The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About931593.tiff 6 op I ic ' paste Services Corporation we_ /037 77th Avenue anag m Greeley, Colorado 80634 A Waste Management Company 303/330-2641 May 29, 1992 1992 Mr. Brian Grubb ,VN Weld County Department of Planning Services c.„,,.r��e0 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Grubb: Pursuant to our conversation, this letter will summarize the upgrades we are planning at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, 6037 77th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631. * Replacing the diesel fuel tank and upgrading the fuel area to comply with our new SPCC plan. Permit for tank replacement obtained from County, awaiting State permit. Project completion expected by 6-15-92 . * Place 8" reinforced concrete floor in large equipment building to cover approximately one third of floor area. Functionality of building will not change. Project to improve working conditions for the maintenance personnel. Applied for permit. Contractor is Doty Contruction. * Construct "office" in large large equipment building to maintain equipment records. Room to be 8' x 12' with 8' ceiling. Construction to be completed by Landfill maintenance personnel. This change will enable records on equipment to be maintained and stored more efficiently. Applied for permit. * Improve existing lighting in equipment building and around yard of Landfill. This change will improve security, safety, and operational efficiency. Detail of plans will be available when obtained from contractor. Applied for permit. Contractor anticipated to be Circle D Electric. * Improve heat in equipment buildings. Presently considering LP gas radiant heat. Will apply for permit when concept has been completed and accepted by management. Thank you for your interest in our plans to improve our facility to better meet the public need. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 330-2641. Sincerely, William J. He erg Division V. P. - Landfill Operations WJH.hjw g3I5g3 =, Pk-0(161 .16 ; rot • t5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET ' GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 CO COLORADO June 3, 1992 Waste Services Corporation Attention: William Hedberg 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Proposed improvements to existing facilities on property covered by SUP-116. Dear Mr. Hedberg: The Department of Planning Services Staff has reviewed the letter submitted to our office on June 2, 1992 and determined that your proposal is primarily to repair and upgrade existing facilities and therefore will not be considered a major change to the approved plans. Any future improvements or changes to the special use should be submitted to our department in writing prior to construction. If you have any further questions please call our office. Sincerely, 4,A(4/ Brian A. Grubb Current Planner BAG/bjs TELEP AND TELEP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1315-54th Avenue Creele,v,Colorado 80634 Samuel S Te lrp Office(303)3308100 Residence/70 31 330-0942 Cynthia J. Talep I fl: ^3 CERTIFIED MAIL Estes Park. Colorado (03)5NG5133 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED r,- ; TO 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 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Notice of Non-Compliance - Greeley-Milliken Landfill Certificate of Designation No. 21 tOriginal Cert. 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. - The 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 ii unlined. New facilities require liners. Composites are / 931 593 h1bi f C� (Ain); �(E�, it (Col . L(�L�t r Act.) - 831061 Weld County Commissioners July 17, 1992 Page Two called for in 1993 federal regulations. The base of the till 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 yhich 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 ml. from mouth 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 CBS 30-20-109(c) which is applicable to this site, lqislative intent, and public policy, you have already missed at least two opportunities which mandated the filing of an Engineering Design and Operations Report 1 'EDOR" I 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(01 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 ('CORR") 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 en 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 Reims) 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 w4s when the Reines family corporation changed to Waste Services Corporatiop. The most recent opportunity missed by Weld County of which I IP now aware was on or about July 12, 1991 . A letter signed by Brad Keirnes on letterhead of Waste Services Corporation dated July 15, 1991 was written to, ygu about a merge Weld County Commissioners July 17, 1992 Page Three transaction. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Etthibit 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 bperating 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, pc5s1bly since doing so would have triggered the consequence of a public hearing and a mandated EDOR a year ago. Whether any member of the Reines family holds mere title or any actual operational role in Waste Services is irrelevant to•.'ths 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 ( 21 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-fres 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, Ina. (currently trading for about $34/share on the New York Stock Exchange; designation "Waste'I . I submit that when a small family business (the new lined and buffered Ault landfill packaged together with this marginal site) la bought out by a subsidiary of a $7 Billion corporation there has occurred a "substantial change of operations" which is defined in the Code 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 sallies or tree/terrine of the Certificate of besignation to a age operator. t❑ 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.S.0 Closure Data satisfactory to us and other parties negatively impacted by illegal dumping practices and variance from the 1971 plan and design of this.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 lags. None of this explains how the sale avoided triggering 'the required public hearing, EDOR and acceptable Closure Data for this marginal silts in July, 1991 . /1 331061 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, Samuel S. Telep Manager - Knister Farms cc: Tom David, Weld County Attorney cc: Juhn Pickle, WCHD - Environmental Protection Department =MUMS CRS 3U-20-109(c) and 6 Code of Colorado Regulations 1007-2 ('Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities') ('CDi4H Raga' ) are applicable to this site: Colorado Department of Health Regulations (in pertinent part) : 1 . 3.7 7w 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 became effective. 1 . 2 "Su' stantial 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 review and accepted as complying with these regulations; or the selling or transferring of the Certificate of Designation to a new operjtor. 4 .9.0 Closure Data: The eagiseering design and operations report (ED0H1 shall include, as a minimum, the following closure data' 4 .8. 1 Provisions for the maintenance of the facility after closure, to prekent 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: (ci The establishment of a fee for the review of a new or amend,Qjolid 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 sat forth based on volume aqd is dependent on sound and reliable record-keeping praetioesi / 931061 4 CYNTHIA (C.J. ) TELEP TURNER Attorney at Law 1452 S. Canfield Avenue - Suite 102 Los Angeles, CA 90035-3223 (310) 282-8413 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 18 , 1992 Thomas O. David, Esq. Weld County Attorney Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re : Greeley-Milliken Landfill Dear Tom: Request for Immediate Public Hearing My father, Sam Telep, has not received any response to his letter dated July 17 , 1992, in which he requested Weld County officials to hold a forthwith public hearing regarding Greeley- Milliken Landfill issues of legal and public health violations. Per your request, I spoke with Lee Morrison on July 31 , 1992 . I told Lee that you and I had discussed that Sam's concerns and request for a forthwith public hearing deserved responsive answers from the Weld County legal department, and that I had asked you for a copy of the merger agreement (executed by Waste Services, Inc . or Waste Services Corporation) and environmental audit on this site . Lee stated that he "did not agree with" Sam's premises and that Weld County will not hold a hearing regarding Greeley-Milliken Landfill until 1993 . I asked why delay a public hearing that Sam has been asking for urgently for more than a year? Lee told me he is now awaiting an operations report and plan from the landfill operators . I asked Lee to respond in writing to each of the issues Sam raised in his July 17 letter, and to furnish me with the merger and audit documents I requested. Lee confirmed that he had Sam's letter with his correct address, I gave him my address, and we concluded the call with me stating that Sam and I awaited Lee's written answers to Sam's concerns and request for public hearing. I have not received response to my letter to you dated July 29 , 1-992 . In case it has been misplaced, I am enclosing another copy to you, Tom, and ask that you respond to our requests in writing if Lee Morrison does not. Very truly yours, el— Cynth Telep Turner cc : Lee Morrison, Esq. CCCCCCJJJJJJ cc : Samuel S. Telep, Esq. 931061 A- KENT E. HANSON mwmwm w Cups Caw lab 9124 Stoat,Sits 216 Teklu(303)443-6490(303)449-0600 See,Woad* 60302 September 11, 1992 Certified Mail. Return Receipt Regpested • George Kennedy, Chairman Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Coamissia*iz C.W. Kirby, Commissioner William H. Webster, Coasisilioner 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, those 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 and 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 Manageent purchased all stock of Waste Services, Inc. from the %eirnss family. Data recently submitted to the County confirms that there is off-site groundwater contamination. The County has expressed A 931O6' 49 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 Best reeeht OxaHpls et the county's .4414re to inform itself about activities at the site. It appears that the County has never reaq�uuired the subsission 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. Moreavar, 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 evalu*te the 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, septnbsr 16, 1992 that it will begin to 93 .061. George Kennedy, Chairman Constance L. Harbert, Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Commissigfsr c.w. Kirby, commissioner William H. Webster, Conissioner September 11, 1992 Page 3 • act in accordance with the above requests. It such acknowledgement is not resolved, legal sctian will be initiated. Mr. Telep and I would bs happy to pest with the Commissioners if you wish to discuss any of these matters. Sincerely, t E. 8a n /te cc: Lee Morrison A 9310&'. 8 SEP 28 '92 04:41PM P.9 TELEP Chronoloay of Events July 1. 1971 - State Solid Waste Disposal Law took effect. July 21. 1971 - Weld County Commissioners asked that Weld county Planning Commission review application for waste disposal site. August 3, 1321, - Weld County Planning Commission approves application of Weld County Landfill, Inc. for Certificate of Designation "subject to meeting the Health Department's requirements and the information being submitted to the State Health Department. " Glen Anderson, John Watson, John Weigand, Philip Bolls and Ronald Heitman all vote for approval. August_., 1927, - Earl Moffat submitted soils and water table data to CDH. (No report can be found in CDH or Weld County records) . Auaust 13. 1971 - Letter from William N. Gahr, Director of the Division of Engineering and Sanitation, cDH, to Glenn K. Billings, Chairman of the Weld County Board of Commissioners, indicates that a report on the proposed site has been reviewed and recommends that the designation of the site "be made contingent upon the submittal of an engineering report concerning the design and operation of the site as described at Regulation 3 and 4 of the attached proposed regulations. " (No engineering report can be found in CDH or Weld County riles. ) September 22 . 1971 - Weld County Commissioners held a public hearing on Request for a Certificate of Designation. Earl Moffat appeared for Weld County Landfill, Inc. Moffat represented that the landfill would operate on the west side of the draw only if practical. There was no intention to work in the draw itself. All draws would be kept free of pollution and obstructions. Final elevation would be at an "even grade or benched. " The intention was to have three feet or more of cover and turn the property into a "good piece of farm ground." Moffat estimated excavating approximately SO acres to a depth of approximately 45 feet. This resulted in a life of a landfill with "at least a 15- year goal" and perhaps 15-25 years subject to final depth and estimating the receipt of approximately 300,000 pounds per day. Life of landfill would increase if site could be excavated an additional 15 feet, but there was some question about the expense of excavating shale and blue sandstone. Moffat then estimated that the site could be used for 15 years. Moffat did not directly answer the question regarding how high the final elevation would be after adding 50 feet of trash, but suggested that the trash would be filled laterally from the hillside rather than vertically above the crest of the hill. iV .71 * 38 SEP 28 '92 04:42PM P. 10 Orville Stoddard of CDH appeared and reported that Moffat had submitted soils and water table data, including 4-5 foot soil logs and some well logs. He recommended that more geology work needed to be performed before the site was developed. (No reports of geology work can be found in CDH or Weld County files. ) October 6. 1971, - Weld County Commissioners met and approved Certificate of Designation. Marshall Anderson and Harry Ashley voted for, and Glenn Billings voted against. Approval of the landfill was subject to the following conditions: "1. That any sanitary landfill facility be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department. 2 . That all applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the zoning resolutions of Weld County, Colorado. " September 1975 - CDH Weld County miscellaneous file contains report entitled "Evaluation of Existing Sanitary Landfills in weld County as Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. " Report concludes that no site, including the Greeley-Milliken site, is appropriate for the disposal of hazardous waste. . 1976 - Ralph Rohweder became the owner of the landfill. It appears that BFI was the operator, but whether that was before or during Rohweder's ownership is unclear. April 20. 1979 - Letter from Donald D. Warden, Director, Office of Finance and Administration, Weld County, to Albert J. Hazel, Director of Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, CDH, transmitting report on existing weld County landfills pursuant to C.R.B. i 30-20-103. "[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 does report: "Before the [Greeley-Milliken] 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. " Despite these deficiencies, Mr. Warden concluded, "We are in a transitional stage with our solid waste management plan in Weld County, and our goal over the next 24 months is to create two large regional sites that we feel will be able to comply with the regulations under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of 1976. The one large regional site is the existing site in the Greeley-Milliken area, and over the next 24 months we will be seeking designation and approval for a large regional site between Fort Lupton and -2- 39 ---- ------- szi ost - -- - P. 11 SEP 28 '92 04 49F Erie, coloredo to serve Southern Weld County and any other bordering areas." 1221 - C. Lynn Keirnes and his wife Lela J. Xeirnes begin Colorado Landfill, Inc. - $1,300,000 in industrial development bonds are issued. Bonds were to be used dforur pnollution nuabatement project. The bonds are sponsored by by the Small Business Administration. SBA reports that it has no documents concerning these bonds and cannot explain why the documents are missing. Weld County has available only limited documents, and reports that most documentsp were eriddedestroyed documents pursuant to its destruction policy, are retained for only two or three years. re ues(Question:io destroyed before were not retired until 1990. Why the bonds were retired?) March 6_ 198 - SBA guarantees base loan payments for industrial development bonds. August 1983 - C. Lynn and Lela Keirnes sold the stock of Colorado Landfill, Inc. to their two sons, Brad Keirnes and K "Hydrogeologic Assessment , Greeley Landf i We d County, Colorado" issued by Wartyn Engineering, groundwater rg . This sifieldginvestigation installed five sMay 1984 - Keirnes sold his stock in Colorado Landfill, Ina. to his brother, Keirnes. lig..-+.laer 4 1985 — Waste Services, Inc. was incorporated. Directors were listed as Lynn Keirnes, Lela J. Keirnes, and C. Bradley Keirnes. November 148.5. - "Financial difficulties caused by a competing landfill at Erie prompted the lender to attach the stock of Colorado Landfill, Inc. " - C. Lynn Keirnes and Lela J. Keirnes enter nto a transacti- o on wwiith elendequirs the Greeley-Milliken s r ) and an tary Landfill and operate it under the name of Waste Services, Inc. -3- .n&m^.-40 "a,�yCC i1. .t - 4' 1, �l M1NY ec yth,',:ii,,, '✓ . 1 f'✓''e ! i v daRFy'( '# �� ' 4'4 k I Y- ' r ��3. Y December l9 exalt[ County 6M rrr .faaaG 1 ,1v .c.0 ./Attu r , ''::6it 1 -40.,r. the landfill by Waste 9er does mr" c bs i t alt cur t . , for the 44, r g°° '404"t industrial revenue bonds to tit eel ey !n z >,ern s` 4 ' I2ecamber .,. L'jftj ,. Amend ic3 loan �, _ :s ,t o..:n. t.:sing, 19t3 ': � 1; December L.L,_ .1�� — .tattc r 1rL� t :.)L'nv 1' rU�.�e Prtsldc,r!t iii,ii;,s et rE -. of Western Dispoeai, Poulder, Colored° o.s c'n Y k Cuai i=fs, )`t. � jai Department of Planning Servioea, W.yld County, notitytn him that Western Disposal purchased all stock in Coa.o edo Laeef111 and �d '` that the landfill sites in Greeley and Paton *vere mold to Tyne ; ;t e Keirnes. The transaction took effect en Deeembet 3 , 11985. ;,r. " , &� •, E sie_1985 - Letter from Wants Services, . to Weld '. , -r o,' County Health Department a1vising that it. beanie cwr,e r and r w Nay t,y operator of the landfill as of December196°5. $' ,- g 3 , efltid� s t'-' March 21. 1965 - Letter from C. Lynn Kei.rnexi, kresident of w " " ek Waste, Inc. to Ken March, Solid Waste Section Coordinator, Cot], i,. 'M. .fr requesting change of name on the Certificate of Designation from � ' A)�,?'' Colorado Landfill , Inc. to Waste Services, I,,:c.. ° < s Y : mil j.„ 19@ arm S - CGH approved change of rums to Waste ` Services, Inc. as long as operator complies with the operating ,9at plan. (What eventing plan?) May 7 , 198 , - Weld County Commi ision passes resolution 9'' approving transfer of Certificate of Designation from Colorado , , Landfill, Inc. to Waste Services, Inc. , finding that the new operator will have the ability to meat the requirements of the Certificate of Designation and Colorado statutes. Resolution ze " '_. cites public hearing held on May 7, 1986. Kt, Lx' ++"; `: 1987 •- CDH performed preliminary assessment of site after it was placed on the CRRCLIS list. tot , a ,° July 20. 1989 - Name of Waste Services, Inc. :is changed to , - „ Waste Services Corporation. (Filed with Secretary of State 8-18- t , s' ` 89. ) 4Je d ri . a.