, Contractor
Subject: Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site: Page 2
NARRATIVE: Earl Moffatt did not want to go to the expense of an engineering
firm and have the application for the "Certificate of Designation"
refused by the County Commissioners. He was also concerned about
the time lapse from submittal of the application until such time
as the site could be used. He estimates approximately six months
at the present disposal site.
Glen Paul was of the opinion the information required in the en-
gineering report could be supplied by county staff personnel and
submitted to the Department for review and recommended approval.
He felt much of the geographical, geological, hydrological, cli-
mateological maps and specific data is readily available from
the Soils Conservation Service, and the County engineers office.
Details of site facilities, equipment and site operation plan
were obtainable from the site operator.
Mr. Gahr and 0. Stoddard stressed the importance of submitting a
complete report at an early date to enable the department to pro-
vide recommended approval or disapproval prior to the public
hearing and site designation.
A copy of the procedural guide for a special use permit application
and a special use application form was discussed by Glen Paul.
The proposed land use, sanitary landfill operation, does require
a special use permit.
0. Stoddard, P.E.
cc: Dr. Cleaver
County Commissioners
931061
APR 1 '9: 1446 FROM AIELD CO TRERSJRER TO 18:L24465 PHGE.t'N`i'C.. i
. ..-�_... .. . I•. - -
. yes
OFFICE OF •
WELD COUNTY BOARD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/. / r _ COMMISSIONERS
MARSHALL. H. ANDERSON PHONE (!OS) 353-2212
_
_ HARRY 8. ASHLEY
(s pl GLENN K. flit I INKS COURTHOUSE
23
OURTHOUSE Lt
COLORADO GREELEY. tiosal
July 21, 1971
Weld County Planning Commission
County Services Building
Greeley, Colorado
Gentlemen:
Please review the enclosed application form for a waste disposal
site and return said application to our office An noon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Board of County Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado
By:l feera
• e sman
•
EXHIBIT •
I A , D,-;_
931061
0,0
6'111.1
A r !f � a
August 13, 1971
Mr. Glenn K. Billings, Chairman
Weld County Commissioners
County Courthouse
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Billings: RE: Engineering Design end
operation of a proposed
sanitary landfill
The report on the proposed site has been reviewed by this
department. Br. Earl Moffat made a valid point in his letter
concerning the preparation of the required engineering report
prior to assurance the site would be designated by the County
Commissioners. The information presented and a site visit by
numbers of the department and Mr. Moffat indicate this to be a
suitable site. It is recommended the site location be approved
and the designation be made contingent upon the submittal of
au engineering report concerning the design and operation of
the site as described in Regulation 3 and 4 of the attached
proposed regulations. Some of this was included in the
information submitted.
If there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance
feel free to contact this department at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
William M. Gahr, Director
Division of Engineering E. Sanitation
WNG:OBSrgm
EXHIBIT
eq .o, 3
931061
•
COLOPADO DEPARTMJ1C' 0?' HEALTH
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 60220
REGULATIONS: SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AHD FACILITIES
AUTHORITY: Chapter 33, Article 23, CRS 1563 (1257 T:r.... Cru. Supp. ) as
amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws 1971.
The following re ;ulatioas were adopted by The Colorado State
Board of Health pnr:;uant to Colorado Revise.• Staratcs 1963,
Section 3--16-2 as a..._n'ied, and Chapter 36, Article 23, C2S
1963 (19.7 .Per , Cute. Su:p.j as emended by Chapter 103, Colorado
Session L:n:s 1971 , for the designation, operation, me.'.n!:eneanco ,
and desior, of Solid l:r.ate lli-s_.osal Sites and Facilities.
Adopted February ' 197'
Effective Date April I , 19i72
Section 1. SCOPE. These regulations shall he applicable to all solid S. .Bio
disposal sites and facilities, whether designated by ordinance within the
corporate limits of any city, city and county, or incorporated town or by
the Board of County Commissioners in unincorporated areas,
Section 2. PF,PLPI,.iTI ,,.
_(-:,S (1) The following definitions extracted from Section
36-23-1, CRS 1963, as amended, shall apply when appearing in these
regulations:
a. "Solid waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge of sewage disposal
plants, and other discarded solid materials, including solid
waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and from
community activities, but shall not include agricultural caste.
b. "DepartELut " means the Department of Health.
T
m t c. "Approved site or facility" mean:; a site or facility for. which
o
c a "Certificate of Designation" has been obtained, as provided
931061
-1-
-2 in this -act .
d. "Person" means an individual, partnership, private or municipal
corporation, firm, or other association of persons.
e. "Solid waste disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment,
,
utilization, processing, or final disposal of solid wastes.
f. "Solid waste disposal site and facility" means the location and
facility at which the deposit and final treatment of solid
wastes occur.
• rr
g. Transfer station" means a facility at which refuse awaiting
transportation to a disposal site, as transferred from one type
of collection vehicle and placed into another. -
h. "Recyclable materials"-means a type of material that is subject
t
• to reuse or recycling.
1. "Recycling Operation" means that part of a solid waste disposal
facility or a part of a general disposal facility at which
recyclable materials may be separated from other materials for
future processing.
Definitions. (2) Jther terms used in the .statute or regulations are defined
as follows :
a. "Certificate of Designation" means a document issued under
authority of the Board of County Commissioners to a person
operating a solid waste disposal site and facility of a
certain type and at a certain location.
b. "Mill-tailing:s"are that refuse material resulting from the
processing of ore in a mill.
c. "Metallurgical slag" is the cinder or dross waste product
resulting; in the ref inin;, of moral boarini; ores.
931061
-3.
d. "Mining wastes" are either mill-tailings or metallurgical slag
• or both .
e . A "junk automobile" is defined to be the hulk or body of a motor
vehicle essentially suitable only for one use as scrap metal .
Junk automobile parts constitute the normally recyclable materials
obtainable from a motor vehicle.
f. "Suspended solids" are finely divided mineral and organic sub-
. stances contained in the sewage existing in a sewage nyatem.
g. "Engineering ..eta" shall r,:^_an information dc: cr;.bi s the area of
disposal &ices in acres , a description of the access roads and
roads within the site , a description of fancin2 enclosing the
disposal site, and overall plan listing the method or Tsethods by
which the disposal site will be filled with refuse fU5.. e..a the li7_ to
which it will be placed once the site is filled and closed.
h. "Geological data" shall mean classes of soil to a reasonable
depth from the ground surface, the location and thickness of
the significant soil classifications throughout the area of the
site and to extend some distance beyond the boundaries of the
site , to include information on ground water elevations , seepage
quantities and water wells 1 ,000 feet beyond the boundary of
the disposal site.
i . "Hydrological data" shall include average, maximum, and minimum
amounts of precipitation for each month of the year, surface
• drainage facilities , streams and lakes adjacent to the disposal
site, irrigation water ditches adjacent to the site, wells ,
streams and lakes .
r j . "Operational data" shall include a plan for overall supervision
of the disposal site to include supervisory personrc1 end Labc•r
931061
•
-4-
personnel , ecuip:aent and machinery consisting of all items
needed for satisfactory landfill operation , traffic control,
fire control , cover material , working face, moisture content ,
compaction control , and rodent and insect control .
k. "Sanitary landfill" is the final disposal of solid waste on the
land by a caehod employing compaction of the refuse and covering
with earth oz other inert material .
1 . A "coaposti:--_ plant" is a solid waste disposal facility utilizing
bi.oche.aical degradation to chane.e decomposable portions of solid
waste to a __-.us-like material .
m. "Incineratie is the controlled combustion of solid , liquid or
gaseous waste changing them to gases and to a residue containing
c
little co-..,_t_ ib1e material .
n . "Hazardous z.atrial and toxic substances" are liquid or solids
which can be dangerous to man, animal and pian`.life unless
properly neutralized .
o. . "Minimum Standards" (See Section 3) shall mean the requirements
which shall `_ applied to all solid waste disposal sites and
facilities .
p. "Engineering _.- port Design Criteria" (See Section 4) shall mean
the minimum requirements which shall be applied to new facilities
proposed for designation as a solid waste disposal site and
facility.
Section 3. 1'.I`�I;: ;". STA:;l'A=nS (1) (a) the following minimum standards are
hereby adopted and incorp;rs'ed herein as directed by Section 36-23- 10 CRS
1963, as amended;
(b) Such site zn..i facilities shall be located, operated , and main-
931061
-5-
tatned in a manner so as to control obnoxious odors , prevent rodent and
insect breeding and infestation, and shall be uaq
kept adequately covered
during their use.
(c) Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws ,
standards , rules and ragulatious of the Department , the Air Pollution
Control Commission, the Water Pollution Control Commission, and all applicable
•
zoning laws and ordinances .
(d) No radioactive materials or materials contaminated by radio-
active substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not speci-
fically designated for that purpose .
(e) 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 nuslance conditions such as odors, windblown debris , insects , rodents ,
smoke, and shall provide compacted fill material , adequate cover with suit-
able material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and water and
wind erosion; prevent water and air pollution and, upon being filled, shall
be left in a condition of orderliness, good esthetic appearance and capable
of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of such a site and
facility, the golid wastes shall be distributed in the smallest area consistent
with handling traffic to be unloaded, shall be placed in the most dense volume
• practicable using moisture and compaction or other method approved by the
Department, shall be fire, insect and rodent resistent through the appli-
cation of an adequate layer on inert material at regular intervals and shall
have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed into the fill .
(f) Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as to pre nt
waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and debris
931061
-G-
shall not be allowed to accumulate along the fence line .
(g) Solid wastes deposited at any site or facility shall not be
burned, provided , however, that in extreme emergencies resulting in the
generation of large quantities of combustible materials, authorization for
burning under controlled conditions may be given by 'the Department .
Section 4 . PSCr_EPIEG REPORT DESIGN CRITERIA
a. The design of a solid waste disposal facility hereinafter
designated shall be such as to protect surface and subsurface
waters from contamination . Surface water from outside the
immediate working area of the disposal site shall not be
allowed to flow into or through the active disposal area. The
design shall provide for the deflection of rain or molting snow
away from the active area where wastes are being deposited .
As filling continues to completion, the surface shall be sloped
so that water is diverted away from the area whore refuse has
been or is being deposited. The design shall include methods
of keeping ground water out of the area where refuse is deposited.
,b. The site shall he designed to protect the quality of water
available in nearby wells . The necessary distance from the
wells is dependent in part on the direction of flow of ground
under the site and the means used in the design to prevent
precipitation falling on the site from reaching the aquifier
in question. Soil characteristics . The soil used for covering
of landfill type operations shall have enough adhesive character-
istics to permit a workable earth cover. •
c. The location of the solid waste site and facility should provide
for convenient access from solid waste generation centers .
.931061
-7-
d. The access routes shall be designed so as to permit the orderly
and efficient flow of traffic to and from the site as well as on
the site .
Traffic control routes on the site shall permit orderly, efficient
and safe ingress, unloading and egress . '
e . The design of the facility shall provide for effective compaction
and cover of refuse materials in such a program as will prevent.
the emergence or attraction of insects and rodents .
f. Solid wastes deposited at disposal sites and facilities shall be
compacted to prior to covering. Use of moisture or change of
particle size to aid in compaction is recommended.
g. The design shall contemplate the location and construction of
•
the disposal site and facility in such a manner as will
eliminate the scattering of windblown debris . All solid wastes
discharged at the site shall be confined to the site and any
material escaping from the active discharge area shall be
promptly retrieved and placed in the active discharge area.
h. Recycling operations may be designed to operate at solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, provided such recycling operations
do not interfere with the disposal of other wastes and provided
that such recycle operations are carried out without creation
of a nusiance and rodent and insect breeding.
i. The design shall include such equipment and operational methods
to prevent the buruing of solid wastes at the site and to
extinguish any fires .
931.06".
•
j . Final. Closure. Prior to closing a solid waste disposal site
except for cause as set forth in Section 36-23-13 CRS as
amended, the final cover of the deposited solid wastes shall
be
graded to the elevations which shall he shown in the initial
design, The cover shall be of such thickness and material as
will prevent the entrance or emerg-ence of insects , rodents, or
odors. Such closure elevations shall be such as will provide for
the diversion of rainfall and runoff away from the fill area.
k. A plan and method for protecting solid wastes disposal sites
and
facilities against damage from floods shall be a part of the
engineering design.
Section 5. THE REPORT OF THE DEP/JIM:7ST to County Coimnis.sioners or municipal
officials, recommending approval or disapproval of the application, shall consist
of a written and signed document made in accordance with criteria established
by the Board of Health, Water Pollution Control Commission and Air Pollution
Control Commission. -
Section 6. OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
An operational. plan for placing into
operation the engineering design
for the disposal site and facility is required,
• Such a plan shall include the followini information:
a. The name or titles of the person or persons who will be in charge
of the disposal site and facilit; . Such name(s) shall be of
person(s) having the responsibility for the operation as well
as the authority to take all corrective action necessary to
comply with the requirements of this Department.
b. The list of equipment to be used at the disposal site.
c. The hours of operation of the srte.
931061
-9-
d . The fire fighting equip _nt or department available for
•
extinguishing fires .
e . The frequency of cover of the deposited wastes .
f . The frequency of retrieval of wind blown debris .
g. A contingency plan for eradication of rodents and insects .
h . Procedures for in-pier-Jilting other aspects of the design .
Section 7 . RESTRICTIONS OF OP h- i'l_o :S , C_r.,l_;G SITES
a. In the event a person applyi _ for a Certificate of Designation
does not wish to receive at his site all items defined in the
statute as solid wastes , his application to the county co,.ission2 rs
t: forth the limitations as to
for approval of designation shall set ort
materials to be accepted at the site . If such site is thereafter
designated , the owner shall erect at the entrance to such a site
an appropriate design setting forth the items not receivable at
such site .
b. If a person having a site officially designated wishes to close
the site for any reason, he shall inform the county commissioners
at least 60 days in advance of such elosing and shall post a sign ,
readable from the seat of an entering motor vehicle, informing
the public of his intent to close such site. Such site shall be
considered officially closed upon receipt of an official notice
from the county commissioners , provided such closing date shall
be at least 60 days after the notice to the county commissioners
and the posting as above set forth. Upon closing of the site ,
the owner shall pose a notice that the site is closed and shall
take reasonable precautions to prevent the further use of such site .
931061
-10-
Add Section 3 . . !"ir-atiCI. of� r ) !1(r�.1! 1.q"1,^ of PO An;fn,mr3 r' i �
ReDort
(a) Whe'oever the Deartrnnt deter:ai_nes that at a solid waste disposal
site is not being operated substantially in accordance with the
criteria provided in the r E nhi ❑te
.- ihy Dosii;n 3eport or these
regulations , the operator shell he i_'iiforir.ed
, ? of the nature of
of the allepud violation by certified nil and vi-cni.n ten
day;'. Fro:n and after receipt of the letter of citation, he :icy
request a variance frn;:i the - tiaeeling Design Report by
written application to the De rtment stating
pz: the grounds for
such request .
(b) The D_•; .rtr-vent shell either approve such request or sched'ula
the matter for an administr-a:tive hearing. If the operator
fails to request a variance, or the Dep rt;n nt. refuses to
•
grant a variance after the hearing, the operator shall be
deemed to be in violation of the law and these regula
tions 1O[i3 and
the "Certificate of Designation" shall be subject to suspension ,
revocation or injunction as provided in Sections 36-23-13 and
14, CRS 1963, as amended by Chanter 103, Colorado
o Session Laws
1971 . The Department shall prone ly report the action taken to
the Board of County Coma.issioners .
(c) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Department may
request a hearing before the State Board of Health and shall be
afforded his right to judicial review as provided in Section
66-1- 13, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963 .
Note: These regulations rescind and supersede solid waste regulations
and standards adopted November 21 , 1967. Effec
tive January 1, 196 .
931961
ASHTON-DANIELS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
EXHIBITS
April 5, 1993
Before The Weld County Commissioners
In the Matter of the Central Weld County Landfill
1. 7-15-71 Colorado Department of Health Division of Engineering and Sanitation
Activity Report.
2. 7-21.72 Letter to the Weld County Planning Commission from the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners (Weld County, Colorado).
3. 8-13-71 Letter to Glenn K. Billings, Chairman-Weld County Commissioners,
from William N. Gahr, Director, Division of Engineering & Sanitation.
4. Colorado Department of Health Memo: Regulations - Solid Wastes Disposal
Sites and Facilities; Effective 3-1-72.
5. Petition to County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado from Weld County
Residents in the Vicinity of Central Weld Landfill.
6. Transcript of Tape of Hearing on September 22, 1971 before the Weld County
Board of Commissioners on Central Weld Landfill.
7. Memorandum of Hearing, 9-22-71, Tape 99, Docket#54. Petitioner's Name:
Weld County Landfill, Inc., Box 596, Evans, Colorado.
8. 10-6-71 Resolution of Weld County Board of Commissioners Approving
Issuance of Certificate of Designation to Weld County Landfill, Inc.
9. 10-6-71 Certificate of Designation / Solid Waste Disposal Site.
10. 7-2-80 Letter to Board of Weld County Commissioners from Albert J. Hazle,
Colorado Department of Health.
11. July, 1980 Results of Solid Waste Facility Inspection at Central Weld Landfill
(then the Greeley-Milliken Landfill).
12. 7-30-80 Letter to Weld County Board of County Commissioners from Albert J.
Hazle Noticing Potential for Water Contamination at Central Weld Landfill (then
the Greeley-Milliken Landfill).
13. 7-17-92 Letter to Kennedy/Harbert/Lacy/Kirby/Webster,Weld County Board of
County Commissioners from Samuel S. Telep.
9310161
14. 9-11-92 Letter to Kennedy/Harbert/Lacy/Kirby/Webster,Weld County Board of
County Commissioners from Kent E. Hanson.
15. 9-18-92 Letter to John Pickle (Weld County Dept. of Health) and Ms. Austin
Buckingham (Colorado Dept. of Health) from Waste Management of North
America, Inc.
16. 9-28-92 Letter to Waste Services Corp. from Weld County Board of
Commissioners Requesting Submittal of Operations Plan.
17. Same as Exhibit No. 16.
18. 10-5-92 Letter to Bill Hedberg, Waste Services Corp. from Weld County Dept.
of Health and Copy of Minimum Standards Regulations.
19. 10-7-92 Letter to Bill Hedberg,Central Weld Sanitary Landfill from Weld County
Dept. of Health Outlining Recommendations to Avoid Water Contamination.
20. 10-16-92 Letter to Kennedy/Harbert/Lacy/Kirby/Webster, Weld County Board
of County Commissioners from Kent E. Hanson.
21. 11-14-92 Letter to Glen Mallory, Colorado Dept. of Health Recommending
Denial of Discharge Permit to Waste Services, Inc.
22. 12-14-92 Letter to Pam Nelson, Colorado Dept. of Health.
23. 12-11-92 Letter to Victor H. Sainz, P.E., Colorado Dept. of Health, from Waste
Management of North America, Inc.
24. 12-22-92 Letter to Bill Hedberg and Alan Scheer, Waste Services Corporation,
from Colorado Department of Health.
25. 12-23-92 Memo To File from Unda Johnson (Weld County Colorado) RE:
Contaminated Soil Complaint-Central Weld Landfill.
26. 1-4-92 Memo to Chuck Cunliffe (Planning Dept-Weld Co.) from John Pickle
Outlining Violations at Central Weld Landfill.
27. 1-8-92 Memo to Chuck Cunliffe (Planning Dept-Weld Co.) from John Pickle
Outlining Violations at Central Weld Landfill.
28. 1-14-93 Letter to Bill Hedberg,Waste Services Corporation,from Weld County
Dept. of Health Noticing Waste Services of Violations of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
29. 1-18-93 Letter to Waste Services, Inc. from Weld County Dept. of Planning
301061
Services Noticing Waste Services of Violations of Conditions of Approval.
30. 1-18-93 Letter to Connie Harbert (Chairperson-Weld County Commissioners)
from Greg Hobbs Requesting Hearing for Revocation of Central Weld Landfill's
Certificate of Designation.
31. 2-15-93 Letter to Harbert/Cunliffe/Shelton/David from Greg Hobbs.
32. 2-22-93 Memo to Chuck Cunliffe (Planning Dept.-Weld Co.) from John Pickle
Outlining Violations at Central Weld Landfill.
33. 3-2-93 Letter to Waste Services Corp. from Weld County Dept. of Planning
Services Noticing Probable Cause Hearing.
34. 3-10-93 Memo to File from Trevor Jiricek(Solid &Hazardous Waste Specialist,
Weld County, Colorado) RE: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill - Complaint.
35. 3-30-93 Memo to Chuck Cunliffe (Planning) from John Pickle (Health) RE:
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill.
36. Photo
37. Photo
38. Photo
39. Photo
40. Tape of Original Hearing on September 22, 1971 before the Weld County Board of
Commissioners on Central Weld Landfill.
41. 4-3-93 Statement of Glenn K. Billings, Former Chairman of Weld County
Commissioners.
42. 4-3-93 Statement of Albion Carlson, Environmental Scientist with the State of New
Mexico Environment Department.
43. September, 1975 "Evaluation of Existing Sanitary Landfills in Weld County as
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.'
44. 1979 U.S.G.S. Map Showing Depth to the Water Table in the Boulder-Fort Collins-
Greeley Area.
45. 6-10-81 E.P.A. "Notification of Hazardous Waste Site" Naming Weld County Landfill
as a Hazardous Waste Site.
901061
1, -.
t f„ ,f e/
TILL COUNTY COiif[1:SSIONERS OF WELD COUINTY, COLORADO
Weld County Court House
l cel ey , Colorado a)e31
Ye, t he nde r _ _.lased residents of Weld County, Colorado , being
ndvir:eu cl an application being filed for permission to open a
1+nul f it l clomp on
1 tie West Half of the Southwest Quarter (W)6 &W)4)
rid the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
(Si ;I Sl! .) of Section Thirty-two 32) , Township
a'i. ve (n) berth , Range Siy y ix (tU) West of the
uh '.h . , Weld County, Colorado ,
do l ielitiur 1'cu as follows:
,h ;iou refusc any permit for landfill, dump on the
n.is I.r' a cats or the; Southwest Quarter (SQL SW.)Q of said
: f t.ion '`' for FLe: reason that there appears to be no test of
-Li ! ,,,: i t a ,;; ca the SEA SW, of said Section 32; that said 40
a,jcctart Le a north-south county road; is very close to
tht, oiled main higlh•aay running to Greeley from Mil] iken and will
depreciate the value of other lands in the neighborhood.
2. That if a permit is granted to open a landfill dump on
the West Half or the Southwest Quarter (W1 S(,)v) of said Section
32, the following conditions be incorporated in the granting of
such
a. That the north-south county road leading to the
dump site be blacktopped prior to the opening of the dump;
b. That the road leading from the county road to the
dump be blacktopped before the opening of the dump;
c. ''halt operator of the nump erect a screen of
U.wen wire along the south side and idle east side of said
dump area to catch all trash and paper that might blow from
the dump and that said operator be required to clean the
. . :-scan t l e�tr't once monthly. Ln the event l tttor and trash
EXHIBIT
9S1061
from the dump area blows over onto other lands in the
vicinity, that the dump operator be required to clean up
said areas regularly, at least monthly or oftener.
d . That the streambeds in the draws adjacent to the
dump area be protected from pollution from dump materials
and that said draws be free of obstructions at all times.
e. That the County Commissioners require a periodic
inspection of the dump premises by a licensed sanitarian,
weekly or oftener;
f. That said application for opening of a landfill dump
in the West Half of the Southwest Quarter (WY? SW$) be re-
stricted to that part of said West Half of said Southwest
Quarter lying east; of a streumbed which traverses in a
north-to-South direction through the West Half of the
Southwest Quarter (W;f SW)4) of said Section 32, and that
said dump in no way interfere with the water from the stream-
bed entering into or leaving an irrigation reservoir located
on eleven (11) acres in the Southwest corner of the South-
west Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SO SW}4) of said
Section 32;
g. That the operators of the landfill dump be restric-
ted from accepting for dumping any dead animals or effluent
from septic tanks, and that at such time as the dump shall
cc.::c, to be used as a dump area, that all trash and contents
of the dump be covered and levelled for agricultural or
building uses.
h. That the County Commissioners take such other pre-
cautions as may be necessary and required to preserve the
-2-
931061
Transcript of Tape on
1971 County Hearing
Central Weld Landfill
We' ll call this Hearing to order.
Docket No. 54
Weld Landfill Incorporated, Box 596 , Evans, Colorado
Date: September 22nd, 1971 . Time: 2 o'clock
Request site approval for sanitary landfill
At this time Mr. Connell you will read the record.
Connell : Mr. Chairman, pursuant to notice properly given
pursuant to the zoning laws of the of State of
Colorado, a Public Hearing is now held in the offices
of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County,
Colorado, the Weld County Courthouse, concerning Docket
No. 54 , Application of Weld County Landfill
Incorporated, Lots 596 , Evans , Colorado.
Hearing does come on at this time and date as
published. Publication has been had in accordance with
law in the Greeley Daily Booster as shown by the
Certificate of Publication of the publisher of the
Greeley Daily Booster.
The request is for site approval for a sanitary
landfill located in the west 1/2 of the SW 1/4 in the
1
EXHIBIT
r�. o, - c
331061
SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 32 Township 5N Range
66W of the Sixth P.M.
Notice has been properly given to the adjoining
land owners as evidenced by the Certificate of
Certified Mail and the receipt thereof for HTK [King] ,
First National Bank of Greeley, Colorado, Elmer Knister
Weld County Landfill, Guy A Shable. Said mailing to
Guy A. Shable was returned to this office by the United
States Post Office. Henry Wagner, Ella Spomer, and,
again, the First National Bank.
Matter comes on now for hearing. Certain of those
present are shown to be represented by counsel . These
should be identified in the process of the hearing.
Those not represented by counsel should be duly noted.
Chairman: This time, Mr. Moffatt, if you can present your
case. Do you have anything to say regarding this
landfill site?
Moffatt: No, only that we went through all the necessary
requirements that we know of , and we are here to answer
any questions anybody might want to ask us and see if
there is anything we can do; anything anybody
wants to know.
Chairman: Has this been approved by the County Health
Department and the State Water Pollution Safety. . . ?
Moffatt: We've contacted all the various people we knew;
out there, and there' s been new law
2
921061
brought on the statutes, effective, I believe, July
1st, I believe that's right, and it was so new that
there are some things in this that really even the
State Health Department didn't have full data on them.
So we met with the Health Departments of the County and
the State and went over it, and we met all the things
that they knew of , and we agreed in principle on
anything that they might want we accepted to do, and
really you can't spend all of the money it takes to get
all the answers that this new law requires until you
get into know if you have this site or not because you
have to survey it, put in contour, you have to show,
you have to prospect in there to see what type of
formation. We have logs from the soil office which we
are not including because they only went to a depth of
approximately 4 or 5 feet. Then we did have a well log
that covered 5 or 6 places that goes down quite a
distance, but still that is small bore and we feel that
before we could design the ground for final use we'd
have to actually physically move dirt on it to see how
we'd want to do it. But all of it can be done with
sanction and approval from the various departments .
Connell: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt. It might be
noted this application has been before the Weld County
Planning Commission and on recommendation of date
August 4th, 1971 , certification of August 3rd, 1971 ,
3
5331061
recorded in Book 111 by the Secretary of the Weld
County Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION favorably recommending to the Board of
County Commissioners the approval of this site
location and approval.
Chairman: Thank you. At this time we' ll hear from the
people supporting this application. All of you having
anything to do with the cause, let' s have your opinion.
Voice 2 : Yes Mr. Chairman. We, Weld County Health
Department, approve of the site on the grounds that we
figure it is well above the water level; we won't have
any water problems at all, like we have down on the
river. Also, it is within a quarter of a mile of a
black top road and about a mile, that' s from the south,
with about a mile and three quarters from the north is
the black top road. We have studied the engineering
reports from the soils and from the well , record and
log from the well, and, therefore, we recommend this
application be approved. I have also Mr. Orville
Stoddard from the Water Pollution Commission and I
would like Mr. Stoddard to comment.
Chairman: All right, that's fine with. . . Mr. Stoddard?
Stoddard: Thank you. My name is Orville Stoddard with the
Engineering Section of Colorado Department of Health.
There is an Amended Act pertaining to the regulation of
land disposal sites and facilities that Earl Moffatt
4
931061
mentioned. This requires the applicant to submit a
report of engineering, geological, hydrological, and
operational data to the Department for review and
recommended approval prior to issue of the Certificate
of Designation by the County Commissioners. The site
was visited with Mr. Moffatt, Glen Paul of the Weld
County Health Department, and at that time the
guidelines for developing this report were reviewed
with Mr. Moffatt. He did submit a report to the
Department, August 9th, 1971 , and did have considerable
information of the type that we were after. The
information submitted indicate after studying the soils
reports, the test borings, information on the existing
water table, soil conditions in the area, that this
site can be operated in accordance with sanitary
landfill requirements. 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. This is a suitable site and can be operated
as a sanitary landfill. The only question we have at
this point in time, and Mr. Moffatt touched on that, is
that there are several alternatives in how the
operation should proceed and this is just a matter of
deciding which is the best way to go.
5
931061
Chairman: An operational problem?
Stoddard: Right. Beg pardon?
Chairman: An operational procedure that you. . . .
Stoddard: Yes, that' s right.
Chairman: Is there anyone else here who wants to speak for
the application? If not we'll hear from the people
whose opposing the application.
Waldo: Mr. Chairman, can we ask questions of the people
that are supporting the application?
Chairman: Now, if you want to go ahead and state your name
and. . . .
Waldo: My name is Ralph Waldo, Jr. and my father and I
represent Mrs. Ella Spomer and Mr. and Mrs . (Henry)
Wagner, who represent [ too] . They have obtained
signatures on a petition opposing the landfill in the
SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 , that 40 acres , and then if you
grant the permit for the West half of that 80 acres ,
the West 80 acres, that that be granted with a lot of
provisions on it. . . .
Chairman: All right.
Waldo: . . .that are contained in this Petition. We have
39 signatures, I believe, on the Petition. The people
that have signed this Petition come from within a
radius of about 2 miles, with 2 of them coming from
Section 27 , Township 5N, Range 66 , which would be about
2-1/2 miles away. And I have here a chart that shows
6
9:1961
the location of the people that signed this Petition
opposing this. We have no people that signed this that
are clear away from there. And we have some questions
that we would like to ask about this.
The first one is "How much of this West half of
the SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 would they use
for a landfill operation?"
Moffatt: 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, but I cannot
tell you exactly how much of that we will use until we
get in and explore . If you have shale picked up
and this and that in there it makes water pockets
there'll be places in there, then we are going have to
—7 /
drain that dry; our intentions are to drain it. ' When
we get through with them we intend to return it to a
good piece of farm ground. And, to do so we don't know
exactly until we do some pioneering in there. It costs
a lot of money to use this dirt and if you 're not going
to use that, to move it you've got to figure out what
your costs are going to be and you're bound to figure
and see how it goes , and all I can assure you is
that there' s plenty of qualified people sitting on top
of it, watching it to see it is done right;; and our
7
intentions would be to go to the West line this side of
water, where, and there's rules and regulations
governing all that; you have to stay so many feet from
the open water, and so forth in the new--it isn't quite
even drawn up yet, is it, the law--and so water will be
carried away and it will not be contaminated. All
these things are covered by laws and I think that this
will be asinine to bring them in right at this point.
But we do intend to work the ground so that it would be
possible to return some of it to farming before the
I
whole thing would be filled. And to do this we would
have to work preferably on the west side, running north
and to south, so that that ground can be turned back to
agriculture probably much better than it was , it is
now, because we would store the top soil and cover this
other and then return the top soil on the ground.
Don't let it kid you that it would be the worst thing
in the north and south direction two sides .
Waldo: Now, now let me ask you a few questions , here.
There is a draw which runs more or less north and south
through there, curving, would you plan to do any
landfill operations on the west side of that draw?
Moffatt: We would if practical and if it doesn' t interfere
with any existing water rights or existing things that
are there now. But you still have to determine if
these things are practical or not and the only way you
8
931061
really can do that is to do some prospecting out there
with equipment to see what, where this water underneath
is seep water, and it comes from the shale and how you
would handle it, you see.
Waldo: Now who owns that land at the present time?
Moffatt: We have an option on the land at the present time.
Waldo: And Landfill, Inc. is going to buy it?
Moffatt: And we will purchase that if it is approved.
There is no other way that we can just run around and
buy a piece of ground for $50 ,000 and then find out if
it can be approved, you see.
Waldo: Are you aware of the fact that Ella Spomer owns 11
acres in the SW 1/4 there?
Moffatt: Oh, yes. It' s an exception in the. . . .
Waldo: Now,
Moffatt: I don't think we'll be anywhere near that, Ralph,
really, and I have -- I live across there, and I don't
think we'll be anywhere. . . . We'll stop quite a ways
this side of it. From what you're saying is that it's
going way to to bottom SW 1/4 , right?
Waldo: Yes,
Moffatt: No.
Waldo: and it takes water from that draw that comes down
from there.
Moffatt: We don't intend to get into that draw and work
into that draw, unless there' s water coming from this
9
side, that we might have to intercept and tile around,
then again we would return and it would be water that
was not contaminated by landfill.
Waldo: That was the thing that was my next question, is
how much seep do you find on that west slope of the. . . .
Moffatt: Ralph, we won't know that till you dig down and if
we do it will be seepage; it will be intercepted; if
you dig all of these straight across from the south to
the north, you're going to find all the different
pockets (? ) and this was roughly our idea when you
start a deadline ( 7 ) on the bottom end and come north,
so we might be quite deep when we get there. We hope
we are because this is a much better operation than
what we are trying to run now with the shallow depth of
cover, and you see if you intercept water in there any
place, you're going to take it clear to the top and
when you do you can turn it around and landfill will be
packed tighter than the ground that is existing there
now. You break that up and you go back around, so we
shouldn't interfere with anything that is there,
really.
Waldo: Well, what all will you permit to be put into this
dump? Would you take dead bodies and effluent from
septic tanks, and that stuff .
Moffatt: We have to take whatever they bring us. It' s all
waste. There again, those things that the Health
10
921061
Department can answer much better than I can as to what
the problems there might. . . . Most of those things burn
themselves out in the landfill pretty fast once they' re
sealed and covered.
Waldo: Well, that was going to be the question. What
happens to the solutions that come from dead animals
and effluent from septic tanks, and all .
Moffatt: If the water' s shut off from the well , there ' s
nothing more to feed it than try to crowd or can' t
get into it. What fluid they bring with them are going
to burn out within the fill itself.
Waldo: By "burn out" you mean they' ll make gas?
Moffatt: Heat, gas, decomposition, so everything that' s in
there. Is this correct, do you think?
Voice 3 : Dry out, yes.
The thing, of course, that will be required is
that it does control the surface drainage and the
—1
seepage around the fill areas, so that you don' t get a
situation where you get contaminated polluted water
flowing from the fill area. Anything that occurs and `
drains from the fill area will be merely surface water '`
and seepage water that is in good condition. Landfill i
operation, this is one of the advantage of them is that
you can discharge anything that' s in the landfill and
with time it will stabilize and have conditions for
11
931061
super saturation continuing at a small state
of right at that particular depth location.
Waldo: Now, there' s a spring in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 .
Did you know about that?
Voice 3 : I don't think that was included in our information, and
I don't know about it.
Moffatt: It's probably fed from coming through from shale.
Waldo: I don't think there' s any information from any
well, or anything, on the SE 1/4 of that SW 1/4 , that
East 1/4 , I guess. But there is a spring that crops
out on that hillside.
Moffatt: If there is it's probably from the shale and when
we open her up we're going to expose it' s source and
intercept it at the top. This is where you divert it.
It's got to be coming down through to there because the
only way you can get water in this country is it ' s got
to come from an irrigation above in one of the
sitographic grounds ( zones ) .
Waldo: I don't know.
Moffatt: Ralph, well I do. I mean, this is where it' s got
to be coming from. It' s being irrigated above it' s on
ground that goes down in the ground and it will go to
hit something that too go further and then it daylights
out at some place; it probably in time dries up, I
don't know. I imagine it is second water, it
will be a seasonal time when it will shut down, but
12
931061
this is why I mentioned a while ago. We just don't
know what's under that ground completely, so when you
dig it and open in clear through you're going to find
out that section, and that' s the section to fill so you
will have it under control, then as you move across ,
why, you do the same thing at the next one.
Waldo: Well now two weeks ago I was out there at about
the intersection, oh, about the 40 acre corner there,
in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, and on that hillside it' s
seepy and it's been a pretty dry summer. There hasn' t
been any irrigation there that I know of .
Moffatt: There' s a carrier ditch, that carries water across
there, practically all the time.
Waldo: It didn't appear to have any water in it.
Moffatt: It was in there when we were out there.
Waldo: You mean irrigation ditch.
Moffatt: Yes, it carries water you see, down to another
farm. Now, this, of course, whoever' s farm we might
see, it will be our obligation, if we ever work in that
area, to bring that corner out and possibly realign it,
to carry it on to his premises. In other words ,) we
r i
won't touch anybody' s water.\ But I think this is the
biggest source you had with the water rights .
Waldo: But that alfalfa down there looks to me like it
was just pretty well seeped out.
13
9:1061
Moffatt: Could be. There again, cement-lined ditch in
there a carrier ditch all the time will take care of
that.
Waldo: Now the next question is, is this water that' s
coming out of there goes, we think it goes , down into
one of these two lakes that Mrs. Spomer owns down
there. If you put a landfill in there, then what is
she going to do to replace the water that she loses , or
will it be polluted, if it comes on down there?
Moffatt: Well, if the water' s coming from the ditch, which
I think it is because there' s very little water going
along that premises itself, looks almost running
across,
Waldo: Well that's what it looks to me.
Moffatt: Well, if the water' s coming from the ditch, coming
down this back hole at the high spot goes to the next
place you're seeing it. If we line the ditch and bring
it to her, she won't lose any seep because it will all
in the ditch to start with and if its going to her,
she ' ll have practically 100% collection without the
seepage involved. If you dry the seep up she won't get
any water to start with and then what. If she receives
the ditch of it, she' s going to do this free of cost to
her. But she' s going to get more water than she has at
the moment. And the ground would be dried up if that' s
what causing your springs.
14
3;n1081
Waldo: No, she' s isn't going to get any more water
because it doesn't go over to her place.
Moffatt: I understand you said that's where this ditch is
going.
Waldo: No, this ditch goes over to the southeast and Ella
Spomer' s property is directly south and to the
northwest.
Moffatt: Ralph, when they line these canals , and you line
ditches across the country, when you drive to the place
beside you, seep rights just disappear.
Waldo: That' s one of the problems that we have.
Moffatt: Well, I can't answer you. They have a prior right
to a seep to [coughing] to I don' t
think I can answer you. But I don't think anybody can
keep you from lining the ditch just because they had
seep water or something out of the ditch that you were
carrying. . . .
Waldo: I agree with you that nobody can keep you from
saving your own water but I am concerned about this
spring in there because I am not personally acquainted
with it except by. . . .
Moffatt: Well, I 'm not either, Ralph, but it' s got to be
coming from an outcropping because of shale pulls out
on the bottom, that's what it does , and I think that
probably all the water comes in from that ditch above
is going down that ridge and finding its way out at the
15
s10sa
bottom. If you'd stop, cement the ditch, I think you
would probably stop the seep, because I don't think
that premises itself is irrigated enough to runoff
excessive or even if it was it would cause a seep, and
practically got to be from that carrier ditch, or
premises above might be, being irrigated.
Waldo: Now, I have another question. What are you going
to do with this land when they get through with it,
using it for a landfill.
Moffatt: We intend to make a good piece of farm ground out
of it because the surface amount of dirt and we intend
to cover more than is required by any law. In other
words we intend to cover enough --. We won't know this
exactly how much is until we get in there and see
what our bottom is. Then we can find our balance
points where it' s no longer economical to dig deeper
over the whole dirt past their points, you see. Then
we probably have about a 3-foot or more, maybe 4-foot
of cover on that ground when we're through with it.
And it will be on, fit will either be on even grade that
will be practical to irrigate or be benched; dropped
down, then drawn out, you see.
Waldo: What will the elevations be like? How will they
compare with the present elevations when you get this
7 landfill completed?
16
331061
Moffatt: Well it will be flat across there, more or less,
on the -- running east and west. But, of course, you
can still have. . . . then we'll have to allow back off
the premises or when they reach the other part of the
, that' s one of the reasons we won't be working
too far to the West. We're going to have a slope on
this, you see. A slope at all then under the road and
this will take extra dirt, too.
Waldo: There's depression, I wouldn't call it a draw, but
it' s aidraw of sorts,( it runs down, oh, in an easterly
side of this west half , this west 80 acres,(is it your
intention to use all of that for landfill and fill that I
in?
Moffatt: If it' s practical so we can. There' s no reason
why we can't, you know, from water or making
Waldo: It appears to be pretty seepy and wet in there
now.
Moffatt: " But I think if we intercept all of it, that
seepage--by going clear through and going to the top we
should be able to intercept these places where they
come through and if necessary and we can head the drain
up there and make an L shape and bring this all out to
where daylight is--. That piece of ground should not
have any seep within the L shape; should not
have water left in it there if we intercept it.
17
331061
Waldo: Well, these are some of the requirements that
these people are asking the Commissioners to put in the
permission if it' s granted.
Moffatt: Well, I think Ralph, we're pretty well covered by
the State and like I said, we're bound so tight now
that I think if we can conform with the existing
regulations, it' s going to probably answer all the
things you're asking today.
Waldo: Well, we'd like to ask you these. . . .
Moffatt: Yes, sure.
Waldo: and see what you think about them. First, we 'd
like to see a black top road leading into the dump.
Moffatt: We will -- leading to the dump?
Waldo: Yes, the old County Road, we'd like to have the
County black top the road or somebody black top the
road so that it becomes . . . .
Moffatt: It is our intention to make an in and out road
that will be surfaced.
Waldo: To control the dust?
Moffatt: Yes, right.
Waldo: And then we'd like to have a screen of some type
extended along the south and the east sides to collect
any refuse or papers or trash that blows out of there.
Moffatt: We are now at the present time-- we have 95%
completed. . . we have large screens made out of steel
pipe to be built into Weld County Landfill . You can go
18
331061
see them . We haven't put them up yet. They
are portable and we vacuumed right into them with a
dozer and they have hooks on them, see, because they' re
quite heavy. The dozer will pick them up and we can
move them and we can move them. We intend to place
those around our operation when the stuff is being
immediately dumped, this will confine it down close.
We haven't finished them completely because of the wire
we brought in, we've found problems with it, it' s wire ,
it's galvanized and welded, we find some bugs in snaps ,
so we think we have to do a bit more research on it
before we the wire. We have enough of that fence
to set up with a, helper fences between the two covers
across from the [coughing]
Waldo: Up to 800 feet.
Moffatt: That should contain all the areas we will try to
dump at one time.
Waldo: Then if any of this trash were to escape that
would you see that periodically, once a month or
oftener, that you clean up around there.
Moffatt: We have a man now that works every day. No, I
take it back, he works, I think he works part of every
day, he' s an epileptic and he takes now, he was up and
down the Evans bar pit picking up the first area and
around the premises on land, so he will be continued.
So it won't be once a month it will be regular.
19
924061
Waldo: Then would you see that the stream beds in these
draws were kept free of pollution and obstructions at
all times so you didn't push any dirt over in them and
push them full or clog them up so that the drainage
would be free in there.
Moffatt: We will do this.
Waldo: [coughing] Free of pollution? [Moffatt: We will
do this. ] And then we would want the County
Commissioners to have a licensed sanitarian to make an
inspection there, weekly at least.
Chairman: Ralph, that comes under the jurisdiction of the
Health Department.
Waldo: Well, we think the County Commissioners ought to
be responsible for seeing that it gets done.
Chairman: We are.
Voice 4 Glen, how often do you spend now.
Glen Paul: Just once a month. But you want it weekly?
Waldo: We think it ought to be weekly.
Voice 4 Does that cause any problem?
Glen: No, we're going to need a man in each territory
every day. He can go by once a week.
Waldo: We'd also like to restrict them from dumping any
dead animals or effluent from septic tanks in there.
Moffatt: Well, the problem that you've got there, I think
you're worrying about something really, something
nobody like to discuss much. We don't have that many
20
931.061
dead animals. You're talking about an occasional
somebody' s-- Most people bury their pets and take care
of them. The larger animals go, we're located right
now next door to a dead animal place and those animals
go right in there because there' s a pay for them. I
don't think, with one exception to my knowledge, in the
over two some years we've had that, we did bury a
party's horse because they didn't want it, it was a pet
and they just absolutely stood right there and made
instructions for a place to bury it because it was a
pet. But you're talking about a handful of cats , of
course, and the septic tank, this we don' t, this
landfill down here we don't have many and they do take
quite a few of them out to some others, but they don't
make that much of a problem. You're not talking about
very much.
Waldo: Well I know they have to dump them some place and
I . . .
Moffatt: [indistinguishable)
Waldo: where they pumped it out of and get
rid of it.
Moffatt: They're covered every day. The thing will be
covered and we will have plenty of dirt out here to
work with, which we have not had since we started. For
right now we just have to use a dirt real sparingly.
21
91061
Voice 5: I think about the biggest percentage of your
septic tank space is those that are on farms are dumped
right on the farm. This saves those big farmers
additional cost of septic tank and a person to haul it
to a sanitary landfill. I am sure you get some of them
on some subdivision.
Moffatt: Well, I don't know that we could find out whose
use the . We can call down to the landfill
when the guys go on the books , how much money came in
at $2 a truckload in the last year, if you want to, but
you're not talking about very much, really.
Waldo: We don't know how much. We just know we don' t
want any of it.
Moffatt: Well, there again, when you start the landfill one
group don't want trees , the next group don' t want this ,
the next group don't want car bodies, and pretty soon
then where are you going to go with it. Then you've
got to harness up a special, then you go somewhere and
you have another hearing and somebody don't want that,
so, like I said, a landfill really is about what it
says.
Voice 6 Ralph, do you have copy of the definition of solid
waste?
Waldo: No, I don't.
Chairman: Most of this is under the jura. All of this
operation will under the jurisdiction of the Health
22
3:1061
Department and the State Health Department and the
Water Pollution people, is that right, Glen?
Glen: Right.
Chairman: They are under full control of the whole
operation.
Glen: And air pollution.
Voice 6 : Well, the residue from septic tanks would be
included under solid waste, so that. . .
Chairman: Do you have anything else, Ralph?
Waldo: Yes, one more question. Mr. Moffatt would this be
practical for you to take on if you didn't use the SE
1/4 of the SW 1/4, that piece 40?
Moffatt: Well,
Waldo: Confine it to the west part of the west 80
use.
Moffatt: I don't know what we'd do with it later, and, like
I said really I don't know whether that will fit
in or whether it won't fit in. But when we get through
we've got to return that piece of ground into something
and when we put $50 ,000 in a piece of ground, we don't
intend just to drive off and leave it, because I think
this is going to be part of what we do. We feel we've
got to upgrade that piece of ground in order to help.
But this has been an extremely difficult situation.
We've been every direction trying to find a landfill
and there's always some type of thing. We have spent
23
931061
lots of money trying to find out--where we can find out
this and that and we're going to have to try to make
everything work. But we're going to get back into the
mechanics of it again, if its too soggy and too wet,
and we can't intercept it, now if we can intercept it
and take the water out of there and it doesn't make any
problem, we can make a better piece of ground out of
that when we leave there than it has ever been before.
Just common sense tells you that, in other words , it
isn't much right now.
Voice 7 You folks have any more questions?
Mikner: I 'm Mr. Mikner. It sounds kind of interesting.
It looks like its going to be a kind of expensive
operation for Mr. Moffatt, talking about this , seepage
what he's going to do with it, I 'm satisfied there ' s
places that are less expensive to operate.
Moffatt: It' s procuring one is the problem.
Mikner: Well, that may be true, but I know I 'm
situation where there' s. . . . About the first thing that
recommends to me, is soil conservation ( ? )
where the water is, the depth of it and what' s to be
done and things like that, which. . . .
Moffatt: We already did it. We did it. Things were so
inconclusive, you see. They only went down 40 maybe 5
feet another, wellfre're talking about going to a depth
of maybe 50 feet.
24
921061
Mikner: What kind of pattern this take just
Moffatt: They, the price. Still when they didn' t
have any depth to it, you see this doesn' t do us any
good„ we need depth for a landfill.
Mikner: Well, I mean, sure an individual can go out there
in a takes different places and comes up
favorable.
Moffatt: Not necessarily. But the thing of it is , it
wasn't particularly, that wasn't what we were after.
They weren't conclusive enough. You think you got five
feet, we want to know what was in the ground 50 feet,
and we still don't know until we go down there. We
have some well logs that tell us down as much as 50
feet and I think 45 feet, but still when we dig in
shale can turn up like this, sandstone you see.
we have enough equipment to rip some of
this but sometimes it isn't practical that' s why we
will have to make a pass all the way from the south to
the north wide enough to run this trench and then I
think we'll know good enough that we can contour the
rest of the ground and balance it and figure out how we
have to put it back together to make this farm ground,
because you being a farmer we can't just sit down and
hear . You're going to have to bring it out.
If we can't make enough ground to come from the top to
the bottom on the north, north and south on the west
25
331061
side, we've got to have an even grade. You can't
[coughing] graders and bank it and maybe
that way.
Mikner: I think that' s a point too, I 'm satisfied that
Klineman ( 7 ) is your speaking of drying up isn' t going
to do it, because it may be coming in from a different
direction.
Moffatt: If it does, we'll intercept it across the top
explain what I want to do.
Mikner: I may be mistaken. If I am, you may correct me.
But does the County subsidize your operation?
Moffatt: This particular operation?
Mikner: Well, any landfill operation.
Moffatt: The County subsidizes any landfill that doesn't
return $5,000 a year. That' s been . This
landfill here is much, has much more land than that.
So the County does not subsidize this landfill.
Mikner: Well, let me your operating expense is
to where. . .
Moffatt: That' s our tough luck. If we can't make it run,
all we're concerned about was . . . . you see
landfills that anyone knows that you can' t hardly make
them run even on a buck, you see. But they do have to
give service to the area, so we operate those also.
Now that when you talk about the subject. To get the
record straight, now anything above $5,000 that we take
26
321061
in, and anything we take in on that $5, 000 is returned
to the County and credited off of the $5,000 . For an
example, the Windsor Landfill, this last year took
enough in money even Kodak moving into that area
and its off the County' s back, they took in $5 ,000 or
$7 ,000.
Mikner: Well that' s the reason I asked the question.
Moffatt: Well, I want to make it clear, I 've run into this
before. The County's subsidizing everything you 're
doing. Well, the County is not subsidizing, only up to
$5,000 and then any revenue that comes in is credited
off of that five, so they get down, you see. Does that
answer your question?
Mikner: [Muffled]
Waldo: Darryl (? )LHow long do you anticipate you could
.`
use this area for landfill
Moffatt: Well, Ralph, we're getting in a little better
position to answer that now than when we first started
because we know, and, of course, your area is growing
and all these things, and then again we don't know how
much of that ground we can actually use, just like
we've been discussing, some of that ground might not be
practical to do but we'll still try to turn it into
i,--
something. But if we can use, say 80 acres of that
ground to a depth of approximately 45 feet, I think
27
9.31061
we' ll have at least a 15-year goal. At the present, if
you increase it that much more for the cutdown ( ? )
Voice 8: Ralph [Waldo] , we figured around 60 , 000 population
and we figure average about 5 lbs per person per day.
So we figure about 300 ,000 lbs going into this place
everyday and from there we figured anywhere from 15 to
25 years. That is if the conditions, like Earl stated,
and you asking to stay away from the east side of the
80 .
J
Moffatt: So anything can influence it. If we can increase
that 15 from what we planned, in other words if we go
down to 80 and we find that we can work there
practically, that's going to give you that much more
time in that area. 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, then that why I thought really
conservative at 15 years, and they're trying to go
further.
Wagner: Now, these well . . . .
Connell: If I could interrupt, before we go too far beyond
his statement, can we have Mr. Wagner' s full name and
address for the record please?
Wagner: Henry Wagner, 4603 83rd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Connell : Thank you, Mr. Wagner
Wagner: 852-0347
28
931961
Connell: Thank you.
Chairman: Ralph, do you have any more questions?
Waldo: Yes. Unless the well logs that you had on the
west 80 there all indicate that they hit yellow
sandstone at 14 to 47 feet.
Moffatt: I don't know as that. . . .
Waldo: What's that yellow sandstone? Is that going to be
what you want to have landfill operation in, below that
you get into blue shale and then blue sandstone?
Moffatt: Well, none of those are things we can't use to
work. We had this over at Windsor now were in there--
incidentally we was just over there last week and
opened up a new area and you can walk right down in
there and walk around and you can see what you are
cutting into there. Shale with its present
and yellow sandstone can be moved with the type of
equipment we have nowadays, but if you go some sands
are a lot harder than that, then it' s not practical.
We got rippers nowadays that can pop most all that
stuff but it' s not practical. In other words, you
spend too much horsepower and machine time to try and
get a small area, so this. . . . you see if it comes up,
your ground goes down and comes up and traps pockets in
there and you can't relieve them as you come up and
break most practically, then you'd best give up and
figure that to stabilize. Then, because under your
29
laws and under your common sense, you're not going to
lay this down in pockets to be collected. You' re going
to have to daylight all the water out that will come in
around your landfill.
Waldo: What about the seep condition that there is on
that westerly slope of that land. . . .
Moffatt: Ralph, when you say west are you saying across the
draw on the west side and coming back sloping east.
Waldo: I 'm saying on the east side of the draw. That
whole hillside is seeping.
Moffatt: I agree, but I think we are going to decide, I
(think we are going to intercept that water, we ' re going
to divide it cut it off and turn it back into the draw.
That' s what I think we'll find.
Waldo: All right, now that brings me to the next
question. ) Mr. Stoddard if they can't cut that water
off , then it will be your job to stop the landfill , is
that right?
Stoddard: Yeh, I have to agree,` I think with Earl , we won't
really know until we get into it more. (Yes, it will
have to be diverted either around the fill or, there
are other ways of doing it. It can be piped underneath
the fill with certain precautionary measures taken to
keep any seepage into the culvert or whatever they use
under the fill. The important thing that we will be
looking at, of course, is to make sure that water
30
921061
pollution does not occur from this operation in any way
shape or form.
Waldo: How often will your department make an inspection.
Stoddard: We're, we make annual inspections at this point in
time and certainly think that your idea of more
frequent inspections would be better.
Waldo: If they were; if they just found unsuitable it
would be the job of your department not the Weld County
Health Department to shut it down, or is it both
departments?
Stoddard: We're together on it. I mean, if Glen Paul thinks
there' s a problem there, then they would contact us and
we would. . . .
Moffatt: ( Ralph, I don't think there' s any problem here that
we don't have a solution. In other words , but we 've
got to determine whether it' s practical, like we said,
we can put a drag line underneath. You're talking
about a minute amount of water that' s coming at a time ,
you're not talking about a large body there.
Waldo: Well , it just keeps coming.
Moffatt: Certainly, but nce you put it under control and
put in a small pipe or pipe beside the cut, it won 't
increase because it still comes from a given point,
see.
Waldo: Well, that kind of bothers me too, because we
don't know what development there' s going to be to the
31
31061 '
north there. That could change the whole situation
here, I believe.
Moffatt: Not really. Once you close that off , or seal it
off, it' s going to go, water goes to the line of least
resistance when you get something open then it' s going
to be open. Anybody that' s going to develop into the
north out there, it' s going to take care of their own
water if they've got. . . . I don't know what you're
talking about, talking about city development or
something like that?
Waldo: Yes.
Moffatt: Well, they're going to have to take care of that
on their own drainage on main street, gutters and pipes
and circulate. That isn't going to involve us .
Waldo: They do that, but the underground drainage comes
out someplace.
Moffatt: Up there farming, there' ll be less water in the
town than there would be over these irrigated grounds .
Waldo: You have any figures at all on the underground
strata on that east 40 acres down there?
Moffatt: Not until we explore.
Waldo: Well, the only thing you know is that there is
seep water down there in the corner now and it is
seeping but no well information. . . .
Moffatt: As I said, what we're going to do is , we' ll let
those quarter yards of dirt straight through and open
32
331061
it up and take a . Six months to get that thing
ready to go, at that time there won't be any seepage
left, it will all be out there in the open.
Voice 8 : You',
talking there right west where the house used
to be at
Waldo: Yes.
Voice 8 : Is the spring new? Spring to the north and west
of that house, where' s that spring? Mr. Shable can
tell you about that spring.
Shable: It' s either the first draw or second draw just
west of that there. I think it' s the first draw, I 'm
not real sure, but I 've seen it because my brothers
water cattle and it does run quite a bit of water.
[End of Side A]
Moffatt: I bet you an educated guess that that' s water
coming down that ditch goes across that piece of
property and that line that springs dried up.
Shable: The ditch you're talking about, irrigates , I
should state my name probably, first, Judge.
Chairman: That' s right, if you will please.
Shable: I 'm Guy Shable, Route 1 , Box 65, Milliken.
Headland adjoining this land.
The ditch you're talking about irrigates the
Garcia farm and it runs right across the top, up there.
33
9:1061.
Wouldn't be over 5-600 feet long and that' s the only
water that comes in there and that grading there, that
you're speaking about, has nothing to do with this
grade of [overspoken by Moffat]
Moffatt: It comes from above there.
Shable: It comes from the Coopenrider and the, well,
Knister place, and the Greeley-Loveland Ditch is where
it really actually comes from. Until you stop that
ditch you are not going to get rid of your seep water.
Moffatt: This is true but I think we can intercept it and
take it around the fill .
Shable: Well, I farmed on some of the Knister place and I
find out that we have lots of seep trouble up there and
7
we're above you.\\ And the land slopes your way so
you're going to have our seep water, or his seep water
I should say, plus other people' s seep water, plus your
own and I think you've got a problem.
Moffatt: Well, like I said. . .
Shable: Not only that you admit that you haven' t dug down
to see how far your sandstone is . Well my brother' s
farmed that and I 've been up there when he farmed it
and a lot of times your ploughshare will hit the
sandstone.
Moffatt: Well, you'll hit loose sandstone.
34
931061
Shable: And, you can move some of that. . . . You can ' t move
it to no great depth because I 've tried it up in
Wyoming on uranium and you just can't do it.
Moffatt: Well, it depends on where you're at.
Shable: Well, it gets hard or you have to go down a little
bit.
Moffatt: Afraid of the hanging cliff .
Shable: Personally, I think, excuse me Ralph [Waldo] , go
on ahead here. . .
Waldo: Go ahead.
Shable: He asked me a question, but I think you are in
trouble on that piece of land. I think when you go out
there and run some deep tests on it you ' re going to
find out you have water problems everywhere, even up on
1
top of the hills you are going to have water problems ..
Moffatt: L.:The interception cut it off at the property line
and taken back to that draw, that' s where it ' s going to
go.
Shable: But you're not going to be able to cut if all off .
Have you ever run. .
12.9
Moffatt: Then we won't under it, it' ll be going along
where--
[TAPE CHANGE] -- There was a large portion of repeated language
before picking up with Moffatt. I have deleted this duplicated
portion. ]
35
931061
--it was before, if it had a carry before it would
still have one because if we can't go down it and move
it then we won't be
Shable: Have you ever run a drain line in shale.
Moffatt: Yes.
Shable: How did you get along with it?
Moffatt: Well you're on the bottom, if you get it all you
don't change.
Shable: You don't have no sand or anything there.
Moffatt: No you're on the bottom when you're on shale.
That' s why.
Shable: You can pack that with sand and if you do you ' ll
take care of spot maybe as wide as this room but above
that you won't have a thing done.
Moffatt: But if you put it on grade you will. You're going
have to put it on grade.
Shable: I tried it, we. . . .
Moffatt: No, we put those things in. That is our type of
work.
Shable: I know that.
Moffatt: We got equipment enough to do it, but. . .
Shable: It ain't my type work but I 've done it; it doesn' t
work.
36
931061
Moffatt: If you put it in on grade, water' s water, there ' s
no secrets about it, it' s just going to follow what you
got and if you've got open lines it will go down.
Shable: Ever so far if you put crossline in it you might
stop.
Moffatt: Well, I just said that, if we have to go along the
intercept, go clear across the whole place on the
upgrade and turn and take it down and out that area.
That' s it. You're intercepting. What are you going to
do then, where are you going to get the water then, it
won't be coming off our premises?
Shable: Well, it'll still be going through your premises .
Anything that comes from up above has still got to go
somewhere.
Moffatt: ( Well, when it hit, when it does, we intercept and
take it around. Now, if it' s flowing under us , it ' s
not practical to go down, it' s not going to be a
pollution problem because it' s below you.
Shable: It isn't something going under you because you 've
got sandstone there. It' s got to come up through your
landfill . Why won't it come up through your landfill .
Moffatt: Well, fine. . .
Shable: It can't do anything else.
Moffatt: You can intercept it, can't you?
37
931061
Shable: I don't think you intercept it that good. That' s
my own personal opinion. I 'm no engineer. I 've been
in water a long time and I know it just can't be done.
Moffatt: We have intercepted.
Chairman: Are there any more questions? Guy, any more?
Shable: Oh, I 've got some other questions.
Chairman: We want to hear all this as a matter of record.
Shable: Well, to start with I own this land: East 1/2 of
E 1/2 Section 6 , Township 4N R66 W that joins this land
on the SW corner and it joins next to Ella Spomer ' s
lake. My main objection to this landfill here is that
is the trash and stuff that' s going to blow off from
it. Our prevailing winds are from the north, northeast
and northwest, and that will run all this here trash is
going to blow. You say you are going to put up
screens . I 've seen screens and I 've also seen your man
you've talked about and he seems to be a pretty good
man. I 've check that down here and he is working. But
there still is trash that gets away from you.