�B.A - $ in r� . industrial developmaent bonds issued for the Greeley-Milliken and , ... ,} Ault sites. ee , til y } ,, 199 , -' "Ground-Water Investigation, , ' Waste Services Corporation, Central Weld Sanitary Landfill" issued by Industrial Compliance. This field investigation involved the installation of seven trash piezometers and ten i.y,r 4 perimeter piezometers. . . . . _: Y, YSkt ..... .. .3itkf V4C. P•i?. ", Y x1 ��4,}' ,i' .Ae4b. Mi. 'kP'.it'dry r,n'�':`F .�. , -A+M �1..'^. ., 1x# . SEP 28 '92 04:44PM P. 1.3 $aptsmber 12. 1991 - United Assets Management Services, trustee for 1980 IDB*, informed SBA that the 1980 bonds were paid in full. September 20. 1991 - Waste Services corporation registered agent is changed from C. Bradley Beirnes to The Corporation Company. 7sbxuaxy 27 . 199% - Biannual corporate report of Waste Services Corporation is filed late. The Corporation Company remains the registered agent. However, directors and officers are as follows: President - Robert P. Damico vice President - willies A. Rodgers Secretary - William A. Jeffry Treasurer - William A. Rodgers Assistant Secretary - Thomas A. Westoff. The address for Damico, Rodgers and Jeffry is listed as 5660 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Englewood, CO 80111 - the corporate offices of Waste Management. Westoff's address is listed as 3003 Butterfield Road, Oakbrook, IL 60521. March 17. 1991 - Allen Scheere of Waste Management of North America, Inc. submits a Special Waste Plan at the Waste Services Corporation (MSC) North Weld Sanitary Landfill (NWSL) and Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (CWSL) to CDH. (The Special Waste Plan was not contained in CDH's Central Weld file. Check North Weld file. ) March 30. 1992 - Letter from Ronald J. Forlina, geologist, Solid Waste and Incident Management Section, CDH, to Allen scheere noting deficiencies in the Special Waste Plan. July 1992 - Golder Associates, Inc. report characterizing the site hydrogeologic, geochemical and geotechnical conditions. Report notes off-site groundwater contamination. July 13 . 1992 - CDH and Waste Management of Colorado (WMC) meet to discuss status of CWSL. Current projects and site activities include: • Update facility, coordinate system 6 prepare topo map: • Enhance the existing site characterization work with additional sits-specific field investigation; • Prepare comprehensive enhancements to the site development design plan; -5- 9 31.06'•", /3 SEP 28 '92 ©4:44PM • Prepare design and operations report; • Review and enhance the environmental monitoring program for groundwater, surface water, leach aid,. and landfill gas; and • Augment operations with improvements in site security, equipment washing, and implementation of a special waste program. September 9, 199& - , Weld County Health Department, met vita Austin Buckingham, CDH, in Denver. September 10. 1992 - HRH met with Austin Buckingham re: CWSL records. Buckingham started to say that she had just inspected the landfill, did not complete the sentence, and then indicated that she may have been mistaken. She made no reference to her meeting the previous day with -6- S2108 ". /4/ pv Tekfaa _.ankh: • Governor ROY or Maio Building, Denver (303)322.9676 Ptarmigan Platt, Denver PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303)320-1529 Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver (303)355-6559 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office • I 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 0CT g 1992 Kent E. Hanson KEN f t hwvaUN 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, sanitatyjandfill, 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 pressed as nods,'PaPt• A- 939064 /5 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 931061llo Kent Hanson, Attorney at Law Central Weld County Landfill September 18, 1992 Page 3 of 3 of developing) a comprehensive site development plan, and a design and operations plans. The Division has not been informed of any pending change in operations at the Central Weld County Landfill during this interim period. 5. The Division is not aware of any existing requirement or agreement that the final elevation of the landfill may not exceed the adjacent land surface. Hopefully, this letter responds to your issues. The Division is interested in pursuing, and will pursue the ground water contamination identified at the site, and in bringing the facility up to the State's standards. Thank-you for your letter and for the extension you were able to grant, so that an adequate response could be prepared. may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions or concerns. Si erely Aus 'n 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 91.0 ' l9- 0CT 5 ' 92 14: 49 PR6E . 002 C � OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHon (303)3-°6.4004 Fr .4200 r 'Pia Sox 738 GAMEY.Cotons00 am= • COLORADO September 28, 1992 • Waste Services Corporation 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Attention Bill Hedberg RE: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (Greeley-Milliken Landfill) Dear Mr. Hedberg: • 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 5 36-23-3(2) , was amended effective July 1, 1971 and required s:+hmittal 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 (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 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 . 9 A06.. 18 OCT 5 '9Z 14:50 PRGE . 003 / ..,s. fir' • 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 GS/I,M/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 PRGE.003 ** f szioEA. /9 441.11 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH \ 1517- 16 AVENUE COURT I GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 O 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 Jiricak 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 tr ly yours, ohn S. Pickle Director, Environmental Protection Services Division xc: Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney Randy Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H., Director /� 93106", SECTION 2 • MINIMUM STANDARDS 2. 1 Minimum standards All facilities for solid waste disposal shall comply with 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 kepc ,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-ControIsCommission, 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 sizes 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 to 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 wateraand wind erosion and prevent water and air pollution; and, upon being filled, shall be left in a condition oftorderliness 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 • 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 to 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 co the latest federal census, is authorized to develop regulations, by resolution, permitting the noncommercial burning • (10) Revised 8/90 (ra nc I DA-I( - ll4l/ Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood `1,K Sew Neighbors, You should all be very proud of yourselves for the past two•months of work. We've made a tremendous amount of progress regarding the landfill issue. In particular: 1. The county has moved on several issues: a. They requested that Waste Services provide an EDOR that is due on November 12 . We will receive a copy of this report. b. They requested that Waste Services apply for two waste water discharge permits (i.e. The Landfill underdrain, and the Spomer Lakes) . c. They requested more comprehensive testing of the landfill with special emphasis on VOC's and Heavy Metals. d. They requested that we be present during any remediation meetings with the state and Waste Services. 2 . George Kennedy was not re-elected. Barbara Kirkmeyer was elected and has an expressed interest in landfill operations in Weld County. Dale Hall and George Baxter were elected but we don't what they will do. 3 . For the first time (in 21 years) the STATE Health Department is now actively involved in the Central Weld Landfill issue. Austin Buckingham's supervisor is Glen Mallory and he is representing the State in this problem and hopefully, he should prove to be more sensitive to the needs of the community. 4 . The fight is not over by a long shot. WE still must convince the County and the State to do several things: a. Require Waste Services to go to Appendix II full spectrum contamination testing. The officials I've spoken with have indicated that this seems to be a reasonable course of action to establish the identity and extent of contamination. To date, we still do not know exactly what contaminants exist in the groundwater and discharges from the underdrain and Spomer Lakes. 921.061 a b. Have a Public Hearing on the Central Weld County Landfill. We have always maintained that the Certificate of Designation was not valid for two reasons. (1) the original conditions were never met in 1971; no EDOR was filed with the State or County. (2) When Waste Services sold out to Waste Management, another Certificate of Designation should have been required. The county is now requiring a EDOR from Waste Services but we must convince them of the need of a Public Hearing. This hearing will allow us to present our concerns and proposed requirements to the County Commissioners and a record of our comments made. c. Request the Landfill be closed and a closure plan established that ensures long term monitoring. d. Request the discharges of the Landfill be cleaned up and a permanent remediation plan be established that will prevent further contamination downgradiant. e. Request the State deny Waste Services from obtaining a permit to discharge any fluids from the Underdrain or from Spomer Lakes. Waste Services has applied for this permit (only because our group discovered that no discharge permit had been granted or even applied for as late as one week ago) and I urge every one to sign the sample letter we've attached and send it by "return receipt requested" to the State Health Department. The address is listed on the letter. I urge you to send the letter now since the State is considering the application now. f. Ensure that the County is aware of Waste Management's background. We want to send a clear message that we don't want their business in Weld County since their established history of business practices make it "clear that Waste Management engages in practices designed to gain undue influence over government officials. " This behavior is a repeat of San Diego, Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale and several other cities. Your letters to the editor of the Greeley Tribune, Windsor Beacon, Johnston Breeze, to the County Commissioners, State and Federal elected representatives, State Health Department have really made a difference. WRITE TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR PAPER. WRITE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 921 0W_ WRITE TO YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN. DON'T STOP NOW. CONTINUE APPLYING THE PRESSURE. The six areas we need to work on are listed above. Pick one and send a letter. Try and write several letters. It's the only way we are heard. 931.06 ". ci 0, S , Sc1'..,ATE. Ast-iINczZdti O1 ZOSto -ubpy THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS &WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS MOVING! When? Octoberr 2nd through ove to the new location October 5th, the 5Hazardous , 1992. day, Materials & Waste Management Division will be closed. The Division will resume regular business hours on Tuesday, October 6, 1992. Please note that all Open Records Act (ORA) requests should be made prior to Wednesday, September 23, 1992. Beginning September 24 through October 6, the files will be unavailable for Public Review due to the move. ORA requests will resume on Wednesday, October 7, 1992. Where? The Campus at Cherry Creek Address? Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division Mail Code (see below) / Attention: _ 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 To expedite mail delivery, please include one of the following mail codes as appropriate: Administration HMWMD-ADM-B2 Remedial Programs HMWMD-RP-B2 Hazardous Waste Control HMWMD-HWC-B2 Storage Tank Remediation HMWMD-SWIM-B2 & Solid Waste Programs The Division will be located in Building B on the second floor. New phone numbers are as follows: General Information: (303) 692-3300 Open Records Act Requests (303) 692-3303 Public Assistance: (303) 692-3320 Storage Tank Technical Assistance: (303) 692-3330 Telefax Number: (303) 759-5355 Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding during the move! A Sy I,OS'". �5 2 • In conclusion, why not spend the $10, 000, 000 or so it would take to build a slurry wall and clean up, ON AND OFF S M.? Let's put Central Weld Landfill behind us! Sincerely, / • / LG(Gt 4 "d-rAH Harold Daniels 23732 WCR 271 Milliken, CO 80543 339-0629 or 587-2265 copies: Governor Romer Senator Tim Wirth Senator Hank Brown Congressman Wayne Allard Mr. Dave Owen Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Defense Fund Ms. Austin Buckingham, Colorado Health Department Mr. Glenn Mallary, Colorado Health Department Ms. Pam Harley, Colorado Health Department Mr. Ronald J. Farlina, Colorado Health Department R. Allison, Weld County Planning Mr. John Pickle, Weld County Health Department Weld County Commissioners 9 1.06a c26, 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 sportier Lakes located off site and to the west of the Central Weld Landfill. We strongly urge and recommend the denial of those permits for the following reasons: 1 . Recent water tests reveal serious contamination from theme 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. 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 sits 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 a■ 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 lack of regulation and misapplication of Colorado and Federal Law. Sincerely, 7,7feekete-f-5:....V.44:4 Michael S. Hayes 8200 W. 49th St. Greeley, CO 80634 cos County Commissioners, Weld County John Pickle, Weld County Health Dept. Kent Hansen 92106_4_ 8 NOV-17-92 TUE 16:09 WELD rr HEALTH DEPT FAX NO, 3037'4966 P, 02 4#1:\( DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1617•16 AVENUE COURT ' QREELEY, COLORADO 50631 es HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0588 PROTECTION(303)363.0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)363.0639 COLORADO 11-17-1992 Mr. Glenn Mallory Solid and Hazardous Waste Division Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Glenn: ember 02 ng ction I have proposed newhion Solid Waste/s letter of Regulations.ovII can attest tot heistatements 3he of the p p recorrmen of implications dation on a statewide basisbut do agree ith him asherelatesoto the Central Weld facility. I would appreciate your consideration of his suggestion. Very truly yours, h1 `Pickle, Director /Environmental protection Services Division . 4; tk DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH `� 1517 • 15 AVENUE COURT ' GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (303)353.0586 4 HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (3031 353.0839 COLORADO e November 30, 1992 Mr. Glenn Mallory Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Glenn: our Director of Environmental Protection, John S. Pickle, has appraised me of the current situation at Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. He indicated that he has met with you and your staff on October 30, 1992, and again, with you and Waste Management on November 16, 1992, to discuss the Central Weld facility. Trevor Jiticek spoke with your staff on November 24, 1992. After the October 30th meeting, we were of the impression that your Division's preliminary assessment was that an enforcement action was justified based upon violation of the minimum standards of the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities." A final decision was to be made after the November i6, 1992, meeting with Waste Management, but was not. Roger Doak did indicate by phone, a letter citing violations of the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Regulations is justified and will be written. We request that this letter be drafted as soon as possible. Any delay places the County in an untenable position. We are unable to respond in a timely manner to the residents in the communities adjacent to this facility without your response. Further, you are aware of the threats of litigation, and the increasing community concern regarding this issue. We need to know which direction to proceed in order to remain consistent with your Division's position. Under the circumstances however, a continued delay in determining this direction is not a suitable option. S31 (X:. 30 Mr. Glenn Mallory November 30, 1992 Page 2 This letter is a formal request that you complete your review of this issue without delay. Your most prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Slnceye�ly, Randolph L. Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H. Director Weld County Health Department • .RG/JSP/lam-2429 nil 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 Lhe 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 (Gilder 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 Lilts 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. 1.3.•-:1 A4 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 Colder & 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 . 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 leacbate 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, Wit eRa digt ° 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 !t .9310.6a C Pam Nelson Colorado Dept . of Health Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver , CO 80222 December 14 , 1992 Ms . Nelson, I am writing you concerning the behavior of your subordinate , Ms . Barbara Taylor . A member of our group made an appointment with Ms . Taylor and the resulting outcome was appalling. 1 . Ms . Taylor refused to allow our member to photocopy or handle any section of the Central Weld County Landfill (CWCL) file ( i . e . any permit application for waste water discharge) . Ms Taylor cited her reason as this permit was "State ' s Property" . Am I not correct that these documents are completely releasable under any/all public disclosure laws? Our member offered to pay any or all photocopy charges and was still denied the right to view this public document . I also understand that Mr . John Pickle of the Weld County Health Department had this same exact trouble with Ms Taylor . 2 . Ms Taylor exhibited an unprofessional and possibly unlawful bias when she said , " What arerworried about, the landfill isn ' t a big deal . It ' s not like it ' s Rocky Flats or anything . " As a public servant with the Colorado Dept . of Health, Ms Taylor ' s remarks are completely out of line and are without merit . Further they represent a significant bias towards a pending discharge permit. Are we to understand that the remarks made by Ms Taylor represent those of the Colorado Dept . of Health? If so, then this conclusion on her part severely damages the public trust in our administrative branch. This conclusion would appear to have been made before all comments and documents pertaining to this permit application have been received by the CDH. Such a conclusion and remark would appear improper and perhaps unlawful . For your information, The CWCL has recently discovered serious contamination in the forms of heavy metals and VOC ' s . In addition, from 1973 to 1976 , nuclear waste was deposited at this site and Mr. Glenn Mallory ' s own investigation in 1987 indicates that ue to 10 , 000 lbs . of pesticide was dumped by one company alone . As the result of this contamination, I understand that this landfill is on the Superfund list . 