Moffatt: We don't have any screens out there yet.
Shable: I 'm talking about the roads. He' s not working out
in the fill where the wind blows , he ' s working where it
blows off the trucks, is that right?
Moffatt: Well, he works all around the place.
Shable: Well every time I 've seen him he' s been on the
highway. But anyway my main objection is that this
38
331061
here pollution problem, the water problem and this
here, and then the main thing is , I haven' t talked to
the County Commissioners about it yet but just a little
bit. I planned on making a housing project out there
myself and this here, you know what that will do to my
housing project. You just as well say goodbye to it;
nobody's going to buy land where there' s landfill with
garbage. I figure the valuation of my land is going to
go down and should be going up instead of down. And I
think that there are plenty of drainage on
that. But I have an alternate plan for you. Now, you
can't say everything' s bad. I mean if you're going to
say everything' s bad you've got to have an alternate
plan, right? I and my brother have some land out here
on the dry land and I say there ' s the place where you
ought to take your landfill. We have 960 acres out
there and I haven't talked to him and I don't know if
he' s or not. But we will sell it to you.
Moffatt: Where' s it at?
Shable: 11 miles straight east of Ault. It won' t bother
anybody.
Moffatt: We've got a landfill up in that area, you know.
The problem we've got right now is everybody' s on our
back because they don't want us to move this far out.
I imagine you've got a banker man right here and he' ll
probably tell you he don't want to go this far.
39
3:1061
Shable: Big study. Did you read that in the paper where
out in California they're figuring on moving that by
boat out into the desert area?
Moffatt: Well, that' s not the point, we know, the thing is
Shable: Well, we've got that coming up.
Moffatt: We've got a closer site than that but the problem
we've got you know is they don't want to increase the
cost again. We've tried our utmost, every direction we
could, and publicly and every way to get a piece of
ground that is as close in as we can get for the
benefit of everybody.
Shable: Let me ask you a question, then. You say this
will increase your costs. Right?
Moffatt: Partly. I 'm not saying that you're saying that.
I guess the cost of where we are at now, we are an
expensive operation.
Shable: Well, I don't know why they let you go down on the
river to start with.
Moffatt: Because they had [coughing] and you've got to look
back at the times. When we started this you didn't
have the same problems. But if you. . .
Shable: You're not hauling the garbage, is that right?
Moffatt: No, no, we don't.
Shable: Then how will it increase your costs?
Moffatt: In which way?
40
931061
Shable: You said if you went away from Greeley a ways it
will increase your costs.
Moffatt: Well, no, but we're concerned with the people that
are. This will increase the costs of all your moving.
Shable: If you've got a site that will last you for 50
years without any trouble, you don't have water
problems, you don't have slate problems, you can go
down 50 feet down without any slate; we have tests out
there that prove that.
Moffatt: I believe that, but like I said that really isn ' t
up to me and I know what you've run into. I just know
because we do have our problem.
Shable: You are looking for a place, is that right?
Moffatt: Yes, now we are looking for a place . We are
looking for a place as close in as we can get due to
the people who are calling for a landfill .
Shable: You say this place here will last 15 years, is
that right.
Moffatt: I think so.
Shable: I say it won' t last 5.
Moffatt: Well , then you're badly informed.
Shable: I 'm not badly informed. I 've lived here all my
life and I know that place better than anyone .
Moffatt: We're just getting into discussion that has
nothing to do with what we are talking about.
41
931061
Shable: Well I 've been over every foot of that land with
plows.
Moffatt: It' s a lot deeper, but then
Shable: I don't think you have.
Moffatt: I 've been over it. I won't start wrestling.
Shable: I don't want to start wrestling too.
Moffatt: Nobody
Shable: Anyway the reason that I think that all this plan
to get you out in the dry land where you don' t have no
population to bother you, all you 've got out there is
jack rabbits and antelope. . . .
Moffatt: You have to sell that to . Just as I said,
Chairman: I think we are going to have to hold this to this
problem, Guy. I don't want to break up the fight
and. . .
Shable: That' s all I 've got to say, I was just giving
them an alternate plan.
Chairman: Let' s stick to the case. I appreciate your
comments. Now is there anyone else, that. . . . is there
anything else you want to talk about, Guy? But we've
got to stick to this case is the one we're talking
about. Mr. Carlson.
Carlson: My name' s Bill Carlson, Route 3 , Box 431 , and
shown the access roads, supposedly going out from the
Ashton School House west and then north.
Moffatt: We haven't made yet. . . .
42
9a1061
Carlson: About a mile and three quarters of dirt road. It
is unnecessary to oil them in the first place. I 'm
against the whole thing myself , I 've got a small amount
of property out there and it doesn't join but I don' t
like to see my property being close to a city dump.
And, I especially don't want to see the traffic and the
kind of people who are going to be going up and down
those roads ; sixteen, eighteen hours a day. Bringing
these trash trucks coming through. Another
thing on the sort of waste. What happens to the offal
the guts and what not that say Greeley meat is refuse.
Where' s it go?
Chairman: Denver.
Carlson: Does it go to the landfill.
Chairman: Colorado, ah Animal Byproducts in Denver.
Carlson: It does go to Denver?
Voice 9 I don't think you're going to get any of that type
of fill at all in this because there ' s value and all
that. I guess the closest statement that comes to
something like that is they don't save the sweet oil
( 7 ) of a pig anymore and think Curley ( ? ) you don' t
have any of this have you at all?
Curley? I don't, really I wouldn't know, let' s look at. . . .
No, I think that stuff ' s all trucked to Denver.
Voice 9 You mentioned Greeley Meat out here , and I know
they have a truck and all this is loaded right into it
43
921061
Curley? Right, even this place next door, they pick up all
that stuff from there, so. . . . but the access road I
don't know Mr. Carlson what. . .
[Brief interruption in tape]
Back up west.
Carlson: It doesn't make good sense to me because we
[unintelligible due to overspeaking] go north, west of
Ashton Schoolhouse and then back down south and it
doesn't make sense to me at all .
Curley? I think, Mr. Carlson, the reason they probably
gave that is because it was easier to find from that
description.
Voice 10? But as far as traffic, I agree with you they' ll go
round the oil anyway. You won't drive the dirt roads
yourself if you're coming out the other way you can go
around the oil. Anybody comes from the other direction
would anyway, just naturally.
Carlson: What hours and what days are you keeping that
open?
Moffatt: A sixteen/eighteen hours a day isn' t so. See we
open at 7 : 30 in the morning and close at 4 : 30 in the
afternoon. We're open 8 : 30 till 11 : 30 on a Sunday
morning. Your hours aren't that great.
Chairman: Ms. Carlson, will you give your name please?
44
9n1061
Carlson: Carol Carlson, Route 3, Box 431 . I was wondering
about who uses it? Is this open to the public?
Everybody and their pickups and--
Moffatt: Everyone
Carlson: --they come out there?
Moffatt: Yes.
Carlson: What's to keep them signs put out there? To
direct them to the dump? All around the way around.
Moffatt: Once the thing is confirmed we' ll make up signs
and put arrows on, you know, LANDFILL. We' ll probably
put out a mimeograph sheet giving maps on how to get
there and probably give it out 60 days in advance of
when we close the existing one, so that all the users
would have opportunity, plus. . . .
Carlson: What do you do with the people who want to take a
short cut?
Moffatt: In what regard?
Carlson: Oh, it' s shorter to go from the schoolhouse.
Moffatt: Well, I can't do anything about that at all, you
know. I mean this is something I don't have anything
to say about it.
Carlson: Well, if the neighbors object to it?
Moffatt: Possibly, the Commissioners will have to decide on
it.
Chairman: If I 'm right on the law, the law says that a
county shall provide a road to the dump--period.
45
931061
That's all we can do with road and bridge money to
provide a road to the dump, is that right Tom?
Tom: At this point I don't know if there is a final
determination made in the course of County business to
black top any given. . . .
Chairman: But we have to provide an adequate road to the
dump, and that' s as far as we can go to spend County
money. In other words , we can't go inside the dump
premises other than maybe help out with a dust problem
or something in the case of an emergency which we did
down here one time. We have to be oiling out there in
front of that dump and we had about 500 gallon oil left
over that we were going to have to haul back so we
oiled round the office there to keep the dust down.
But that' s as far as we can go on something like that.
[The tape becomes very poor quality at this point. ]
Carlson: But what do you do about the people that want to
take a short cut. Do you come back in here and try to
Chairman: the road will have to be oiled Ma'am,
there won't be any short cuts unless you go down there
to the, and come in a mile east of the old Carlson
place, and I don't think they' ll be driving that road
when they can go oiled both ways.
46
cin Ar4
Carlson: Well, I was wondering, our road because there ' s a
very dangerous corner by our house. We saw 5,003
last year right on account of that I
sure wouldn't want this traffic on that road.
Chairman: Right is there anyone else? Do you have any more
questions, Mrs. Carlson?
Garcia: Yes, my name is Arthur Garcia and me and my
father, we own this place. My concern is blowing paper
an open ditch I have to run my water through that place
because it would be . In a screen all the
way around, any way, seeing blowing paper being what it
is and if you got it any time in the ditch where you
run water 24 hours a day and if it ever got in there at
any time and create damage
Moffatt: I assure you that we will take care of it, whether
there screens, leaves or , but you won' t have
any problems.
Chairman: Ms. Telep, do you have?
Telep: I 'm Myrtle Telep and I heard about this from my
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Knister, and I really am sorry
that you couldn't find some other place other than out
there because I think that just beautiful and I hate to
see a dump there, isn't there some other place? Can't
you keep looking for a while?
Moffatt: Well, we can then Mrs. Telep what we ' re up against
everyone is all on our backs in the other direction,
47
9:4061
get off the river where are we going to go? Pretty
soon you're going to have to go somewhere.
Telep: Out on the dryland. Guy said he had some
Moffatt: You sell the public on that and you can go to the
dry land.
Telep: O.K.
Guy Thank you, that' s one
Chairman: Go ahead Paul ( ? )
Paul ( ? ) I was not prepared to give the legal description
of anything but the gravel pit of Torrez out here?
Chairman: Can't dump in open water.
Paul ( ? ) Oh, that' s open water?
Chairman:
Paul ( ? ) Like I said, I wasn't prepared
Chairman: Bob? Give us your name for the. . . .
Licher: I 'm Bob Licher, if that' s what you . Our
distance from the city of that,
[Tape is extremely difficult to hear with traffic noises and
distance from the recorder. A passage concerning distance has
not been transcribed as being too patchy to be accurate. ]
Bob: A question I am a good question. About
three years ago when we opened up landfill at the
present location, we were told trash haulers that the
landfill would be open the same as the city. I was
48
931061
given from April 1 to October 1 for a period of one
hour extra during the summer months and if we have to
travel this further distance, we are going to need this
extra hour.
Chairman: Carl ( ? ) , I think that is something you can work
out with Earl. I think
Earl: I agree.
Bob: It' s going to take us two hours and we make
two loads, and four men on those trucks , the trash
rates are going to have to go up.
Moffatt: Still going to
Voice: Bob what kind of raise. . .
Bob: If you raise them any more the public is going to
start hollaring and screaming worse than what they did
before.
Voice: Unless you . How much difference do
you think that raise will have to be?
Bob: Two hours a day at 25% of my day shot if we haul
two loads .
Voice How many loads would you be able to haul out to
the Sandhills per day? If you're out here
Bob: About about 5 or 6 loads now.
Voice: I say, if you had a landfill out in the Sandhills
which has been suggested, how many loads a day would
you be able to haul on a 30-mile round trip?
Bob: 30 miles?
49
831061
Voice: 15 out and 15 back.
Chairman: Oh, it will be more than that.
Voice: Oh, I 'd hate to go that far.
Bob: At least a half of your day. I 'd have a full hour
route and a four hour run, Chris ( ? )
Voice: We're talking about doubling our fees .
Bob: Well, it just too costly to go out 15 miles.
Voice: What is there 7
Bob: Putting in a transfer station, and I don' t think
the City of Greeley like transfer stations or dumps or
anything else around this community. I know I
wouldn't.
Voice: You got that distance you'd end up with transfer
stations .
[Difficult to distinguish with traffic noises or something. ]
Voice: The general opinion on 15 miles is the
farthest. . . .
I hereby certify that the foregoing document consisting
of 50 pages is a partial transcript of the 1971 County Hearing
Central Weld Landfill and was taken by me directly from two tapes
of said Hearing. I further certify that any text which has been
omitted for reasons of inaudibility or any other reason has been
indicated by blank lines, or other appropriate notation.
Dated: January 14 , 1993 .
Estelle Kennel , an er
50
Continuation of transcript of tape taken at the 1971 County
Hearing, Central Weld Landfill:
. . .I mean, think about everything else.
Moffatt: Old Mosburg, even when he hauls quarters 10 miles,
everything beyond that he knows is extra. Waste of
money, waste of time, waste of equipment. For every
mile driven, we've got to pay a ton mile
Voice: [ Indecipherable] We've got to keep a record of that.
Voice: Trash is getting pretty high. We know it' s going
to go higher because the cost of everything else is
going. I just bought a couple of pieces of equipment
36-37 Thousand Dollars. That' s why buying a house up
here you take 45 years to pay a house off , but we 've
got to pay these trucks off in 3 years. This is just a
10% right off the top with us with this cost of
landfill. There' s no way out of it. But I would like
that extra hour during the summer time, Earl .
Moffatt: Well , I 've got everything from you, I 've got my
work out. . . .
Voice: That's all I need.
Chairman: Russell Billings back here.
Bob: Oh, there's one other question.
Chairman: Go ahead Bob. We' ll let you get everything on the
tape.
Bob: That Record?
Chairman: Yes.
51
9:1061
Bob: Earl, the Windsor Landfill is still where it' s at
at the present time?
Moffatt: Yes, we don't have any problem with it; we don' t
have any reason to move it, and I my friend,
but it's all decent over there. You see the Windsor has
been picking up all our trash. . . you still use it, too
don't you?
Bob: Right.
Moffatt: Yes it will still be there.
Bob: O.K.
Chairman: Russell Billings.
Billings: I 'm Russell Billings and I represent First
National Bank as agent on land--in fact it may have
been on the land that we're talking about but I didn ' t
know anything about this until I got to the notice.
As agent it' s my job to try to better these farms ;
improve the . I think I 'm doing it
Especially when you say it' s going to take 15 to 20 or
25 years. The landfill out there certainly isn't going
to help the value of any this land during that period
of time. I think we all realize that the growth of
Greeley is west; as Horace Greeley always said -- "Go
West, young man, Go West! " Greeley told them that and
I think this will take their land right in the line of
development and it' s pretty good developed land back
down there to the south at this time.
52
931061
I wasn't aware that the land was being sold and
when I talked to people that I represent they just
didn't seem to be aware of what it was being sold for,
or they indicated they wouldn't consider it at all .
So, that' s my feelings about it.
Chairman: Mr. Billings could you state for the Record please
who you're the agent . . . ?
Billings: You need my home residence, or. . . .
Chairman: No. Who you're testifying as agent, who. . . .
Billings: I 'm agent for the First National Bank. That is we
are agents for. . . you want to know who I 'm working for?
Chairman: Yes, yes please.
Billings: I 'm agent for Ann Fulmer. I 'm agent for
Realton.
Chairman: O.K. , thank you.
Billings: That is the bank agent I represent. . .
Chairman: Represent the bank, yes.
Chairman: Herm?
Fry Clarence Fry . 13 , 14 , 15 . I agree
with Earl on some parts. We 've got to go somewhere
with the trash. Presently we 're hauling two towns .
It' s going to be a nine-mile haul , roughly 8 or 9 miles
from Greeley. All right, what do I do with haul . Do I
haul that for 14 miles. . . a road sign that says
Greeley, from Ault to Greeley. O.K. add another 9
53
sf 061
miles on to it. same way, I add another 9 miles
from Greeley to Kersey by road. . . .
Chairman: What' s your cost per mile?
Fry Never figured it out.
Chairman: You're a hell of a trucker!
Fry Well, I tell you, this is a long way to haul .
Voice: You could use that sanitary landfill 7 miles
straight east of Ault on Highway 14 .
Fry: O.K. open it up for us. We' ll dump there
tomorrow.
Moffatt: Clarence, it' s open. If you' ll work with us ,
we've have a man there all day, already, every day of
the week. So all you have to do it cooperate with us
so we know because we've got to get it covered, you
know.
Fry That' s two loads a week coming out Ault, Earl .
Moffatt: Why haven't you talked to us about it?
Fry I talked to Joe about it earlier.
Moffatt: Well, I don't think this place stays open.
Fry I know it.
Moffatt: But I don't think that should increase your Ault
run there but it will increase your Ault to Greeley,
there' s no question about that.
Fry But I agree with Earl ' s project on this piece of
ground out there, the way it sounds to me. . . I 've
never been out there. Sounds to me like it's a piece of
54
971061
ground that isn't being used for much. Well , the one
man says he'd like to build houses , so do a good job of
filling it, and then turn it into a park.
Moffatt: There's a big quarrel about that but I don't know
what else.
Chairman: It' s happening all over.
Billings : On behalf of my clients I would like to say this ,
that they do object to using that east 40 acres . The
reason, that that' s right out on the road and it' s
going to be used for such a long time that it' s going
to depreciate the value of their land out there. Now,
Mrs. Fulmer isn't going to be here forever and she
isn't an old lady but she doesn't want to see her land
depreciated for the next 15 years . And, Mr. and Mrs .
Wagner live up to the north and the west of there and
they don't want to see their land depreciated. The
rest of the signers on that petition feel the same way,
and there isn't any information on the soil conditions
in that land, except that it' s seepy. And it looks to
me like it' s an expensive proposition for Landfill ,
Inc. to go into and if it' s an expensive proposition
for them to go into, it'sgoing to make it all the more
likely that they're going to have to do everything they
can to cut corners and make things break even for them.
And, we want to file this petition at this time, and if
55
971061
you'd care to, I ' ll read the names into the Record so
that they can be part of the Record.
Chairman: I think we will accept them as
Voice: Mr. Chairman they are listed on the petition
together with their addresses and the properties in
which they have ownership or interest. The petition
itself is marked as "Protestants ' Exhibit A" and the
map Mr. Waldo submitted is marked as "Protestants '
Exhibit B" and in the absence of objection, I recommend
that they be included in the Record as they stand.
Chairman: We' ll accept them as Exhibit A and B and if
you want to mark that other one Ralph.
Ralph: No, this is a copy of that one, a copy of the
petition.
Chairman: Oh, all right. I think that rather. . . this tape
has to be transcribed and this can be made a part of
the Record, Ralph, rather than. . . .
Ralph: All right, fine. Now if you want a little
additional homework, there' s a real good article on
garbage pollution in the Better Homes and Gardens for
October 1971 , and maybe we could get some ideas about
recycling or something that would save the land, or
save the depreciation of property and everything else
on this. It's a pretty interesting article there .
Moffatt: You know, Ralph, on the depreciation of property,
it was all wasted down on that river. The whole thing
56
$ 1O61
was all subject to overflow. Now, if you put a nice
dike in there, since July the water' s went down, so we
stuck a lot footing in there, we dressed up all the old
car bodies in the banks, and with that dike in there,
enterprising people have bought the piece of ground the
other side of it and they're putting in a mobile court,
which they would not have been able to do had not that
dike been built down through that river; which it could
never have been built down there with money
just out of your pocket. So it was built without any
taxpayer money involved in it and it' s taken all those
trees out, thereby ensuring less chance of flooding
that bridge in there, and the surrounding ground, and I
got to disagree pretty strongly because it's upgraded
all that ground around through there. And, it' s not
going to be an unsightly thing because. . .over on that
west side. . .we've learned a lot and we've got a lot
better piece of ground now. I don' t know what the
expenses will be but they've been terrific down there
because we've had to bring everything out of the river,
everything went and bring it over to get covered.
We're going for depth out there now. And the thing
gets covered every night, so you're just talking about
a small piece of area that will be open in the day and
closed in the night.
57
331.061
Ralph: Earl, if you go 50 feet deep you're going to be
below the water level out there in those ponds.
Moffatt: If you. . . it depends on what you' re talking about.
When you come from daylight to bottom and you take it
to the top, I don't know what it will be, we ' ll see
what it will be, Ralph. But that ground falls a lot,
awful fast down there.
Ralph: I don't think it goes 50 feet.
Moffatt: Well, I don't know. You' ll have to drive and see.
Whatever.
Ralph: C I 'm trying to visualize how high it's going to get;
a kind of mountain in there, when you get through with
it.
Moffatt: Well, no. When you get through with it, it will
be fenced out and put in a piece of tillable ground and
that' s something it isn't now.
Ralph: You've got to take out what' s in there now and
then you've got to add in 50 feet of trash and compact
and then put like 50 feet on that.
Moffatt: ( Yes, but you're filling out down the grade all the
time, you see. The hill ' s falling away, you' ll be
building out below you.
Chairman: Mrs. Telep, you have another question?
Telep: Well, I just think you'll have a mesa when you get
through. You' ll have a table land won' t you.
Moffatt: Yes. Well, no
58
Telep: I think that looks like the dickens.
Moffatt: No, it will be brought down in banks . It won' t
just go out like this and then drop straight over.
Besides it will be sloped off so that they meet the
road on whatever dirt will stand good.
Chairman: Mrs. Carlson.
Carlson: What happens between now and, say, 25 years when
somebody wants to buy the properties. I they won't buy
it. . . it's too close to a landfill.
Chairman: That hasn't been the case in the East. We were on
one in Peoria, Illinois, Billings and I , and they
filled almost 160 acres of cap and fill
Billings : We were actually at this landfill , a lot of it was
dredging the river and they were pumping silt right out
of the river filling up seep areas and dumping other
trash and stuff in there with the silt and, according
to Caterpillar, they'd built this huge, it' s their
brand new foundry for all their parts . They built it
right on top of that. Got quite a folder on landfills
but I gave away some of the articles like Ralph had.
One development back in the Kansas City area where they
had something pretty similar to what' s being done out
at Evans now. They reclaimed some lowlands and had a
15 story apartment building built right on top of it
and landscaped and an 18-hole golf course and
everything. There are excellent possibilities of
59
8:1061.
reclaiming poor land back to good use on land if the
job is done right. But, there is very little questions
about this, I think those people from the Health
Department here would verify my statement.
Voice: Mr. Chairman, I have some pictures I took this
morning I 'd like to pass around in this . Mr. Moffatt
hasn't built this yet and if you can see anything
against this view from the road, from the bridge, and I
took just one picture and you can see from yourself
water color. It' s sand, but I think. . . and he hasn ' t
built this yet. have to heap it on top. So I
think its just. . . . a good part of land never
get through-- [coughing--indistinguishable] --soil over
there and this is sand here.
Chairman: All right, at this time does anybody have anything
else for or against? Are there any other questions
anybody'd like to ask? Go ahead Guy.
Guy: You said to keep this here. But I still say I
didn't know Ault-Kersey came into this deal, does it?
Chairman: Well, here' s the situation we're in Guy, and this
for the. . . "take that off" [the tape seems to clicks
off ] .
Guy: You're going to take it out here Marsh. This is
clear to West 8 where all these towns, you can take it
out there in the dryland where I suggested, you said
60
not to mention that, but I 'm still going to re-mention
it. Now from Ault we're just 11 miles ; from Kersey
we'd be 15; from Greeley here the closest would
probably be around 25 to 6 miles, maybe.
Moffatt: There' s where your volume is now.
Guy" Yea, I know that' s where your volume is. But,
this boy here, you just said in your statement, that
after you get a load on, and I know it' s the same
because I do a lot of trucking myself , it don' t cost
very much more to go another 10 miles. It costs a
little, we'll admit that. But 10 miles doesn' t mean a
thing and these boys said they're going to lose a lot
of time. I don't know how fast their trucks go, but if
they're going 40 miles an hour, which I 'm sure they do,
and they go 10 miles , what is it 15 minutes?
Moffatt: They can't go out there in that time, it would
take them 30-35 with all the corners , and all .
Guy: I mean, extra time of what they're going. So I
think this proposition that I 've given you've got 960
acres and there'd be no water problem or anything out
there, and I 'd rather see the land out there put into
that kind of a deal; I 've already studied the land out
there and this out here, because this is going to hurt
my property out here terrifically. My value going
down. Like Mr. Billings said, back there, he thought
of making a housing project on that land and I thought
61
of the same thing of mine. I have I think a little
better land that he does, but either way they are both
good housing projects.
Now this may not happen the next 5 years but I
think eventually it will, because Greeley is growing
West. And I personally, before you O.K. this here site
out there, I 'd like for you to look at this other deal
and see if it isn't feasible. And that' s my
suggestion.
Chairman: Well it' s these two boys back here ' s the ones that
have to worry about that. Can you afford to run 50
miles round trip?
Voice: Not sending a truck and a crew.
Voice: Our problem is this Marsh. We make our money off
of customers that we serve. The less dollars that you
take away from the customer serves , only makes
an add-on to the customers that we do serve. Some
place along the line we have to protect our customers
from cost. We realize it' s a problem. Nobody wants it
in their back yard. I wouldn't want it in mine; now
this is true. It' s a matter of a policing action to
take care of what you have, that' s all that' s
necessary. May sure there is no pollution.
Chairman: All right, at this time if there isn't any more
questions? Will the people supporting this application
please hold up their right hand. Take a count Gale.
62
People supporting the action? Or the people supporting
the application?
Gale: 8
Chairman: Let the Record show there' s 8 people supporting
the application.
Now the people that' s opposing the application?
Gale: 12
Chairman: Let the Record show there' s 12 people opposing the
application.
Is there anything else to come before this
hearing? If not, I ' ll declare it closed.
[Again, the tape appears to have been turned off . ]
Voice: I 'd like to hold that over and make an on-site
inspection.
Chairman: We're going to have to go. . . .
Voice: . . .out the over the weekend and try to find it,
find where it was posted. Couldn't find where it was
posted, or where it was actually at.
Chairman: His option runs out on that property, I think next
Monday. [Muttering]
Voice: I haven't even had the time to think about it or I
haven't seen it either. . . .
Chairman: Why don't we run out there or he ' ll lose his
option if we decide whichever way we go on this. Drop
property, what have you got on that Byron?
63
8C1.061.
Billings: I had a call this morning from an attorney whose
representing Roger Gump and it seems as though Roger
Gump is not the only person who owns that property at
this point, which I didn't know. If he would ask. . . he
had asked. . . he had just been assigned in this case and
hadn't had time to actually find out what the problems
were. Mr. Gump and the other owners , the other two
owners of the property, asked for a continuance for
this until next Wednesday so that they could bring in
actually 3 different proposals as to construction of
that road and I told him, as far as I was concerned,
that time was kind of running out. That there was in
our approval of that zone change a time limit for
construction to be started, and he said he couldn' t
speak for Mr. Gump but the other two owners of the
property were quite interested in getting construction
started immediately and wanted to get all the problems
straightened out, so I told him I would bring it before
the Board and see if it was possible to continue this
until next Wednesday, when they could actually bring
out all the facts . I think we are going to need
Chairman: I don't think. . . It think it' s a problem between
Byron and them. What do you know about it Byron?
Byron: Well, other than [female voice interrupted with
"why don't you listen to this guy; what do you know
64
931.061.
about him?" ] criteria we have established although we
did extend it out to allow for expansion if he kept the
same criteria. I want a that says the
road he had it. Now if they want to go ahead and
propose a
Voice: What are they proposing,
Byron: The real difference is they want it this way.
This map that you have here, as indicated is fine .
That' s. . . . I 'd like to see what else they can come up
with.
Chairman: How many hours did you spend on that--100?
Byron: Oh, not that much, really. Probably a total of
about a week' s time.
Chairman: I 'm going to overrule him. Welfare security,
we'll want to talk to Jeannie on that.
Voice: I 've got the information to the County Attorney.
I guess he hasn't had time to do anything.
Chairman: O.K. Make a resolution for a request of Larimer
Weld Regional Planning Commission. I don't know what
that means .
Voice: Which one is that?
Voices: [ Indistinct]
Chairman: [Tape appears to be recorded over, briefly. ]
We are not sending to the Board of County
Commissioners a decision concerns a hearing we held
approximately a week ago on Landfill , Incorporated,
65
3 ..061
granting a land use permit of sanitary landfill
can fill in the legal description on the
Record. At this time I think it is in order to make a
decision on the granting of this land use permit to
Landfill, Incorporated. At this time, gentlemen,
what' s your pleasure?
Voice: Chairman, I move for the approval .
Chairman: Byron what do you say?
Byron: I 'm not thoroughly convinced that this is possibly
the ideal location. I still have mixed emotions about
what decision I should make, I 'll have to vote "No" .
Chairman: The Chair will vote yes on this decision. Let the
Record reflect the vote is 2 to 1 for the operation of
a landfill on the described property as shown on the
application.
With that we'll call this hearing closed and the
application is GRANTED.
I hereby certify that the foregoing pages 51 through 66
of this document are the continuation of the transcript of tapes
of the 1971 County Hearing, Central Weld Landfill , taken directly
from the tape recording thereof . I further certify that any text
which has been omitted for reason of inaudibility or any other
reason has been indicated by blank lines or other appropriate
notation.
-7
Dated: February 19 , 1993 5 /€-& -e is
Estelle Kenne 1 sober
66
2:1064
COLORADO DEPARTMENT .EALTH - 4210 East 11th Ave - Denver, CO. 80220
File Copy
Transmittal I .O.C.
17//
July 2, 1980
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Attention: June Steinmark, Chairman
Gentlemen:
A representative of this Division recently conducted inspections of the following
solid waste disposal sites: 31 Disposal operated by Stan Rech near Roads 18 and
31; We],dCnunty i■neo.i, Inc., operated by Bill Cannon near Roads .35 and 12;
Colorado_Landfill, Inc., operated by Lynn Keirnes near Road 61 and U.S. 85; and
Greeley—Millikin Landfill operated by Lynn Keirnes approximately three miles south
of Road 54 and west of Road 271/2.
The inspection at 31 Disposal revealed evidence of potential for serious ground—
water pollution. Areas of dead vegetation and rust colored deposits along the
road into the site were noted. Water could be seen bubbling up from the ground
and running down into this area. Also, trucks dumping directly into the emergency
lagoon had eroded away the clay liner in several areas.
Weld County Disposal, Inc., was operating the day of inspection with one unlined
pit in use. This showed evidence for the potential for groundwater contamination.
Colorado Landfill, Inc., appeared to be well operated and near completion. Because
the fill is located in an old gravel pit approximately 11/2 ft. above groundwater,
there is concern for groundwater pollution. Also, methane gas has been detected
on site in levels as high as 60% by volume. At present there are very few buildings
adjacent to the site. However, with the completion of the site, methane gas would
be a concern regarding future land use.
The Greeley—Milliken Landfill sits on a hill. Surface runoff over old cells could
contaminate the two ponds situated directly below the fill at the vest end of the /)</N
X.eite.
EXHIBIT
I 4 . D. - (O
p -_
Prepared by: ,9 a, , Approved by: Legal Concurrence:
Date: Date: Date:
Executive Director's Action: Signed: Date Mailed: 7 t-cF a
Returned unsigned: Date: ez-cJ
AD 36 A - (Rev. ) (10-74-50) 931961
Board of County Commissioners
July 2, 1980
page 2
As operated these sites are in noncompliance with the Solid Waste Sites and
Facilities Act 30-20 Part I, C.R.S. 1973, as amended and the regulations issued
pursuant to that act. Under regulations recently promulgated pursuant to the
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, these facilities will be
considered open dumps. This requires the creation of compliance schedules for
the proper upgrading or closure of these sites.
We would like to request a meeting of the Commissioners and Representatives of
this Division at your eatliest convenience to discuss this matter.
If you have any questions, please contact Joan Sowinski of this Division.
Sincerely
Nir
Albert J. Basle, Director
Radiation and Hazardous
Wastes Control Division
AJH:JSsew
•
cc: Don Holmer, Water Quality Control Division
John Hall, Weld County Health Department
S:A: .061
fifer W Co• Ce..r.nis/On
on 7-1 -70
SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION Compliance a/
Non-compliance
Open Dump
t
C '7ounty Date / gr Located in
Facility CnP e e ,o y Incorporated Area / /
Location
Current Operator y t1 r a M�
Mailing Address of Operator ex, n) s h/ C v e CjQ P,e1e' p
Current Owner (If different) 1 1
Mailing Address of Owner
(All items checked must be explained in supplemental report)
I. Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement against violations)
1// t 2 &A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal l n1O1a s> 3 WATe -Pkorn G W)
V B. Evidence of Potential for Sa... E Surface or Ground Water Pollution
C. Surface Diversion/Containment Facilities Inadequate or not Maintained
D. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns
✓ E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthorized) 7
F. Safety Hazards
G. Non-Compliance with Approved Design and Operation
H. Other
* REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED
II. Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 (Locally enforced standards)
A. Odors and/or Vectors Present
B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover
C. Inadequate Fencing (to control access and windblown debris)
D. Burning apparent
E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned
�/77 INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONSFOR SITE IMPROVEMENT
e n - r s ^.a 0 -F / n e r i� Ml a ste_ c P e'fn c,P_ .517 n it /i'f Le
Q i t � - 1 I \Inn ;_f n i ; i�o 1 r�-1--S b P-r, ,, e Si it
4nel _ponds Sbn1sIc4 aonSrrle cl • tst"? , ci-
erm t P' R 3j- u_A * t[kite (Y� nrk(` iZni. ndu7n- -e L
J O, p IC 1•l r j. u,t sa. O � can ",<_L t�� i ii l•cZ„ 3 F2 c i cn d v i a'1
II Complaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken r RO b Ie.YY1S
IV. Remarks
` Reo't \ L,* ``d; C�rt"�j r_ ,n-F q(� t7nn` rd "-cc rnr5in Scr'S
rd-P i7 n'F fi ra c . r _ k , , 1 r( C rl P �-, .
�,� � - l t C P � 1 '•� c'F' inn r\ r M R 2ff
_pn 4 gt-PR • n l-
u r�rl-P r1 . °YeSA. 11 n \pie-ell( it,Cr) ' 'Dc,
1YlnS --Inn (- 1r* S r-zp• tPrl -r-n siSi F' x 1er Je-
- ri 't'r� b r rl r to r ►t - i o - I S -41- nn rt S "' Rev
(Name) PRESENT AT INSPECTION It 11 EXHIBIT
/yen Wa-esche • oa n C ' J rl i f}, Q ' I (5nitj n SLcr , rhntr1r1 E/Q fY\el —�
�1�e rt 0 iyp�I S nr. J e p f�
Inspecting Engineer c6L424_4 .4 I` Cp.4O1 2 DAI *-2.31O41.
(WHITE COPY-FLLF_1_. tvPr.r.nw rncv- IPF.RATDRI (PINK COPY-COUNTY) (GOLD COPY-D.E.)
COLORADO DEPARTMENT 1HEALTH - 4210 East 11th Aven ) - Denver, CO. 80220
File Copy
% Transmittal I .O.C.
/ . __
i :) , 7
c
,_ _, -
. L —
July 30, 1980 .
r _
- \-
- -
vr-
LjThl Board of County Commissioners -
>', Weld County ,
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631 " r
-' -. `!
Attn: Ms. June Steinmark, Chairperson
Gentlemen:
On July 23, 1980, representatives of this Division and the Weld County
1 .J Health Department met with the Weld County Commissioners to discuss po-
tential problems at several solid waste disposal sites in Weld County,
;\'!-' Colorado. A brief summary of the discussions held on each site is
- i' presented below.
\- 1) Brighton - Fort Lupton Landfill - This landfill is nearing
completion and is due to be closed approximately September
1, 1980. Potential problems which could arise at this site
- `\ in the future are methane gas migration and leachate formation.
It may be necessary to drill several leachate and gas monitor-
ing wells around the site as development encroaches upon it.
2) Greeley - Milliken Landfill - This landfill is located in an area
of high groundwater. The high groundwater levels may be due to
agricultural return flows. Unless modifications are made to
1 intercept and divert the groundwater, a leachate may develop at
this facility and contaminate the adjacent ponds. The co-die-
posal of liquids and solid waste at this facility should be
discontinued. The liquids (molasses water) should be separately
� disposed of in a shallow lagoon.
+ 4
c C .,, <-1\ 3) Weld County Disposal, Inc. and 31 Disposal, Inc. - Both of the
, ' .G\l' facilities treat and dispose of liquid wastes and have had
\ ' seepage problems in the past. As the Weld County Commissioners
and the Water Quality Control Division of this Department have
<:\ .. _ ^ ; . been deeply involved in correcting the problems at these sites,
`\:- . this Division does not believe it necessary to become involved
\�. at this time.
Prepared by: Approved by: Legal Concurrence:
Date: p. Date:
Executive Director's Action: EXHIBIT Date Mailed: ,.r —/— et 0
N ed: Date: Z'c,t)
AD 36 A - (Rev. ) (10-74-50) ` ` � ' 1 Z
;1 Th
Board of County Coessioners — July 30, 1980 •r ^�
il
Attn: Ms. Steineark - page 2
In summary, both the Brighton - Fort Lupton and the Greeley - Milliken
Landfills are in compliance with the applicable State and Federal Statutes
at this time. We appreciate having the opportunity to have met with you
and hope that you will not hesitate to ask, if we can be of any assistance
in the future.
Sinncerely,
l r-L L E.
Albert J. Hazle, Director
Radiation and Hazardous
Wastes Control Division
AJH:KLW:ev
cc: Sam Cooper, District Engineer
John Hail, Weld County Environmental Health Director
Margo Nielson, Environmental Protection Agency
S
3:1.061.
TELEP AND TELEP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2315-54th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
$n,nuel S Telep
(3031 33043100
Cynthia J Telep Residence(301)3304942
CERTIFIED MAIL Eares Park. Colorado
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (103)586-1131
George Kennedy, Chairman July 17, 1992
Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner
Gordon E. Lacy, Commissioner
C. W. Kirby, Commissioner
William H. Webster, Commissioner
WELD COUNTY/BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Centennial Center
915 IOth Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Notice of Non-Compliance - Greeley-Milliken Landfill
Certificate of Designation No. 21 (Original Cart. No. 261
Final Closure Engineering Design and Elevation Contours
REQUEST FOR HEARING
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to express my concern about the dump owned and controlled by Waste
Management of Colorado, Inc. located southwest of Greeley, near the Little
Thompson River, in Sec. 32-T5N-R66W of 6th P.M.
About 21 years ago I was involved in the conception of the existing facility.
At that time it was agreed that because of the Evans dump reaching its capacity
we needed to find a new location. Due to nuisance and being located in a major
drainage area, it was proposed that the new site would be used for a maximum of
15 years. The adjacent land owners felt that this was a time limit that they
could live with. Final closure envisioned irrigable land which would not impair
Knister, Shable, Garcia or Spomer properties' planned land use, water flow or
quality, or line of sight views by becoming a dominant land form.. That was the
agreement that permitted the site to go unchallenged by lawsuits which would have
prevailed because the decision was clearly against the weight of the evidence,
testimony and known hydrogeology. We urge you, as Commissioners, to listen to
official audio tapes of the hearing because they are an important part of the
administrative record in this matter. We, as neighboring property owners,
performed our part of the bargain.
Now 21 years after the fact, six years and (31 owners past the target date of
closure, and well past the natural fill capacity of the 1971 plan, it appears
that this dump is to be used forever.
From a common sense point of view I would like to make the following
observations;
•
- 21 years ago this facility was not engineered for its present day use.
- inc height of the artificial structure has been permitted to rise higher
than the natural fill capacity of the site, unduly increasing volume,
weight and pressure on inadequate original fill.
- This dump it; unlined. New facilities require liners. Composites are
EXHIBIT
801061
Weld County Carmissioners
July 17, 1992
Page Two
called for in 1993 federal regulations. The base of the fill was dug
below groundwater table and dumped into standing groundwater.
- Fires, blowing trash, putrid odors, rotting carcasses, vermin, petroleum.
medical and chemical waste, acceptance of material rejected by other
counties and municipalities, recent deep dangerous trenches to divert the
year-round water flow on the property, ponding on the site, escape of
sludge and leachate, the habitual practice of dump management to permit
unsupervised access and dumping (not during, regular hours) have taken
place without us as neighbors filing official complaints in an effort to
get along with the dump operation until final closure which was expected
to have already occurred by now.
- Dust problems are intolerable along County roads from the north due to
excess trips and heavy truck traffic to and from the dump at all hours.
- Landfill operator paid funds into segregated reserve account for oiling
the roads to the dump from the north but only 2/10 mi. from south to the
gate has been oiled. This work has repeatedly been scheduled. Landfill
funds were to have been audited. Frequent re-grading, re-graveling or
watering these dirt roads is general misuse of County road funds.
- One of the most important commodities Colorado has is its water. It is
imperative that we protect this resource. Because of the topography of
the existing dump site and its geographical location adjacent to the
Little Thompson River (flow joins S. Platte at Dos Rios) you need to be
aware of contamination of surface and groundwater as well as hazardous gas
related to this dumpsite and which pose grave public health concerns.
( In examining the legal standards for new facilities I have found that a prudent •
approach to protecting our constituents is a facility that meets current day
standards. (Contrary to CRS 30-20-109(c) which is applicable to this site,
legislative intent, and public policy, you have already missed at least two
opportunities which mandated the filing of an Engineering Design and Operations
Report l "EDOR" 1 for the Greeley—Milliken dumpsite when an amended application is
filed on a Certificate of Designation for an existing solid waste landfill)
The wording of CRS 30-20-109(c) treats "new or amended solid waste disposal site
application" the same, clarifying legislative intent to phase in updated design
standards for existing landfills. An existing landfill shall file for an amended
Certificate of Designation pursuant to a "substantial change of operations." CDHR
Sec. 1 . 3.7 Current Colorado Department of Health Regulations ('CDHR") Sec. 1 .2
defines the term and CDHR Sec. 4.0-4.8.3 regarding 'new facilities' are then
applicable to the site, instead of the previously-existing facility merely having
to comply with the insufficient 'minimum standards" of CDHR 2.0. These
regulations had an effective date of January, 1963.
The first opportunity to apply current engineering standards and to require an
acceptable closure plan pursuant to CDHR 4.8.3 was on or about May 7, 1986, when
the Keirnes family (Lynn, wife Lela, with accountant/manager son Brad and ex-Weld
County Assessor Richard Reines) applied for Certificate No. 21 to be amended
when they requested transfer of ownership from Colorado Landfill, Inc. to Waste
Services, Inc. (emphasis mine) A possible next opportunity ems when the Keirnes
family corporation changed to Waste Services Corporation.
The most recent opportunity missed by Weld County of which I em now aware was on
or about Juiy 12, 1991 . A letter signed by Brad Keirnes on letterhead of Waste
Services Corporation dated July 15, 1991 was written to. you about a merger
fAO6i
Weld County Commissioners
July 17, 1992
Page Three
transaction. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A For your
review. This letter is remarkable not so much for the information it contained
as for the information it apparently neglected to tell you: namely that the
ownership, control and management of daily operation of the dumpsite had de facto
passed to Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. Despite Waste Management operating
Greeley-Milliken landfill in the name and guise of Waste Services Corporation for
the past year. Waste Services did not file for an amendment to Certificate of
Designation No. 21 reflecting the selling or tranferring, pe5c. b1y since doing
so would have triggered the consequence of a public hearing and a mandated EDOR
a year ago. Whether any member of the Keirnes family holds mere title or any
actual operational role in Waste Services is irrelevant toethe substance of the
sale transaction.
As you probably know, assets and liabilities of a business can be sold to a
purchaser in basically one of two ways: (11 outright sale of land, equipment,
etc. wherein the fact of sale and transfer is made a part of the public records;
or 121 sale or exchange of shares of corporations wherein the fact of sale of
assets and liabilities is not necessarily apparent. Usually a target corporation
is extinguished upon acquisition. However, a reverse merger in which the target
corporation is the surviving entity may also qualify as a tax-free reorganization
under Sec. 368 of the Internal Revenue Code (with or without taxable 'boot"
compensation to the sellers which, for example, might be cash or securities of
a parent corporation such as Waste Management of North America, Inc. (currently
trading for about $34/share on the New York Stock Exchange; designation "Waste' ) .
I submit that when a small family business (the new lined and buffered Ault
landfill packaged together with this marginal site) is bought out by a subsidiary
of a $7 Billion corporation there has occurred a "substantial change of
operations" which is defined in the Coda of Colorado Regulations at 6 CCR 1007-2:
"Substantial change in operations' means any redesign or planned
construction which would significantly change the planned design
performance of a facility for solid waste disposal as originally
designated; the addition of a category of wastes or other waste handling
processes that have not been previously reviewed and accepted as complying
with these regulations: or the selling or traasferriaq of the Certificate
of Designation to a new operator.
in my investigation of this matter, we have ascertained that representatives of
both the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado State Health Department
understand that they are dealing with Waste Management of Colorado, Inc.
regarding this site. We seek approval of CDHR Sec. 4.8.0 Closure Data
satisfactory to us and other parties negatively impacted by illegal dumping
practices and variance from the 1971 plan and design of Ibis:dumpsite.
We formally requested a public hearing in January, 1992. I had no notice of a
study session on this matter January 20, 1992. From published reports, our
concerns were not addressed. On January 31 , 1992, a new slate of officers and
directors for waste Services Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State.
CRS 30--20-112 thru 114 provide that after public hearing, severe penalties can
be imposed for failure of operators to comply with applicable laws and Regs.
None of this explains how the sale avoided triggering .the required public
hearing, EDOR and acceptable Closure Data for this marginal site in July, 1991 .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weld County Commissioners
July 17, 1992
Page Four
My daughter and son-in-law recently met with the management of the dumpsite only
to be told that topography, monitoring, volume, and merger documentation usually
required to be maintained in normal course of business was not available. We
have been "stonewalled" for a number of years, but at this point it has become
egregious.
Very truly yours,
6 h' 1. G-�
// Samuel S. Telep
Manager - Knister Farms
cc: Tom David, Weld County Attorney
cc; John Pickle, WCHD - Environmental Protection Department
C1'MTU$S
CRS 30--20-109(c) and 6 Code of Colorado Regulations 1007-2 ( "Solid Wastes
Disposal Sites and Facilities'I ('CDHR Rags' ) are applicable to this site:
Colorado Department of Health Regulations lin pertinent part) :
1 . 3.7 An amended application shall be made for a substantial change in
operations as defined in Section 1 .2 of these regulations, and shall be
referred to the County Board of Commissioners and the Department for
review and approval before such change shall become effective.
1 . 2 "Surstantial change in operations" means any redesign or planned
construction which would significantly change the planned design
performance of a facility for solid waste disposal as originally
de ignated; the addition of a category of wastes or other waste handling
processes that have not been previously review and accepted as complying
with these regulations; or the selling or transferring of the Certificate
of Designation to a new operator.
4 -8.0 Closure Data: The engineering design and operations report IEDAR1 shall
include, as a minimum, the following closure data:
4 .8. 1 Provisions for the maintenance of the facility after closure, to
present or minimize nuisance conditions.
4 .8. 2 Provisions for the monitoring of explosive gas and groundwater wells
or surface water after closure.
4.8.3 Plans for final closure of the facility, including planned final
contours of fill surface after closure.
CRS 30-20-109(c) , in pertinent part states:
Ic1 The establishment of a fee for the review of a new or amend4c] eolid
waste disposal site application and for the preoperation inspection
of such site shall be as follows: . . . [fee schedule of up to several
thousand dollars is set forth based on volume aqd is dependent on
sound and reliable re:.ard-keeping practices)
331.081
/ WWPA L. SCOTT TURNER 3102828447 P. 03
cA\ Waste Services
CORPORATION
RECEIVED
SANITATION DIVISION
July 15 , 1991
JUL 15 1991
Board of Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley , CO 80631 WELD CO NTY HEM DEPT.
Dear Commissioners :
I wish to take this opportunity to inform you that effective
July 12 , 1991 , Waste Services Corporation has merged with
Waste Management of Colorado .
This action was taken to enable Waste Services Corporation
to continue our commitment to meeting Weld County ' s solid
waste management needs in a more comprehensive manner.
As a small family business , we determined that we needed
additional resources and means to do so, as well as to meet
the increasing regulatory, financial and competitive demands
of our industry.
Upon realizing our limitations , we sought and selected the
company whom we believe is best committed to the same
principles by which we have done our best to conduct our
business . We believe that the addition of Waste
Management ' s expertise and strength to Waste Services '
ongoing operations will result in our continuation of what
we trust has been cost-effective and environmentally-sound
service to our customers and to Weld County.
Wel:.re Services Corporation will continue in its ownership ,
development and operation of the Central Weld and North Weld
Sanitary Landfills . I intend to continue in my present
management role.
if you have any questions about this matter, I would be
hdppy to try to answer them at your convenience. Thank you.
Res ectfully,
C . Bradley Keirnes
President
Ctriktc
cc : Don Warden
Wes Potter
Rod Allison EXHIBIT A 831061
Lee Morrison
0)37 S:EVENTY.SEVFNTij AVFhnr . _CREPT ry rnrnPAnn anwa4 • /Intl 11ASit
KENT E. HANSON
Attorney at Law
Canyon Center
1881 9th Street,Suite 216
(303)449-)6[0 Boulder,Colorado 80302 Telefax(303)443-6:1
September 11, 1992
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
George Kennedy, Chairman
Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner
Gordon E. Lacy, Commissioner
C.W. Kirby, Commissioner
William H. Webster, Commissioner
Weld County/Board of County Commissioners
Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Central Weld County Landfill
Dear Commissioners:
I represent Samuel Telep. As you know, Mr. Telep owns land
adjacent to the Central Weld Landfill and has raised several
concerns about the County's failure to regulate the landfill as
required by State law. Most recently, these concerns were raised
in January 1992 when Mr. Telep first requested that the County
hold a public hearing on the change of operator for this site.
When the County failed to act, Mr. Telep raised several questions
in a letter dated July 17, 1992. His questions have not been
answered despite several subsequent communications.
After reviewing the public records concerning Central Weld
Landfill, I find Mr. Telep's concerns to be extremely well-
grounded. Weld County has not conducted a public hearing despite
"substantial changes in operations" as defined by Colorado's
regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal sites an'
facilities. More specifically, the landfill has been allowed to
significantly change its planned design performance. When the
original Certificate of Designation was issued, the final surface
elevation of the landfill was to be no higher than surrounding
properties. Nevertheless, the County has allowed landfill
operators to begin construction of a trash plateau. In addition,
a substantial change in operations occurred when Waste Management
purchased all stock of Waste Services, Inc. from the Keirnes
family.
Data recently submitted to the County confirms that there is
off-site groundwater contamination. The County has expressed
EXHIBIT
• � , ( `1 ??ZiO61
George Kennedy, Chairman
Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner
Gordon E. Lacy, Commissioner
C.W. Kirby, Commissioner
William H. Webster, Commissioner
September 11, 1992
Page 2
some concern about this situation but has taken no action. The
County even failed to conduct its quarterly monitoring in August
and has allowed Waste Services to withhold its most recent
monitoring data.
This is only the most recent example of the County's failure
to inform itself about activities at the site. It appears that
the County has never required the submission of engineering,
design and operations plans and reports in violation of the
Certificate of Designation's requirement that the operator comply
with all State laws and regulations. Engineering reports
concerning the design and operation of landfills has been
required since 1971. Moreover, the regulations make the
operators' records available to the County Board of County
Commissioners upon its request.
One can only speculate about the reason the County has
allowed Central Weld Landfill to operate virtually unregulated
and about the reason the County has delayed responding to Mr.
Telep' s concerns. None of the likely reasons reflects favorably
on the County.
I request that the County take immediate action to fulfill
its responsibilities and enforce all legal requirements
applicable to Central Weld Landfill. At a minimum, the County
should:
1. Investigate off-site groundwater contamination, and in
conjunction with the State, require appropriate remedial action
at the site;
2 . Enforce the requirement that the final elevation of the
landfill not exceed adjacent land surfaces in compliance with the
design on which the Certificate of Designation was predicated ;
and
3 . Obtain an up-to-date engineering design and operations
report, together with all other information necessary to evaluate
t`e performance of the landfill.
Because of the County's past delay in responding to Mr.
Telep' s concerns, I must demand that the County acknowledge no
later than Wednesday, September 16, 1992 that it will begin to
:1-31061.
George Kennedy, Chairman
Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner
Gordon E. Lacy, Commissioner
C.W. Kirby, Commissioner
William H. Webster, Commissioner
September 11, 1992
Page 3
act in accordance with the above requests. If such
acknowledgement is not received, legal action will be initiated.
Mr. Telep and I would be happy to meet with the
Commissioners if you wish to discuss any of these matters.
Sincerely,
ent E. Ha on
/te
cc: Lee Morrison
831.06.1.
IQ% 'Nast?. ianac_men:c;cr:h America. inc. r"----
,`� Suite 4 4 Sae;°n _
5660 Greenwood Plan B vd.•_nglew00,i. Cc:torado 70111
Suite»24•JD1. .70
September 18, 1992 Rr_ C : ( Irr
L
Mr. John Pickle SEP w i 1992
Weld County Department of Health
1517 16th Avenue Court . .,r" ,
Greeley Co 80631 1•--W ..;i ;;_ _
^
Ms. Austin Buckingham
Colorado Department of Health
Waste Management Division
4210 E 11th Avenue
Denver CO 80220
SUBJECT: CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILL (CWSL)
EXPANDED HYDRO GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Pickle and Ms. Buckingham:
As discussed in our meetings with Ms. Buckingham on July 10, 1992
and Mr. Pickle on July 17, 1992 , Waste Services Corporation (WSC)
has authorized Golder Associates Inc. to complete an expanded
hydrogeologic study as part of the CWSL investigation.
As previously reported to the Weld County Department of Health and
the Colorado Department of Health, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected during the initial _investigation in four
shallow d—Wffg ad ent monitoring wells (GWMWB-4 , 5, 5N, and 7) and
at the outlet of the landfill underdrain (LF-UD) . Their locations
are shown on Figure 1. The VOCs detected at these locations are
listed in Table 1. The basis for the expanded study is to assess
the extent of migration of the detected VOCs in the shallow
groundwater downgradient of the landfill .
Golder Associates Inc. is scheduled to commence this investigation
on September 21, 1992 . The fieldwork is expected to be completed
by September 25 , 1992 .
Golder intends on using a Temporary Sampling Point (TSP) system as
an alternative investigative approach to conventional drilling and
well installation. Specifically, Golder will use the GEO
Environmental Expendable Aquifer Sampling Implants (EASI) system.
The EASI system provides for minimal surface disturbance, no
permanent well installation, and quicker collection of groundwater
samples.
wpA\o\pickle.916 -
F: CWLF9.1 EXHIBIT
931061 a
Pickle/Buckingham letter 2 September 18, 1992
Golder proposes a phased approach to groundwater sampling.
Initially, TSP-1 through TSP-5 will be installed and sampled. TSP-
6 and TSP-7 will be installed and sampled if VOCs are detected in
the initial four temporary sampling points. The proposed
monitoring locations are also shown on Figure 1. Since the project
consists of a phased approach additional sampling locations may be
required to ascertain the extent of VOC migration. Golder's report
describing the field investigation and its findings will be
forwarded to you as it becomes available.
If you have any questions please call Bill Hedberg at 654-1133 or
Alan Scheere at 770-3324 .
Sincerely,
a4". C-Cletq
Bi 1 Hedberg Alan Scheere
Division V.P. Landfill Operations Environmental Specialist
BH\mmp
cc: Jon Stephens, w/enc
Dave Hayes, w/enc
wp51\u\plcklc.916
F: CWLF9.1
931061, 1
Lr C-
a
Art
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE(303) 3564000, Exr. 4200
P.O. Box 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
REOENFD
SEP 2 9 1992
COLORADO KEn4 rotowUN
September 28 , 1992
Waste Services Corporation
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
Attention Bill Hedburg
RE: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (Greeley-Milliken Landfill)
Dear Mr. Hedburg:
The Greeley-Milliken (Central Weld Landfill) operation dates back
to prior to 1971 . Permits were conditionally obtained from Weld
County on October 6 , 1971 subject to approval by the State Health
Department. The applicable statute, CRS 1973 S 36-23-3 (2) , was
amended effective July 1, 1971 and required submittal of
geological, engineering, hydrological, and operational data, as may
be required by the State Health Department, for review and approval
by the State Health Department. Regulations implementing the
statute were not made effective until 1972 . Apparently no study
covering the engineering, geology, hydrology, and operations of the
facility was ever prepared or submitted for State Health Department
approval and, to date, no comprehensive plan covering all aspects
of the site and its operation has ever been prepared, although
there have been studies which address certain aspects of the site
and its operation.
Continued operation of this facility without a comprehensive
evaluation of the site and its operation, whether required by the
State Health Department or not, does not appear to be in the best
interest of Waste Services as operator, adjacent landowners , or the
citizens of Weld County. Recent discoveries, by your own testing,
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water adjacent to
the site only adds weight to the urgency of completing the
appropriate studies . The Board understands that studies have been
underway since early this year in order to establish an operations
plan to show compliance with Subtitle-D regulations, but that the
operations plan is not yet ready for submittal to state or local
agencies .
EXHIBIT
I A .O. -l�
931061
Waste Services Corporation
Page 2
September 28, 1992
The Board respectfully requests that a plan containing geological,
hydrological, engineering, and operational information be completed
and submitted as soon as possible to County and State Health
Departments and the County Department of Planning Services, and
that it be done no later than 45 days from the date of the letter.
It is expected that this plan should cover all aspects of the
anticipated expanded continued operation and use of the existing
fill areas . As you have been advised previously regarding your
Subtitle-D operations plan, the submittal of the plan will likely
trigger a need for a full review under either or both the Solid
Waste Sites and Facilities Act (Certificate of Designation) or the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance (Use by Special Review) . This process
would include public hearings .
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
George Kennedy -----
Chairman
GK/LM/gb:waste
pc : Weld County Health Department
Department of Planning Services
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Austin Buckingham, State Health Department
William A. Jeffry
bc : Kent Hansen
221061
OCT 5 ' 92 14 : 49 PAGE . 062
411
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RHONE(303)356.4000,Err.4200
PII Burt 758
GRciGY,COLORADO are2
III
•
COLORADO
September 28, 1992
Waste Services Corporation
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
Attention Bill Hedbcrg
RE: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (Greeley-Milliken Landfill)
Dear Mr. Hedbarg•
The Greeley-Milliken (Central Weld Landfill) operation dates back
to prior to 1971. Permits were conditionally obtained from Weld
County on October 6, 1971 subject to approval by the State Health
Dena -tment. The applicable statute, CRS 1973 5 36-23-3(2) , was
amended effective July 1, 1971 ana required submittal of
1 en ineering, hydrological, and operational data, as may
e required by the Sta a nealth Department, for review and approval
by the State Health Department. Regulations implementing the
statute were not made effective until-1-2'4. Apparently no study
Covering the engineering, geology, hydrology, and operations of the
facility was ever prepared or submitted for State Health Department
approval and, to date, no comprehensive plan covering all aspects •
of the site and its operation has ever been prepared, although
there have been studies which address certain aspects of the site
and its operation.
Continued operation of this facility without a comprehensive
evaluation of the site and its operation, whether required by the
State Health Department or not, does not appear to be in the best •
interest of Waste Services as operator,, adjacent landowners, or the
citizens of Weld County. Recent discoveries, by your own testing,
of volatile organic compounds (vCCs) in ground water adjacent to
the site only adds weight to the urgency of completing the
appropriate studies. The Board understands that studies have been
underway since Carty this year in order to establish an operations
plan to show compliance with Subtitle-0 regulations, but that the
operations plan is not yet ready for submittal to state or local
agencies.
•
EXHIBIT
A-- 0717
OCT 5 •92 14: 50 PAGE . 003
c P
•
Waste Services Corporation
Page 2
September 28, 1992
The Board respectfully requests that a plan containing geological,
hydrological, engineering, and operational information be completed
and submitted as soon as possible to County and State Health
Departments and the County Department of Planning Services, and
that it be done no later than 45 days from the date of the letter.
It is expected that this plan should cover all aspects of the
anticipated expanded continued operation and use of the existing
fill areas. As you have been advised previously regarding your
Subtitle-D operations plan, the submittal of the plan will likely
trigger a need for a full review under either or both: the Solid
Waste Sites and Facilities Act (Certificate of Designation) or the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance (Use by Special Review) . This ptocess
would include public hearings.
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
orge Kennedy C'
Chairman
GE/LM/gb:waste
pc: Weld County Health Department
Department of Planning Services
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Austin Buckingham, State Health Department
William A. Jeffry •
** TOTAL PAGE.003 **
221061
' . .r-hi" neftHr- ,-2
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517- 16 AVENUE COURT
Wil
ige GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (303)353.0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635
COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353-0639
COLORADO
October 5, 1992
Mr. Bill Hedberg
Waste Services Corporation
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
Mr. Hedberg:
This Division has reviewed your Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization
for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, dated July, 1992. Trevor Jiricek and
myself will be meeting with you on October 6, to discuss our concerns with regard
to the report.
At this time, we do wish to advise you that in the opinion of this Division, the
findings in your report, specifically, the presence of volatile organic compounds
in the offsite monitoring well, constitute a violation of section 2.1.4. of the
State Solid Waste Regulations. You have been most cooperative up to the present
in taking appropriate action toward mitigation and remediation of these problems.
Consequently, we will suspend further legal action, pending our meeting on
October 6, the results of further studies, and so long as you continue to
cooperate as you have in the past.