3 . Ms Taylor ' s file on the CWCL appears to be lacking in the extreme . The Weld County Health Dept . has a large and relatively complete file on this landfill . I understand that the CDH Waste Management Division is updating their files so I am surprised that Ms Taylor ' s file seems so lacking .Mr . Mallory , Mr . Sainze , and you are very familiar with the contro- versy surrounding this landfill . Waste Mgt. has completed 4 water tests in the last 9 months all with varying resultsc yet the only one in Ms Taylors file is the test with no contamination indicated.Private testing has indicated heavy metal contamination and Waste Mgt . ' s own "Golder & Assoc . JUL 92 " report indicates serious VOC contamination leaching offsite to the south and west of the CWCL. This is precisely the area where the discharge point is located . We find your subordinate ' s behavior extremely repugnant and reprehensible for a public servant . We desire rectification of Ms Taylor ' s behavior and we ask for an apology from your office . We also ask that you send us a copy of your procedures for training new employees in the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Division. While we will not seek legal action in this incident, we do desire the ability to exercise our rights to view public documents , comment as appropriate with confidence that our public officials will reserve judgement until the stated decision-making point . Please reply at your earliest convenience . Concerned , Michael S . Hayes ASHTON--DANIELS COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP 8200 W. 49th ST. Greeley , CO 80634 cc Gov. Roy Romer Hon Hank Brown Hon Wayne Allard Dr . Patricia Nolan 1OE-. 39- C D H 44- 3 C0Un-1(y h-le4 ALn , 831 WI -44 PUMPING TECHNOLOGY P .O . BOX 33993 DENVER, CO 00233 January 7 , 1986 Mr . C . Lynn Keirnes President Waste Services , Inc . 6037 77th Ave . Greeley , CO 80634 Dear Mr . Keirnes ; Enclosed is a copy of a 1985 F. . P . toxicity test performed on the non-hazardous sludge generated by our sand trap treatment plant . The report shows results that are well within limits allowed by law . A current test would yield similiar results as we are processing Only sand trap waste through the system , as was the case in April 1985 . We estimate that the system generates approximately 90-120 yards of waste per month requiring disposal in a sanitary landfill . We are requesting disposal of this waste at your Greeley site because none of the high volume Denver area landfills indicate any interest in disposing of the waste . Please contact me if you have any questions . Very truly yours , IkA1.Lu ' �v�.T�,�,A. Byron Keirnes BK : cjk i ✓ w A- f.97 406•D n6 ". -45 //' _ Waste Services, Inc. 6037 77th Avenue • 1- 1 Y Greeley, CO 80634 I I ' n 4 January 8, 1986 Weld County Health Dept. %Wes Potter Greeley, CO Dear Sir: Waste Services, Inc. , owned by C. Lynn and Lela J. Keirnes, is the new owner and operator of the Greeley and Eaton Landfills as of December 3, 1985 acquired from Keirnes Corporation. Formerly the stockholders owned and operated Keirnes Corporation which was also engaged in operating a landfill located near Erie, Colorado and a sand trap pumping business (Pumping Technology) located in Denver, Colorado. The pumping business was sold to Byron Keirnes. The Erie landfill was sold to Western Disposal located in Boulder, since their acquisition they have stopped sludge dumping at the Erie site. Because of the lack of available I sites to dump in the Metro area, my son, Byron requested dumping privileges in mid December, 1985. Because our site at Greeley meets Federal, State, and County regulations on receiving non-hazardous sludge, I have agreed to accommodate his request. Since weekCewhich werhave been, his cincorporating with dirt ny has been dumping approximately 25 y into the sludge and disposing of it into the face of the landfill. Due to the nature of conditions, an excessive dirt consumption causing expensive dozer time, I am requesting that the sludge be spread over open ground and be allowed to evaporate. In the spring when the ground thaws, it will be picked up with a scraper and used as a daily cover in the landfill. Due to the composition of our bentonite clay soil, there is no penetration into the soil. This method of disposal will not harm the environmental structure of the landfill or surrounding territory. Enclosed is E.P. Toxicity Tests and a letter from the pumping technology. Sincerely, Lynn Keirnes President or r; 1 DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH &E a, PliO1417 3‘,4( ,, t,15NiIq•M Gill r I iv r ..,i :)1AIy 41 . Ce COLORADO • February 6, 1986 Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Co 80220 Dear Sir: The' operator of the Colorado Landfill , at Greeley, has indicated he is currently receiving liquid sludges at the landfill. Enclosed is a copy of the manner of operation and handling of these sludges in the landfill . Please review the material being disposed of in the landfill , the manner of handling, the plan of operation submitted under the Certificate of Designation and Solid Waste Sites and Facilities Act and Regulations, regarding this issue and indicate to the Weld County Health Department your position on this matter. Sincerel5q UI cNl 1 e --„, Wes Potter, Director Health Protection Services WP/bks enc: 1 w A- 821O64. 49- of• c / . t \ OLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Richard 0. Lamm �",K ,'"r" + Thomas M.Vernon, M.D. Governor /8 7 6� Executive Director RECEIVED February 24 , 1986 it I'I;:;.� Weld County Health Department ,,n�•T� DELTA rr 1516 Hospital Road •=` C••!!••. I ID•..�,TA DEPT. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn: Wes Potter Re: Waste Services, Inc. Sludge Disposal at the Greeley-Milliken Solid Waste Disposal Site Dear Mr. Potter: We are in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 1986, regarding the disposal of liquid sludges at the Greeley-Milliken solid waste disposal site. After review of your letter with attachments and our files specifically related to this disposal site and a previous telephone conversation with Mr. Lynn Kefrues, it is our determination chat this disposal activity is in violation of the Solid Waste Act and the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Wastes Disposal. Sites and Facilities. Our file review has indicated that this • activity has never received approval from this Division and is therefore considered a substantial change in operation which requires an amendment to the existing Certificate of Designation. Should Mr. Keirnes decide to continue accepting sludges at this facility, he Irk • must first submit an amended application/operational plan to the Department, outlining his proposal for proper management of these wastes. Once we have Y received the amended application/operational plan a formal review will be condu..ted and a final recommendation provided to the Weld County Commissioners for their review and processing. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 320-8333, ext. 4364 . Sincerely, \ / COnOCS` 1/ Geologist Waste Management Division 2, MAR 1 1. 1986 k '> SW:ct cc: Weld County Commissioners: Ms. Jackie Johnson; Chairperson • 6 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1518 HOSPITAL ROAD 1111 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (303)353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 353-0639 O J OLORADO� fi , ygi6:40 . July 27, 1989H /1117 /11 CA T': Michael Spencer )- , 18794 Highway 14 Ault, Colorado 80610 Dear Mr. Spencer: The staff has reviewed your proposal to dispose of sandtrap sludge, • contaminated soil at the Waste Services Landfill at Greeley, Colorado. ( » 1; The Department approves of the dispose/ as _proposed_so long asit has_ been `( '4 T ' . approved by the Colorado Department of Health and is handled and disposed _ i1" in compliance with the existing Colorado Revised Statutes . (I ' The final decision and authority for disposal at the landfill rests with the owner/operator of the landfill. If you have any further questions , or if we can be of further assistance, please contact this office at 353-0635 . Sincerely, ` L.2.1 761-au icAdqu Cey eikiknco - 1 Wes Potter, Director k1 ( Environmental Protection Division UP84/ dgc cc: Waste Services , Inc. Greeley/Milliken Landfill RINEHART LABORATORIES, INC. - MO LAMAR STREET . P.O.6OX 564 . ARVADA,COLD.80001 . PHONE 422-1020 � R.W.RINEHART,Sr.,Ph.D.,Prot. A.W.STONE,Sec:Tnas. Reference No. 850140 April 5, 1985 To: Mr. Steve Orzynaki Pumping Technology 1333 West 120th, Suite 210 Denver, Colorado 80234 Subject: EP Extraction of Oil Contaminated Soil Received March 29, 1985 Comments: Sample studied was: Oil Contaminated Soil This extraction was carried out in accordance with instructions published in the CFR, Vol. 45, No. 98 (pages 33063-33285) , Monday, Hay 19, 1980. All values are well under EPA mandatory limits. Oil & grease comprised 1.17% by weight of the sample. IR spectrum showed this to be normal hydrocarbon material. Ito ere W. Rinehart, Sr., Ph. D. ANALYTICAL A N D CONSULTING SERVICES {� 93206t 5/ Reference No. 850140 April 5, 1985 TABLE 1 CONTAMINANTS IN EXTRACTION PROCEDURE EXTRACT Max. Allowed Contaminant round (mR/1) (mg/1) Arsenic 0.0042 5.0 Barium 0.38 100 Cadmium 0.0178 1.0 Chromium 0.0071 5.0 Chromium 46 0.0016 5.0 Lead 0.020 5.0 Mercury 0.0132 0.2 Selenium 0.029 1.0 Silver 0.002 5.0 - 4 - $l? 064. wx«; b# 6OEDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH I �+ PHi)W t.t7Wj 55:J5 ar F' 7'i'6 H0SI"T o. gt1..l, Gill I CY.T"iL0RAIN: ti,. it I ip C. COLORADO February 6, 1986 Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Dear Sir: The operator of the Colorado Landfill , at Greeley, has indicated he is currently receiving liquid sludges at the landfill. Enclosed is a copy of the manner of operation and handling of these sludges in the landfill. Please review the material being disposed of in the landfill, the manner of handling, the plan of operation submitted under the Certificate of Designation and Solid Waste Sites and Facilities Act and Regulations, regarding this issue and indicate to the Weld County Health Department your position on this matter. Sincere A Wes Potter, Director Health Protection Services WP/bks enc: 1 .931.064 53 SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION Compliance Non-compliance Open Dump ? c / 3� O - (.1:1E y T. '' ty �n�E. • S < Date 3/ -/4 h Located in ility a Incorporated Area /__ ation vPwjP . Iv. i ( ( J f[ %- I c1.-.ef(/r(. rent Operator ,/ '4NJc\ I/ KPFve.� S r-, to pv v t s O1 ling Address of Operator ` rent Owner (I£ different) \A) A-S i ( (rt v l ( ° S' ..I'N < ling Address of Owner t]®6R 1 items checked must be explained in supplemental report) Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement against violations) A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal B. Evidence of Potential for Serious 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) F. Safety Hazards G. Non-Compliance with Approved Design and Operation _ H. Other * REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 (Locally enforced standards) • A. Odors and/or Vectors Present c/ B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover ve C. Inadequate Fencing (to control access and windblown debris)D. Burning apparent E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned INSPECTING ENGIJJEERS RECOMMENDATIO S FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT I Lt `, a� .'. .�— WIL 01/J '/�,\� E , , \^1Uk. I.. r- v '- �'•c t ,.,�. .+ OI � , -„ck. ( wi e . ` I Y f CQ) ( \.,.1 r( I n---. -- s ✓L.(.% /7 Lul I --, liras-). Lip.. /..'1-, C'-1-f" A r .1% IS f' xll 6.0n. �!", 1, G 1/ / :, r.. hb1,t(' W IF 1 r! . ...R- . Complaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken Remarks it I. A ' ) . 'i.e..l i• i :.r- I 4 c? l'.. C l-) t 4 l • Sill, AIIISISSII (Name) PRESENT AT INSPECTION (Repro renting) \1\1‘. c, A-01 kA •. . . f\j ;-)p( Al,.. I. it 1 ;:k _.. .i. i c A `.(: l- Inspecting Engineer , ( , )P.:' 1 .(„12 , i i € . 54 mar STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAL ofpego 4210 East 11th Avenue 714- Phone / � 42.es ci Denver, Colofado 80220 �,, g (303) 320-8333 /ma t-� ^„ 7 f Site 000D980959605 ® / L Roy Ruiner > { N�> ( h d/ h/at' . 7? Covernur ThOman M Vernon. MD �, ` Execulve Ovecwr Weld County Dump 1/1�' 65th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Investigator: Glenn F. Mallory Date: October 20, 1987 During the course of this investigation I conversed with Dennis Buchett of Balcom Chemicals, 419 18th St . Greeley, Colo. It was Mr. Burchett who filled out EPA Form 8900-1 in 1981. This form refers to the dumping of between 5.0 pounds and 10,000 pounds of pesticides in the Weld County Dump. The form also contains a sketch as to the dump location. A brief conversation with Mr. Burchett on 9/24/87 at C.D.H. revealed that this range was a guess. During the time period in question, 1973 through 1976, wastes were sent to the dump and no records were kept of quantity of type of material. The quantity was arrived at through conversations with employees. This particular landfill was the assumed recipient because it is the closest to the Balcom site. In addition to the above, the records available at the Weld County Health Department were reviewed. There were no indications in these records that pesticides in the 10,000 pound range were disposed of in their facility. However , the earilest inspection date was February 21, 1975. Conversations with LaVerne Nelson, Nelson Engineering revealed no personal knowledge of pesticide dumping or evidence of past dumping. Mr. Keirnes purchased the facility in June 1979, there were no records available concerning practices of former owners . According to Mr. Keirnes former owners include a Mr. Earl Moffat who started the landfill in 1967 or 1968; Browing—Ferris Industries from approximately 1974 or 1975 through 1976; Ralph and Barbara Rohweder from 1976 until June 1979. Attempts to Mr. Moffat and Mrs. Rohweder were unsuccessful. Conversations with Martin Frei and Howard Getman did not turn up any records concerning this matter. Sincerely, G n F. Mallory S itarian azardous Materials and Waste Management Division GFM/jw: 2205K 024 0618 A- `5 - POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATION - EPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT o1 STATE 000D9SITE 09 59605 CO C0D9809 • PART 1 -SITE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT II.SITE NAME AND LOCATION . DI SITE NAME a.PS...••+•.H Ninon•^sod'A•I 02 STREET.ROUTE NO.OR SPECIFIC LOCATION IDENTIFIER Weld County Dump 65th Ave. 03 CITY 04 STATE OS ZiP CODE 06 COUNTY OICOUNTY 06 GONG Greeley .' CO 80631 Weld STS 8S 09 COORDINATES LATITUDE LONGITUDE Milliken Quadrangle 40 21 ' 15 01' 104 47 30 0 __ __.•_ TSN R66W 532 SIV1, ID DIRECTIONS To SITE a..4. I. µ•.reel Immediately west of Weld County RD. 271 and 3i miles south of Weld County Rd. #54 ,' or west of 77th St. , 4 miles west and 3 miles south of Greeley on Jackrabbit Rd. (see attached map) . W.RESPONSIBLE PARTIES DI DWNERI..•.-N B Lela Keirnes 02 STREET(6-,,,..,.......... e . ., • . , , %Lynn Waste Services , Inc. 6037 77th Ave. 03 CITY 04 STATE 05 ZiP CODE 06 TELEPHONE NUMBER Greeley CO 80631 1303 330-2641 02 OPERATOR S^•.-.•ro '.'•ner.•....I OB STREET E6..•••..A..•MAF.r••..•..6 Above 6037 77th Ave. 09 CITY 10 STATE I I ZIP CODE 12 TELEPHONE NUMBER 1 I 13 TYPE OF OWNERSHIP�t 'pint n E] A.PRIVATE 0 8.FEDERAL: 0 C.STATE OD.COUNTY 0 E.MUNICIPAL I.o•.O^.^•I Of.OTHER: 0 G UNKNOWN • IL•a II I A OWNER/OPE rATOR NOTIFICATION ON FILE IC.•..••...•..r,l O A.RCRA]001 DATE RECEIVED: 1 1 O 8.UNCONTROLLED WASTE SITE ICERCLA I03 el DATE RECEIVED. l / 6 C.NONE MONI. DAY YEAR uoNIH DA♦ YEAR IV.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD 01 ON SITE INSPECTION BY(CA...•,in.u...l )0 YES DATE 10 1 D$ 87 0 A.EPA , 0 8.EPA CONTRACTOR X) C.STATE ❑ D.OTHER CONTRACTOR O NO MONTH DAY YEAR 0 E.LOCAL HEALTH OFFICIAL 0 F.OTHER. If.•af CONTRACTOR NAMEISI: 02 SITE STATUS ICA•u.A•1 03 YEARS OF OPERATION f,I A.ACTIVE 08.INACTIVE 0 C.UNKNOWN pre-197S 1 prpsent 0 UNKNOWN • DC GoADN.D VE AP 1HD'r'G YE AR , 04 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANCES POSSIBLY PRESENT.KNOWN,OR ALLEGED Alleged pesticide wastes dumped between 1973 and 1976. Alleged radioactive waste per CDH letter Feb. 25, 1975. Perhaps chemicals from Kodak. 1/ 05 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD TO ENVIRONMENT AND/OR POPULATION Potential groundwater contamination V.PRIORITY ASSESSMENT 01 PRIORITY FOR INSPECTION,CANS imp.•p'.....w..,A•au.,rwr•.•P•a 2 N.,.H•.A....a.=.F.A6.D•...er...I s.a.e.s Cr.aar•x...c.. .,I 0 A.HIGH 0 B.MEDIUM ), C.LOW 0 D.NONE M iOnmAn. ..r..orhl (MI ca..s-nI Pu.u«I''.-•A t a PH IH.rnA.uum..•.n..ro......•.um...w WAD VI.INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM Oh CONTACT 02 OF I.a•.r•o.nA<He-, 03 TELEPHONE NUMBER see sect VI. Pg. 2 I I 0•PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSMENT OS AGENCY 06 ORGAN/AVON 0T TELEPHONE NUMBER 06 DATE , 14 87 1 303 Glenn F. Mallory CDH HMFIWMD 13031 331-4859 0..0 DAr ALAS EPA FORM 2010.12 E2.e Il 04) - so POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITt I IDENTIFICATION • 01 S 02 SITE NWBER rik/EPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT , COD98095960S PART 2•WASTE INFORMATION Il.WASTE STATES,QUANTITIES,AND CHARACTERISTICS 0t PHYSICAL STATES KCA.<..•...r....,1 02 WASTE QUANTITY AT SITE 03 WASTE CHARACTEALSTICS ICA.....wr.Ae,,r I•'•••' ...''•"•••••,•-' HI GHLY vOLJITItE O A SOU() U E.SLURRY "'•'^""•"•"'•"" O A TOXIC U E SOLUBLE U I C B CORROSIVE U F.INFECTIOUS CJ J IVE [,B PO�'OE R,lIN[N L c tpWO TONS L"C RADIOACTIVE O 0 Fy.MYAOLE O A REACTIVE O C.SLUDGE L.G GAS U 0 PERSISTENT C.II IGNITABLE C L INCOMPATIBLE il . CUBIC YARD$ U M NOT APPLICABLE Li D OTHER IL•c•,1 NO OF DRUMS III.WASTE TYPE CATEGORY SUBSTANCE NAME Di GROSS AMOUNT 02 UNIT OF MEASURE 03 COMMENTS SLU SLUDGE OLW OILY WASTE SOL SOLVENTS PSD RESTOCKS (alleged) 5 ,1010,000 pounds best guess , quanity unknown r,' OCC OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS IOC INORGANIC CHEMICALS ACD ACIDS BAS BASES MES HEAVY METALS IV,HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ø.. .-. -" ' '- -"-'I. 0 06 MEASURE OF 01 CATEGORY 02 SUBSTANCE NAME 03 CAS NUMBER 04 STORAGEI0ISPOSAL METHOD 05 CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION 11T1kj1 Qt.111. V.FEEDSTOCKS is..A.......M CAs M✓....,.7 CATEGORY 01 FEEDSTOCK NAME 02 CAS NUMBER CATEGORY 0, FEEDSTOC*NAME 02 CAS NUMBER FOS unknown F0S L F0S FOS FOS FDS , F0S FOS _ VI.SOURCES OF INFORMATION 'C.....••.e .... ,... ••'r`*•^•..... '•°°^r I Dennis M. Burchett, Balcom Chemicals 303-356-4400 Wes Potter, Dir. Weld County Health Dept. 303-623-6031 Laverne Nelson, Nelson Engineers, Greeley 303-356-6362 Randy Reeve, site operator 303-330-2641 ; Lynn Kiernes , owner 303-:330-2641 C. EPA FORM 207012(7.01) - 59. POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE I. IDENTIFICATION .+ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT of 02 S.TE FAJMBER EP PART 3•DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS COD980959605 U. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS .c... .... 01 0 J. DAMAGE TO FLORA 02 0 OBSERVED(DATE. I 0 POTENTIAL 0 ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION site is an operating landfill , flora is minimal 01 0 K. DAMAGE TO FAUNA 02 0 OBSERVED(DATE. I O POTENTIAL 0 ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION u..w....+.ola...<... none observed L 01 O L. CONTAMINATION OF FOOD CHAIN 02 O OBSERVED(DATE. I O POTENTIAL O ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known 01 O M.UNSTABLE CONTAINMENT OF WASTES 02 O OBSERVED(DATE. I O POTENTIAL O ALLEGED 03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known or observed V ' Cl O N. DAMAGE TO OFFSITE PROPERTY 02 O OBSERVED(DATE 1 O POTENTIAL O ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known or observed 01 O O.CONTAMINATION OF SEWERS.STORM DRAINS. WWTPs 02 O OBSERVED(DATE'. ) O POTENTIAL O ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known to be in the area 01 O P. ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORIZED DUMPING 02O OBSERVED(DATE. I O POTENTIAL O ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known OS DESCRIPTION Cr ANY OTHER KNOWN. POTENTIAL.OR ALLEGED HAZARDS none known 1/1 / III. TOTAL POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: SU,UU0 IV. COMMENTS see attached V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION .a.,..