Very _ ly
hn S. Pickle
!/Director,
Environmental Protection Services Division
xc: Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
Randy Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H., Director
EXHIBIT
i A- o,- Ig
SECTION 2
MINIMUM STANDARDS
2. 1 Minimum standards All facilities for solid waste disposal shall comply with
r the following minimum standards of the act:
2.1.1 Such sites and facilities shall be located, operated, and maintained
in a manner so as to control obnoxious odors and prevent rodent and
insect breeding and infestation, and they shall be kept adequately
covered during their use.
2.1.2 Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws,
standards, rules, and regulations of the department, the_ Water
Quality"ControINCommission, the Air Quality Control Commission, and
all applicable zoning laws and ordinances.
2.1.3 No radioactive materials or materials contaminated by radioactive
substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not
specifically designated for that purpose.
2.1.4 'A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall provide
means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner co
minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, windblown debris,
insects, rodents, and smoke; shall provide compacted fill material; '
shall provide adequate cover with suitable material and surface
:drainage designated to prevent ponding of wacereand wind erosion and
prevent water and air pollution; and, upon being filled, shall be
left in a condition of:orderliness and good esthetic appearance and
capable of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of
such a site and facility, the solid wastes shall be distributed in •
�i the smallest area consistent with handling traffic to be unloaded;
shall be placed in the most dense volume practicable using moisture
and compaction or other method approved by the department; shall be
fire, insect, and rodent resistant through the application of an
adequate layer or inert material at regular intervals; and shall have
a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed into the fill.
2.1.5 Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as co prevent
waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and
debris shall not be allowed to accumulate along the fence line.
2.1.6 Solid wastes deposited at any site/or facility shall not be burned,
other than by incineration in accordance with a certificate of
designation issued pursuant to section 30-20-105; except that, in
extreme emergencies resulting in the generation of large quantities
of combustible materials, authorization for burning under controlled
conditions may be given by the department.
2.1.7 Any provision of the "Air Pollution Control Act", Title 25, Article
7. section 108, CRS 1973 as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding,
the board of county commissioners in any county with less than
twenty-five thousand (25,000) population, according to the latest
federal census, is authorized to develop regulations, by resolution,
permitting the noncommercial burning •
(10)
Revised 8/90
riitt,e ,
,i,e ,
, tz, ,,
_
\ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517 . 16 AVENUE COURT
WI ip GREELEY. COLORADO 60631
O ADMINISTRATION 13031 353-0635
HEALTH PROTECTION 13031 353-0635
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 353-0639
COLORADO
October 7,1992
Mr. Bill Hedberg
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
Dear Bill:
This letter will confirm our conversation of October 6, 1992 concerning the
Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization of the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill, July 1992. Trevor Jiricek of this office and Alan Scheere of your
office were also present at our meeting on this date.
During this meeting we discussed the findings of this study, and also the
recommendations from Golder Associates. The presence of VOCs in the offsite
monitoring well is of concern to us all. Further, the possible contamination of
the Spomer Lakes and the ditch coming from them is another area of concern.
We discussed the recommendations as follows:
1. The design of the unlined portion of the diversion trench along the
northern boundary of the site should be revised to prevent continued
recharge to the shallow aquifer system.
Any change in the diversion trench would be reflected in a new Design
and Operations Plan. Several alternatives were discussed including
lining the trench.
2. The extent of the off-site volatile organic compound migration south
of the landfill should be delineated.
Results of testing performed prior to this meeting should be
available within approximately two (2) weeks.
3. The current use of the downgradient water wells south of the landfill
should be determined through interviews with well owners.
Plans in this regard have been incorporated in the new Groundwater
Monitoring Plan, a copy of whirh tae ceived at this meeting. We
EXHIBIT
will review this document within the next two (2) weeks and comment
on this aspect as part of that review.
4. Surface water in Spomer Lakes should be sampled to determine if
discharge from the landfill underdrain is measurably impacting the
lakes.
We discussed that this sampling also included the ditch coming from
the Spomer Lakes and continuing through the adjacent property. It
appears that a part of these results is contained in the
"Confirmation Groundwater Sampling" , dated October 5, 1992. It was
indicated that sampling results from the ditch will be forthcoming
within the next five (5) weeks. We received a copy of this document,
the day of our meeting, and will be reviewing it over the next two
(2) weeks. Our comments will be forthcoming at that time.
5. Shallow monitoring wells along the southern portion of the landfill
should be resampled to provide a larger database and to confirm the
results of the Golder investigation.
Results of this testing were also contained in the "Confirmation
Groundwater Sampling".
6. The potential impacts from upgradient irrigation activities should
be defined through quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells.
This is in the Groundwater Monitoring Plan and will be reviewed as
above.
7. Seasonal water level changes should be determined through quarterly
monitoring of water levels in all monitoring wells and soil gas
probes.
Also in the Groundwater Monitoring Plan and will be reviewed as
above.
8. The extent of saturated refuse in the northern portion of the
landfill should be determined through installation of additional
piezometers.
After some discussion pro and con we decided that continuing to
monitor saturation levels in TP-1 and TP-6 would not be extremely
costly, and might be of service as you decide what to do regarding
the diversion trench mentioned in It 1.
Other than the above issues, we discussed the fact that regular, written reports
from you might would be helpful in communication. These would provide us with
up to date information as you resolve this issue.
We discussed the fact that a report as to any remediation recommendations would
be forthcoming sometime within the next three (3) weeks. We look forward to
receiving this document.
S31.061
We also discussed the fact that other issues will arise from time to time as we
resolve this issue. We were all aware that these would have to be addressed as
they arise.
Please accept this letter as the Division's response to your Hydrogeologic and
Geotechnical Characterization; however, understand that the Colorado Department
of Health may have additional comments, or requirements regarding same.
If this letter does not accurately reflected the discussions at our meeting,
please contact me. Also, I certainly appreciate your attention to, and your
cooperation in this matter.
Very trufl yours,
ohn S. Pickle
irector
Environmental Protection Services
xc: Glenn Mallory, Colorado Department of Health
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
George Kennedy, County Commissioner
KENT E. HANSON
Attorney at Law
Canyon Center
1881 9th Street,Suite 216
(303)449-0600 Boulder,Colorado 80302 Telefax(303)443-6490
October 16, 1992
Certified Mail
George Kennedy, Chairman
Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner
Gordon E. Lacy, Commissioner
C.W. Kirby, Commissioner
William H. Webster, Commissioner
Weld County/Board of County Commissioners
Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Central Weld Landfill
Dear Commissioners:
Over the past nine months, my client, Sam Telep and other
members of the community have voiced growing concern over the
situation at the Central Weld Landfill. These concerns arose out
of existing environmental problems and the County's long history
of allowing - and even assisting - owners of the landfill to
operate in violation of state law.
Within the past few weeks, the County has begun to pay
greater attention to this matter. The County's actions, however,
do not adequately address problems at the site. Indeed, some
action promised by the County has yet to be taken. Generally,
requests for action have been met with resistance and unfounded
arguments attempting to justify the County's past inaction. In
some cases, requests have simply gone unanswered.
This letter summarizes the reasons for Mr. Telep' s concerns.
It concludes with a request that the County take immediate action
co correct existing problems.
The County Never Reauired Compliance With the certificate of
Designation
The Weld County Commissioners approved the Certificate of
Designation on October 6, 1971. At that time, a Certificate of
Designation could be issued only with the approval of the
Colorado Department of Health ("CDH") . This requirement was
incorporated into the Certificate of Designation which was
EXHIBIT
A . D , - ao 821061
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 2
granted subject to the condition that "any sanitary landfill
facility to be installed shall be approved by the State Health
Department. " This condition was never satisfied.
CDH approval was not obtained before the Certificate of
Designation was approved because the County Commissioners wanted
to accommodate Earl Moffat and Weld County Landfill, Inc. Moffat
held an option to purchase the site of the landfill. The option
expired in October 1971 and Moffat wanted approval to operate a
landfill before exercising the option. In addition, Moffat did
not want to go to the expense of performing the required
environmental and engineering work if the County was going to
deny his application. CDH explicitly advised the Weld County
Commissioners that the Certificate of Designation "be made
contingent upon the submittal of an engineering report concerning
the design and operation of the site as described in Regulation 3
and 4" of the state's proposed regulations which became final in
early 1972 .
A review of CDH and Weld County files reveals that no
engineering report of any kind was submitted over the following
21 years. CDH has never given its approval to the facility. At
no time has Weld County taken any action to require compliance
with this condition of the Certificate of Designation. Indeed,
Weld County ignored several requests over the last year to
require the operator to submit an engineering, design and
operations report as required by the law.
On September 18, 1992, in response to repeated demands, the
County Attorney's Office indicated that it was drafting a letter
demanding that the operator submit information for the County's
review. On September 28, 1992 the County finally requested that
the operator submit a "plan containing geological, hydrological,
engineering, and operational information. " The County allowed
the operator to submit the information as late as November 19,
1992 (16 days after election day) . The County acknowledged that
such information had not been submitted previously and that full
review of the plan was required under state statute and County
zoning ordinance, but failed to set a hearing. Apparently, the
County intends to allow the landfill to operate without complying
with the existing Certificate of Designation. There also seems
to be a presumption by the County that any amended Certificate of
Designation will allow current operations to continue.
The County Never Approved Expanded Operations
Since 1971, the size of the landfill has been expanded and
its operational life extended. Each of the several expansions of
S31.061
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 3
the facility have significantly changed the performance of the
facility as originally designated. As a result, each change has
been a "substantial change in operations" requiring the filing by
the operator of an amended application which must be reviewed and
approved by the County and CDH before the change is implemented.
The County knew about each change but never required an amended
application be filed.
Weld County' s approval of the original Certificate of
Designation was based upon several representations by Earl Moffat
concerning the operation and ultimate size of the landfill.
Among other things, Moffat represented that: all draws would be
kept free of pollution and obstruction; the depth of fill would
be approximately 45 feet; there was a "fifteen year goal" for the
life of the landfill; fill material would be deposited laterally
from the hillside; final elevation would be at an "even grade or
benched" and would not extend above the crest of the hill; three
feet or more of cover would be placed over the fill, resulting in
a "good piece of farm ground. "
During the 1970 's, the County was well aware of the
deficiencies in the information it had concerning the operation
of the site. In 1979, CDH requested information concerning
existing Weld County landfills. On April 20, 1979, the County
responded that "a great deal of information requested in your
form simply was not available for these sites without a large
financial expenditure for a consultant in this area. " The County
went on to state, "Before the [Central Weld Landfill] site is
developed any further, the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
draw on the West end of the field should be analyzed. Water flow
through this area may prevent further westward development of the
site. " Nevertheless, the County expressed its intention that the
Central Weld Landfill would be expanded to create one of "two
large regional sites. "
The County was then discussing the development of the
Central Weld Landfill into a regional site with Lynn and Lela
Keirnes. The Keirnes incorporated Colorado Landfill, Inc. , which
began operating in June 1979. Lynn Keirnes is the brother of
former Weld County Assessor Richard Keirnes. The County agreed
to sponsor the issuance of industrial development bonds to
finance the acquisition and expansion of the facility by Colorado
Landfill . The County and Colorado Landfill entered into a loan
agreement on March 6, 1980 enabling Colorado Landfill to borrow
$1. 3 million. Under the loan agreement, Colorado Landfill
committed to construct improvements on the site in accordance
with the "Plans and Specifications. " Colorado Landfill
represented that the Plans and Specifications had been submitted
S31061.
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 4
to and approved by all necessary government authorities and that
they complied with all environmental laws and regulations.
However, Colorado Landfill never submitted and the County never
approved an application for an amended Certificate of
Designation.
Some time before February 1986, the Central Weld Landfill
operations underwent another substantial change when it began
accepting for disposal liquid sludges. CDH notified the operator
that this practice could continue only if he first submitted an
amended application/operational plan for the review and approval
of CDH and the Weld County Commissioners. CDH sent a copy of its
letter to the County Commissioners. The County took no action.
Weld County again came to the financial assistance of the
Keirnes family in 1990 when the County issued another $3, 360, 000
in industrial development bonds. Most of the proceeds
($2 , 500, 000) was used to finance the acquisition, development and
permitting of the Ault Landfill. The balance ($860, 000) was used
to re-fund the 1980 bonds. The documents executed in conjunction
with this transaction suggest that expanded use of the Central
Weld Landfill was contemplated by the parties. The County did
not approve an amended operational plan.
In 1991, the Keirnes family sold its stock in Waste Services
Corporation (the successor to Colorado Landfill, Inc. and the
owner of the Central Weld and Ault landfills) to Waste Management
of Color lo, Inc. In March 1972, Waste Management submitted a
special waste plan to CDH. Documents obtained from other sources
indicate the County has been involved with the review process,
but the nature of the County's involvement is unclear. Despite
several requests for documents regarding Central Weld Landfill,
the County has not made the special waste plan available.
The County Did Not Approve Change of Operators
Under Health Department regulations, transferring a
Certificate of Designation to a new operator constitutes a
"substantial change in operations" requiring County review and
approval of an amended application. The operator of the Central
weld Landfill changed on several occasions. Only once did the
County approve the transfer of the Certificate of Designation.
The purpose behind the rule is to assure that each operator
is qualified and capable of meeting the performance design of the
facility. Depending upon the qualifications of the operator, the
transfer of a Certificate of Designation may be denied
altogether, or the Certificate may be amended to include
031061
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 5
performance standards that the new operator is capable of
meeting. .
The County interprets the rule to apply only to the purchase
of corporate assets and not to mergers or other stock
acquisitions in which all of the shares of stock of a corporate
operator are acquired by a purchaser. This interpretation
elevates the form of the transaction over the substantive
requirement that an operator be qualified and approved by the
County before taking over operations. This interpretation has
also allowed operators to change due to financial problems and
sales without being subjected to public review and comment at
public hearings.
The County Has Given Central Weld Landfill Preferential Treatment
Not only has the County failed to enforce statutory and
regulatory requirements as outlined above; the County has
vigorously enforced those same requirements at other facilities.
For example, the Eaton Landfill received its Certificate of
Designation in 1969. In the mid-1970 's, the County required the
Eaton Landfill to submit engineering, design and operations
reports. This stands in stark contrast to the County's position
as late as September 1992 that it had no authority to require the
operators of Central Weld Landfill to submit similar reports.
Also as discussed above, Weld County assisted the Keirnes
family in financing not one but two landfills: Central Weld
Landfill and the Ault Landfill. It appears that this assistance
was uniquely available to the Keirnes family.
It now appears that Weld County is preparing to relocate a
segment of County Road 27§ just north of the entrance to the
landfill . Currently, the road curves gently around an existing
wetland in the toe of an earthen dam. The only possible
rationale for the County's action is to facilitate access to the
landfill. The resulting destruction of the wetland would violate
federal regulations.
The County Has Obstructed Public Involvement
The County has been generally unresponsive to the expression
of concerns concerning the Central Weld Landfill. When the
County has reacted, it has been only as a result of the
persistence of the community. For example, the County learned of
off-site groundwater contamination at least three months before
citing the operator under the County's nuisance authority on
October 5, 1992 . This action came only after demands by the
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 6
Ashton Call to Action Committee for an explanation of why the
County had not formally cited the operator.
The county has yet to respond to reports that Spomer Lakes
have been contaminated and are discharging "milky" water that has
the odor of garbage.
In January 1992 , Sam Telep requested that the County conduct
a public hearing concerning the landfill. The County never
responded to Mr. Telep's request, although it apparently held its
own "study session" on January 20, 1992. On July 17, 1992, Mr.
Telep sent a letter to the Weld County Commissioners articulating
several concerns about the landfill. The County never responded
to Mr. Telep's letter despite the fact that, on the same day, the
County met with Waste Management of North America "to review
current projects. " In that meeting, there were discussions about
"several projects" designed to "enhance facility operations. "
When the County failed to respond to Mr. Telep's letter, his
daughter made several telephone calls to County officials and
wrote letter on July 29, July 31 and August 18, 1992 . Once
again, the County failed to respond to any of these letters. The
unresponsiveness of government is always disconcerting. It is
particularly troublesome where, as here, the County has ignored
public concerns while it has maintained an ongoing dialogue with
landfill operators.
The County has been equally unresponsive in supplying
requested information. Requests for documents have been made to
several County departments. Very few documents were produced.
Most documents, including documents that the County authored,
signed or received as an addressee, have been obtained from other
sources. Documents the County has not produced include:
documents relating to the industrial development bonds and in
particular engineering reports, environmental audits, plans and
specifications; quarterly groundwater monitoring results;
inspection reports; Waste Management's Special Waste Plan; notes
of many meetings with landfill operators; any environmental,
engineering, design or operational information about the site
(except for the July 1992 report of Golder Associates) ; and
Planning Commission staff reports.
The County's delays have all inured to the benefit of Waste
Services and to the detriment of neighboring landowners. Waste
Services has been permitted to continue its operations without an
engineering design and operations report. Under the ownership of
Waste Management, landfill operations have been greatly expanded
in an apparent effort to avoid some of the stringent requirements
Qr 1061
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 7
that will take effect under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in the next year. The delay also
has allowed Waste Services to negotiate the acquisition of
property adjacent to the landfill so that groundwater
contamination will no longer be off-site.
The Need for Immediate Action
It is clear that the County needs to exercise its authority
and responsibilities with respect to the Central Weld Landfill.
Some of the necessary actions were articulated in my
September 11, 1992 letter to the Commissioners. Because the
County' s efforts to exercise its authority have been less than
vigorous, I must repeat our earlier requests. Information
discussed above makes other requests necessary. As a result, I
request the following:
1. Investigate off-site groundwater contamination, and in
conjunction with the state, require appropriate remedial action
at the site;
2 . Enforce the requirement that the final elevation of the
landfill after closure not exceed adjacent land surfaces in
compliance with the design on which the Certificate of
Designation was predicated; and
3 . Obtain an up-to-date engineering, design and operations
report, together with all other information necessary to evaluate
the performance of the landfill;
4 . Investigate surface water contamination, including the
contamination of Spomer Lakes, and require appropriate remedial
action at the site;
5. Prohibit any activity at the landfill that represents a
substantial change in the operations as represented to the County
Commissioners in September 1971;
6. Immediately schedule a public hearing on the issue of
change of the landfill operator;
7 . Locate and make available to Mr. Telep and other
members of the public all documents in the County's possession
regarding Central Weld Landfill; and
8 . Disclose the County's plans for County Road 271.
51;31061
Weld County Commissioners
October 16, 1992
Page 8
These requests represent the minimum actions the County must
undertake in order to comply with applicable statutes and
regulations and to protect the public and the environment. I
request that the County take these actions no later than
October 26, 1992 . If the County refuses to take such action, I
would aprreciate the courtesy of an explanation of the County's
position no later than October 26, 1992.
Sincerely,
ent E. Ha on
/te
cc: Sam Telep
S AlOSt
Glen Mallory
Colorado Department of Health
Waste Management Division
Mail Code HMWMD-HWC-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 November 14 , 1992
RE: Central Weld County Landfill
Mr. Mallory,
Recently Waste Services (operator of Central Weld Landfill & a
Waste Management Company) applied for three permits to discharge
fluids from the underdrain located through the Central Weld
Landfill and to discharge fluids from the Spomer Lakes located off
site and to the west of the Central Weld Landfill.
We strongly urge and recommend the denial of these permits for the
following reasons:
1. Recent water tests reveal serious contamination from these
points of discharge. Preliminary tests indicate Heavy Metal and
VOC contamination. Weld County Health Department and Waste
Services have not tested for a full spectrum of contaminants and
therefore are not completely confident as to what contaminants are
contained in the discharged fluids.
2. Considerable controversy surrounds this particular
landfill. No design report was ever filed with the State of
Colorado or Weld County as required by your office in 1971 .
Hydrological and geological reports indicate significant amounts of
subsurface water movement in a variety of dynamic conditions. The
life of this particular site was originally estimated at 15 years
and the present life is 21 years. Radioactive Waste was deposited
at this site from 1973 to 1976 (Golder Associates, July 1992) and
has yet to be identified as to location of deposit, amount of
discard, and potential hazard.
3 . Spomer Lakes are located on private property located off
site from the Central Weld Landfill . These lakes receive large
amounts of waste water from the landfill boundaries. The
contamination questions regarding these lakes are still unanswered
and the approval of discharge from these lakes would appear
premature and unnecessary.
4 . The discharge of fluids from these points is less than 1/2
mile from the Big Thompson River and may violate The U.S. Clean
water Act. Much of the discharge may be diverted to irrigate
cropland and the landowners utilizing this discharge desire full
analysis before its utilization. Much of the discharge would go
directly into the Big Thompson River and until a detailed analysis
of this discharge is made, any approval would appear imprudent and
unreasonably premature.
EXHIBIT
A , q , - a \
°'.210£1
5. The Hydro-Geological report furnished by Waste Services
admits that the ,Central Weld Landfill is not lined and has no
buffer zones to protect adjacent properties. This report admits to
a significant and ongoing off site contamination.
Since the identity and extent of the contamination is unknown, we
urge you to recommend further testing before considering Waste
services permit for waste water discharge.
We urge your department to consider utilizing Subtitle D, Appendix
II water testing as stipulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency for the following reasons:
1. Colorado is re-writing their water quality standards and
during this period, citizens, business and municipalities are
without clearly defined standards and guidance. Appendix II
standards are clearly defined and it provides a reasonable and
methodical approach to water quality problems.
2. Colorado Department of Health will adopt standards at least
as restrictive (if not more restrictive) within the year anyway.
App. II standards would appear tO be the prudent and reasonable
approach to any water quality problems the State encounters during
this interim period.
Pam Nelson (CSHD) confirmed to us last month that no required
discharge permit had ever been granted nor applied for at any time.
It is only as a result of our diligent investigations and inquiries
that application for a discharge permit of any kind has recently
been made. The fact of leachate effluent discharge at the outflow
point of the underdrain was known at all times by the owners &
operators of the landfill since the date of installation. On
repeated occasions we have contacted waste Management local and
regional personnel only to receive absolutely no cooperation or
information.
we are landowners/residents living in the Ashton-Daniels District
of Weld county. The Central Weld Landfill is located in our
district. we are very concerned with the Central Weld Landfill and
the leek of regulation and misapplication of Colorado and Federal
Law.
Sincerely,
7,7edeite-E-251-57:4O
Michael S. Hayes
8200 W. 49th St.
Greeley, co 80634
cc: County Commissioners, Weld County
John Pickle, Weld County Health Dept.
Kent Hansen
F:iO6i
path Nelson
Colorado Dept . of Health
Water Quality Control Division
Permits and Enforcement
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
December 14, 1992
Ms Nelson,
In reviewing the application for discharge permits by Waste
Services for the Central Weld County Landfill (CWCL) , we
noted several factual discrepancies in their application.
1 . The CWCL began operations in 1971 not 1967 . Surrounding
landowners and the Weld County Health Dept. (WCHD) verified
this incorrect date . No dumping of any kind began on this
property until Mr . Earl Moffat began operations in the late
fall of 1971 . Until then the land was partial wetland and
partial pasture .
2 . The underdrain is purported to be "generally 8 feet below
the predevelopment ground surface" . Interviews with landowners
surrounding the landfill indicate that the western side
of the landfill (the area of the underdrain) was excavated
to a depth of 5 to 25 feet below the groundwater and the
underdrain was setthrough this area . Trash was then used
to fill in around the water and the drain. This is in direct
contrast to the gravel trench specified by Waste Services .
While we do not doubt that portions of the underdrain were
constructed as described by Waste Services , we also know
of the portions set beneath the surrounding groundwater
table . Golder & Assoc . report of Jul 92 speaks toward this
issue.
3 . Sect . 9 of the Application Permit indicates that any
public water supply intakes within 5 miles are identified
on Atch 1 , Fig . 1-2 . This information is not indicated
on that or any attachments .
4 . Sect . 10 is incomplete in that this site is currently on
the Superfund list because of past acceptance of hazardous
and toxic wastes . Nuclear waste was disposed at this site
from 1973-1976 (Golder and Assoc. Report Jul 92 ) and up to
10 , 000 lbs of Pesticide was dumped at the CWCL from 1973-
1976 (Glenn Mallory' s letter dated Oct1987 ) .
Also in regard to Sect. 10, Waste Services states they are
a permitted landfill . In November of 1992 , The County of
Weld discovered the Cert . of Designation was not complete
inits original issuance . No EDOR was ever filed with the
State or with the County. As a result , Waste Services is
having to recomplete the process for a Cert. of Designation
and will be required to meet a public hearing. EXHIBIT
5. Sect . 14 is inaccurate in the following regards :
a . Landfill underdrain 001 water flows are the result
of two flows; subsurface groundwater and surface irrigation
of the Knister Farm north of the landfill . The irrigation
operations are highly variable and during the period of
testing by Waste Services , only a small irrigation operation
was in progress . If the irrigation operation significantly
increases (due to crop rotation and type of crop farmed)
a corresponding increase in water flows will occur.
b. The underdrain outflow is released at one of the
Spomer Lakes . The particular Spomer Lake also receives
all surface runoff from the western and southwestern
slope of the CWCL. The landfill area (actual fill area)
terminates at the shores of this Spomer Lake . The surface
of this section of the CWCL is composed entirely of
petroleum contaminated soil deposited and spread throughout
the summer of 1992 . Any water runoff over this area
would/will carry contamination into the Spomer Lake .
c. There is a retention pond on the eastern side of
the CWCL . This pond has no discharge point. This water
has been observed to be collected by a tanker truck
and deposited into trenches along the western section
of the CWCL and into the Spomer Lakes . Sect. 14 of
the application requests information on all contributing
wastewater to the effluent yet no indication of these
above mentioned operations are listed or an evaluation
of those effluents attached.
6 . Sect . 17 . Most of the water that flows into the inflow
of the underdrain is directly affected by the surface irrigation
operations on the farm to the north of the CWCL. These
irrigation operations are by definition seasonal . These
discharge flows are highly variable yet Waste Services indicated
a response of "NO" to this section.
7 . Sect . 19A. is incomplete in that several water tests
have been performed onthis area of the CWCL all with significant
contamination results (see ATCH 1 ) . Waste Services contracted
with Golder & Assoc. in a JUL 92 report that indicates heavy
metal and VOC contamination offsite in the area surrounding
the discharge points this permit application is filed for .
Mr . John Pickle of the WCHD can speak towards this contamination
concern. We note that Waste Services has indicated very
little contamination in this area while private testing
indicates significant contamination .
8 . Sect . 19D. See Sect . 19A and ATCH 1 to this letter .
Q" .ORA
9. Sect . 19F. The aquatic life biomonitoring test done
by Waste Management indicates significant toxicity at the
100% level . While they attempt to try and explain away
the failure , the results are still a failure. If there
was some question as to the validity of the 100% level another
test should have been performed . By their own admission,
" this sample would be acutely toxic at the 100% concentration
level . "
Their methodology is extremely suspect in that the precise
location of their sample point is not indicated. The discharge
point for the underdrain is located atthe Spomer Lake , but
it is very difficult to find the location of the underdrain
discharge point . The Weld County Health Department could
not locate its position until a member of our group escorted
them to the point of discharge . If Ms . Sanchez (sampling
technician) happened to sample the wrong water, Waste Mgt . ' s
tests would be highly diluted with waters from the Spomer
Lake.
10 . Sect. 21 . Most of the wastewater will be applied to
land during the summer and fall months . The underdrain
releases water concurrently with the Spomer Lakes . This
water flows entirely into an irrigation system utilized
by 4 farms as their only source of irrigation water for
their agricultural lands . It is also used to water cattle
and horses . Any water not used is discharged into the Big
Thompson River less than 2000 ' downstream from the discharge
point . We note that Waste Services indicated on their application
that no land application will be practiced, yet 4 farms
use this water as their sole source of irrigation.
Overall we have indicated 10 areas where Waste Services
has erroneously completed their application for a wastewater
discharge permit . This indicates a serious breech of reliability
on their part . Significant controversy surrounds this landfill .
It is located in a draw where extremely large amounts of
groundwater exists ( less than 3 feet below the surface on
the western boundaries of the CWCL- Soil & Gas Monitoring
Plan submitted NOV 92 ) in addition to large amounts of irrigation
water that impinges along the Northern and Western Landfill
boundaries . Their own water flow reports indicates the
enormous amounts of water traversing through the landfill
on a daily basis . The area of the landfill where the underdrain
is located is situated in 5-25 feet of groundwater and it
is suspected that this leachate is contributing to the contamination
at the underdrain outflow discharge point (WCHD NOV 92 ) .
In addition, some radioactivity has been detected in the
waters around the CWCL (Golder & Assoc , JUL 92 ) but to date
Waste Services has not indicated the location of any radioactive
waste deposits .
The underdrain discharges into the Spomer Lakes . The underdrain
was originally designed in this manner to conceal any leachate
activity by diluting it with the waters of the Spomer Lakes .
This water is used by 4 farms as their sole source of irrigaton
waters . Any water not used ( during the months not farmed)
is discharged directly into the Big Thompson River ( 2000 '
from the underdrain discharge point) which meets with the
Platte River approximately 1 mile downstream. The discharging
of known contaminants into river is a violation of the U. S.
Clean Water Act as you are well aware .
We urge denial of the CWCL/Waste Services Waste Water Discharge
Permit . There is ample evidence of erroneous information
on their permit application. The issue of water contamination
cannot be overstated when this water is discharged and farmers
have historically used the Spomer Lakes for their irrigation
operations . The CWCL has created an untenable situation
in which serious contamination is exiting their operation
and is discharging into the Big Thompson River in violation
of the U. S. Clean Water Act . Given these reasons we most
strongly urge the denial of their permit.
Concerned ,
�2GG31llee.� '�
Michael S . Hayes
ASHTON-DANIELS COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP
8200 W. 49th ST.
Greeley, CO 80634
1 Atch.
cc: Weld County Comm.
Weld County Health Dept.
Hon. Wayne Allard
Hon. Hank Brown
Glenn Mallory CDH/WMD
Victor Sainz CDH/WQD
L
Waste Management of North Ameriea, Inc.
Nal Mountain Region
5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. • Suite 400
Englewood. Colorado 30111 ED
303/770.3324 c C G 1 .; :
December 11, 1992 O . 14. 199Z
Victor H. Sainz P.E.
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
Permits and Enforcement Division
WQCD-PE-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver CO 80222-1530
Subject: CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILL (CWSL)
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) APPLICATIONS
Dear Victor:
This letter is provided in response to your correspondence dated November 17, 1992 and
received on November 30, 1992 concerning the CDPS applications for CWSL.
As discussed during our phone conversation on November 6, 1992, CWSL has been actively
compiling the required information for the submittal of CDPS industrial wastewater discharge
permit applications for several months.
The CDPS application for the landfill underdrain was submitted to the Colorado Department of
Health (CDH), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) on November 25, 1992.
As a point of clarification, your November 17, 1992 letter indicates that the discharge from the
surface drain/perimeter frenchdrain eventually discharges into the Big Thompson River. Rather,
this discharge flows to an onsite retention pond which does not include an outlet for offsite
discharges. The retained water is currently managed onsite (i.e. for dust control and irrigation
of undeveloped areas of the site). However, CWSL does not intend to continue to use the water
as described above, once approval for other management methods are received from CDH.