<.. . o.......•.. ••.... •... -Donn see VI Pg. 2 EPA FORM 2010.1211.81) °'1O6 • r 'ENTLAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE -. - .._Ioe61ARIG wQA4HOOS9 FITt.Ar,vEA 6OS .. . • ! PA PRELIMINARY PART 3 -DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDmONS AND INCIDENTS µASJ.RDOUS CONDITIONS AND MCDENTS• ..� Ir..xi ..r, r-ear",. • - 01 DA-OROtR+Dw ATER OONn AAA.IA710N :. :-.-A7--2---D-2 O 08-SERVED COATI, F=._.-0/'OTENnti ,. I7 ALLEGED D. NARRATIVE DESC MP10N... 03 POPULATION POTRNiuLLT AFFECTED: .. . ..._ / • None known; lab• data in Weld County Health Dept . shows no indication I t /. \.. ft( 1 Y` 'I.r“..( Cc J . y .: -.C..; 1'V DI D B.SURFACE wATERCDnAMINATION 020 OBSERVED IDAh: I J O POTFATV:. D ALLEGED 03 POPULATION ROTE NIIAIIT AFFECTED: 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION none known or observed - 0% D C. CONE Au.a4TON OF AIR 02 0OBSERVEDDATE 1 O POT NI LC O ALLEGED D3 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 04 NARRATIVE DE SCRIPTRJN / none observed v • 01 O D. FRIE/E%PLOSIVE CONDInDNS 02 O OBSERVED IOCt 1 _-. O POTENm..4. D ALLEGED _03 POPULATIOw POTENnALLY AFFECTED: OA NARRA DES..w9IFUt none known:or-observed- 03 O E. AC1 02 O OBSERVED 101.71: 1 O POTENTU� O ALLEGED AT CT CON'L OJ POPVLAT✓JN DOTE NI UA.LT AFFECTED' W NARRATIVE DES'3re1Y.2N area fenced with monitored access . .. L020 O3SERV_DIDAL. ) C POENTU. 0 ALLECZ 03 D E DOTENTIALLY A OF SOD -. 04 NARRATIVE O SCRIPT1ON 03 AREA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ....-fl /•potential . • - Li • -wA-RCON-Aa+n A%1JI' 02_'C SERV=0:7AT: ) D FT_TE T- . : AL:-.s:ED D5 FEY. JLATON P:.i cNRL!T Ar 5.:.-- . Ca ISMS RfTON' potential , although remote because of area geology I/ 01 C K. YYJRKER ESC'JR1P.JeJJRT C2 O O'SE RVt)I DAL. 1 . POTEEJ.TVL O A'-5::D 03 'YORKERS POTW nALLT AFFECTED: 04 NA.W.TIVE rat RFTO' - / V none known --- '- 92 O O65ERVEDI0ATL. '1 O POTNTLAL. O xuatED •0: POPULATION ON ENI'A LY AFFECTED: RIPT10N, _. .. 03 POPUUTON POiEn'I'ALLY AFFECTED: _DA NARRATIVE DESC V none known CrA FOrw207 C-I a iia11 q roe '. 59 ttd, t��r4,�F'`,�a I� 104r) STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH io�o. 4.40/4.,• 4210 East 11th Avenueg' Denver, Colorado 80220 RECEIVE C ; �:: -•' Phone (303) J2u•tlJ33 " ,+1..ee •. �{�/f ///� (/1 �� C� SANITATION OIVI5loil '4.u6• fir f L(�ry Ste Roy Romer ice"(! I N,, JAN ].° 1S89 Luvemur Zrte- eeThomas M. Vernon. MD. December 29, 1988 fj -cc 2 2-71 Pi 9 2— YIELD COMITY HEALTH Move Dnecon Mr. Lynn Keirnes Waste Services Inc. 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, W 80634 Re: Disposal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils at the Greeley-Millikin Landfill Dear Mr. Keirnes: I have received a letter dated December 13, 1988, in which Joe Rush of Fh erlog/TIS, Inc. indicates that Smith Energy Co. is requesting to dispose of petroleum contaminated soils at your landfill. Based upon the information provided by Enerlog/TIS regarding the nature and level of contamination found in the soil from this site, it is my determination that the material can be taken to your landfill for disposal. It is suggested that prior to placing this material in the active fill that. efforts be made to volatilize the contaminants contained within the soils by land spreading with frequent turning. Care should be taken not to generate any more fugitive dust than is necessary. Once sufficient volatilization has been completed it is suggested that the material be placed in the active working face and immediately covered. Because your landfill is not currently demianated _for receipt of pp trnlnum contaminated soil it is strongly suggested that you determine if you wish o cont nue to receive these types of wastes. Should you decide that you wish to accept this material the following recommendations may be useful: 1. A separate location should be established for initial receipt of the material for volatilization of the petroleum wastes. This location .j should be separate from all other landfill activities and should be designed to prevent any potential chance for runon and discharge of 1 runoff which could impact surface or groundwaters. eta' 2. Cone the contaminated soils have been volatilized, they should be disposed of in one specific location which has been specifically prepared to receive this waste. In particular it would be appropriate to place a liner beneath the site prior to disposing of the wastes. This liner could be either clay or a synthetic material sufficiently impermeable to achieve a minimum permeability of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec. A •+ � / Mr. Lynn Keirnes December 29 , 1988 Page 2 3. The landfill's groundwater monitoring program should be amended to ensure that any leachate generated from the contaminated soils area can be readily detected. ,i -14 iL ` r}' 4. Finally, should you decide to continue to receive this material on a 5' regular basis, it is the Department's determination that this al constitutes a substantial change in operation and rbnrnfnrn we I v /J require an amendment to the existing Certificate of Designation. ' � Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at 1 `" /149 fi 331-4806. `'`1J Sincerely, ceer /� �� ,A/� J(�" i ut ) Wynn Eakins fit �n Geologist arou jl} Hazardous Materials Divi and Waste U J".N Management Division WE/mw/3505K cc: Wes Potter , Weld County Health Department Joe Rush, Er erlog/TIS, Inc. Steve Grzynski, Engineer , Solid Waste Group w 084 � A / .: . / : . • • I / i /hole 9 ._flit_ ,-_- // // / r -- i vC p tjr 4 , CYO / — Al Jo , ' -- t 1n T. ' e-5 C --mo _ill// / ,t — --.- -- ' - - --R..EG-EI--V-ED SANITATION DIVISIOII JAN 121989 _ {. - • _ --- WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEFT. .. .__-__. _ 031064' 1'IrsOwires-1-16c-) p-9._4? � h15 �� ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH � Nri(?:7•+ UJ�I ,X )e5( 1V jilt' ( I 1517. 16 AVENUE COURT 1 U ` �� p� GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ev c_/-, Q b��' �� ADMINISTRATION (303)3530586 C. / ' 5 t, y / HEALTH PROTECTION(303)353-0635 111 P z P COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353-0639 COLORADO be{ / iv°/ December 26, 1990 • Brad Keirnes Central Weld Sanitary Landfill 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Dear Mr. Keirnes, Pursuant co your request regarding the Colorado State regulations regarding the final disposal of non-friable asbestos containing waste, the Division provides the following. The Solid Waste Disposal and Facilities Act and Air Quality Control Commission Regulations allow the disposal of non-friable asbestos containing waste in certified landfills. However, it is important that the transporter of such materials convey these materials to the landfill in a manner that will not render diem in friable condition prior to arrival. After receiving the materials the landfill operator must immediately cover the waste with six inches of non-asbestos containing material prior to compaction. Please be reminded that failure to handle asbestos-containing materials in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal and Facilities Act and the Air Quality Control Commission Regulations will result in legal action. 1-11 Cr .,j Since Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has a Certificate of Designation from 1 , I the State of Colorado, it is allowable under the above mentioned regulations 6 for you to receive non-friable asbestos containing waste. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please call 353-0635. Sincerely, �� [� (1) of Stoll Wes "Pot er, ector Air Quality Control Specialist Environmental Protection Services w .. t',4 064 A103 .j i•�( �, STATE OF. OLO , :a. COLORADO DEPARTMENT of NTH co "' • V7t a�A 4210 East 11th Avenue ['� !*f Denver Colorado 80220 �� O aYyyA. 671, S7 PhoneDenver; (3ro3) •3a0 8339+ :�j�G r`, ,\ �0�� OV N• ' C9 42t0 �,�- rt• • ci� e �RvY Roma ' `Governor 1 • ♦ ', Thomas M Vwgtp fkeaalve Direbsul . , �4Q November 18, }9$7 M .' Mr Lynn Keirnes Greeley l�illikeA Land#ill ••• ti� a r;4Q37 ,7X,th Avenug rL ' ' ''r ' Y 'Creele�r, 'Color. dS,8d6 , ��.,� ,.� :rat Dear Hr. :Keirne . ' r } . Pe> the request of Mr. James D. Reiibert Q# EEC, 7pa s..4.*::•!.. I h oµt11n4A t •• .,& p fvaveia e'4 6e.toi ry ` ' Coloradq DeRartlgent of H@fi lth policy fon tb� ,¢iepos4 �¢ 9a 1..„.....31,, a,:x.74,-.,Ariv f. c r4nsite 4A;. r s,rNop friable forms J.... eetos,;i4eJ,uding a itt oa •41d{g$ * , , `• : , i 'vinyl),;,and` asbeatoe 'tile, may be diepo4ed 0 jt a deui$4AleQ?dUte p • €� �, . :..Paste !3 s8oaal ,site ' The waste tgatep aL must iba,Fovieed pillagl•edi'etk�.t ' ! `' at the lq 4f ii] Bite with non-a4beetoq pgntai t �1 Pt ujP rS "� • gddirip $ rinp µt r�oval mu�t '.be Qpt.3il'iPg4.A � ; 1 I'"c, ' M.& r'.ii it,:t;:- ,apes$•tkll`r cke ,54:9`•u••.: of jur#�dL oq�' rt rrYa� F ,a .. io .i , J1 The gbove'pulc"'' •.toiEy is currently apg 4§{p o,,E�iapogs4 • > " , ' non friable aebesttl4• Kowet'err. pending to fig41it�x of fht dd 4, • y x t 7 „ "Asbestos• Site ;e$t(lations,' tbe require4 noR^friable .pag3ts •dtb}�'f11lH {txq 1 ¢3t :ex • , tl it N n e. , t a': ;xxt la/4A‘ J'iy L, �1:tc>,a� procsasfet may be hub t+ Cl1a 8 , r ,..I s,p�t • , '4•••,•:. , .. , 14jyr RV'�p �, .. r, (r � r i TYi v 1;; .. ' Please cogtacc' fie ht '314857 if you bays:'4my t1�3,raaGY'd se ' s 0,xS+Yp f ._,i', y .4igc 1r 1-24.4.4!.4p.:,-,!,:',.-.4;;,-!: y .: 444:,>$' h ti . a Y t r. ,f .� t Y J M1iZw'.1•t ' fJ f = ;alp.".• a , nn 1 .}, 1 •� j ?City r ,i`J+. fh12: `I.�: 6 " t1-' i ' .,!•;,;:,, j4: $ie A1Yo4 < . J , 1 • ��'' a4 G0bi4 ie ti 1 > � i • * ,; ; , aterislS; and • ` Ir , • j1/tske N4riagegtet}t piyleign., • 'fit,, y r:; MBtclb/2330K .t tctfa • a ; y '2.^• ` ,t cci Jeme8 Rembert, EEC, nc• •`. , ♦r_ • .i sc, ! ♦t2 ' 111;;,6, Ii 0,:.• ii}fe r ;fit Web PAtter, Wald County Health Dept i, stir` 1 ,t 5.'t(,,�41 g164Its^yl ; '4• � t •� ' e+ axlj , A {7 ` jfy /t'r cA'.'Irja"P4id 'thr ` .rt 1 I i :g (ri; r r o, a u , rt { r t.::-.4--,',..,, .Y : 74..v r_( _ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ft° 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD \ GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION(303) 353-0566 WILD HEALTH PROTECTION(303) 353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353-0639 C. COLORADO February 10, 1988 Mr. Randy Reeve Waste Services, Inc. Greeley-Milliken Landfill 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Dear Sir, This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of February 9. 1988 in which I indicated that the Weld County Health Department concurs with the State Waste Management Division on the disposal of non-friable form of asbestos waste. The Weld County Health Department considers the Greeley-Milliken Landfill to be an acceptable site for the disposal of non-friable asbestos materials. If I can be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, toot Wes Potter, Director Health Protection Services WP/tai enclosure • .. n COD Waste Services Corporation 6037 77th Avenue A Waste Management Company Greeley, Colorado 80634 30L/330-2641 December 8, 1992 MORGAN NURSERY 2200 RESERVOIR ROAD GREELEY, CO 80631 Dear Customer: Waste Services Corporation will be adjusting disposal rates, effective January 1, 1993. The new rates have been published in the Greeley Tribune on December 2, 1992, and are summarized for you on the enclosed sheet. All sates include County and State surcharges, including the increase in the Weld County Surcharge from 5% to 10% implemented November 1992 . Many of the changes in our rate structure are a result of input we have received from our customers over the past year. As an example, loose solid waste rates have been held to a smaller increase than those for compacted solid waste. We have also simplified our structure for cars and pickups; attempting to better align them to the volume they typically carry. Disposal charges will no longer be calculated by the barrel. Our costs, and thereby our charges, associated with handling major appliances has increased dramatically. We continue to require that all CFCs and HCFCs, in addition to capacitors which may contain PCBs, be completely removed from the appliance prior to being presented for disposal. As a reminder, all loads MUST BE COVERED. Uncovered loads will be charged twice the normal disposal charge. Special Wastes will continue to require written approval by management prior to disposal. Price quotations are available upon request. The survey completed by our customers this past year was helpful to allow us to continue to meet your disposal needs at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill and our newly opened North Weld Sanitary Landfill, at Colorado Highway 14 and Weld County Road 25. We will NOT be accepting non-friable asbestos wastes at either facility at this time. If you require this capability, we offer the Denver-Arapahoe Disposal Site as a solution to meet your need. Our goal is your total satisfaction with our facility and service. Please let us know if there is a way we can improve our service to you and your solid waste disposal needs. Sincerely, Bill Hedberg Division V.Y. - Landfill Operations BH/dl Enclosure 6 ?A' -" 06- �o 'A L. SCOTT TURNER 3: .626447 P. 05 Waste Services CORPORATION RECEIVED SANITATION DIVISION July 15 , 1991 JUL 15 1991 Board of Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley , CO 80631 WEED CORM R- . 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. Ware 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 happy to try to answer them at your convenience. Thank you. Res ectfully, C. Bradley Keirnes President CEs;/kbc cc : Don Warden Wes Potter Rod Allison ESHIBIT A Lee Morrison c"^�1 n6*Pt �at.— II177 CCVCNITV_CPVCW't`TT Aurt,Tn• nnnntv.r an an,4.n an PA _ (11111 .4A AtA. . CYNTHIA (C.J. 1 TELEP TURNER Attorney at Law 1452 S. Canfield Avenue - Suite 102 Los Angeles, CA 90035-3223 CERTIFIED MAIL (3101 282-8413 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED July 17, 1992 Mr. William J. Hedberg Waste Services Corporation (303) 330-2641 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 BE: Greeley-Milliken Landfill Dear'Ae�5re On behalf of my family as owners of Allister Farms adjacent to this landfill, thank you for meeting with Mike Hayes and me on June 29, and your boss Tom Buchholz for meeting with us on July 1 , 1992. Mike and I appreciated your tour of the landfill. It is, however, now going on 4lseeks and neither Mike nor I have heard from you or Tom regarding the following information you agreed to give to us: 1 . Most recent topography map of sits. 2. Most recent aerial photo of site. 3. Waste Services Corporation merger agreement. 4. Most recent annual and quarterly reports for Waste Management. 5. Recent results of water and gas test samples from offsite/onsite monitoring wells -- we understood you would check on and get back to us with an answer. In case you couldn't find my mailing address, I gave it to Susie Olson (sp?) when I spoke with her by phone earlier this week. I reminded her that Mike and I were expecting these documents from you but have not received them yet. I asked to speak with you personally but you were out. Susie said she would deliver message reminder ASAP. As we discussed, it may be for you to deliver this information to Mike or Ann Hayes since they live just north of the landfill. We have been straightforward about our concerns. You and Tom indicated that you cannot provide us final drafts of proposed closure plans which are still being prepared by your consultants to comply with 30-year post-closure requirements of Subtitle D, and that these plans say be disseminated for input near the end of 1992, if not sooner. Please send us draft copies just as soon as they are We will appreciate receipt of all the above documents which you are authorised to send us. Thank you for your watts', old response in this matter. VeryJ truly yours, C.J. T1'4yep Turner cc: and Mrs. Samuel S. Telep =c: Capt. and Mrs. Michael Hayes t?71 061- e KENT E. HANSON Attorney at Law Canyon Center 1881 9th Street,Suite 216 (303)449-0600 Boulder,Colorado 80302 Tcicfax(303)443-64f, 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 anM 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 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 re 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 5321 06 °. 9-5 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 '4 � 064 ‘ige Avil‘LiP OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE(303)356-4000.EXT. 4200 FAX(303)352-0242 P.O.BOX 758 C GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 COLORADO September 16,1992 Ms. Austin Buckingham Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Dear Ms. Buckingham: This letter is in regard to the Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado, dated July 1992 and prepared by Golder Associates, Lakewood, Colorado. This report indicates several areas for concern. Of most immediate concern, is the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in an offsite monitoring well. We wish to coordinate our follow-up activities with Colorado Department of Health regarding these latest findings. It appears that primary responsibility for enforcement in this particular instance rests with your office. Further, your technical expertise would also be appreciated. However, to date, we have received no response from your office regarding this report, despite numerous inquiries from staff. This letter is a formal request that you complete your review of this report and forward to our attention any requirements or recommendations without delay. Your most prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Very truly yours, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS George Kennedy, Chairman cc: Patricia Nolan, M.D. , M.P.H. , Director, C.D.H. Glenn Mallory, Industrial Hygienist, C.D.H. Shc\c\R ckl L -31 OEplq kity DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH �\ 1517•16 AVENUE COURT IGREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (303)353-0586 lunge HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353-0639 COLORADO August 17, 1992 ' .. Hadts€rg- Waste Services Corporation W d Sanita L •lk 60 777th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 Mr. Hedberg: Our Division has received the "Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado", dated July 1992. We are very concerned with the results of your water quality analysis, particularly with regard to the presence of VOC's in five of the monitoring wells. We are in the process of reviewing your recommendations. We will be in contact with you upon completion of this review. Sincerely, n S. Pickle, M.S.E.H. irector, Environmental Health Division xc: Austin Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County Planning Department Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney Brad Keirnes, Waste Services .064. ri-E3 AJ`l✓� DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH tott: 1517• 10 AVENUE COURT GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (303)353-0586 O HEALTH PROTECTION(303) "t' 0615 • COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353-0639 COLORADO September 17, 1992 Bill Hedberg Waste Services Corporation 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 Dear Mr. Hedberg: An inspection of your facility, Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, located at 6037 77th Avenue, in Weld County, Colorado on September 14, 1992, by Trevor Jiricek, revealed that the municipal solid waste landfill operated by Bill Hedberg was found to be in compliance with the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities" as promulgated pursuant to the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act", Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) , as amended. However, this Division is quite concerned with the March 1992 analysis, submitted by Golder Associates, 913-2403, July 1992. The Division feels that analysis presented in this report may suggest a ground water impact in the shallow aquifer which must be addressed in a timely fashion. The Division is currently evaluating the above mentioned situation in conjunction with the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Health and will address any recommendation or request in writing to your facility. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please contact this office at 353-0635. t Sincerely, Trevor Jiric Environmental Protection Specialist TJ/lam-1919 R^° .n 4 i 9 t ' C. NC/ a Management n:at North America. inc. /� Mountain Region YT_ 5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.•Englewood.Colorado 30111 `- -r"•�U( Suite 424•303/770-C324 September 18 , 1992 R b• C" :; r- n :Ara'?r... ; `.• -iv Mr. John Pickle SEP 0 i 1992 Weld County Department of Health 1517 16th Avenue Court _„ �� s. ^ Greeley Co 80631 i•==+ t.....”a ;,r,_ 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 downgradient monitoring wells (GWMWs-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. wp51W1pickk.916 P: CV/LF 9.1 - •O 1OQ4 k g0 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, OA, Bi 1 Hedberg Alan Scheere Division V.P. Landfill Operations Environmental Specialist BH\mmp cc: Jon Stephens, w/enc Dave Hayes, w/enc wp51W1pickle.916 F: CWLF9.1 03106e gt ROY ROMER rear.Art KL • ' Main Bolding, Denver Governor (303)322-9076 i.:..'-. Ptarmigan Mare,Denver PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303)320-1529 Executive Director Fort National Bank Building, Denver (303)353-6559 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198 COLORADO 4 N\ Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office (303)331.4830/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-8441 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH RECEIVED September 18, 1992 0CT 5 1992 Kent E. Hanson KEN I L tUwvboN Attorney at Law Clayton Center 1881 9th Street, Suite 216 Boulder, Colorado 80802 RE: Central Weld County Landfill Weld County Dear Mr. Hanson: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has received and reviewed your September 11, 1992 letter regarding the Central Weld County Landfill. The following is the Division's response to the issues set forth in your letter. 1. Weld County is has no obligation under the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act (the Statute) to hold a public hearing for substantial changes in oprations, though Weld County may if they so choose. A Certificate of Designation is issued for a specific solid waste land use (i.e. incinerator, sanitaryjandfill, 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 Orion at,«,daP+•r A- 1.0F'. g'O- 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 F: 711 064, A S3 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. S erely Aus 'n N. Buckingham Geologist Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Hedberg, Central Weld County Landfill B. Keimes, Waste Services Corporation G. Kennedy, Weld County Commissioners L Morrison, Weld County Attorney D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department A. Scheere, Waste Management of North America K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning file: SW/WLD/CENTRAL A' , • SEPSEP 21 '92 _ 10:49AM IP.≥E. 002 tfir ((p OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY n+owe PS)see.4000 UT.4.201 a11EELmY,COLORADO X32 W11 e ., September 18, 1992 COLORADO Mr. Kent Hanson Attorney at Law Canyon Center 1881 9th street, Suite 216 . Boulder, CO 80302 Us Central Wald Landfill Dear Mr. Hanson: This letter is in further response to your letter of September 11, 1992. I have reviewed the concerns raised in your letter and would have some general comments as well as specific response to your request for action. __ I would take exception to the statemen/that Weld County has not responded to Mr. Telep's concerns, 7 have had emtensive conversations on at least three occasions commencing in January and Including earlier this month. 7 Principally, I have spoken with Cynthia Telep Turner your client's son, who represented herself as representing your client. I also had discussions with his daughter • and son-in-law in January. During those discussions and, in particular, during the most Precent, I responded to the issues raised in the letter of July 11, 1992 regarding the claim that the county should hold a hearing essentially to reevaluate the entire operation. The insinuation that the County delayed a decision in order to pursue some •ulterior motive is entirely without Merit. At no time did I indicate that the County was intending to hold a hearing on the merits of the operation based upon your clients request and your client was not misled into believing that a hearing was forthcoming. In our recent discussions of September 13 and 16, you agreed that the issue of change of operator would not lead to the results sought by your client, a hearing on the merits, but only would deal with the issue of the ability of a new operator to operate the landfill. However, I do not agree that a change of operator has occurred with the transfer of stock occasioned by the recent transaction as Waste Services Corporation, a Colorado Corporation in good standing, remains the operator. I have had extensive discussions with Cynthia Telep Turner and, subsequently, with yourself about the argument that there were certain conditions pl cod upon the permit by virtue of their mention during the 197 hearing. That argument might have acme tYYYYYY i d.. 1r M n ��rrr v4l �_ yam- SEP`EP.21 _y2 1p:59RM FP, E . 003 merit had the Board approved the landfill "based upon the representations of the applicant" or where the hoard imposed no conditions whatsoever and would have been assuming simply that what the operator proposed would be incorporated in the permit. The Board, in 1971, was aware of how to impose conditions on a permit and, in fact, did impose two general conditions, but imposed no restrictions on height er length of operation. It should be noted that state statute presumes that the lead agency for enforcement of the Solid Waste Sites and Disposal facilities Act is the State Health Department. The County deferred to the state's expertise in 1971 in the resolution of approval. They are assigned the role of being the technical review agency, and under current versions of the law no landfill could be approved without their technical approval. The department has a division specifically assigned and presumably with particular expertise in dealing with the issues arising from the siting and operation of solid waste disposal sites. Y suggest that any objection to the handling of the regulation this site needs to be made to the State Health in addition to any comments you might make to the County. You have asserted that the County failed to conduct quarterly monitoring in August. The quarterly testing was previously done by the county not as a regulator but as a provider of a service to the landfill. The recent quarterly testing was performed at Waste Management laboratories which are certified to conduct sophisticated testing, such as volatile organics not available at the Weld County laboratories. The results have not been withheld and the concern regarding the ground water quality is based primarily on the Golden & Associates report of July, 1992 which was received early August, of 1999. You have asked for investigation of oft-site ground water contamination and in conjunction with the state, a requirement of appropriate remedial action to the site. Weld County Health Department has investigated and will continue investigating any reports of off-site ground water contamination and had been and will continue to be in consultation with the State as to the appropriate steps to be taken regarding remediation at the site. Further tasting will be conducted by consultants for the landfill with County Health officials present the week of 9/11/97. The recent Golder & Associates report from the Central Weld Waste Disposal Site contains certain proposed remedial measures. Those proposals, to my knowledge, have neither been rejected nor accepted as sufficient to remediate the problems observed at the site. The weld County Health Department will in conjunction with the state Health Department determine if additional measures will be required. You have also requested that we obtain an up-to-date engineering design and operations report, together with all other information necessary to evaluate the performance of the landfill. You have argued, by means of the telephone conversation earlier this week, that there is issue with the permits for the Central Weld Disposal sc,55'E w21 ' '�. 1©istpAM FF:I$E .204 • Facility because of an absence of an engineering design and operations plan dating from 1971. This argument was first raised in our telephone conversations this week. The Solid Waste Disposal site a Facility Act, CAS S 36-23-3 1963. did not specifically require an engineering design but rather required information on engineering geology, hydrology and oper,tions data to be submitted to the state in accordance with State Health Department regulations (which were not adopted until 1972) . To the extent that this information was not properly provided in accordnaoe with the State Health Department regulations, it may provide a basis under which the County can request that engineering information be submitted. based upon that information, a new certificate of designation and special use permit may be required. i tt drafting a letter for the Board's signature requesting submission of such information and you will be provided a copy. Please contact me with any further questions or comments you may have. Very ly yours, • d'is2229,11401L., • D. rrison A militant Weld County Attorney LDM/Hanson pat John Pickle Board of County Commissioners Austin Buckingham 931061 - September 19, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attn: George Kennedy Chairman of the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Central Weld County Landfill,a/k/a Greeley-Milliken Landfill Dear Commissioners: It has come to my attention that Weld County now intends to impinge on Knister farms existing wetlands and game preserve as well as to compromise the integrity of an existing earthen dam in order to relocate and pave a portion of the existing roadway (County Road 27 1/2) to the captioned landfill. Your road crew and site survey team damaged portions of Knister Farms wetlands by cutting trails through our high priority wetlands property and vegetation to facilitate their survey. This was done without my knowledge or permission and violates both common law and state statutes. As a former Weld County Attorney,I cannot recall County officials and personnel being so ill-advised as to law -- and common courtesy -- as in all matters concerning this road change. Under existing federal regulations,the destruction of wetlands is a federal offense. Please stop such conduct and I would appreciate an explanation of your past action.and any further action regarding said road change. Very truly yours, Samuel S. Telep Owner and Manager- Knister Farms cc: Kent Hanson, Esq. 931061 3g 1 1 BUDGET UN=T SUMMARY 1 AGENCY/DEPARTMENT NAME: SOTTn WASTF BUDGET UNIT TITLE AND NUMBER: Solid Wacta Fund -- 97—Qn9n I DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION: This fund accounts for revenue received from a surcharge on dumping fees at solid waste disposal sites for the purpose of combatting environmental problems, trash clean-up, and for further improvement and Idevelopment of landfill sites within the County. I RESOURCES ACTUAL BUDGETED REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LAST FY CURRENT FY NEXT FY NEXT FY Personnel $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 IServices/Supplies 0 500, 000 503,260 503,260 ICapital/Credits Gross County Cost 0 500,000 503,260 503,260 IRevenue/Fund Bal. 221,616 500, 000 503,260 503,260 Net County Cost $(221,616) $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- IBudget Positions llSUMMARY OF CHANGES: Funded at anticipated revenue level of fees at $250,000. $46, 740 is committed to offset environmental health costs ($15,000) and trash enforcement/pickup program ($31, 740) . A fund balance of $300,000 is anticipated. ill $503,260 remains undesignated for future needs. OBJECTIVES: Mitigate the impact of solid waste sites in Weld County. I ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROJECTED llWORKLOAD MEASURES LAST FY CURRENT FY NEXT FY Calls for service 106 150 150 Enforcement citations 15 25 25 II FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Any future funds should be designed to 11 address the following landfill associated problems: Road Access: 1 77th Avenue (2 miles South from Highway 34) to access Greeley/Milliken Landfill. I 311 ill 931061. g9 September 24, 1992 Mr. John Pickle Weld County Department of Health 1517 16th Avenue Court Greely, Co . 80631 Subject : CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILL Dear Mr. Pickle , I am in receipt of a letter addressed to you and the State Department of Health, dated September 18, 1992, from Bill Hedberg of Waste Management in reference to the Expanded Hydro Geological Investigation currently being conducted. Upon reading this letter, several questions and concerns arise . I contacted your office last fall and again this spring with concerns as to the surface water quality on our property adjacent to the landfill . A followup analysis of the water, by a private lab we hired,confirmed the surface water to be contaminated . The results were forwarded to you . Further data from monitoring wells around the landfill supplied by Waste Management confirm contaminates . To date , my understanding for the lack of immediate action, be it a plan of action or a plan to correct, was the need for futher investigation; thus the Hydro Geological Investigation currently underway. However, after reading Mr. Hedberg' s letter and having a quick chat with Golder Associates, it is obvious this investigation only deals with six volatile organic compounds detected on site . HARDLY THE COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION WE WERE EXPECTING. What of the array of heavy metals that have been detected. Arsenic, mercury. lead, manganese, nickle , cobalt , phosphorus, and more, all of which exceed maximum allowable EPA standards. What of the sulfates? Four times the EPA standards . I believe some radio active compounds have been detected in the monitoring wells as well . What of the milk white water flowing down the borrow ditch from the landfill to the Thompson River with all these contaminates? What other contaminates have yet to be detected? 931961 90 I see an immediate need for a comprehensive plan from your office ! We don' t know if your office has officially acknowledged that a problem exsists . No warnings or citations have been issued. We would appreciate a reply to our concerns . Sincerely, David Hayes Ranch Manager cc: Susanne & Jon Stephens Ella Marie & N.V. Hayes Jr. Art Garcia Ms . Austin Buckingham Colorado Dept of Health A 931061 91 S I us a ie record/-L IIObituaries/2 ,>.andfill * Fair results/3,4 Continued from Page 81 cause, for one reason, federal AA/� s w { . .Y �.v� e,Q regulation requires it, Lancaster NMA. r`. 76.0' flibeI .27� l9$2 said. — — The city of Fort Collins has Polluted land de targeted Seven Springs as a de- sirable piece of property to ac- quire and preserve as a natural area, and city officials have been e a d s RTC to trying for more than a year to buy it. Now they are seeking ways to acquire the Hahn prop- erty as well, because the RTC wants to sell the two pieces of threaten suit sproperty — which sit on ide of Taft Hill either Road and total 530 acres — as a package, said Contamination blamed on dump Tom Shoemaker, city natural re• sources director. By JAN KNIGHT Shoemaker said he was aware The Coioradoan of the contamination problem The Resolution Trust Corp. has notified the but that it shouldn't affect the city of Fort Collins that it intends to sue over city's goals for the property. contamination seeping from the Larimer County "The situation is not some- Landfill onto vacant property north of the thing that seems like it would af- dump. feet the use of open space" or According to a notice of claim sent to the city the proposed purchase of the — owner of the landfill along with the city of property, he said. "It's the city's Loveland and the county — the RTC 1s con- opinion that those are two sepa- cemed about contaminants from the landfill rate issues. ... We have an obvi- seeping onto the Seven Springs and Hahn prop- ous interest in knowing what the erties north of the dump on South Taft Hill extent of the contamination is. Road. The data now indicate that it's The RTC became principle manager for the minor." _ propin Decem after Otero wnr nd Loan failed I Groundwater tests December 1990. The owner of the property 1s listed as the Harmony Road Corp., a wholly owned and still existing subsidiary of Otero Sav- ings. ' find contamination Attorneys for the Harmony Road Corp. said in the notice of claim that they haven't established adjacent to landfill the extent of contamination, but believe pollut- ants are continuing to seep from the landfill onto the Seven Springs and Hahn properties. They didn't specify the amount of damage they By JAN KNIGHT were seeking, but stated that the damages in- The Coloradoan • dude loss of property value, investigation and Larimer County's natural resources director mitigation costs, attorney fees and "damages for said groundwater monitored north of the landfill an ongoing interference with the use and enjoy- during the past year shows that contaminants ment of the property." have seeped from the dump onto adjacent va- Valerie Marshall, RTC spokeswoman, said her cant property. office is working closely with the city to avoid But the pollution, which apparently came from going to court over the issue and that the notice industrial waste tossed at the public landfill on of claim was normal procedure. South Taft Hill Road, so far is only showing up "We usually do this on any property we own," in small amounts, said Frank Lancaster, county Marshall said. "We're basically Just concerned natural resources director. with soil contamination by the landfill." Another year of monitoring should indicate Frank Lancaster, county natural resources di- whether pollution migrating away from the land- rector, said his office has been monitoring fill is growing and where it is heading, Lancaster groundwater north of the landfill for the past said. year. The county has also asked the Resolution While the county has discovered some con- Trust Corp., principle manager for the property, tamination, he said it will take another year of for permission to set up three additional moni- collecting data before he knows whether pollut- toring wells to assess pollution risks, he said. ant levels are climbing and whether the con- Up to this point, the county has identified taminants are traveling farther than currently eight pollutants in groundwater near the landfill, believed. including trichloroethylene or TCE, an industrial The county intends to mitigate wandering pol- solvent. lution regardless of the threatened lawsuit be- No public water sources are threatened, Lan- See LANDFILL, Page B2 caster said: "There's not a real potential for human health problems." 