The CDPS applic don for the perimeter frenchdrain is in the process of being finalized and is
ex ted to be submitted in December, 1992. As"further disease ;C dWSL is also evaluating
t�tibiity` of constniai ng inst'Fc rnnjection"weII'asari`alte aa`tivn_to'.managtn8the fl
frenchdrain'water'under the CPDS system! Any information you may have concerning this
alternative is requested.
w n..t..:az.10 EXHIBIT
P: CWSL I-0I A i. — a3
Letter Victor Sainz
December 11, 1992
Page 2
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 770-3324 or Bill Hedberg at
654-1133
Sincerely
`2L
Alan Scheere
Environmental Specialist
AS/mmp
cc: John Pickle, WCDH
Patricia Nelson, WQCD
Roger Doak, CDH
Bill Hedberg, WSC
Barbara Taylor, WQCD
wp51W1sss12.10
P: CWSL
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH op °kq.
.. ._`(�
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and ;y,f .�. `, � d V� b
environment of the people of Colorado " •,(N :
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.5. Laboratory Building I• • • •
Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue tt_ - to 76
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 '
(303)691-4700 Roy Romer
Governor
December 22 , 1992 7 W; Pa&i a&Nolan,MD,MPN
Executive Director
Bill Hedberg v` y
Alan Scheere
Waste Services Corporation
5660 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 400
Englewood, Colorado 80111
RE: Application Completeness Review for Waste Services
Corporation, Central Weld County Sanitary Landfill
Permit No: CO - 0043419
For the past couple of weeks, the Water Quality Control Division of
the Colorado Department of Health (the Division) has been reviewing
documents pertinent to the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. These
documents have been submitted along with a discharge permit
application from an underdrain to Spomer Lakes. Groundwater and
surface water laboratory data both upstream and downstream from the.
landfill, letters from concerned citizens in the area, and
documents by private consulting firms characterizing the geological
and hydrogeological characteristics of the area are included in
these documents.
At this point in the review process, the Division would like to ask
for 1) clarification on some information and 2) additional current
data.
1. Clarification is required on the following:
a. Please provide a full description of the following
sample points:
1) NDIS 6) RP - Inlet
2) LF-UD 7) EB
3) GWM5A 8) TB
4) GWM5A-DUP 9) LF - UD
5) N-Discharge
b. Describe the uses of the water that flows from the
french drain to the retention pond.
c. What is the ultimate use or destiny of the water that
flows from the underdrain to Spomer Lake?
EXHIBIT
, , -a�
X1.061_
to: 12/22/92
Bill Hedberg
Alan Scheere
Waste Services Corporation
Page 2
d. A drain flows in a westerly direction on the northern
perimeter of the property. Please describe the discharge
point and the nature of the drain.
2 . Additional information required:
a . Testing is required on all point-discharges which
ultimately flow to surface waters of the State.
Additional current data (3 months or less old) or testing
is required for:
1) additional metals
2) fecal coliforms
3) Nitrates and nitrites
4) Total suspended solids
5) Uranium
6) Organic chemicals
7) Pesticides
See Table 1 (attached)
In accordance with permit issuance protocol, further processing of
this permit application will be postponed until the requested
information is obtained. Your timely response will be appreciated.
If you have any questions regarding surface-water discharge call me
at (303) 692-3615.
Sincerely,
Barbara Taylor
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Control Section
Colorado Department of Health
LETTER.WEL 12/22/92 PAGE 2
sit Ogle.
to: 12/22/92
Bill Hedberg
Alan Scheere
Waste Services Corporation
Page 3
cc:
John Pickle
Trevor Juricek
Weld County Health
Diana Orf
Attorney
1675 Broadway, suite 2430
Denver, CO. , 80202
L. Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO. , 80632
Weld County Department of Planning
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO. , 80631
Chuck Cunliffe
Director
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO. , 80632
Dave Dubois
North Front Range Water Planning Association
500 E. 3rd Street, Civic Center
Loveland, CO. , 80537
LETTER.WEL 12/22/92 PAGE 3
TABLE 1
ORGANICS PESTICIDES
Benzene Simazine
` Benzidine Vydate (Oxamyl)
Bromochloromethane Picloram
Bromoform Aldriri
Carbofuran Dieldrin
Carbon tetrachloride Endrin
Chlordane Endrin aldehyde
Chloroethyl ether (BIS-2) Toxaphene
Chloroform DDE
Chlorobenzene DDT
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene PAH Aldicarb
Dichlorobenzene 1,2
Dichlorobenzene 1,3
Dichlorobenzene 1,4
Dichloroethane 1,2
Dichloroethene 1,2
Dichloroethane 1,1
Dichloroethylene 1,2-cis
Dichloroethylene 1,2-trans
Dichlorophenol 2,4
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Dichloropropane 1,2 METALS & INORGANICS
Dinitrophenol 2,4
Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2 Aluminum
Ethylbenzene Copper
Heptachlor Nickel
Heptachlor epoxide Zinc
Hexachlorobenzene Cyanide
Hexachlorobutadiene Nitrate
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma Nitrite
(Lindane) Sulfide
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Alpha
Isophorone
Methoxychlor
Nitrobenzene
PCB's
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4-5
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethane 1,1,2
Trichloroethene RADIOACTIVE
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6 Uranium
Trichlorophenoxyproprionic
acid (2,4,5-tp)
Vinyl chloride
OTHER PARAMETERS
Fecal coliforms
Total suspended solids
hi.e:: CevtrI Weld.
bu L&
fit, mEmoRAnDum
WII'D o To File December 23, 1992
QQ O.k
COLORADO Linda Johnson / .
From v L
&tw Contaminated soil complaint - Central Weld Landfill
eet
On December 21, 1992, at approximately 11:30 a.m., I investigated a complaint
regarding several truckloads of dirt being received at Central Weld County
Landfill. I spoke to Bill Hedberg of Central Weld County Landfill. The landfill
is receiving contaminated soils from two UST removals in Arvada. According to
the Special Waste Reports, the landfill will be receiving between 6000 - 8000
cubic yards. On December 21, as of the time of my inspection, the landfill had
received 324 cubic yards. Prior to December 21, they have received 828 cubic
yards. The Special Waste Report includes lab analysis from the excavation pits
/ 1a�
as well as the stockpiles. The fi11 was currently utilizing the soil _for
X daily cover. Bill Hedberg informed me that-they did not nee3 sate approval for
eac load as that was a part of Central Weld's Special Waste Plan.
EXHIBIT
A
44(1114Dr mEmoRAnDum
WIID€ To Chuck Cunliffe, Planning DM@ January 4, 1992
COLORADD John Pickle, Health
From
SubjectCentral Weld Sanitary Landfill
The Central Weld facility has been the subject of very close monitoring over the
past six (6) months. Disclosure of offsite groundwater contamination by Waste
Management in August 1992, along with growing community concern, prompted
increased surveillance since July, 1992, and it continues to the present.
During this time period, Environmental Protection staff have spent considerable
time in field inspections of the site, meetings and correspondence with Waste
Management, Waste Services, Colorado Department of Health, and other county
offices, as well as review of reports and records from the facility. In the
process of these activities we have determined the following areas of concern,
which our Division submits as violations:
1. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill had never filed a design and
operations plan. This would be a violation of subsection 3.1.2. of the
Solid Waste Regulations. There is some question as to whether or not
this was a requirement at the time this facility was permitted.
2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has never filed an amended
application for substantial change of operations, despite the fact that
the facility has changed ownership, and further that the facility
appears to have accepted a category of waste that was not previously
reviewed. This would be in violation of subsection 1.3.7. of the Solid
Waste Regulations.
3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has operated without required
Discharge Permits. This is a violation of subsection 2.1.2. of the
Solid Waste Regulations, and 25-8-501, Colorado Revised Statutes.
4. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill contaminated the ground water. This
is a violation of subsection 2.1.4. of the Solid Waste Regulations.
The facility has been notified of this violation by our Division on
October 5, 1992, and also by the Colorado Department of Health on
December 23, 1992.
5. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has allowed ponding of water onsite.
This is a violation of subsection 2.1.4. , and 2.2.2. of the Solid Waste
Regulations.
6. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has placed solid waste into the
groundwater on this site. This would be a violation of subsection
3.1.11. of the revised Solid Waste Regulations. These regulations are
scheduled to become effective prior to October, 1993.
The Colorado Department of Health has determined that violations outlined in #4
EXHIBIT
o , - ai
and #6 above constitute a public nuisance. Environmental Protection Services
Division concurs with this determination.
Consequently, we would request that these violations at the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill, be brought to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners, in
the form of a public hearing for probable cause.
Should you need any additional information, please contact me.
xc: Lee Morrison
, memoRAnDum
Wilk Chuck Cunliffe, Planning January 8, 1993
To
COLORADO John Pickle, Health 1�
From
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
Subject:
The Central Weld facility has been the subject of very close monitoring over the
past six (6) months. Disclosure of offsite groundwater contamination by Waste
Management in August 1992, along with growing community concern, prompted
increased surveillance since July, 1992, and it continues to the present.
During this time period, Environmental Protection staff have spent considerable
time in field inspections of the site, meetings and correspondence with Waste
Management, Waste Services, Colorado Department of Health, and other county
offices, as well as review of reports and records from the facility. In the
process of these activities we have determined the following areas of concern,
which our Division submits as violations:
1. The operators of the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill did not file a Design
and Operations plan, although a partial submission was made at the County's
request on November 12, 1992. Additional information is still being
submitted as it is developed by Waste Services. This failure to file would
be a violation of C.R.S. 30-20-103 and Subsection 3.1.2 of the Solid Waste
Regulations. 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, though there has been some correspondence in
recent months. The only correspondence that could be construed as any kind
of approval, was that of Dennis Hotovec, approving a change of operator, so
long as the landfill continued to be operated in accordance with an
operations plan, which apparently, has never existed.
2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has operated without required Discharge
Permits. This is a violation of Subsection 2.1.2. of the Solid Waste
Regulations, and 25-8-501, Colorado Revised Statutes.
3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill contaminated the ground water. This is
a violation of Subsection 2.1.4. of the Solid Waste Regulations. The
facility has been notified of this violation by our Division on October 5,
1992, and also by the Colorado Department of Health on December 23, 1992.
• EXHIBIT (.14 V `
D . a1 � JAN 1 1 1993 _a I
'Moil Nun*,of onion
Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Department
Re: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
January 8, 1993
Page 2
4. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has allowed ponding of water onsite.
This is a violation of Subsection 2.1.4. , and 2.2.2. of the Solid Waste
Regulations .
5. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has placed solid waste into the
groundwater on this site. This is a violation of Subsections 2.1.4 of the
Solid Waste Regulations, and will be a violation of Subsection 3.1.10 of
the revised Solid Waste Regulations. These regulations are scheduled to
become effective in April, 1993.
6. In the absence of any design and operations plan, the only basis for
establishment of the parameters for the 1971 permits, are the
representations of the applicant at the time the permits were considered by
the Board of County Commissioners. Those representations did not
contemplate a regional landfill with a life of thirty-five (35) years, but
rather one with an expected life of less than twenty (20) years. The
representations did not contemplate placing fill above the existing grade
as Waste Services currently plans. (Reference Design and Operations Plan,
Sheet It 7)
The Colorado Department of Health has determined that violations outlined in #4
and #6 above constitute a public nuisance. Environmental Protection Services
Division concurs with this determination.
Consequently, we would request that these violations at the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill, be brought to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners, in
the form of a public hearing for probable cause.
Should you need any additional information, please contact me.
/jp-011
xc: Randolph L. Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H. , Director, Weld County Health Department
Lee Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney
•
II JAN 1 4 1993 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
7 U
1517-16 AVENUE COURT
Ti,nninr
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
WI 1 ADMINISTRATION(303)353-0586
G HEALTH PROTECTION(303) 353-0635
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353-0639
COLORADO January 14, 1993
Certified Letter No. : P 423 630 398
William J. Hedberg
Waste Services Corporation
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Hedberg:
On December 20, 1992, a representative of the Environmental Protection Division
of the Weld County Health Department inspected the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill, located at 6037 77th Avenue, Greeley, in Weld County, Colorado. The
purpose of the inspection was to inspect and assess the facilities compliance
with the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities"
(The Regulations) as promulgated by the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities
Act (The Act) , Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, C.R.S. , as amended.
On the date of the December 20, 1992, field inspection, the following was
observed, or has been observed previously:
1. This facility continues to discharge pollutants into state waters without
an approved discharge permit.
2. This facility continues to allow water to pond on the eastern portion of
the facility.
3. This facility continues to operate in the absence of an approved Design
and Operations plan.
4. This facility has contaminated the groundwater beyond the facility
property line.
5. Solid waste has been placed into groundwater at this site.
6. This facility is currently operating without an emissions permit.
It has been documented that previously disposed solid waste is currently exposed
to groundwater and that groundwater pollution has occurred at this location.
As you are aware, subsection 2.1.4 of The Regulations states that "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 that
EXHIBIT
I A. o . - ag)
o`� 11.0 '
William J. Hedberg
•
Certified Letter No. : P 423 630 398
January 14, 1993
Page 2
"nuisance condition are those which may result from explosive gas, bird hazards,
disease vectors, odors, windblown solid wastes or cover materials, open burning,
water pollution. . . ."
This facility allows water to pond on the eastern portion of the site. According
to subsection 2.1.4 this facility "shall provide adequate cover with suitable
material and surface drainage designated to prevent ponding of water. . . ." and
subsection 2.2.2 which states "Surface waters shall be diverted from, or around,
the disposal site and facility and its working face."
The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill is currently operating without an emissions
permit as required by the Air Pollution Control Commission of the Colorado
Department of Health. In addition, this facility continues to discharge
pollutants into state waters without an approved discharge permit. Operating
without a discharge permit is a noncompliant activity according to Title 25,
Article 8, Part 5, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Both deficiencies are
in violation of Subsection 2.1.2, of The Regulations which states in part
"facilities shall comply with the health laws , standards, rules, and regulations
of the department, the Water Quality Control Commission, the Air Quality Control
Commission. . . ."
The operation of this facility in the absence of an approved Design and
Operations Plan is a violation of 30-20-103 of The Act, as it states in part,
"Such application shall. . . .set forth the location of the site and facility; the
type of site and facility; the 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, if any; and such other information as may
be required by the board of county commissioners. The application shall also
contain such engineering, geological, hydrological, and operational data. . . ."
The Division has taken into consideration that a preliminary Design and
Operations Plan, a remedial action plan, and a discharge permit have either been
applied for or submitted, which address some of the above issues.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 353-0635.
Sincerely, ( / �i LUC fiC
Trevor Jirieek
Solid and Hazardous Waste Specialist
TJ-085
cc: Roger Doak, Colorado Department of Health
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County Planning Department
Alan Scheere, Waste-Management of North America, Inc.
Bill Webster, Weld County Commissioner
1 iirtft ----NHDEPART MENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE(303)353-3845, EXT. 3540
C. WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
WI I 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
January 18, 1993
Waste Services, Inc.
C/O Waste Management
P.O. Box 122283
Ft. Worth, Tx. 76121
Subject: Violation Notice - ZCH-96 on a parcel of land described as part of the W2
SW4 and the SE4 SW4 of Section 32, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
Colorado.
Dear Sirs:
A review of your property was conducted to determine if the Conditions of Approval placed
on the property at the time SUP-116 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners are
in compliance. The review revealed violations of Condition of Approval #1. John Pickle' s
memorandum dated January 8, 1993, and Trevor Jiricek' s certified letter Number P423 63O
398 dated January 14, 1993, outlines the violations of Condition of Approval #1 on the
Board of County Commissioners' Resolution dated October 6, 1971.
The Department of Planning Services is still evaluating the possibility of violations of
Condition of Approval #2 on the Board of County Commissioners' Resolution dated occober
6, 1971. You will be notified if violations are identified during the Department' s
evaluation.
Copies of John Pickle' s memorandum dated January 8, 1993, Trevor Jiricek' s certified
letter dated January 14, 1993, and the Board of County Commissioners' Resolution dated
October 6, 1971 are enclosed for your review.
The Use by Special Review area must be brought into compliance with the Conditions of
Approval within 30 days from the date of this letter. Noncompliance will result in our
office scheduling a Probable Cause Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. If
the Board determines there is sufficient probable cause to warrant further action, a Show
Cause Hearing will be scheduled to consider revocation of the Use by Special Review
permit 116.
If you have information that may clear up this matter, please call or write. .
Sincerely!, � �_ I
';d\is4-
Chu� 'unliffe, AICP
Director EXHIBIT
enclosures I ft• 0, al
pc: William J. Hedberg
Bill Jeffry
/e Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
John Pickle, Weld County Health Department
j- Jk71011 1-& , Pc.
Attorneys At Law
1775 Sherman Street • Suite 1300
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 861-1963 • Fax: (303) 832-4465
Ext. 123
January 18 , 1993
Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson
Weld County Commissioners
915 - 10th St. , P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Request For Hearing For Revocation of
Certificate of Designation for
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
Dear Chairperson Harbert:
The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association ( "Neighborhood
Association" ) and Sam and Myrtle Telep request the Board of
County Commissioners of Weld County ( "Board") to institute a
Certificate of Designation Revocation proceeding with regard to
the Central Weld County Landfill, under the provisions of C.R. S .
30-20-112, and, upon notice and public hearing, revoke the
Certificate of Designation for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
and require closure and remedial action measures which return the
site to its original grade and prevent releases of contaminants
into the environment, including groundwater and surface water.
The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association includes
citizens of Weld County who own property in the vicinity of the
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. Sam and Myrtle Telep own land
which adjoins the Landfill. Members of the Telep family reside
on the property. Operation of the Landfill has interfered with
the use and enjoyment of the property of members of the
Neighborhood Association, including Sam and Myrtle Telep.
The land use approval for the Landfill was obtained as the
result of representations made by the applicant, the Weld County
Health Department, and the Department of Health at a hearing
before the Board on September 22, 1971. These representations
govern the land use approval for the site and apply to the
original applicant and all subsequent owners and operators.
EXHIBIT
I Ito.-
? ,.og
Ms. Connie Harbert
January 18, 1993
Page 2
Based on information and belief, the owners and operators of
the Central Weld County Landfill include Waste Management of
North America, Inc. , Waste Services, Inc. , Mr. Brad Keirnes, and
the Keirnes family. A transcript of the tape recorded hearing of
September 22, 1971, is attached hereto.
The Neighborhood Association also requests the Board to
commence a civil action to enjoin operation of the Central Weld
County Landfill as a public nuisance and to require corrective
action to abate the nuisance by restoring the land to its
original grade and remediate releases of contaminants into the
environment, including groundwater and surface water.
The Neighborhood Association requests the Board to base its
Certificate of Designation and Nuisance Abatement action on
grounds which include the following:
1. The Central Weld County Landfill has been operated
without an approved design and operations plan in violation of
C.R.S. 30-20-103 and Subsection 3 . 1. 2 of the Solid Waste
Regulations of the Colorado Department of Health. At the Board's
public hearing, it was represented to the Board that rules and
regulations would be promulgated by the Colorado Department of
Health governing engineering design and operation of the
Landfill. (Hearing of September 22, 1971, at Page 5 . ) All
materials disposed of at this facility in the absence of an
approved design and operations plan were illegally disposed of
and should be ordered to be removed.
2 . Solid waste has been disposed of in groundwater, con-
trary to Subsection 2 . 1. 4 of the Solid Waste Regulations and
contrary to representations made on September 22, 1971, during
the Board's public hearing by the applicant in obtaining the
Certificate of Designation, which representations were material
to the Board's decision to issue the Certificate of Designation.
At the hearing it was represented that water pollution would not
occur and that the land filling operation would cease if it did.
(Hearing of September 22, 1971, at Pages 4 and 30. ) All
materials contacting groundwater or surface water, or leeching
contaminants into groundwater or surface water, should be ordered
to be removed.
Ms. Connie Harbert
January 18, 1993
Page 3
3 . The Central Weld County Landfill has discharged
pollutants into the waters of the State of Colorado and the
United States, contrary to Subsection 2. 1.2 of the Solid Waste
Regulations, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, C.R. S. 25-8-
501, and the Federal Clean Water Act. Such discharges should be
ordered to cease immediately, and remedial action orders should
be issued for the removal of contaminants from the environment
which were released into the environment without a discharge
permit.
4 . Material representations were made to the Board at its
public hearing of September 22, 1971, that the Central Weld
County Landfill 's operating life would be fifteen years, or
shorter, if groundwater or other geologic constraints were
encountered (hearing of September 22, 1971, at Page 28 and Page
41) . The Landfill 's operating life would be longer only if
subsurface conditios so allowed. Based on such representations,
the Certificate of Designation was issued by the Board, and said
Certificate either contains an implied condition limiting the
life of the Landfill to no more than fifteen years, which term
has expired, or the Certificate of Designation was fraudulently
obtained. In either circumstance, the term of years for
operation of the landfill has expired, the landfilling operation
should be ordered to be terminated under the Certificate of
Designation, and a closure and remedial action order should be
entered.
5 . The land use approval for the landfill was for burial
below the surface of the ground, not for "air space" filling
rights. Material representations were made on September 22,
1971, to the Board, during the Certificate of Designation
hearing, that deposition into the landfill would not exceed the
grade of the land which existed at the time the Board issued the
Certificate of Designation, except for the possible cover of
three to four feet of clean fill dirt, and that upon closure, the
site would be graded or benched to conform with surrounding
agricultural land uses. (Hearing of September 22, 1971, at Pages
16-17 and Pages 27-28 . ) No "air space" rights were applied for
or granted by the Board, and the applicant represented that there
was sufficient subsurface space and conditions to operate a
landfill over a fifteen-year life below the surface. Despite
these material representations, the pre-existing grade of the
land has been altered and continues to be altered, contrary to
the approved land use plan for the site under the Board's
Certificate of Designation approval. Materials which cause the
pre-landfill grade of the ground to be exceeded should be
removed, and the site should be restored to the grade which
existed at the time the Certificate of Designation was issued.
:iC1O81
Ms. Connie Harbert
January 18 , 1993
Page 4
6 . The owners and operators of the landfill have allowed
the ponding of water on the site, contrary to Subsections 2. 1. 4
and 2 . 2. 2 of the Solid Waste Regulations.
7 . The owners and operators of the Central Weld County
Landfill have disposed of special wastes at the site without the
required approvals. These wastes should be ordered to be
removed.
8 . The existence of the Central Weld County Landfill
constitutes a public nuisance which should be enjoined, and the
nuisance abated by restoration of the site to its pre-existing
grade and removal of all materials which contact groundwater or
surface water.
9 . The facts and documents supporting revocation of the
Certificate of Designation for the Central Weld County Landfill
and abating the public nuisance caused by the Landfill are within
the possession and control of the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County, the Weld County Health Department, the Colorado
Department of Health, Waste Services, Inc. , Waste Management of
North America, Inc. , Mr. Brad Keirnes and the Keirnes Family.
The Board should order Waste Services, Inc. , Waste Management of
North America, Inc. , Mr. Brad Keirnes, and the Keirnes Family to
produce for inspection and copying all documents and information
which pertain to the Landfill and its operation throughout its
existence.
10. Available information indicates that hazardous
substances may have been released at the site. The County should
investigate whether hazardous substances in reportable quantities
have been released and, if so, whether the owners and operators
of the site have complied with applicable reporting requirements,
including the requirements of Section 103 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act, 42 U. S.C. §
9603 .
WHEREFORE, the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Group and Sam and
Myrtle Telep request that the Certificate of Designation for the
Central Weld County Landfill be revoked, that the landfill be
determined to be a public nuisance, and that closure and remedial
action orders be issued 1) for the restoration of the site to the
grade which existed at the time the Certificate of Designation
was issued, and 2) for removal of all materials which contact or
cause the release of contaminants into the environment, including
groundwater or surface water.
ai):Lnt'1
Ms. Connie Harbert
January 18, 1993
Page 5
DATED this 18th day of January , 1993. Respectfully sub-
mitted by the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association.
Kent E. Hanson �3�� Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
885 Arapahoe Ave. , Suite 216 Hobbs, Trout & Raley, Jr.
Boulder, Colorado 80302 1775 Sherman Street, Ste. 1300
(303 ) 449-0600 Denver, Colorado 80203
(303 ) 861-1963 Ext. 123
Attorneys for Ashton-Daniels
Neighborhood Associaiton,
and Sam and Myrtle Telep
GJH/det
c: ■ Weld County Department of Health
■ Colorado Department of Health
■ Mr. Tom David
bc : Sam Telep
Kent Hanson
11493104
Q'a 0 1
7-7bJk 7 o -& , Pc
Attorneys At Law
1775 Sherman Street • Suite 1300
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 861-1963 • Fax: (303) 832-4465
Ext. 123
February 15, 1993
Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson Mr. David Shelton, Director
Weld County Commissioners Hazardous Materials and Waste
915 - 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Management Division
Greeley, Colorado 80632 Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Director, AICP
Department of Planning Services Mr. Tom David, County Attorney
Weld County Administrative Offices Weld County
1400 N. 17th Avenue 915 - 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: Violation Notice ZCH-96 of January 18, 1993, and
Certified Letter to Waste Services Corporation
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Dated January 14, 1993
Dear Ms. Harbert, Mr. Cunliffe, and Mr. Shelton:
The Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association and Sam and Myrtle Telep sent the
enclosed letter and attachments on January 18, 1993 to the Weld County Commissioners
for the purpose of ensuring that the violations occurring at the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill are remedied in accordance with the law and the representations made to the
Weld County Commissioners when the land use approval and Certificate of Designation
for the landfill were obtained from Weld County. We enclosed a transcript which shows
that the landfill authorization was obtained on the basis that the facility would not
contaminate groundwater, would be in existence for fifteen years, and would be graded
so that the natural ground level was maintained upon closure.
EXHIBIT
a . 4,— 31
Connie Harbert, Chuck Cunliffe and David Shelton
February 16, 1993
Page Two
The conditions for approval of the landfill have been violated, and no operations
plan can be approved which allows the natural surface of the ground to be exceeded in
light of the representations made when the land use approval was given. To the extent
that the Colorado Health Department and/or Weld County is considering an operations
plan for the facility, it must include a condition restricting and prohibiting exceedence of
the natural grade of the ground. However, our position is that no operations plan, and
definitely no expansion of the facility, should be allowed.
We believe that legal and technical review will demonstrate that the only
appropriate plan and order for this facility consists of a closure and remedial plan to
intercept and treat contaminated groundwater and surface water, and restore the natural
grade.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
for
HOBBS, TROUT & RALEY
GJH/det
c: • Glenn Mallory
• John Pickle
• Lee Morrison
GJH/det/21693II
enar ^m
Weanern i ,t errat + � Mu ?J _ _ ] F ...-
mEmoRAnnDum
WIIV€ Chuck Cunliffe, Planning February 22, 1993
To e
COLORADO John Pickle, HeaLt
From G
Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
sutiect:
This memorandum is a follow-up to our meeting with Waste Management and Waste
Services on February 18, 1993. Since that time, I have also met with Glenn
Mallory, and Roger Doak, Solid Waste Division, and Pat Nelson, Water Quality
Division, Colorado Department of Health. In response to these meetings, it is
the opinion of this Division that the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues
in a state of non-compliance. We submit the following areas of concern as
violations :
1. The operators of the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill have not submitted
a complete Design and Operations Plan. (See attached letter of February
22, 1993) . This is a violation of C.R.S. 30-20-103 .
2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to operate without
required Discharge Permits. This is a violation of subsection 2.1.2.
of the Solid Waste Regulations, and 25-8-501, C.R.S. In conference
with Pat Nelson, Water Quality Division, their position is that the
absence of the required permits constitutes technical violation of the
Rules; however, they are holding further enforcement in abeyance so
long as as this facility continues to proceed in good faith with the
Discharge Permit application process. Our Division agrees with this
position.
3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to contaminate the
groundwater. A review of the Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical
Characterization and supporting documents indicate that a portion of .
this contamination is due to a lack of adequate cover and adequate
surface drainage. This is a violation of Subsections 2.1.2 of the
Solid Waste Regulations, specifically, 3. 11.5 of the Water Quality
Control Commission Rules, and 2. 1.4. of the Solid Waste Regulations.
In conference with Glenn Mallory and Roger Doak, Solid Waste Division,
Colorado Department of Health, their position is still as outlined in
their letter of December 23, 1992.
4. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has allowed solid waste to come into
contact with groundwater on this site. A review of the Hydrogeologic
and Geotechnical Characterization and supporting documents indicate
that this condition is due to a lack of adequate cover and adequate
surface drainage. This is a violation of Subsections 2.1.2 of the
Solid Waste Regulations, specifically, 3. 11.5 of the Water Quality
Control Commission Rules, and 2. 1.4. of the Solid waste Regulations.
In addition, this will be a violation of Subsection 3.1. 10 of the
revised Solid Waste Regulations, which are scheduled to become
effective in April, 1993.
EXHIBIT
We=stern Inter not us ' - == •-.--
This Division, and the Colorado Department of Health continue to feel that items
ti 3 and 4 4 constitute a public nuisance. Consequently, we would request that
these violations be brought to the attention of the Board of County
Commissioners , in the form o£ a public hearing•
Should you need additional information, please contact me.
ENV\342
XC: Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
Randolph Cordon, M.D. . M.P.H.
Glenn Mallory, Solid Waste Division
David Holm, Water Quality Division
Kit
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
Ce 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY,EY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO R
March 2 , 1993 M �C$11'
4,Q ets
Waste ices Corporation
Noe CS
s
Sr
40000 Weld County Road 25 HpVr199j
Ault, CO 8O61O
'4,0.
Subject: ZCH-96
Dear Sirs:
The Probable Cuase Public Hearing originally scheduled for March 24, 1993 , HAS BEEN
RESCHEDULED by the Board of County Commissioners. Notice is hereby given that on Monday,
April 5, 1993, at 9:OO a.m. , or as soon thereafter as the agenda of the Board of County
Commissioners permits, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County will hold a
Probable Cause public hearing pursuant to Section 81 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
and the policies and procedures of the Weld County Administrative Manual. This meeting
will take place in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915
Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado.
The purpose of this public hearing will be to review Case Number SUP-116 for compliance
with conditions of approval as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October
6, 1971, to determine if probable cause exists to hold a hearing on revocation of SUP-
116.
Mr. John Pickle, in his memorandum dated February 22, 1993, has identified the items of
non-compliance with conditions of approval for SUP-116. A copy of his memorandum is
attached.
If it is determined at the public hearing that there is probable cause that you are not
in compliance with SUP-116 the Board of County Commissioners will schedule a Show Cause
public hearing to consider revocation of the Special Review permit.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call or write.