93 061 tc )1 ASHTON CALL TO ACTION COMMITTEE Comilla Meting at Ashton Sol $wo Mr.49th St. ptpnber 27 9992 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY HAND DELIVERY Attn: George Kennedy Chairman of the Board 915 10TH STREET GREELEY, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: We are residents and/or landowners of the Ashton-Daniels district and other concerned residents of Weld County. Several of our families were original homesteaders and we have intense ties to this portion of Colorado. We are very concerned about the Central Weld County Landfill. Recent water samples indicate significantly elevated levels of contamination (i.e. heavy metals and VOC's) which is of great concern to us. Many area residents rely on shallow groundwater wells for our drinking water and farm operations. The owners/operators of Central Weld County Landfill have been non-responsive to our questions. Their heightened and accelerated operations are causing irreparable harm to ns on a daily basis. Your own offices have been unresponsive and uncooperative to our inquiries and we feel insistent on the following: 1. Your written responses to our questions as stated on page 2. 2. A Public Hearing concerning the Central Weld County Landfill. 3. An intimate involvement with your offices concerning any future Central Weld County Landfill discussions. Since 1971 we have always acted in good faith with your offices. The then Chairman of the Board of Weld County Commissioners,Marshall Anderson,promised his friend Earl Moffatt a permit for a landfill operation. In the 1971 Public Hearing the landfill had an estimated life of 10-15 years and would not exceed the historical height of the then existing ground. It was further stated that this land would be returned to "good irrigable land". Recently we noted a proposed extension that included a 400% increase in capacity to 11.6 million cubic yards. This extension would extend the landfill for another 38 years. You can see our cause for concern. CC: JOHN PICKLE,WCHD AUSTIN BUCKINGHAM, 931961 93 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 27, 1992 Page Two 1. Is there any contamination in excess of state or federal standards beyond the boundaries and emitting from the Central Weld Landfill? 2. If so, has the County/State formally cited the opetatodowner of CWL for their violation? 3. If not,why hasn't the County/State cited the ope atodowner? 4. What is the extent of this contamination? S. What hazards does this contamination pose to ow'poundwater and surface waters? 6. What contamination containment efforts will be used and when? 7. Why does the CWL have a retaining pond when ponding is prohibited by Colorado solid waste landfill regulations? 8. Does CWL have a permit for such a pond? 9. If so,what is permit*? 10. If not,why hasn't County/State cited operatodowner for violation of Colorado law and regulations? 11. What are future plans for CWL? 12. Why? We request that each of us heglven notice of the public hearing at which the rommrasioners wiill address ttiesr.and other questions related to the Central Weld j,apdvill at the addresses listed below, NAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NOs • may �-7i Ci /37}5/ " �7 � .�_ •..r (. : �+' � " riff, S<) 5 • •3' 1,I9/111i' e God q� (PI '=255 oho rb6/N- ett — �cu Lih— 1/0 4n.61. fe nay / ic4ae ( (X) rs 82 w. Stisi 4, Celcy eberi63y 330- 17,26 P- 931061 9v • WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 27, 1992 Page Two 1. Is there any contamination in excess of Mate or federal standards beyond the boundaries and emitting from the Central Weld Landfill? 2. If so, has the County/State formally cited the operator/owner of CWL for their violation? 3. If not, why hasn't the County/State cited the operatodowner? 4. What is the extent of this contamination? 5. What hazards does this contamination pose to our groundwater and surface waters? 6. What contamination containment efforts will be used and when? 7. Why does the CWL have a retaining pond when ping is prohibited by Colorado solid waste landfill regulations ? 8. Does CWL have a permit for such a pond? 9. If so, what is permit#? 10. If not,why hasn't County/State cited operator/owner for violation of Colorado law and regulations? 11. What are future plans for CWL? 12. Why? We request that each of us be given notice of the public hearigg at which the Comma ••u dd ss then nd o her�wstions related to the Central Weld j,andvill at the addresses listed below, NAME ADDRESS. TELEPHONE NOs j gtr,vL..' 7/9/ 9910, St' 330 - 0t/ 92. Grutiby' �s. 3u — 6 iot ill ?en gdAA— �� 7141 ge 330 �' Lfq �(v3� c,,("Ltrz,- 7, 7 (5- Sr14 AAP. Sect Ono (2k&stn 321-000(7? 931061 95 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 27, 1992 Page Two 1. Is there any contamination in excess of state or federal standards beyond the boundaries and emitting from the Central Weld Landfill? 2. If so, has the County/State formally cited the operatodowner of CWL for their violation? 3. If not,why hasn't the County/State cited the opallor/owner? 4. What is the extent of this contamination? 5. What hazards does this contamination pose to our groundwater and surface waters? 6. What contamination containment efforts will be used and when? 7. Why does the CWL have a retaining pond when poading is prohibited by Colorado solid waste landfill regulations ? 8. Does CWL have a permit for such a pond? 9. If so, what is permit#? 10. If not, why hasn't County/State cited operatodowner for violation of Colorado law and regulations? 11. What are future pans for CWL? 12. Why? We request that each of us be given notice of the public hearinut which the Commissioners wiill address these and other questions related to the Central Weld J.andvill at the addresses listed below NAME ADDRPSS TELEPHONE NOs e, p,A it, 'dsr/Ng /Gy 97/ dveC/,lrPt'Ayco A2663 9 ; 77 £dry n y l F '/ - '(7 m A a-. ‘cei?r. Co 3)j —72 P / �63y Fad Dan'e4 x3734 lee(/ yl' '. In ill Xen ('0, disc f+ NE- C�tKko - 41.1% c/r- y two Ca43y i II (, I 311) - (75-44‘Ace �t Ne 'l0lridt 6,,.." r CO Sal/ D3 .3 ('(-20 ( 931061 % r. WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 27, 1992 Page Two 1. Is there any contamination in excess of state or federal standards beyond the boundaries and emitting from the Central Weld Landfill? 2. If so, has the County/State formally cited the operatorlowner of CWL for their violation? 3. If not, why hasn't the County/State cited the operator/owner? 4. What is the extent of this contamination? 5. What hazards does this contamination pose to our groundwater and surface waters? 6. What contamination containment efforts will be used and when? 7. Why does the CWL have a retaining pond when ponding is prohibited by Colorado solid waste landfill regulations ? 8. Does CWL have a permit for such a pond? 9. If so,what is permit 0? 10. If not, why hasn't County/State cited operator/owner for violation of Colorado law and regulations? 11. What are future plans for CWL? 12. Why? We request that each of us be 'yen notice of the public hearing at which the • Coll mis nr n a a ti cs nd o h2, mro`tions related to the entral Weld J.andvill at the addresses listed below NAME ADM= TELEPHONE NOs ,4'&r/ e/%r- /Y65? G/C''C 3?6 5 .3d -0770 /�7,Y/.k�rr Co 8cs 7 Co G -7/6V 6-)gic co//u� Y3 �3 - �� 0 �'S�6� r. q h7 Ai? -77/ u - k&74ST o •-• Ire6tl-F aAeti � 02373x '0 c 8 a %, irri7-0,2aG640,0 �� lt4/ Willa SA- - /btu s'A (tti 64A t7 stA Y i co 9 C 4 3 q etA-rJJ 7/9/ VI1" se, d 1/4- 330 -0992 9;31061 99- HAVE A C-COW' ! BE CONCERNED! ! GREEELE"-MILLIKEN LANDFILL Coloradans - Concerned Over Water (C-COW) is a group of concerned Colorado citizens who demand action by their elected representatives to protect public health and the environment. The Greeley-Milliken landfill is located in a MAJOR DRAINAGE AREA, 1/2 mile from the Big Thompson River and 1 1/2 miles from the South Platte River where the two rivers meet at Dos Rios. IN 1971, the Evans dump had reached capacity and the Greeley- Milliken landfill was proposed. Lrra1 farmers agreed to siting of the dump because they were promised it would be only an INTERIM DUMP, AND WOULD CLOSE NOT LATER THAN 1986, when a new site would be in operation. TODAY, 21 YEARS LATER, the Greeley Milliken dump is still in operation, GROWING LARGER EACH DAY! The landfill continues, and threatens to EXPAND, even though a large, lined and buffered facility in dry lands is located near Ault and another is planned near Keensburg. The Greeley-Milliken landfill is UNREGULATED BY CURRENT STANDARDS. Be- cause it was established prior to the adoption of federal RCRA laws and prior to the adoption of current state regulations, the owners/operators have NEVER FILED AN SIMMERING AND OPERATIONS DESIGN PLAN. The landfill has not been REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL LAWS! When the landfill was begun, it was dug BELOW THE GROUNDWATER, was UNLINED, and TRASH WAS DUMPED INTO STANDING WATER, all in a major drainage area 1/2 mile from the Big Thompson River. REMEMBER, EVEN HOUSEHOLD WASTES SUCH AS PAINT CANS, SOLVENTS, CLEANERS AND GARDEN PESTICIDES CAN ENDANGER GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IF PLACID IN UNLINED DUMPS! The Greeley-Milliken dump has holding ponds on site, which collect water. It also has deep, dangerous trenches to divert groundwater and surface run-off. . - - - - CONTAMINATION FROM HEAVY METALS is being detected in neighboring-irrigation-holding lakes. The headgates of these lakes are opened, the water leaves the lakes, goes into the irrigation ditches, finds its way through gravel beds and sloughs and INTO THE BIG THOMP.ON AND THEN INTO THE SOUTH PLATTE. IF THIS DUMP CONTINUES TO GO UNNOTICED, contamination of Colorado's surface and ground water will result. The state Department of Health, through its Solid and Hazardous Waste Division and the Division of Water Quality MUST BE URGED TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THIS CONTAMINATION! PUBLIC ATTENTION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS must focus on this facility so that it is closed and any resulting contamination is treated. Please join COLORADANS - CONCERNED OVER WATER (CHOW) in focusing atten- tion on this serious problem. Indicate your concern by signing your name and address below. This petition will be given to the Colorado Department of Health, DEMANDING THAT THE LANDFILL SLY WITH CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS. Name Address 9310si 9s C.-7C- if It OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE(303) 3564000, EXT. 4200 Di 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 RECENT-0 SEP 2 9 1992 COLORADO KEno G„„r4 UN 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 . A 931061 99 mEmORAnDU Tiw Wilk To Dote September 29, 1992 COLORADO From Trevor Jiric k, Environmental Specialist SubpetCentral Weld Sanitary Landfill hydrogeologic study During the week of September 21, 1992 through September 25, 1992 I observed on a daily basis portions of the hydrogeologic study conducted by Golder Associates. Nine temporary sampling points were selected, and at these points "easi wells" were installed. An "easi well" is a temporary sampling point which minimizes surface impact and speeds up the sampling process. According to Brian G. Tilton, Project ;eological Engineer, Golder Associates, the drilling work had been subcontracted to Geo Corporation, Lakewood, Colorado, but Mr. Tilton was supervising the process. The "easi wells" were installed using a Giddings Rig which was mounted on the back of a pick-up truck. The rig was equipped with a 2" solid stem auger which bore down into the groundwater containing formation, at these particular locations. Mr. Tilton estimated groundwater to be found at 25-45 feet at all locations. Once the hole had been bore, a plastic tube, approx. 3/8", was installed into the total depth of the hole, and packed with silica sand. This tube was perforated on the bottom 12", and after allowing a period of time for the "easi well" to charge the "easi well" was sampled by incorporating a vacuum to pull the sample from the well and into the sample vessel. These wells will exist throughout the study then be removed as desired. In addition to observing the above mentioned, I observed the third quarter routine samples being completed at this facility. The sampling took place September 22, 1992 through September 24, 1992. Mr. Randy Thompson, SEC Donahue, was in charge of obtaining these routine samples. I observed Mr. Thompson sample several wells on these days. TJ-2073 A- 931%1 RD/ ititf! mEmORAf1DUm WilkTo File Date September 29, 1992 COLORADO From Trevor Jiricek, Environmental Specialist Subj.etCentral Weld Sanitary Landfill hydrogeologic study Today, Tuesday, September 29, 1992 I spoke with Bill Hedberg of Waste Services Corporation on the telephone. Mr. Hedberg informed me that only one (1) of the nine (9) "easi wells" installed during the week of September 21, 1992 revealed contamination. Additionally, Mr. Hedberg stated he was not fully aware of the exact contaminants detected in the "easi well", and that a complete report describing and analyzing the study at the facility would be forwarded as soon as it was completed. According to Mr. Hedberg, the staff at both Golder Associates and Waste Services Corporation will conduct a speedy review of the data then proceed with further study or remediation as necessary. TJ-2075 A- .931061 /D,P, 19. E DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH \' 1517 16 AVENUE COURT IGREELEY, COLORADO 80631 O ADMINISTRATION (303) 353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 353-0639 COLORADO October 5, 1992 Ashton Call To Action Committee 8200 West 49th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 Sirs: I have received your letter of September 27, 1992, with regard to your concerns about the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. We too are concerned with this facility and have increased the level of our monitoring activity at this site. I am surprised to hear that Central Weld Sanitary Landfill operators have been non-responsive to your questions. They have been most cooperative with this office. Mr. Bill Hedberg has maintained contact with us by telephone, fax, and mail, sometimes on a daily basis, keeping us informed of the latest developments. I feel it is somewhat unfair to accuse our office of being uncooperative and non- responsive. I personally have spent hours conversing with Ms. Cynthia Turner, Mr. Michael Hayes, and other members of the community on this issue. We have opened our files on this matter to all concerned, and have spent much staff time making copies of our files available. During recent months we have increased our level of surveillance of the Central Weld facility dramatically, with staff often being present on a daily basis. I feel we have given this issue a very high priority, and have been open and communicative in all respects. As to the questions you ask on page 2, I attempt to answer as follows: 1. As far as I know, there are no state or federal standards establishing Maximum Contaminant Levels for VOCs in monitoring wells. There are some federal standards for Public Water Supplies, however, these are being phased in during this year and next year and deal with specific VOCs, not all of which are regulated even in Public Water Supplies. Standards for VOCs in landfill monitoring wells will be addressed as the Subtitle D Regulations become effective. 2. Despite the lack of the aforementioned standards, our office has cited this facility under the broad nuisance authority contained in section 2. 1.4. of the State Solid Waste Regulations. In all honesty however, to date, I feel this facility has acted appropriately in terms of 931061 /03 mitigation and remediation of these problems. 3. N/A 4. Waste Services has been conducting tests to determine the exact extent of this contamination. Mr. Bill Hedberg has contacted me by telephone and it appears initially that the contamination has been confined to an area of somewhere between five (5) feet and one hundred (100) feet downgradient of Monitoring Well al 5. I stress that this is an initial assessment only, and has not been formally reported to this office. I anticipate formal notification sometime during the week of October 19, 1992. 5. You ask for an assessment of the degree of hazard this contamination poses to your ground and surface waters. Obviously, there is some degree of hazard to surrounding waters or we would not be concerned. Although preliminary estimates of the extent of the contamination might indicate a lesser degree of hazard, this data is preliminary and I do not feel it would be appropriate at this time to perhaps give you a false sense of security, or to unnecessarily alarm you. We should have the answer to this question, once the exact extent of contamination is known. 6. Again, contamination containment efforts will be decided upon once the exact extent of contamination has been determined. 7. The "ponds" that are on Central Weld property are located in areas of the landfill that have not been filled. It has been our staff opinion that the section of the Solid Waste Regulations which refers to "ponding" would apply to such on filled areas of a landfill. This would seem logical as it would prevent ponded water from percolating down through the soil and fill, and producing leachate. The water in these ponds is used to control dust on the site which we feel is a beneficial use. They are not used for disposal of liquid wastes. 8. It is unclear as to what type permit you believe is required for these ponds. We have no record of permits issued by the County specifically for these ponds. 9. N/A 10. Refer to 11 8 above. 11. See attached letter from County Commissioners to Waste Services. 12. Refer to # 11 above. I feel that the attached letter from the Board of County Commissioners also addresses your question with regard to a Public Hearing. Further, previous comments in this letter illustrate this office's willingness to be open to all concerned in this matter, and consequently should allay your concerns about future involvement. 931061 /soli If we can be of any further service in this matter, feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, ohn S. Pickle �/ Director Environmental Protection Services xc: Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney George Kennedy, Chairman, Board of Commissioners Glenn Mallory, Colorado Department of Health Chuck Cunliffe, Department of Planning Services / A 931061 05 rit-teCel: C.--IY3- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1517- 16 AVENUE COURT Wilipte 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. 4ohn S. Pickle Director, Environmental Protection Services Division xc: Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney Randy Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H. , Director A 94061 /o40 SECTION 2 MINIMUM STANDARDS 2. 1 Minimum standards All facilities for solid waste disposal shall comply with 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 to 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 wateraand 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 • 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 to 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 • (l0) Revised 8/90 931061 /or- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH :co , ,„ 1517. 16 AVENUE COURT lli IGREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (3031 3530586 OHEALTH PROTECTION 1303) 353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 3530639 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 which we received at this meeting. We AV 931061 /08 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. 931061 /Oci 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 tr4 ' yours, ohn S. Pickle irector Environmental Protection Services xc: Glenn Mallory, Colorado Department of Health Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney George Kennedy, County Commissioner 931061 /O KENT E. HANSON Attorney at Law Canyon Center 1881 9th Street,Suite 216 Telefax(303)443-64% (303)449-0600 Boulder,Colorado 80302 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 Required 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 931061 I i i 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 931061 / 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 /V 931061 X13 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 30, 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 ADDrove Chancre 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 931061 //1/ 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 271 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 A 931061 / 155 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 letters 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 931061 /1 (0 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 Actioq 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 27k. 931061 119- 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, Kit-2 C Sa----(------ /IC ent E. Ha on /te cc: Sam Telep k 931061 / 18 SEP 22, '92 04:37PM r Txanscrint of S1.300. 