Respectfully,
f�u 1LAAi .C� —
Ch Cunliffe, AICP
Director
enclosure
pc: William J. Hedberg
Marian King
Bill Jeffry EXHIBIT
Lee Morrison
John Pickle A p — 33
Kit
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540
Willi COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
140C. ON ORAAVENUEO631
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
March 2, 1993
TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Subject: ZCH-96
NAME: Waste Services Corporation, c/o Waste Management
FOR: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
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.
A Probable Cause Public Hearing originally scheduled before the Weld County Board
of County Commissioners on Wednesday, March 24, 1993, HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED to
Monday, April 5, 1993, at 9:OO a.m. , or as soon thereafter as the agenda of the
Board of County Commissioners permits , in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room,
First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
The purpose of this public hearing will be to review Case Number SUP-116 for
compliance with conditions of approval as approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on October 6, 1971, to determine if probable cause exists to hold
a hearing on revocation of SUP-116.
You are receiving this notification because your property is within five-hundred
(500) feet of the property being reviewed. All persons in any manner interested
are requested to attend and may give testimony pertaining to the uses occurring
on the approved site. For additional information write or telephone, Chuck
Cunliffe.
t'if mEmORAnDUI'fl
Wilk FILE March 10, 1993 N`
TO Dote
tid
COLORADO Trevor Jiricek, solid and Hazardous Waste Specialist
Rem
Central Weld Sanitary LY, complaint
aub)eot
On Harch 9, 1993, this Division received a complaint concerning the Central Weld
Sanitary Landfill pumping water from its on site retention pond to a alfalfa
field east of the landfill, this property is owned by Art Garcia.
Upon arriving at the landfill I inspected the area which was reported in the
complaint. From the county road, I observed a pump in place on the retention
pond and a "irrigation type" line running through a culvert under the county road
and onto Mr. Garcia's property. This line extended approximately 1000 feet.
This was documented with 9 photographs (attached).
I then contacted Bill Hedberg at the landfill office in regard to the complaint.
Mr. Hedberg stated that a discharge of this nature would not require a discharge
permit from the Water Quality Control Division, but that their attorneys were
reviewing the situation to insure that. Mr. Hedberg stated the pump was only
engaged to "prime" the system. He stated it ran for less than five minutes.
The flow of water if pumped would run across Mr. Garcias field then under a
county road and across another field also owned by Mr. Garcia, any surplus water
would ultimately flow into the Big Thompson River.
t will attempt to obtain an interpretation from C.D.H. in regard to this
discharge.
ti/
EXHIBIT
RFR 1 '93 14'53 FROM WELD CO TREASURER Tu _c.Jc�- -`�'_•---.
i#' MEMORAnDUM
liii V Chuck Cunliffe, Planning March 30. 1993
To •
COLORADO John Pickle. Hea
Rem
Central Weld San Lary Landfill
subject
On March 2, 1993, Trevor Jiricek of our staff inspected the Central Weld Sanitary
Landfill. The purpose of the inspection wag to ARRAAt the facility's compliance
with the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Site's and Facilities",
as promulgated by the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30,
Article 20, Part 1. C.R.S.
The facility continues in a state of non-compliance ae previously cited in my
memo to yrm of 2-21-92!
1. The operators have not submitted a complete Design and Operations
Plan_
2. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to operate without
required Discharge Permits.
3. The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill continues to contaminate the
groundwater.
4. The Central Weld Sanitary LancFill has allowed solid waste to come
into contact with groundwater on this site.
I met with Bill Hedberg, Site Manager on March 23, 1993. Although we primarily
discussed tither matters, no mention was made of any change in these areas of non-
compliance. In addition, I have received nothing to date with regard to same.
If you have further questions, please contact Trevor Jiricek or me.
EXHIBIT
A < D . - 3C
** TOTAL PAGE.017 **
O ' 4,•,_:064
April 3, 1993
Glenn Billings
2720 19 TH St. Drive#1
Greeley, CO 80631
Board of County Commissioners:
Due to a business commitment I am unable to attend the public hearing on the Central
Weld Sanitary Landfill.
As one of the three County Commissioners, I voted against this landfill during the
original public hearings in 1971. I've listed my reasons for voting against this landfill in
1971 as:
1. All requirements for approval were not met.
2. A high water table (such as the one around the Milliken Landfill) is not
conducive to any landfill operations.
3. The location of the Milliken Landfill was poor. It is in a direct drainage that
flows down hill into the Big Thompson River.
4. The landfill would have adverse effect on the intense agricultural operations
in the area.
5. The landfill was too close to a large residential area (Dos Rios).
These same issues negatively impact any present or future use of this facility.
Sincerely,
Glenn K. Billings
Former Chairman of the Weld County Commissioners
EXHIBIT
I A . o. - �t ►
STATEMENT OF ALBION CARLSON
1. I am over the age of 21 and own land in Weld County not far from Central Weld Landfill.
2 I am a trained geologist currently employed as an environmental scientist by State of New Mexico
Environment Department.
3. I believe I would qualify as an expert in the fields of geology, hydrology and environmental
regulatory issues in a court of law.
4. Because I am unable to attend a hearing regarding this landfill to be held on Monday, April 5, 1993
due to a schedule conflict I am submitting this statement to counsel for landfill opponents to be read
aloud and to be submitted on my behalf as part of the written public record.
5. I have made independent studies of geology and water flows in slough and wetland areas east of
Central Weld Landfill and have lifelong familiarity with the landfill site, its characteristics and
localized conditions and have had opportunity to review public record documentation.
Central Weld Landfill as currently sited and operated does not meet applicable county, state and federal
regulations as set forth below:
Central Weld Landfill as currently sited does not meet current Subtitle D siting criteria as set forth below:
6. 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 as may be seen in
aerial photos of the site prior to landfill designation.
7. Central Weld Landfill is located in high water table area where water flow is encountered a few feet
below the surface of the ground.
S. Inspection of the perimeter of Central Weld Landfill reveals deep,wide, steep-slope trenches
constructed in 1991 as part of a french drain and perimeter ditch system to intercept year-round water
flow percolating through the biomass and to "maintain groundwater levels at elevations below the
base of refuse [waste]."
9. Natural year-round springs were located on the landfill site and can be identified on aerial photos of
the landfill site taken prior to excavation and dumping operations on the site.
10. Central Weld Landfill is underlain by weathered shales,clays and clayey-silty soils.
11. Wetting and drying of clayey soils in the area expands and contracts them creating a phenomenon
known as piping or conduit formation which transfers water laterally and vertically as fast as water
can flow eventually to the depth of formations that contains clay.
12. The soils of the Central Weld Landfill area do not resemble typical dryland soils but are mature
indicating area of high moisture due in significant part to intensive irrigation activity in area.
13. Characterization of the site as semiarid with mean annual rainfall of about 11 inches per year for the
landfill site is deceiving and inapplicable. Relative humidity is more than 50%due to intensive
irrigation practices and year-round subsurface water flow in the area belies the semiarid
characterization.
EXHIBIT
0 • -
()110g
14. High rates of water flow onto landfill site from Knister Farms on the north side of the landfill during
growing season(early water to harvest)impacts the landfill during four months of the year in
amounts equivalent to rates for tropical rainfall or wet climates.
15. The base of the refuse and biomass is currently below the water level in Central Weld Landfill.
16. Waste in groundwater is sufficient for closure of a landfill in New Mexico and it was drafted the same
in Colorado prior to February 4, 1993,when officers of Western Region of Waste Management of
North America wrote to Glenn Mallory of the Colorado Department of Health requesting that he
oversee approval process to reword the second sentence of Section 3.1.10 to state that"The operation
of sites and facilities that place waste into groundwater after the effective date of these regulations is
prohibited."
17. By way of analogy, corresponding New Mexico solid waste and landfill regulations are unaltered and
state that waste shall not be introduced into the water table in landfills, prohibit burying trash below
the groundwater table and prohibit landfill operators from burying waste within 100 feet of an
identified water table. These regulations apply to all landfills without regard to age or date of
commencement.
18 In the letter of February 4, 1993, Waste Management personnel also submit a proposal requesting
Glenn Mallory of CDH to oversee approval process to reword final Colorado solid waste regulations
to permit field filtering prior to laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from monitoring
points or discharge points.
19. It is unreasonable to conclude based on a"relatively dry zone identified during site drilling within the
weathered bedrock,"that"communication between the uppermost saturated zone and deeper zone"
and deep aquifers such as the northern reaches of the Laramie-Fox Hills is "minimal." Relative to
what? Significant contamination of groundwater and aquifers cannot be ruled out to a scientific
degree of certainty.
20. Excavation of massive trenches along the north boundary of the landfill seeking to intercept massive
seasonal water flow and year-round springs impacting this site, distant tectonic events,unstable areas,
shifting pressures, movement and settlement within the biomass itself may contribute to additional
fracture of upper and lower weathered bedrock units and create new pathways for significant flow of
leachate-contaminated plumes extending under and past current legal boundaries of the landfill.
21. Central Weld Landfill has no buffer zones on any side.
22. Central Weld Landfill has no liners.
23. Saturated upper groundwater zones and saturated waste forming leachate is carried into pipes and
localized fracture zones within weathered shales and bedrocks in the area.
24. Increased height proposals to achieve optimal slopes for final elevations and cover of the of biomass
and proposed French drains will cause off-site contaminated water flow to move in new directions
including downgradient via gravity flow onto Knister Farms land which will become a total reversal
of historic flow.
25. Berms created by the landfill operators in conjunction with construction of the trench and french
drain system of perimeter water control currently backup water onto Knister land creating new seep
areas which have become unusable and unfarmable.
26. The Environmental Protection Agency delegated implementation of the mandatory NPDES program
to the state of Colorado in 1975. On information and belief and pursuant to review of public files and
3 3106.1.
notes from meetings of the Ashton Community Action Group, I was unable to find any application by
Reines during landfill operations in the 1980's or Waste Services during its operation of the site
during the past two years for required Colorado or federal point source discharge permits until an
application for 9 sample points was finally submitted to CDH by the operators of Central Weld
Landfill on November 25, 1992, including a discharge permit for the point source discharge of the
landfill underdrain emptying into Spomer Lake, until after this oversight was brought to the attention
of the Weld County Health Department and Colorado State Health Department by David Hayes and
Jon Stephens raising questions on behalf of his wife and sister-in-law(resident and property owners
immediately adjacent to the landfill on the South and west)since they observed Spomer Lake become
unable to support fish species and the crops planted on their sidehill wither and die when irrigated by
water contaminated from Central Weld County Landfill discharge point LF-UD.
27. Monitoring and sampling of test wells and discharge points as submitted to Colorado Department of
Health as recently as March 9, 1993,by Waste Management in-house testing methods and results
reveal numerous "SU" characterization of test results, i.e., "The analysis of the surrogate with this
sample did not meet the acceptance criteria of the method."
28. As of March 19, 1993, I was unable to locate an approved Design and Operations Plan for Central
Weld Landfill although one was required to be submitted by the operator for approval in 1971 as a
condition of the Certificate of Designation.
29. Based upon years of analyzing practical economic and technologic feasibility of measures called for in
site-specific closure and remediation orders from the point of view of operators cited for regulatory
violations, regulators, and others such as plan proponents as well as opponents, I want to bring the
attention of Weld County Commissioners to the following:
30. A purchaser of a landfill acquires no vested rights to derive economic gain from, or to continue or
expand, any kind of waste disposal operation at a site. Any proposals for change of use or proposed
expansion of waste disposal use or related activities at any site are separate issues.
31. Under applicable laws and regulations regarding solid waste landfills, purchasers of existing landfill
sites assume all risks, including loss of projected revenue or costs of landscaping, remediation,
monitoring and post-closure site work as a result of a closure order for cause at any time. A
purchaser of a landfill has ample(a)opportunity, (b)duty of due diligence, and(c)incentive under
present laws,to do adequate site investigation of a landfill administrative and operating history to
make a reasoned purchase decision, weighing and balancing their assumption of risks which are
known, discoverable by due diligence, or should have been known. Routine environmental audit of
this property by sophisticated purchaser Waste Management would have revealed numerous areas of
concern due to activities of potentially responsible parties("PRPs")as well as lack of adequate
governmental file review and oversight based upon county, state and federal laws in effect on all dates
relevant to this landfill.
Dated: April 3, 1993
ALBION CARLSON
.4.C Xio&'t
SENT EY: 4- 3-93 ; 12:48 ; KINKO'S SANTA FE 3033524074;# 4
notes from meetings of the Ashton Community Action Group, I was unable to find any application by
Keirtues during landfill operations in the 1980's or Waste Services during its operation of the site
dating the past two years for required Colorado or federal point source discharge permits until an
application for 9 sample points was finally submitted to CDII by the operators of Central Weld
Landfill on November 25, 1992,including a discharge permit for the point source discharge of the
landfill anderdrain emptying into Spomer Lake,until after this oversight was brought to the attention
of the Weld County Health Department and Colorado State Health Department by David Hayes and
Ion Stephens raising questions on'behalf of his wife and sister-in-law(resident and property owners
immediately adjacent to the landfill on the South and west)since they observed Spomer hake become
unable to suppon fish species and the crops planted on their eldehlll wither and die when irrigated by
water contaminated from Central Weld County Landfill discharge point LF-UD
27. Monitoring and sampling of teat wells and discharge points as submitted to Colorado Department of
Health es tecently as March 9, 1993,by Waste Management in-house testing methods and results
reveal numerous"SU" eharacteriation of test results, i.e., "The analysis of the surrogate with this
sample did not meet the acceptance criteria of the method."
28. As of March 19, 1993, f was unable to locate an approved Design and Operations Plan for Central
Weld Landfill although one was required to be submitted by the operator for approval in 1971 as a
condition of the Cettificate of Designation.
29. Based upon years of analyzing practical econonuc and technologic feasibility of measures called for in
site-specific closure and remediation orders from the point of view of operators cited for regulatory
violations,regulators, and others such as plan proponents as well as opponents,I want to bring the
attention of Weld County Commissioners to the following
30. A purchaser of a landfill acquires no vested rights to derive economic gain from,or to continue or
expand, any kind of waste disposal operation at a site Any proposals for change of use or proposed
expansion of waste disposal use or related activities at any site are separate issues.
31. Under applicable laws and regulations regarding solid*WC landfills, purchasers of bxiating landfill
sites assume all risks, including loss of projected revenue or costs of landscaping, remediation,
monitoring and post elosuxe site work as a result of a.closure order for cause at any time. A
purchaser of a landfill has ample(a)opportunity, (h)duty of due diligence, and(c)incentive under
present laws, to do adequate site investigation of a landfill administrative and operating history to
make a reasoned purchase decision,weighing and balancing their assumption of rises which arc
known,discoverable by due diligence,or should have been known. Routine environmental audit of
this property by sophisticated purchaser Waste Management would have revealed ntuerous areas of
concern due to activities of potentially responsible panics("PRPt")as well as leek of adequate
govcmmental file review and oversight based upon county,state and federal laws in effect on all dates
relevant to this landfill.
Dated: April 3, 1993 / / �'�n` �—�t
ALBION CARLSON
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SANITARY LANDFILLS IN
WELD COUNTY AS HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL, SITES
SEPTEMBER 1975
Prepared by: Orville F. Stoddard, P. E.
Thomas M. Tistinic
Engineering Section
Colorado Department of Health
Approved by: George A. Prince, P. E.
Chief, Engineering Section
Colorado Department of Health
EXHIBIT
. 0 ; Lf 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose 1
II. Conclusions 1-2
III. Recommendations 2-3
IV. Discussion 3-6
V. Hydrological Evaluation of Existing Sites
A. Proximity to Flood Plains 7
B. Proximity to Aquifer Recharge Area 8-9
Including Surface Water and Streams
C. Depth to Water Table Including Nearest 9-10
Use or Subsurface Discharge
D. Precipitation and Discharge 10-11
E. Wind Erosion and Natural Barriers 11
F. Seismic Activity and Faults 11-12
G. Proximity to Growth Areas 12-13
H. Transportation Routes, Accessibility, 13
and Security
I. Existing Land Use 13-14
J. Map Explanation 14-21
VI. A. Geological Map of Weld County
B. County Powers and Functions - "Solid
Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities"
C. Department Regulations
snio*1_
I, Purpose and Scope
This report was requested by Dr. Yoder, Director of the Weld County
Health Department to designate a disposal site in Weld County as a
hazardous waste site. The purposes of this report are to evaluate
the suitability of existing sites and facilities and to make
recommendations for the location and operation of an approvable
hazardous waste site and facility.
II. Conclusions
1. Pesticide containers from applicators and residues from
pesticide formulators are sources of hazardous wastes
in Weld County.
2. All existing landfill sites are located in aquifer re-
charge areas, flood plains or irrigated farmlands or
near population centers. Surface and ground water
pollution or air pollution can result from improper
disposal of pesticide containers at any of these sites.
A report and plan for receiving and disposal at a
selected site has not been developed.
3. Liquids and residues from pesticide use, formulation
and container washing operations are hazardous waste
requiring special storage processing and disposal.
4. Hazardous waste, not acceptable for disposal at a
specially designated landfill site, is a responsibility
of the generator.
1 nn
5. A feasibility study for locating, designing and operating
a hazardous waste site and facility has not been made.
The acceptable method of financing has not been determined.
III. Recommendations
1. Disposal site operators should be instructed not to receive
hazardous waste materials, at existing disposal sites,
unless the site has appropriate authorization from the
Weld County Commissioners. The amounts receivable should
be minimized by advising the generator to use these wastes
for the intended purpose or neutralizing at the source.
2. An engineering report and operation plan should be
developed and approved by the Department for a disposal
site designated to receive empty pesticide containers.
It should consider hydro-geological conditions; sources,
types and condition of containers; method of disposal,
records and monitoring procedures.
3. Left over pesticides, residues from pesticide formulations
or container washing operations must be excluded from
disposal sites unless authorized by the County Commissioners.
A prerequisite for authorization is an engineering report
and operation plan approved by the Department.
k. The generator of hazardous waste not received at designated
landfills should provide for on site storage facilities
and transportation to appropriate sites in another State.
2
5. It is recommended that a consulting engineering firm
with competence in chemical engineering be retained
by the Weld County Commissioners to determine the
feasibility of providing a hazardous waste processing
facility and disposal site in Weld County and inves-
tigate financing alternatives.
IV. Discussion
Hazardous waste is any waste or combination of wastes that poses
a substantial danger to human, plant or animal life. Special
precautions must be taken in handling, processing and disposal
of these materials. They may be toxic chemicals; acids or
caustics; explosives; or flammables. A review of sources of
hazardous waste generated in Weld County indicates there is a
need to dispose of hazardous material including pesticide
residues and containers from formulators and applicators.
Initially, an engineering report and plan for disposal should
be developed which considers sources, quantities and types of
hazardous waste. After review by the commissioners, recommended
approval by this Department, comments of the Weld County Health
Department and public hearing, a proposed site and facility may
be designated. The existing landfill sites were designated prior
to the requirement for engineering reports and operation plans.
Therefore geological, hydrological and operational data on
specific sites are lacking. Available data are inadequate for
this Department to approve any of the existing sites as suitable
for hazardous waste processing and/or disposal.
3
The problems associated with improper land disposal of hazardous
wastes have not been recognized by the public, although damages
may be severe and difficult to remedy. Air and water control
programs have diverted many of these materials to the land for
disposal. The problem is manifested in groundwater contamination
by leachate, air pollution by open burning, evaporation, and
wind erosion; poisonings by direct contact and through the food
chain; fires and explosions at land disposal sites.
Nationally, it is estimated that hazardous wastes comprise only 5
percent of the total solid waste generated. However, the
environmental impact is much greater. Approximately 40 percent
by weight of these wastes are inorganic, 6o percent organic. It
is also estimated 90 percent exists in liquid or semi-liquid form.
There are damage reports of arsenic poisoning in Minnesota from
landfilling grasshopper bait contamination of soil, surface and
groundwater on farmland in Illinois from disposal of metal
finishing wastes on land; a fatality at a New Jersey landfill
caused by exploding chemicals, to name a few, Some are a result
of disposal practices 30 years ago and others a result of current
disposal practices.
General categories of hazardous wastes are toxic chemical,
4
flammable, explosive, and biological. These can be in form of
solids, liquids or gases. Technology for the proper treatment
and disposal of hazardous waste is generally available. However,
the lack of regulation and economic incentive discourage the use
of acceptable treatment and land disposal methods. Treatment
processes include volume reduction, component separation,
detoxification, disposal and storage. Methods of disposal on
land include mixing with soil for bio-degradation, aerobic or
anaerobic ponds, filtration through natural or imposed media,
encapsulation and permanent disposal. The use of a deep well
injection method for disposal is an alternative which requires
considerable study and investigation prior to approval.
The sources, amounts and types of hazardous waste generated in
the "front range corridor" have not been surveyed. Presently, the
requirement is to transport hazardous and toxic wastes to appropriate
disposal sites in other States. However, some questionable
materials are being currently received at the Lowry Bombing
Range site in Arapahoe County. Several chemical fires have
occurreyn the chemical disposal pits recently. It is estimated
that.million gallons of industrial sludges are disposed of
annilsi1y at this site. The portion considered hazardous or
toxic is not known.
Should a hazardous waste processing and disposal site be designated
5
in Weld County, it may receive much of these materials presently
being received at Lowry and other sites. These increased quantities
may improve the feasibility for recovery of materials.
The procedures for designating a hazardous waste processing and
disposal site by the Board of County Commissioners are the same as
for a sanitary landfill. However, the required engineering report
and operation plan must include sufficient data to ensure compliance
with stringent criteria for hazardous waste processing and disposal.
The following is an evaluation of existing designated landfill
sites in Weld County, as to the suitability of these sites for
disposal of hazardous materials. Many of these waste materials can
be extremely toxic, water soluble, persistent after disposal, and
dangerous to operating personnel, persons using the disposal site
or in vicinity of the site.
V. Hydrological Evaluations of misting Sites
This phase of the screening and selection process will include a
map and literature survey and a preliminary analysis of existing
landfill facilities in Weld County. This study will try to
determine the feasibility of designating an existing landfill as
a hazardous waste disposal site. The screening process is not
as a detailed engineering report.
6
Criteria to be used in evaluating existing sanitary landfills:
A. Proximity to flood plains.
B. Proximity to aquifer recharge areas, including surface
waters and streams.
C. Depth to water table, including nearest use or subsurface
discharge of underground water.
D. Precipitation and drainage.
E. Wind erosion potential and natural barriers.
F. Seismic activity and faults.
G. Proximity to growth areas.
H. Transportation routes, accessibility, and security.
I. Existing land use.
A. Proximity to flood plains
The overall drainage pattern in Weld County is dendritic
resulting in a high degree of interrelationship between
stresmv and rivers. Pollution of any part may result in
pollution of the whole, especially during periods of flooding.
Information on flood plains was provided by the Weld County
Planning Office6 Their map is based upon soil association
data. Therefore, a detailed engineering study is necessary
in selection of a hazardous waste disposal site and facility
to insure adequate protection from flooding.
7
B. Proximity to aquifer recharge area, including surface waters
• and streams.
All aquifer recharge areas must be protected from the possibilities
of pollution. Pollution of a recharge area may affect a user
miles away. Care must be taken not to diminish the capacity or
water quality of the aquifer, for in many areas in Weld County
underground water is the major source of water for agricultural
and domestic purposes. Inorganic solutions pass readily through
soil and, once introduced, may not be removable. Because
natural dilution is slow, induced flushing is expensive, and
treatment is impractical. The effects of pollution may continue
for a long period of time.
In Weld County the major aquifers are situated in alluvial
valleys, comprised of mostly sand and gravel underlying the major
streams. Since these areas are locally recharged and form a
hydraulic link with the streams flowing over them, careful
investigation must be made before disposing of any hazardous
waste material to insure underground water storage is not
irreparably demaged.
Information for our preliminary investigation was provided
through a generalized map of aquifer recharge areas supplied
by the Colorado Land Use Commission, recharge areas to include
major reservoirs and streams. We feel that not only should
these areas be avoided, but also a buffer zone to extend beyond
8
the zone of recharge should be considered. Prior to selecting a
site a thorough study of surface water hydrology must be under-
taken. Such a study should include rates and directions of
surface runoff, historical flow on surface streams, ditches,
drains, and canals, and all other pertinent hydrological data
on other surface waters.
C. Death to water table, including nearest use or subsurface discharge.
Acceptable conditions for the location of a hazardous waste
disposal site include an area with essentially no water table. A
geological investigation of a hazardous waste site will be
necessary to determine the depth to water table, including nearest
use or subsurface discharge, and effective porosity and permeability
of the surrounding media. Naturally, the greater the distance any
possible leachate from the landfill has to travel, the less chance
of any possible pollution of any water source. However, in dealing
with hazardous materials, great care will have to be taken to assure
that any materials not readily removed by the major mechanisms of
decreasing concentrations in the subsurface, be contained. For
our purposes, the major mechanisms involved in decreasing
concentrations of dissolved solids in an effluent are sorption
and bacterial action. Sorption is the attachment of dissolved
ions to rock minerals, generally by electro-bonding forces.
Bacteria use any organic material in the effluent for food.
Earth materials with a high percentage of clay sized particles
• are the most efficient in attenuating dissolved solids from
wastes.
9
It would be desirable to contain this leachate in the most
efficient and economical way. A natural subsurface high in
clay materials will greatly reduce the chances of any pollutant
reaching surface or groundwater.
Therefore, the acceptable location of hazardous waste site will
be located in an area far removed from any wells or springs and
with a sufficient depth and quality of underlying material capable
of containing any leachate escaping from the site. A thorough
study of geological and hydrological conditions will be necessary
in evaluating a possible hazardous waste site. This study
should include but not be limited to: soil down to the bedrock
formation, depth and thickness of all formations underlying the
possible site, dip and strike of all subsurface formations, data
on all possible water tables, annual fluctuations in these water
tables, piezometric surface and gradients, and permeability and
porosity of all major shale between ground surface and bedrock.
D. Precipitation and discharge.
The acceptable areas for hazardous waste locations will be those
with low permeability materials in composition. Requiring that
the landfill be located in these areas will not be sufficient if
the effects of precipitation and drainage are not considered.
The county has less than 15 inches of precipitation a year, mainly
in the form of thunderstorms. Locally, severe weather can result
10
2:1081.
in large amounts of precipitation in short periods of time.
Natural drainage must be diverted around the perimeter of
the landfill. Naturally, the less water to enter the fill
area, the less leachate produced. It may be necessary to
provide facilities for the collection and treatment of
leachate in an area of low permeability.
E. Wind erosion potential and natural barriers.
As stated in the regulations for solid waste disposal sites
and facilities "the design shall contemplate the location
and construction of the disposal site and facility in such
a manner as will eliminate the scattering of windblown debris.
All solid wastes discharged at the site shall be confined to
the site and any material escaping from the active discharge
area shall be promptly retrieved and placed in the active
discharge area." Not only will the potential site have to
be adequately fenced, but also a survey will be needed to
determine potential wind erosion, frequency, and velocity of
wind. Natural land barriers can minimize or accentuate the
effects of wind. Land formations may either help block out
the force of the wind or create natural wind tunnels thus
increasing its detrimental effects. Hazardous waste may be •
in a form that can become airborne.
F. Seismic activity and faults.
Observations reveal that earthquakes have a variety of effects
11
. r -
on groundwater. Most spectacular are sudden rises or falls of
water levels in wells, changes in discharge of springs,
appearance of new springs, and eruptions of water and mud out
of the ground. Fractured rocks and faults are relatively
inefficient in removing dissolved solids because the surface
area provided for sorption is so small. Faults in underground
formations have the undesirable capability of extending them-
selves to the surface, thus allowing for the possibility of
leachates being transmitted into the subsurface at a relatively
high concentration. For these reasons, it will be necessary to
compile a report of the seismic activities in the area under
study over a long period of time and to investigate subsurface
geology for the possibility of large faults. If we consider the
Pierre shale as a possible location, major faults could probably
be recognized by any large displacements or offsets between the
contact of the shale and overlying or surrounding formations.
Minor faults could probably not be recognized because the
weathering may obscure any evidence of fault. Also, clay may
seal the fault to any movement of water along the fault.
G. Proximity to growth areas.
Weld County has shown a great potential growth, especially in
the urbanized areas. The Weld County Planning Office has
compiled a map indicating existing urban areas and future town
12
growth areas. It would be desirable and necessary to locate a
possible hazardous waste site well beyond those areas of potential --AN
growth. Although strict guidelines as to the disposal of these
waste materials will be followed, one must not over look the
possibility of spills, leachates, and the mixing of potentially
incompatible waste materials. Due to the hazard of the possible
release of toxic substances, however small, it is imperative these
sites be located where the possibility of these toxic materials
coming in contact with humans is minimal .
H. Transportation routes, accessibility , and security.
The location of a hazardous waste site should provide for convenient
and safe access from the major generators of the hazardous material.
Access routes should provide orderly and efficient traffic flow to
and from the site and within the site. The site should be located
far enough from a major thoroughfare to ensure the safety of the
people and yet be close enough to allow easy access to the site
without danger to the cargo and driver. The site should be located
in such an area as to provide for that security necessary to prevent
trespassing and vandalism.
I. Existing land use.
As stated in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan "The land of Weld
County has always been bounteous to its farmers and to the people
of Colorado and the nation. Weld County ranks first in agricultural
/
productivity of all counties in Colorado and second of all counties
in the nation.
13
Q414ng
The 1969 U. S. Census of Agriculture shows that the value of
all farm products sold in Weld County totaled $317,410,295 and
accounted for 30% of all farm products sold in Colorado. Weld
County has long been known as a breadbasket for the people of
Colorado and the United States." This rich agricultural land
must be considered a major asset to the State of Colorado and
the United States as well. All care must be taken to insure
that none of this rich farmland is harmed or destroyed through
inadequate planning. For our preliminary survey we are using
a general soil map of Weld County provided by the Weld County
Planning Office. This is a generalized map compiled from
detailed and reconnaissance soil surveys and in part from
interpretations. For these reasons, when selecting a possible
site for the disposal of hazardous wastes, a detailed soil map
need be used along with on—site descriptions for more detailed
decisions. We will limit our survey to those areas not used
for irrigated agricultural purposes.
J. Map Explanation
There was no complete map of Weld County taking into consideration
all the factors previously discussed. Information had to be
gathered from many sources, and most of that was at best in-
complete. Maps and U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Papers
14 n
were provided by Stephen D. Schwochow and David C. Shelton of the
Colorado Geological Survey and John C. Romero of the Division of
Water Resources.
All existing landfills are located in undesirable areas for the
disposal of hazardous waste materials. The area most desirable
would be that area in the Pierre shale in the Southeast corner
of the Weld County panhandle. Preliminary investigations
indicate this area:
(1) Is not located on a major flood plain.
(2) Is not an aquifer recharge area, drainage would be to the NW.
(3) Has essentially no water table, except those areas in which
wells are drilled into the overlying sandstone.
(4) Has no unusual problems with precipitation or drainage.
(5) Has no unusual problems with wind erosion.
(6) Shows no evidence of it being an area of seismic activity or
severe faulting.
(7) Is not located near any large cities or major growth areas.