000 Weld County Colorado Industripl Development Revenue Bonds (Colorado Landfill. Inc. project) aeries 1980 The closing occurred on March 6, 1980. Loan Agreement between County and the borrower lists Nelson Engineers of Greeley, CO as the engineer. Guarantor was the small Business Administration, which gave pollution control facility payment guarantee #083-1000-1-01 dated March 6, 1980. It provides that improvements to the site are to be constructed in accordance with the "Plans and Specifications. " Colorado Landfill, e The issuer lmade a nc. s loan to the r the eborrower r, and hfor c$1.3 unty was the issuer. million to pay the "Costs of Acquisition of the Project. " Section 3.01 provides that the borrower will construct "Improvements on the Project Site. . .in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. " section 4 .03 (d) provides that the "Issuer may issue bonds under the Act for the prevention or control of pollution by providing more adequate facilities for disposing of solid waste. . . . " Section 4 . 04 provides that disbursements are to be made upon "certifications from the Engineer that the Improvements have been made and are being constructed or installed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. . . . " Section 5. 06 pertains to the obligations of the borrower and the issuer and the right to enforce those obligations. These obligations appear to be inconsistent with the County's duty to regulate, and bind the County to cooperate fully with the borrower in suits involving third persons in order to secure or s "which the borrower deems reasonably necessary or appropriate protect its right of possession, occupancy and use of the Project. " Article VI provides for mandatory prepayment of the loan upon damage or destruction of the project or upon subsequent changes in law rendering the agreement unenforceable. These provisions may have some application to the County's enforcement of environmental requirements. Section 7.01 are the "Representations by Issuer" which include a representation that: (a) The "design and plan of the Project" are for "solid waste disposal facilities as contemplated by Section 29-3-103 (10) (e) " 931061 /19 SEP 28 '92 04:38PM P,? (b) "In authorizing the Project, the Issuer's purposes, and in its judgment the effect thereof will be, to provide more adequate facilities for disposing solid waste." (c) That an appropriate ordinance was adopted on January 1, 1980. (check this one out) (f) That no part of this deal will "conflict with, or constitute on the part of the Issuer a breach of, or a default under, any existing law. . . " Section 7. 02 is "Representations of Borrower" and includes: (d) The "Plans and Specifications, the project budget and the acquisition schedule" have been approved by the borrower and the engineer (a) The construction of improvements to data do not violate "any applicable law, rule, regulation or code." (g) References "preliminary official statement dated January 7, 1980 and certificate by counsel to the borrower" (check these out) (1) "The Plans and Specifications have been submitted to all governmental authorities whose approval of construction of the Improvements for the use of the Improvements for their intended purposes required under any applicable law, statute, rule, regulation or code, and the necessary approvals and permits have been obtained from such authorities and remain effective. To the best of Borrower's knowledge and based upon a prudent investigation, the construction or installation of the Improvements and their intended use have complied with and will comply with all applicable laws. . .including without limitation. . .environmental laws and regulations." (m) "Borrower has examined and is familiar with all covenants, conditions, reservations and other restrictions pertaining to the construction, installation and use of the Improvements for their intended purpose and has complied with all such restrictions. " Note: Some representations indicate that it is important that the borrower had no prior connection with the project. Query: Why were these bonds appropriate for taking over an existing project? -2- A. _ 931061 / 3O ELF -s ' E. 04:35FM P.4 Article VIII if the "Affirmative Covenants of Borrower" and provides that Borrower shall: section 8. 03 Comply with all laws and keep in effect all permits or approvals applicable to the construction or installation of the Improvements. Article IX are the "Negative Covenants of Borrower" and provide that the borrower shall not, without the prior written consent of the trustee, guarantor and the issuer: Section 9.01 Change the plans or specifications of the permit or perform "any work. . .which would result in a change in the Plans and specifications. " section 10. 01 Borrower may make "additions, modifications or improvements to the Project" if they do not impair the character of the project. section 13 . 01 "Events of Default" includes: (b) If any representation or warranty by borrower, engineer or any contractor shall prove "at any time to have been incorrect in any material respect" or if borrower fails to "perform or observe any covenant" in the agreement. (e) Any action which shall be taken by any governmental authority which would "materially and adversely affect timely substantial completion of construction or in- stallation of the improvements or the use or occupation of the improvements for their intended purpose and such action shall not have been reversed or remedied within a period of ten (10) days from the taking thereof. " Section 14. 07 provides for Borrower to indemnify guarantor, issuer and trustee. section 14. 12 provides that the county as the issuer has no pecuniary liability of any kind. The Weld County IDB was the first IDB that Eric Stowe had ever done. -3- 931061 / � SEP 28 '92 84:39PM P..5 The trust indenture between the County and the trustee and the combination mortgage and security agreement from borrower to trustee have provisions of default similar to those contained in the loan agreement. The bond purchase agreement with the underwriter provides that the borrower will indemnify everyone against all kinds of securities suits. Disclosures of pending litigation indicate that a Rule 106(b) action was pending in Weld County District Court, Civil Action No. 79-CV-860 filed December 18, 1979 and styled Trustees of the Town of Erie. Colonial Skies Unlimited. Inc. . et al. v. state of Colorado Department of Health. the Board of county Commigsioners of Wald County. Coloradoi Colorado Landfill. Inc. : and Charles Lynn Ksarae$. The action concerned the approval of the Erie Landfill and the issuance of a Certificate of Designa- tion, which was alleged to have violated C.R.S. § 30-20-105. Notice of Intent to File Suit under RCRA was given on December 17, 1979 by the same parties as in the Weld County litigation. The notice alleged the violation of EPA regulations published in 44 Fed.Reg. No. 179 on Thursday, September 13, 1979 and corrected on September 21, 1979. In the opinion of counsel, the action will not succeed because EPA regulations are not mandatory as held in City of Philadelphia v. State of Sew Jersey, 376 A.2d 888 (1977) . Out of the 1980 transcript I have marked for copying, basic documents 1 through 6, 17, 18, 19, 24 (including Memorandum of Agreement between Weld County and Colorado Landfill dated June 6, 1979 in furtherance of certificate dated September 5, 1979) , 25, 29, 37, 42 . 1990 TRANSCRIPT Tab 1_ - indenture of Trust dated August 15. 1990 At page 8, the bonds are subject to redemption by the County upon the direction of the company if "t7 ass of permits or licenses as in each case renders either kJx both of the landfills unsatisfactory to the company for their intended use. " Section 2.07 (k) and (1) regarding opinion of bond counsel and counsel to the company as requirements. -4- 931061 1 SEP 28 '92 04'39PM section 3. 10 entitled "Expanded use Fund" states, "The Company has represented that altogether the Landfills currently have a permitted capacity of approximately 28,500,000 cubic yards (a/k/a "gate yards") , for which it charges fees, tipping fees) ." The company is required to keep records of the yards of available space used each month and to pay 15% of the tipping fee on amounts disposed in excess of 125, 000 gate yards per month. Funds are to be used to redeem bonds. Article IV contains the covenants of the county. Section 4.05 provides that the County shall observe all of its obligations and other financing agreement in that parts of the financing agreement granting rights to the trustee are incorporated by reference into the indenture of trust for the benefit of the trustee. It also provides, "The County agrees that the Trustee as assignee of the Financing Agreement may enforce, in its name or in the name of the County, all rights of the County and all obligations of the Company under and pursuant to the Financing Agreement for and on behalf of the Bondholders, whether or not the County is in default hereunder. " Tab 2 - Financina Aareement dated August 15. 1990 between Weld( o +nay and Waste Services Corporation Section 2.2 (i) provides that the "Landfills will be utilized and maintained in such manner as to conform with all applicable zoning, planning, building, environmental, and other regulations of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Landfills." Section 4.3 provides that "the County covenants it will not take any action to interfere with the Company's ownership of the Landfills or to prevent the mldfills during the$ ession of the an term of this Financing Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein. " Section 6. 1 provides that the Company will keep the land- fills in good repair and operating condition in accordance with the Peed of Trust and may make any "additions, modifications or improvements to the Landfills" if such changes do not impair the character of the landfills as a "project" under the Colorado TDB Act or impair the exemption of interest from taxation. Article VII is entitled "Special Covenants." Section 7.1 "The County makes no warranty, either express or implied, as to the Project or that it will be suitable for the Company's purposes or needs." -5- 931061 J23 SEP c': 'Sj 04:4JPN Section 7. 2 subject to Section 8.1 "The Company agrees that during the term of this Financing Agreement it will maintain its existence and will not wind-up or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets or sell or otherwise transfer to another entity all or substantially all of its assets as an entirety and thereafter wind-up. " Tab 3 - Deed of Trust, Security Aareement and Fixture Financing statement from Waste Services Cornoration to Public Trustee of Weld County for the Benefit of Central Hank. Denver dated Au- gust 15, 1990 Tab 11 - The county passed Ordinance No. 159 on July 30, 1990 approving the 1990 bond issue and the redemption of the 1980 issue. Section 15 of the County's ordinance again provides that the ordinance is an emergency ordinance because the Series 1990 B bonds were required under federal tax laws to be issued and delivered prior to September 1, 1990 in order to refinance Landfill No. 1 (Greeley-Milliken) . In addition to the two transcripts, the law firm had File No. 90-004 entitled "Weld County, Waste Services Corp. Proj . , prior transactions." The file consisted of one accordion file containing two unmarked manila folders. The folders contained loose documents, most of which were never hole-punched for attachment to any file. In the first manila folder are miscellaneous documents pertaining to the period 1985 and 1986. Many documents concern- ing UCC filings. I have requested copies of assignment agreement dated 1/14/86 and 12/3/85 agreement between Colorado Landfill, Inc. and Waste Services, Inc. Second manila folder. Copies requested include: • Resolution of County Commissioners dated December 9, 1985, Amendment to Loan Agreement between Weld County and Colorado Landfill dated December 9, 1985. • Letter from John Houtchins to Thomas Hellerich dated November 22, 1985 re: Eaton Landfill. • Letter from Hellerich to Colorado Landfill dated Decem- ber 17, 1985. • Letter from Laidlaw Waste Systems to Keirnes Corpora- tion dated November 20, 1985 appraising value of Weld -6- p 931061 124 SEF co '11c U4:41F4'1 County site with 6 million cubic yards of air space remaining at $1,500,000. • Letter from American Appraisal Company to Keirnes Corporation dated September 7, 1983 appraising Greeley landfill. • Projected statements of cash flow for Waste services, Inc. for years 11/30/86 through 11/30/90. • Invoices from Warzyn Engineering for work performed in 1984. The second file folder has a label that reads "Weld County Landfill 85-116, Property Transfer. " I requested: • Letter from Leonard Banowetz to Robert Talon dated December 13, 1985. • Letter from Hellerich to Colorado Landfill dated Novem- ber 14, 1985. • Loose in the file is a 32-page report entitled "Engi- neering Feasibility Study for Landfill Operations in Weld County, Colorado for Colorado Landfill, Inc. " dated August 1979, Project No. 9012 prepared by Nelson Engineers in Greeley. Handwritten notation on the face of the document says "Outdated." The report notes that in June 1979 Colorado Landfill, Inc. obtained approval by the Weld County Commissioners giving it rights as the exclusive operator of landfills in Weld County. • Summons and Complaint in Board of Trustees of the Town of Erie: Skies Unlimited. Inc. . et al. V. EPA: CDH: County Commissioners of Weld County: Colorado Landfill filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colo- rado on April 28, 1980 and bearing civil action no. 80 548 requesting declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and costs under RCRA alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. i 6941, at was Plaintiffs, attorney was Frank H. Roberts, Jr. in Wheat Ridge at 422-3452 . The Com- plaint alleged that the facility would be an open dump under 42 U.S.C. §§ 6945(a) and 6944 (a) . -7- iv 931061 /96 tzite • ' • d 3.a 00 c,) 4 ? /4 St/ tiiCYGnecL -e-sa . /ob3jc DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1 1517- 18 AVENUE COURT 111111c. GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 L H PROTECTION (303)353-0635 HEALTH PROTECTION(303)353-0835 COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353-0639 COLORADO • October 26, 1992 Victor Sainz Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Victor: Our Division has been made aware of a situation at the Central Weld County Sanitary Landfill which may warrant a discharge permit. On the Southeast corner of the facility a pipe discharges into a surface impoundment called Spomer Lake and ultimately into the Big Thompson River. This pipe is apparently perforated and runs underneath the filled area of the landfill. It appears that this "underdrain" effectively acts as a leachate collection system. I am enclosing for your review a copy of the analytical results of this "underdrain" which were recently completed and submitted to this Division. Our Division would greatly appreciate any assistance which you may offer. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 353-0635. Sincerely, Trevor Jiricek SkeetaLit Sov � 14)4414- A� atIA Environmental Protection Specialist • n f'� ptocg ' TJ/2200rp — U (" "� Vncl-Q,a4(.-i.. 41ec4 vcn es3 ( t CO A- 931061 l , _ ;`1 26 ' 92 17: 19 PAGE . 002 *at' ‘ OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY • PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4391 P.O BOX P.O.BOX 1949 WI ipGREELEY.COLORADO 90032 C. COLORADO October 26, 1992 Rent E. Hanson Attorney at Law Canyon Center 1881 9th Street, Suite 216 Boulder, CO 80302 Via Fa No. 443-6490 RE: Central Weld Landfill Dear Mr. Hanson: I was out of town the week of the October 19th and have just returned to see your letter of October 16, 1992. I will not be in a position to assist the commissioners in formulating a response to your s .mands within the deadline you have imposed. You will receive a further response within the next several days. I find it troubling that you now attack the approach taken in the letters of September 18, 1992 and September 28, 1992 when, in fact, .) you appeared to agree with the appropriateness of the County' s actions in our telephone converaatinl of September 16 1992. Thank you for your cooperation. ti,Ail h C. tir'r, SA f. , .??-1‘ IL Ver truly yours, 0 �.. Lee D. Morrison Assistant Weld County Attorney LDM/db pc: Board of County Commissioners John Pickle 931061 is IV ** TOTAL PAGE . 002 ** C) DA-It• Ill4lc�/ Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood K I, It I- Neighbors, S° "pk You should all be very proud of yourselves for the past two months of work. We've made a tremendous amount of progress regarding the landfill issue. In particular: 1. The county has moved on several issues: a. They requested that Waste Services provide an EDOR that is due on November 12 . We will receive a copy of this report. b. They requested that Waste Services apply for two waste water discharge permits (i.e. The Landfill underdrain, and the Spomer Lakes) . c. They requested more comprehensive testing of the landfill with special emphasis on VOC's and Heavy Metals. d. They requested that we be present during any remediation meetings with the state and Waste Services. 2. George Kennedy was not re-elected. Barbara Kirkmeyer was elected and has an expressed interest in landfill operations in Weld County. Dale Hall and George Baxter were elected but we don't what they will do. 3 . For the first time (in 21 years) the STATE Health Department is now actively involved in the Central Weld Landfill issue. Austin Buckingham's supervisor is Glen Mallory and he is representing the State in this problem and hopefully, he should prove to be more sensitive to the needs of the community. 4 . The fight is not over by a long shot. WE still must convince the County and the State to do several things: a. Require Waste Services to go to Appendix II full spectrum contamination testing. The officials I've spoken with have indicated that this seems to be a reasonable course of action to establish the identity and extent of contamination. To date, we still do not know exactly what contaminants exist in the groundwater and discharges from the underdrain and Spomer Lakes. } 9;1061 / 8 b. Have a Public Hearing on the Central Weld County Landfill. We have always maintained that the Certificate of Designation was not valid for two reasons. (1) the original conditions were never met in 1971; no EDOR was filed with the State or County. (2) When Waste Services sold out to Waste Management, another Certificate of Designation should have been required. The county is now requiring a EDOR• from Waste Services but we must convince them of the need of a Public Hearing. This hearing will allow us to present our concerns and proposed requirements to the County Commissioners and a record of our comments made. c. Request the Landfill be closed and a closure plan established that ensures long term monitoring. d. Request the discharges of the Landfill be cleaned up and a permanent remediation plan be established that will prevent further contamination downgradiant. e. Request the State deny Waste Services from obtaining a permit to discharge any fluids from the Underdrain or from Spomer Lakes. Waste Services has applied for this permit (only because our group discovered that no discharge permit had been granted or even applied for as late as one week ago) and I urge every one to sign the sample letter we've attached and send it by "return receipt requested" to the State Health Department. The address is listed on the letter. I urge you to send the letter now since the State is considering the application now. f. Ensure that the County is aware of Waste Management's background. We want to send a clear message that we don't want their business in Weld County since their established history of business practices make it "clear that Waste Management engages in practices designed to gain undue influence over government officials. " This behavior is a repeat of San Diego, Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale and several other cities. Your letters to the editor of the Greeley Tribune, Windsor Beacon, Johnston Breeze, to the County Commissioners, State and Federal elected representatives, State Health Department have really made a difference. WRITE TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR PAPER. WRITE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. A" 931061 ia9 WRITE TO YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN. DON'T STOP NOW. CONTINUE APPLYING THE PRESSURE. The six areas we need to work on are listed above. Pick one and send a letter. Try and write several letters. It's the only way we are heard. 