(8) Is fairly accessible by the Burlington Northern Railroad
to the NW and by Highway 14 to the East and West and by Highway
71 to the North and South.
(9) The physiographic region to be one of shallow to deep rolling
hardlands and nearly level hardlands. Land Resource Areas of
Colorado describe the area as follows:
15
(1) Elevations range from 3,500 to 5,500 feet
(2) Relief nearly level to gently undulating with slopes from
1 to 5%. Numerous small areas of rolling topography with
slopes up to 8%.
(3) Precipitation: 15 to 17 inches annually. May be problems
with torrential downpours.
(4) Land Use: Primarily dry farming, more rolling land used for
grazing.
(5) Wind erosion the dominant type on nearly level dry lands.
(6) Native vegetation consists mainly of blue grama with moderate
amounts of buffalo grass.
Any one factor making the area undesirable is reason for elimination,
however most were eliminated by two or more factors.
YELLOW AREA - not a specific geological formation, however, with the
aid of maps supplied by Weld County Planning Office, this area was
eliminated for possible hazardous waste site. The criteria for
elimination was the following:
(1) Proximity to flood plains.
(2) Proximity to aquifer recharge areas.
(3) Proximity to growth areas.
(L) Land use, eliminating those areas of irrigated farmland. -'
Through maps supplied by the State Geologists Office and descriptions
from U. S. Geological urvey Water Supply Paper 1367, these areas
were eliminated due to undesirable geologic conditions.
• KF (Black) - Fox Hills Sandstone - medium yellowish-brown calcareous
16
marine sandstone interbedded with dark-grey to black sandy shale
and some massive white sandstone. The sandstone is loosely to
moderately cemented and contains concretions. The maximum thick-
ness in this area is about 400 feet. Although the Fox Hills
generally yields less than 15 gpm to wells and springs, yields as
much as 350 gpm from wells have been reported. Except in the out-
crop, the water is under artesian pressure.
Q (RID) - Dune sand, valley fill, and terrace deposits - Data from
ground water, South Platte River Basin. The pediment deposits are
of arkosic sand and ravel with minor amounts of red clay, with a
yield of 2 to 5 gpm to wells. Although yield very small, sand and
gravel have a high degree of permeabiliit, thus possible pollution
of nearby water sources may result. The dune sand deposits and all
alluvium are mainly comprised of sand, silts, gravel, and clay.
These deposits yield moderate to large quantities of water to
irrigation, municipal, industrial, domestic, and stock wells. For
convenience, all quaternary deposits of unconsolidated material were
mapped as one unit.
KI (BLUE) - Laramie formation - Upper 400 feet consists of olive gray
silty shale; contains lenticular beds of sandstone and numerous
carbonaceous beds of clay and seams of lignite. Lower 200 feet con-
sists of blue-gray silty shale, several relatively thin beds of
sandstone and fairly thick beds of subbituminous coal. At the base
17
• .°42.11.0g1.
JtOR1.
is a thick persistent sandstone, immediately above are two thinner
sandstone beds that locally coalesce with the thick sandstone.
Some of the upper beds of sandstone and the basal beds of sandstone
yield small to moderate supplies of water to industrial, public-
supply, domestic, and stock wells. For this reason, this area
would be undesirable.
TA (ORANGE)-- The Arikaree Formation consists of gray to brown fine
to medium sandstone that contains hard calcareous lenses and pipings.
The sandstone is massive to poorly bedded and loosely to moderately
cemented. It probably does not exceed 80 feet in thickness. The
Arikaree yields small amounts of water to wells in adjacent areas.
TO (PURPLE)- The Ogallala formation consists of beds and lenses of
stream deposited gravel, silt, sand, and clay, and contains caliche.
The material is loose to well cemented with calcium carbonate; the
well cemented beds are termed "mortar beds" from their resemblance
to concrete. Because the Ogallala was deposited on an eroded surface,
it differs widely in thickness from place to place. The Ogallala
yields small to moderate quantities of hard water to domestic and
stock wells and springs and as much as 50 gpm to wells supplying
the town of Peetz.
TW (GRFI) The White River group consists predominantly of blocky
•
variegated clay and siltstone, which contain beds of loose to
moderately cemented fine to coarse sand. In places, the formation
18
contains hard siliceous channel sandstone and conglomerate. Joints
and fissures may penetrate the beds locally, increasing the water
bearing capacity. "Porous zones" in the upper part of the White
River that extend under saturated unconsolidated deposits may
greatly increase the water-bearing capacity of the beds. The White
River differs widely from place to place. The White River Group
generally yields as much as 30 gpm to stock and domestic wells and
springs. In places where it is either extremely sandy or highly
fractured, it yields as much as 1,400 gpm to irrigation wells.
Acceptable formation: KP (BROWN) - Pierre shale consists of bluish-
black marine shale and silt and interbedded tan to yellowish-brown
sand and sandy shale in the upper part or transition zone. Many
beds of bentonite and large blush-gray limestone concretions are
present throughout the formation. The thickness of the Pierre
shale ranges from an estimated 6,500 feet near Hardin, Colorado to
2,500 feet near Paxton, Nebraska. Pierre shale is usually considered
to be a poor source of water. In some areas, however, artesian water
may be obtained from lenses of sand within the shale. Recharge by
infiltration of surface water is negligible, because pore spaces
between the grains of clay, silt, and very fine sand in the Pierre
shale are very minute. Water in quantities sufficient for irrigation,
public supply, or industrial use is not available from the Pierre shale.
Except for the localized sand lenses and the deep-lying Hygiene..
19
sandstone member, the Pierre shale is relatively impermeable and little
or no water can be obtained from it. Many stock wells are drilled
into the Pierre shale where it is overlain by permeable dune sand. For
this reason, it would be desirable to avoid areas of thick dune sand.
Supplemental information: Reports on proposed waste disposal site
near Limon, Colorado — Prepared for Chem—Nuclear Services, Inc.
Prosser, Washington by Charles S. Robinson, Ph. D. , Consulting
Geologist and Engineer, Denver, Colorado, October 1969. Conclusions
and recommendations summarized from this report:
(1) A complete detailed engineering and geological study must be
undertaken, to include a careful examination of geology and ground
water conditions at the proposed site.
(2) Proof must be supplied that the underground waters will not be
polluted or contaminated.
(3) Excavation and recompaction of the shale will form an almost
completely impermeable barrier or seal around the disposal trenches.
Engineering tests show a rate of water movement in recompacted
Pierre shale to be only .2 feet per year.
(4) Below a weathered zone of shale, the Pierre bedrock becomes
quite impervious to the movement of water. Near Limon the shale
extended to a depth of 3,000 feet.
(5) Normal underground aquifers or water-bearing zones are not
normally present in this shale formation.
20
r"21() ir
(6) Analytic tests submitted by Mr. C. S. Robinson indicate a
favorable ion exchange ratio by the weathered shale. This feature
is a tremendous safety factor for waste disposal facilities.
(7) Must insure minimum runoff enters the site.
(8) The weathered shale has some permeability.
(9) Should have test wells to monitor any movement of leachate
from the site.
(10) Samples of water, soil, and plants should be collected prior
to disposing of wastes to furnish background data prior to operation.
(11) Recommend determing the prevaling wind direction and average
wind speed over the past year as background information.
TAaLE 1.—Generalized section of the geologic units
Thickness Physical character Water-bearing properties ..
System Series Geologic unit (Icet).
Dune sand o-so* Very fine to medium sand and silt. ' Not known to yield dater to wells. Serves as an
infiltration area for recharge.
er to Recent and Lneonsoli- Gravel,sand,silt,and clay;mixed and inter- Yield
maequateteb in most uantities oft be tars. stock
places
d
Quaternarc - h Iari ti on wells.
Pleistocene dated Valley-fill deposits 0-1001 -bedded. - _ yield as much as 1.500 gpm P
deposits
pace
Gravel,sand,silt,and clay; mired and inter- Yield as much as 1,200 gpm to irrigation wells.
> de
posits depoosits 0-120± bedded. Identified only in a small area near
< H.reford.
- Clay, silt, sand, and gravel: contains some Yields small to moderate quantities of water to
Pliocene Ogallala Formation 0-IS0t caliche; poorly to well cemented. In places domestic and stock wells and springs.
has a coarse conglomerate at the base.
Fine- to medium-pained, loose to moderately >tay yield small quantities of water to stock and
Tertiary Miocene Arikaree Formation 0-Sot cemented sandstone;contains hard calcareous uumatic wells.
lenses and pipings.
Blocky=Seemed clay and siltstone;contains Yields adequate quantities of water to stock and
White Ricer Group O CW± loose to moderately cemented sand. In places domestic wells and springs in most
(reported)
ms
Oligocene contains bard channel sandstone. In places yields as much as 1,400 gpm
to irrigation wells.
Silty to sandy,yellow-brown and gray to olive- Yields small to moderate quantities of water to
0-GOOt lumina,carbonaceous shale: lumte stained: stock and domestic wells and springs.
Laramie Formation interbedded with stilly sandstone; contains
'limnlle,and coal.
—
i Fine-.to medium-grained, yellow-brown sand- Do.
Cretaceous Cretata ns pacer 0-4GAt stone. contains neds of dark-gray to black
ceous Fox MI5 Sandstone sandy shale and white massive sandstone.
Dark-gray to black shale:in places has weather- Do.
• Pierre Shale 0-7,000P ed zone cf yellow-brows clay at top:contains
lenses and beds of yell w•brow n clayey sand-
stone.
Spates limestone,and sandstone. Some units yield small quantities of water to
domestic and stock welts and springs in the
]Ieso u and Pteoted roes, 2,000-± extreme western part of the area.
ndidermtmtd I
21
. :.Doll ,c1 Y,Py. 'il--(2 — .,. ie_ypee or vege!auo.I_1U.cou.e. ,:e
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 C
5. Construction of structural or building foundations could be hampered area, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Ink
by the flow of ground water into the construction excavations. I-855-6.
6. Basements could be subject to collapse from water pressure and Jenkins, E. D., 1961, Records and logs of selected wells and
2 flooding. chemical and radiometric analyses of groundwater in tht
The situations described in items 4,5,and 6 also could occur in areas Colorado:Colorado Water Conservation Board Basic-Data
where the depth to the water table is not more than 10 feet either seasonally or Major, T. J., Kerbs, Lynda, and Penley, R D., 1975, Selec
annually. records for Colorado, 1971-75: Colorado Water Cons
XB. 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 introduced Schneider, P. A.,Jr., 1962, Records and logs of selected weE
directly into the ground-water system by water moving through landfills and and chemical analyses of ground water in the South Platt,
related types of facilities, resulting in degradation or pollution of the ground western Adams and southwestern Weld Counties, Colo
water.The possibility of degradation or pollution would be dependent on the Water Conservation Board Basic-Data Report 9, 84 p.
type and amount of waste,the depth of burial of the waste,and the seasonal or Schneider, P. A.,Jr.,and Hershey,L. A., 1961, Records and
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 wa
r facility. Cache la Poudre River basin, Colorado: Colorado Wate
2. Ground water could enter leaky sanitary sewers, resulting in a 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
facilities. The volume of water entering a leaky sanitary sewer would be aquifers in the Boulder—Fort Collins—Greeley area, Fror
dependent on the depth of burial of sewer and the seasonal or annual depth to Corridor, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File F
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 MULTIPLY BY T(
measured only in Boulder County. In the county,the depth to the water table Foot 0.3048
in the windblown deposits ranged from 3 to 12 feet, in the consolidated Mile 1.609 t
sedimentary rocks,it ranged from 1 to 29 feet; and in the fractured crystalline Acre 0.4047 h
rocks, it ranged from 9 to 193 feet. , •
on of J tiu
ne..0%" off.
`Y.T
EXHIBIT For sale by Branch of Disfibution,U.S.GoalI .
•
`� u j Box 25286,Federal Center.Denver,CO 8022
r` .11- 11
O O t\ ' ( I.-.....
\� ... 'I I i li �-�./ I .a '•� :$6(6 i+ • \\, I �� -.q�0 1
• ` 1
O 20.9 •'40 Vow
s.
r.��. O I •r s Hitl -.1.44„:v.://` � ,'��. 27.0 O
7.3 I:• r 11.6 M� .. •,,i , 77t7,3t-.. X1:1 , 111
Luke. 8M 475e
( • si,•iii t� .1 1 i •ill —.—,� - Qom\ , . - •
a '• (14481,
Inds.�E•r.-.■■ 5.6 �• ( • I 4� • 1 • •
. W 1462) 04 .. p ..� 1„
Y�r I O 'lin: N + I r
Sewage ..m•r-�.;_' I '� ....•11'n r .1.. 0
1,.....,7�� L' P ' •.12.1 I `o... I 14.0 _ "" !.441,4 -J 1 Jf
• I # HM 47
Plan O o ..
7 t.ilk
� D1rrF' 1. ,1 I Brarewoli_ � arm r 1 1.155 11 �° ,s15.4C�� Y`�--I I I ii- -....._...: 2.... ''...;1., Li•.i-.'"ss .../A beHj14 ., ..,.... ;;„ ,;II ill 1 I ill 171---''.1 r.j O..v i,...-i.1;" --'.."7)I I I I I Ai.'.-.--- -''-..-P4%-. 14."). - --'\''-46‘141i illiN. ' IMM '''Ir'4'‘'Llgi"-'7:..:-.' \:.... K 6.7: ../.46i..'" -..1 ytc..
...1i2)._ � 1 �.,:. '5 r-_.� ) r'797 ��lp�eII�� Iii_
1:16::7 tli I..::4'i 1;-I i ��` 11aez1 ■■illitelki El I I ir I I 1174I-14.'"••
't`7 f t I` 11...3\ • I I"WI ILIIM kV
•
� .. , rri rwi"i!,.°21...0 14.•
U Iri 4991 —i' 11;01176T'
Clul(�: .I� C�•�,R<]Is �iE
Cove �� •
(1521)Will
�r03 ° ij't: x� t�■■■
�\ 4969 iii ��t ����I� t:J'
.. ` 116 3, A gra / j 11&11"53
%Ai) 1.sr 3riUR_•
s000 irOAdrs n
,iiiziaroillit
c 11 §‘Iir III /l/�e9, ..u.
--- magi ,v. /-1 •-s \I•
- fi� \•` J'I cp r`J`fib Reseda e1•n' • JN.. 6 f ...^Bea•.n. BM 1. ./BM 4864 , w 'J-~'-" •
i
\,` ) `.. ') , (IS'51 (1483}' ilt �t
zc - is9.
,� Q 1 1) }.soot s' sax. 6� I ,�W
p 0 •0 's, \ :.7 l LOVFLANO • L �`+ _ \ I r ty R / ��r
��0 fL aryl T I `` N ! �j j,� -k—' Radio 70.:...y�.7.'
virocitti- *46oi T 1 •r.,1�.`�,� i►r• ►1 I row 01 •�
\\r• , 'IN11- 1011111 - • Ofrogir ;
‘..,,r ,,...,,,k. ._..„--, ,c, i
../ .4% /� /�i i
f i2 1. t r f 1 6- ��00
G �■ a �.0�- � 070 )� .W/ 11.
ff...... (..\_ --) ..<, likayaih... N. . 0.✓. ` `;0,11.,4 FP.-
�' ��*F foI (� � 4ei �- itElwell ..:: ' do BM'a7 O-.. " as _ / „�-��a� �J
---- iilliTriapr, 4)1E
_. Johnstown • .1 / _er••�
WY Itsplem- - apppy As'' -:-1,;..14_,...AL01111.. ill7 WIri: Afirf,"Or pr 0 g23. 0 0 _!_jc • !....... ._
:a1 ii•
y_ .w. a gar ' r • •r• 21.9 0 28.6 L o.
1 - ,p-r- 7� C� O •Q 414 —4 O O 0 •
/ "�"9i-/Rex v born li . '�b)" , •�� / 's3 O 0 3.3• B o ��'"� •prAut,x
�� ,1 \frr‘in,,,,,zr�. 27.7 Jc��a 1.71
•
ip
i\ _ U 4846 4, fç1Lto �
-- ,__
w c' eGX4
N 0• O 29.0 1 •• 114411 0 3:$
ti 1Nildcat n, • J poik., 188J; r /
C Banyan �Y,.•tyC: « 27.'2/
•/ / ------•••• 1 ll Q 5.9® pr
.• ; ,,..._......, -' / •O • c 30.91 • • �:� to. :11. 00 07.8 w
1 1\ Rums C (/
•-", tl 4
Li) ,..____. -- . ; .,l.., _
20.®22.0 e • ® 7'8°. • „EIS¢
1p
28 7 5.7`�o_ •• P' -' �-
States
United=PA Notification of Hazardous Waste Site U U Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
his initial notification information is Please type or print in ink. If you need
eouired by Section 103(c) of the Compre- additional space, use separate sheets of eos- ma - 00/ - 009
ensive Environmental Response. Compen- paper. Indicate the letter of the item MAY 2 Z FiEC'O
G
ation, and Liability Act of 1980 and must which applies. , 0��z e mailed by June 9, 1981.'e son Required to Notify: Saloom Chemicals, Inc. J//Jll!yI!i!!iiu/q/iIlrater the name and address of the person
Name 043386
r organization required to notify. street P.O. Box 1286
City Greeley State CO Zip code 80631
;ite Location: Wel County Dump
Name of Site
-Hier the common name (if known) and 2 `4`-' d, /
ct�al location of the 1 site. Street }U Soutil West of Greeley' IPG37 AV
iii1)- -lit,- '7 r- t.1,..
•
/��.O.r .e,...e4r._...�4}�l ., O City Greeley county Weld State CO Zip Code 80631
'erson to Contact: /1)b- 017- IL) )Name(La) - i-)-^-3 First and Title) Burchett, Dennis
inter the name, title (if applicable), and
,usiness telephone number of the person Phone (303) 356-4400
o contact regarding information
submitted on this form.
Dates of Waste Handling:
Enter the years that you estimate waste From(Year) 1973 To (Year) 1976
--reatment, storage, or disposal began and
ended at the site.
JVaste Type: Choose the option you prefer to complete available to ersons liar Option I: no the el waste types and s source r cas you ares. f Res urce Consertion 2: This vationn s and RecoverypAct (RCRA)(Sect Sect the
ion enc u not know the general r waste types or sources,tio y
encouraged to describe the site in Item I—Description of Site. regulations (40 CFR Part 261).
General Type of Waste: Source of Waste: Specific Type of Waste:
'lace an X in the appropriate Place an X in the appropriate EPA has assigned a four-digit number to each hazardous waste
listed in the regulations under Section 3001 of RCRA. Enter the
avers. The ecch listed boxes. ? appropriate four-digit number in the boxes provided. A copy of
overlap. Checkk ea each applilicable " the list of hazardous wastes and codes can be obtained by
category. , i contacting the EPA Region serving the State in which the site is
located.
1. 0 Organics 1. ❑ Mining
2. 0 Inorganics 2. 0 Construction -P048t:i--.,
3. 0 Solvents 3. 0 Textiles P094
4. 0 Pesticides 4. 0 Fertilizer
5. ❑ Heavy metals 5. 0 Paper/Printing
6. 0 Acids 6. 0 Leather Tanning
7. 0 Bases 7. 0 Iron/Steel Foundry
8. 0 PCBs 8. 0 Chemical, General
9. ❑ Mixed Municipal Waste 9. 0 Plating/Polishing
10. ❑ Unknown 10. 0 Military/Ammunition
11. D Other (Specify) 11. 0 Electrical Conductors
12. 0 Transformers
13. ❑ Utility Companies
Waste in this time frame consisted of dust
14. D Sanitary/Refuse
from the formulation of disulfoton and Phorate
15. ❑ Photofinish
16. 0 Lab/Hospital
(organic phosphate pesticides) . In
Unkn
own 0 Unknown addition there was floor sweepings, empty
18. ❑ Other (Specify) containers and bags
EXHIBIT JUN 10 1981
Form Approved .q{i
OMB No.2000-0138 CCCC prrot - (C Q''"''� .�
r'4 Form 8900-1 , .J_..O
Notification of Hazardous Waste Site Side Two
Waste Quantity: Facility Type Total Facility Waste Amount '
Place an X in the appropriate box to 1. C Piles cubic feet aarrar.. S to 10,000 lbs.
indicate the facility types found at ;.ie site. 2. C Land Treatment /t J1^ ,J'�
In the ""total facility waste amount" space 3. E Landfill gasiins
give the estimated combined quantity 4. ❑ Tanks Total Facility Area
(volume) of hazardous wastes at the site
using cubic feet or gallons. 5. O Impoundment square feet
6. O Underground Injection
In the ""total facility area"' space, gi
ve the
estimated area size which the facilities 7. O Drums, Above Ground acres 100 Acres Approx.
occupy using square feet or acres. 8. O Drums, Below Ground
9. C Other (Specify! --- -
Known, Suspected or Likely Releases to the Envirenmer;,.:
Place an X in the appropriate boxes to indicate any known, suspected, ❑ Known O Suspected O Likely Z None
or likely releases of wastes to the environment.
Note: Items and I are optional. Completing these items will assist EPA and State and local governments in locating and assessing
hazardous w.•ste sites. Althougn completing the items is not required, you are encouraged to do so.
Sketch Map of Site Location: (Optional)
Sketch a map showing streets, hin: :lays. • "
routes or other prominent landmar..:u near
the site. Place an X on the map to indicate •
the site location. Draw an arrow showing /-1 P Pr"o Y. I n\ t .
the direction north. You may substitute a
publishag map showing the site location. S
Ur aPPreY • kh} nit
c •
M
^
j „\\ .
I
I'ktiri11'C -3 t~\\
--4,42"t ' 3 Li
\ / 0-r 4, e \ E.LI
N
Description of Site: (Optional)
Describe the history and present
conditions of the site. Give directions to
the site and describe any nearby wells,
r
springs, lakes, or housing. Include such
information as how waste was disposed
and where the waste came from. Provide
any other information or comments which
may help describe the site conditions.
Signature and Title:
The person or authorized representative Name Balcom Chemicals ❑ Owner, Present
(such as plant managers, superintendents, C Owner, Pas:
truateeY or attorneys) of persons required
to nofif must sign sweet the form and provide a 419 18th St. C Transporter
mailing address (if different than address C Operator, Present
in item Al For other persons providing ci:t Greeley State CO Zit)code 80631 C Operator, Past
notification, the signature is optional. —
Chacethe boxes which best describe the ;` C Other
relationship to the site of the person !.i— i ,,. '�-r.. cf1P 5__'0_01 en,' �.w
required to notify. If you are nut required S1pnature t _ f - __._- .- _o_, 1
ASHTON-DANIELS NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION PACKET WITH EXHIBITS
IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY CENTRAL WELD LANDFILL
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED
APRIL 5, 1993
WELD COUNTY COMMISIONERS' PUBLIC HEARING
WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL BUILDING
GREELEY,COLORADO
EXHIBIT
I A , D.- `f6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHART (1969)
2. ASCS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LANDFILL (JULY 1992)
3. WELD COUNTY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (1971)
4. GREELEY TRIBUNE ARTICLE (OCTOBER 24, 1985)
5. AERIAL PHOTO
6. AERIAL PHOTO
7. AERIAL PHOTO
8. AERIAL PHOTO
9. WETLANDS PHOTO
10. MESA PHOTO
11. SPOMER LAKE PHOTO
12. WHITE MILKY DISCHARGE FROM BELOW SPOMER LAKES
13. DEEP TRENCHES AND LANDSLIDES PHOTOGRAPHS
14. BLOWING DUST PHOTOGRAPH
15. BLOWING TRASH PHOTOGRAPH
16. BLOWING TRASH PHOTOGRAPH
17. NUISANCE PHOTOGRAPHS
18. ASBESTOS PHOTOGRAPH
19. DEAD SHEEP CARCASSES
20. SEEP PROBLEMS FROM ILLEGAL POND
• 40g,
I .5 0 I KILOMETRE
1=1..__F H J
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
5064 IV NE
H E 6 W (BRACEWELL) sp 4]'30"O/.'EGLEvea MIS X2200000 FEET 519
. I
u /
v J � r � � AP9
/ � gy0"
[1'
I 1
l %4906 / I
O
29� 2.8
,
\ r 'i5
. 860
0
I A' 55 �� ( gesJ •... - •. 4e z ' 'i f I s77e
I I �
1 Rekrhe
I'II ( I \ Lake x�
��
of
Ili �
0955 1N.1):3:1![1 ! ; ..-•'32 i4
( i
i o art
jr , I � 3. 1 4750 �Im ,>_,,,---,,T,..,,,,,1'
1 \---''V' )i � I 3 4s00 I k6B
}
I I / AU
33 I akee a '
I ‘,-I.1
ti � �� �
f 473J
. .
1 a 1CY2e1l� P o
�• �,1%_9B3d_ ake 1ERR r /4� r______
4Tl Vje6 •'/ l�t
..
\ [ , , ,, ,;� j '� .� r �D %� VIy RIVE R
1 t 5.J " o > �� j \‘‘
p.
Adn. AT rJ I, 4 DR6
1 47/5
?'Iz0m,ps0n /
l\ J J
A PACIFIC
o
P
'i lip/ I
Well 1 .1 I - i
0^
Davie 4710 ��
a 1VCE
,6v•. _ f SCh 4728 y- . —14715 N ye ,'
DITCH,
0
00
,P3o 7 _ ' /8
yaw 11 /
USGS CHART DATED 1969 SHOWING ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHICAL
ELEVATIONS. CURRENT DUMP IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
l I �I`
IP,O�' - S7 PAGE1
L
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS ::::`...;11‘.
y , .
•_o 14742 FOR SALE BY U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,DENVER.COLORADO 80225,OR RESTON,VIRGINIA 22092 e A v11‘.(iA" pp ;4
Y L y •
(fJ f R
1985 C-6 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE Thursday,-October
x 4
3 '
g g
f � I
fiy� v r� CU j - � !
� t Y N 6 ''" �3t ti S
� .:. fr R y' mr d W. �
� ss
W t
y iil �
, SR°°
a��.� ��Fr Z'� y,� � -` �z+'tv •
t
4 r., 4 •:. "M.µy:a. �'� !A"'£,. ! TdbuM P�v4o by salnWvm .t-„
lilliken firefighters stand in a cloud of smoke to spray water on a dump fire southwest-of:Greeley Wednesday.
Windblown fire destit s --10 acres of ,.corn
into an adjacent '."We could ur'water Yon' that., thing
A windblown-dump fire `Wednesdaj��'af, 1 cent corn field owned by�SamPo
ternoon destroyed about 10.acres, of,core Telep - i. v. . forever and not put if out,"Tarrant sad. "It.
outhwest of Greeley and burned ifor three smolder$np,There`;,wasn't:any adinger
ours before bulldozers werecalled in toMut .' About 10 acres of tt,e atandmg COM,`valn�di x.,,;after we got:4 out-ofrthe cornfield, btt we:.
it out. <.. ' ,; .w'e at':$6,000,'were destroygd.,,,The fire t was4*�d to get thebulldozersto get it out.".. ,er
The fire started‘',Eit approximately'2:15 " contained to the gash dump'..§ Pm ;i,The fie,could have,been.caused byfbot
m. at the Weld Landfill, 60.97 77th w` FireYighters from I1 thr g,departSnen ! ashes in la,,,load-fof.,trash nor tav mixt of•.
we., owned by Colorado Landfill Inc.The 'T4donned oxygen rnas}cslandkbvded°inttidFth :,ewnicalsatnat caused spontaneous combis-y.
Milliken Fire Department respondedi.Ctnef F:blowing smoke's to pourrswater onto 1*y tmpTarrant said.;The dump has a history'd
-Lowell Tarrant.called,the Johnstown and "burning'trash.�It took bupdozerst f oni the* ,'inires �the at'all,. he::said,;:.and.a meeting ,:
ilestern 1iills departments=,for help when •.`'county 'and area'%ogtractors plowing the ro'tetween the county and the fire districts is...
Ands blew flames from the burning trash piles undef to p4 thebtae out,though, 4 3e ,requested.
NEWS CLIPPING FROM GREELEY TRIBUNE , OCTOBER 24, 1985.
PAGE 4
_ L
� NT
r-, \N.= d �
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm
42Th S * Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Governor /876 Executive Director
April 1, 1986
Waste Services, Inc.
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
Attention: Lynn Keirnes, President
Dear Mr. Keirnes:
The Colorado Department of Health has reviewed your request to change
the name of the Certificate of Designation for the Greeley, Milliken
Sanitary Landfill from Colorado Landfill, Inc. to Waste Services, Inc.
The Department approves your request provided, (1) you receive
approval from the Weld County Commissioners, (2) you commit to operating
the landfill in accordance with the approved operational plan, engineering
design and the Certificateof Designation
If you have any questions please contact me at (303) 320-8333 ext.
4364.
Sincerely,
Akey)14€44. 671741-1"----
Dennis C. Hotovec
Geologist
Solid Waste/Superfund
Waste Management Division
DCH:pb
cc: Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Health Dept.
EXHIBIT
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER. COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
21,0 `
WO9E
C.
6037 77th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
(303) 330-2641
April 3 , 1986
Weld County Board of Commissioners
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Certificate of Designation
Greeley-Milliken Landfill in the
SW1/4, Sec. 32, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M.
Weld County, Colorado
Dear Commissioners:
Waste Services, Inc. , requests transfer of ownership of
Certificate of Designation No. 21 (Greeley-Milliken site ) from
Colorado Landfill, Inc. , to Waste Services, Inc. My wife, Lela
and I each own 50% of the stock of Waste Services, Inc. I will
be directly responsible for the management of the Greeley-Milliken
site.
Waste Services, Inc. , plans to follow the existing operations
plan for the Greeley-Milliken site. Because of the previous
successful ownership and management of Colorado Landfill by my
wife and me, we feel very qualified in financial and management
responsibilities to operate this site and to meet the requirements
of Federal, State and County health regulations. Weld County
transferred the Industrial Revenue Bonds from Colorado Landfill ,
Inc. , to Waste Services, Inc. , in December of 1985. This re-
flects the confidence of Weld County Board of Commissioners in
our capability to manage and operate the landfill site.
I would appreciate your early consideration of this request.
If I can provide additional information to expidite this matter,
please call me.
Respectfully,
WASTE SERVICES, INC.
G. ; Yam_,
C. Lynn Keirnes, President
CLK/gc
ROY ROMERair Teke usben:
Main Building, Denver
r• r Governor (303)322-9076
l ti tits Ptarmigan Place, Denver
PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303)320-1529
Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver
(303)3554559
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office
• 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198
COLORADO Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office
(303) 331-4830/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-8441
DEPARTMENT
OFAHEALTH
RECEIVED
September 18, 1992 OCT 5 •
1992
Kent E. Hanson KEN I E.niuv �N
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
operations, though Weld County may if they so choose. A Certificate of
Designation is issued for a specific solid waste land use (i.e. incinerator,
sanitaly landfill, 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
EXHIBIT KV (1-V
ro - 8 `'ererecycledpre,
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
amt ■0R°
4110
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.
St 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
cr?4 Oge
Hello