911061 /30 U. S . SEA.)ATE& vo Asti itaecrct.3 O.• Zoato ueoy THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH • IS MOVING! When? Move to the new location will occur October 2-5, 1992. Friday, October 2nd through Monday, October 5th, the Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division will be closed. The Division will resume regular business hours on Tuesday, October 6, 1992. Please note that all Open Records Act (ORA) requests should be made prior to Wednesday, September 23, 1992. Beginning September 24 through October 6, the files will be unavailable for Public Review due to the move. ORA requests will resume on Wednesday, October 7, 1992. Where? The Campus at Cherry Creek Address? Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division Mail Code (see below) / Attention: _ 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 To expedite mail delivery, please include one of the following mail codes as appropriate: Administration HMWMD-ADM-B2 Remedial Programs HMWMD-RP-B2 Hazardous Waste Control HMWMD-HWC-B2 Storage Tank Remediation HMWMD-SWIM-B2 & Solid Waste Programs The Division will be located in Building B on the second floor. . New phone numbers are as follows: General Information: (303) 692-3300 Open Records Act Requests (303) 692-3303 Public Assistance: (303) 692-3320 Storage Tank Technical Assistance: (303) 692-3330 Telefax Number: (303) 759-5355 Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding during the move! • 931061 /3/ 2 • In conclusion, why not spend the $10, 000, 000 or so it would take to build a slurry wall and clean up, ON AND OFF SITE? Let's put Central Weld Landfill behind us! Sincerely, / 91612 Harold Daniels 23732 WCR 271 Milliken, CO 80543 339-0629 or 587-2265 copies: Governor Romer Senator Tim Wirth Senator Hank Brown Congressman Wayne Allard Mr. Dave Owen Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Defense Fund Ms. Austin Buckingham, Colorado Health Department Mr. Glenn Mallary, Colorado Health Department Ms. Pam Harley, Colorado Health Department Mr. Ronald J. Farlina, Colorado Health Department R. Allison, Weld County Planning Mr. John Pickle, Weld County Health Department Weld County Commissioners 331061 /3, a November 10, 1992 Mr. Glen Mallory Program Manager Solid and Hazardous Waste Division Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80222-1530 Dear Mr. Mallory: As a concerned citizen and landowner I am taking this opportunity to comment on your agency's proposed solid waste regulations scheduled to be taken before the Colorado State Board of Health in a hearing for adoption on November 18, 1992• After review of the draft regulations provided to me by Austin Buckingham of your office and comparing them to the Environmental Protection Agency's Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Final Rule (published in the October 9, 1991 edition of the Federal Register) and the solid waste regulations developed and adopted by the State of New Mexico (filed December 31, 1991) in compliance with EPA's ruling I am suggesting some additional language for inclusion in your proposed regulations. Under section 3 - Standards for Solid Waste Disposal Landfill Sites and Facilities of the proposed Regulations Pertaining To Solid Waste Disposal Sites And Facilities is subsection 3.1 - Location Restrictions And Site Standards. The State of New Mexico's Solid Waste Management Regulations contain the comparable section : Part III - Maximum Size Of Facility and subsection : 302 - Siting Criteria For Landfills (both attached) . I direct your attention to 302(A) (2) which states no landfill shall be located "where depth to seasonal high water table will be closer than 100 feet to the bottom of the fill". I suggest that the proposed Colorado regulations contain a similar depth to groundwater provision under subsection 3.1. Such a provision would serve to strengthen your 3.1.11 clause in the protection of groundwater from contamination. My property is located in Weld County less than a quarter of a mile from the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. I am concerned about groundwater contamination resulting from solid waste burial in that landfill. I am a trained geologist and I can assure you that sink holes and the geologic phenomenon known as piping are prevalent in the clayey formations that exist in that area. Piping can tansport water subsurface both horizontally and vertically as rapidly as water can flow through a plastic pipe. As I grew up there I witnessed this phenomenon numerous times and am confident I could provide evidence of piping occuring on my property at any time of the year. It has been brought to my attention that solid waste has been buried at the landfill site in 6 feet of water at times. This does not surprise me as I have groundwater fed springs on my property that flow all year and serve as watering holes for my livestock and an abundance of natural wildlife. The groundwater table is quite shallow (close to the surface) and contamination of area groundwater through subsurface migration through buried waste at the landfill is 931061 /33 an undeniable consequence that should not be allowed. Perhaps if my suggested language were included in your proposed regulation these types of undesirable effects on groundwater could be better precluded. I appreciate your consideration of my suggestions and concerns. Sincerely, /%tGr- Albion Carlson 7191 49th street Greeley. CO 80631 931061 134 NEW MEXICO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS As prepared by the Solid Waste Bureau of the Envrionment Department Filed on December 31, 1991 93,1061 / NEW MEXICO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS SOLID WASTE BUREAU New Mexico Environment Department P 931061 /_3G& I PART III ilt MAXIMUM SIZE OF FACILITY; SITING CRITERIA 301 . MAXIMUMSIZE 37 302. SITING CRITERIA FOR LANDFILLS 37 303. SITING CRITERIA FOR COMPOSTING FACILITES 38 304. SITING CRITERIA FOR TRANSFORMATION FACILITES 38 PART IV SOLID WASTE FACILITY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS , 401. GENERAL OPERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SOLID WASTE FACILITES {tt ES ;� 402. ADDITIONAL LANDFILL OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 40 403. ADDITIONAL TRANSFER STAION OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 41 H' 404. ADDITIONAL TRANSFORMATION FACILITY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 42 405. ADDITIONAL RECYCLING AND PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 43 406. ADDITIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 44 PART V CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS t 501 . LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 4 502. COMPOSTING CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 46 503. FOR OTHER SOLID WASTE FACILITIES, CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 46 PART VI OPERATOR CERTIFICATION 601. GENERALPROVISIONS 47 P 602. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE 47 603. LANDFILL TRAINING COURSE 48 604. RECYCLING FACILITY TRAINING COURSE AND PROCESSING FACILITY 48 TRAININGCOURSE 49 605. TRANSFORMATION FACILITY TRAINING COURSE 49 606. COMPOSTING FACILITY TRAINING COURSE 50 607. TRANSFER STATION TRAINING COURSE 50 608. EXAMINATION 50 609. RECIPROCITY 50 µ 610. RECERTIFICATION 51 611. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE 4 4 1 ii i A 931061 A3 9- establishment of the priority list. D. The interim status of any solid waste facility granted by Subsection A. 1 or 8.3 of this section: 1. shall automatically terminate upon: a. final closure, if accomplished prior to the issuance of a permit; b. suspension of operation for more than one year; c. the failure of the owner or operator to submit the results of a preliminary site assessment in accordance with Subsection B.3.b of this section if applicable; or d. the Secretary's final order on a permit application; and 2. may be revoked or suspended for violation of an applicable provision of these regulations in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Department's Rules Governing Appeals from Compliance Orders; provided that for purposes of the Department' s Rules Governing Appeals from Compliance Orders, interim status shall be deemed to be a permit. E. The operator of any solid waste facility operating under interim status shall comply with all applicable provisions of Part IV of these regulations. PART III MAXIMUM SIZE OF FACILITY; SITING CRITERIA 301. MAXIMUM SIZE. The Secretary shall not issue a permit for any active solid waste facility larger than five hundred acres. 302. SITING CRITERIA FOR LANDFILLS. -- A. Except as otherwise provided in Subsection B of this section, no landfill shall be located in the following areas: 1. floodplains, within 500 feet of wetlands, or 200 feet of watercourses; 2. where depth to seasonal high water table will be closer than 100 feet to the bottom of the fill; 3. where subsurface mines are considered to be a problem as defined by New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, or in an area subject to sink holes; 4. within 200 feet of a fault that has had a displacement within Holocene time (i.e. , the past 11 000 years ) , unless all pollution control structures, including liners, leachategqcollection systems, and surface water control systems, arehdesignedttoiresl ist the msaximum horizontal acceleration in 5. within historically or archaeologically significant sitesL unless in compliance with Cultural Properties Ac , Sections 18-6-1 to 18-6-23 NMSA 1978, and the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act, Sections 18-8-1 to 18-8-8 NMSA 1978; 6. within 1,000 feet of public water supply well or EIB/SWMR-3 37 931061 /38 • NCI Mountain Management of North America, !nc. RECEIVED Mountain Region 5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. •Suite 400 NOV 1 $ 1992 Englewood, Colorado 80111 3031770.3324 KENT E.hAiN uN November 12, 1992 Mr. George Kennedy, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Central Weld County Sanitary Landfill Dear Chairman Kennedy: _ I would like to take this opportunity to respond on behalf of Waste Services Corporation to your letter, dated September 28th, to Mr. Bill Hedberg. In that letter, you requested that a plan containing geological, hydrological, engineering and operational information be submitted within forty-five (45) days from the date of the letter. Let me begin by stating that Waste Services has, over the past several months, provided the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) and Weld County Health Department (WCHD) with a great deal of information including the following reports: DOCUMENT SUBMITTED • PAP B-910 Special Waste Program _ March 12, 1992 for the Waste Services Corporation Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Hydrogeological and Geotechnical August 4, 1992 Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Central Weld October 2, 1992 Sanitary Landfill Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan for Central Weld October 2, 1992 Sanitary Landfill Confirmation Groundwater Sampling Results for October 5, 1992 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Expanded Hydrogeological Investigation at the October 23, 1992 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Third Quarter November 6, 1992 1992 Landfill Gas Monitoring Results A- 931061 /R6) • y f • liifQ1 Mr. George Kennedy November 12, 1992 Page 2 Much of the information (particularly geological and hydrological information) requested in your September 28th letter was provided in these reports. In addition, we have submitted today, to the WCHD, three copies of a Conceptual Site Development Plan for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. This document is, by necessity, preliminary in nature as the State has not yet finalized its regulations relative to Subtitle "D." These plans include nine sheets focused on operating fill sequence, final contours and related cross sections. Additional plan sheets focusing on key design details will be included in the future. In addition, we intend, by the end of 1992, to submit the following: DOCUMENT Preliminary Site Development Plan & Design and Operations Plan for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Third Quarter Groundwater Sampling Results Additional Surface Water Sampling and Analysis at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Discharge Permit Applications Recommendations concerning the VOC issue at Central Weld Sanitary Landfill On Monday, November 9th, representatives of Waste Services Corporation met with Lee Morrison and John Pickle, of Weld County, to review our program. They both expressed satisfaction with our progress. I would point out to you, as I did to Mr. Morrison, that we do not believe that a public hearing is required. I refer you to the attached copy of the Transcript of Proceedings of a December 22, 1989 hearing before the Honorable Richard P. Matsch in the United States District Court. ` ;. In delivering his opinion, dismissing certain actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance n,t Corporation against the City and County of Denver, Arapahoe County, the State Department of Health, and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc., Judge Matsch discussed, at length, the application of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-20-123, formerly-Colo. Rev. Stat. § 36-23-3, which was referenced in your letter. I quote from page 9 of the transcript: 931081 /Y-0 • Mr. George Kennedy November 12, 1992 Page 3 Now: the requirement by regulation for an amended application " can be valid if it's considered to simply require an operator or an owner to call to the attention of the Colorado Department of Health and the county any changes in operations which might result or cause an enforcement action to be considered. There is no statutory authority for a public hearing in acting on an application for an amended certificate. We would be pleased to discuss any of the above matters with you at your convenience. We appreciate your interest in this matter. Very truly yours, y(JCL. _ '1i iii William A. Jeffry Associate Region Counsel WAJ:nlp Attachment cc: Lee Morrison (w/attachment) Assistant Weld County Attorney Commissioners: Constance Harbert (w/o attachment) C.W. Kirby (w/o attachment) Gordon Lacy (w/o attachment) W.H. Webster (w/o attachment) • 931061 _ 1511 MEETING OF 11/16/92 IN MR. PICKLE 'S OFFICE, WELD COUNTY RE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS. Mr. Hedberg:_ history of facility; 1971 obtained permit. Chance of ownership 79-86 Colo Landfill ; 1986 Waste Services Inc. ; 1991 became "wholly owned subsidiary" of Waste Management. Built diversion trenches in 90 and 91 in NE corner of property to divert irrigation water around landfill . Undertook assessment of total goal to comply with Subsec D in 1989. In 1991 determined WM can comply with Subsec O, full compliance and environmental , responsibility. Alan: What types of waste into site'? ^Have a system to insure no hazardous wastes into site; accept only what is authorized. Any special problems go through Special Waste Plan. Last Febor M'Ar submitted Plan on handling of Special Waste. In Feb or Mar 92 began this project---retained Golder and submitted report. Water and Gas Monitoring Plan submitted 8/92. Expanded investigation in 9/92 as result of complaints. Will have Golder continue surface investigation. This report should be submitted in next couple weeks. Last Thursday submitted concept of site development Plan (9 pages drawings) Will he doing further refining of the conceptual plans. Ord Cluarteer monitoring results and gas monitoring. Hedberg: Final Operations Plan coming. Lorrie Taaawa (project hydrologist for WM) giving discussion of monitoring , looking toward compliance with Subtitle D. Drew pictures on board with help of geologist from Golder . ( I hadn 't realized a second French drain along East side of property into pond) Their conclusion was no significant findings over upgrade backgrounds. doak:Quesion re contamination of Spomer Lakes by west drain: Sampled inlet and outlet; consistent with background. A couple VOC 's just above detection. Surface water investigation-- milky water offsite bel for VOC 's and metal lowest metals--very comparable to led lo discharge and standpipe regular groundwater--consisted with background. No VOC 's. Depth of old drain 9 feet below surface, perforated metal pipe backfilled with gravel , built in 1980 ' s. (sj 931061- i. /(04 Doak: Is there any trash in groundwater: believe some shallow groundwater in contact with trash in upper NW site. Propose diverting agr water into storm pond in NW corner . Mallory: What does developmental Plan provide? Alan: Conceptual Plans will provide more detail for design! Intend to keep standing water off and divert water from North. Mallory: What is the depth of the ground water? 3-4 ' at. ponds; 15-50 ' on NE corner. Now filling in NE part of site. Have you been doing recent excavations in other parts? Geotech borings in middle ellipse. May be a pocket that needs investigation--may be wet. Have not characterized it yet. Pckle: Did any wells penetrate lower weathered bedrock? Sampled alluvium; upper weathered bedrock anti deeper lower weathered bedrock. No communication between the wells. Pickle: What about vertical contamination? Clay soils will prevent vertical contagmi nati on. Have found a "dry zone" between aquifers. No communication between the aquifers. Silts, clay soil and sandstone; Lar i mer-'FoX Hills . PRESENTATION BY A. SCHEERE OF C0NCEPUTAL MAPS (9 SHEETS) SUBMITTED TO PICKLE LAST THURSDAY 11/12/92 "Conceptual Maps - 9 pages" (1 ) Site conditiions (2) Disposal Seq # 1 (3) Mound (don 't know what is in it) (4) Elevation How much currently filled? Scheere: Now at 4840, estimated 4870 in center , gradual slope. 3(*a) view of landfill in finished form. Trying to make environment safe. Notr safe now. Need to keep site open and make revenue so can be finished off correctly and move on. Pr 931061 1605 Pickle; What time period? Scheere: 10-12 years life, provided proper drainage. Hedburg: volume changes--uncertain life--assume 2% growth per year. (6) shows final elevations. Assumes mound artifically induced. (7) Final elevations. (8) Cross sections - final elevation and existing grade. How much settlement? Scheere: 5-1U%. . Not built into computations yet. Still 3 drains for positive runoff--enough Mallory: Any air emissions permit? Scheere: Filed 1,9allonyn If Board 2pp rovers---agenda chanced. Will not set hearing date on Colorado regulations until January. Will hear in February. 30 days after hearing. ame as Fed? Generally. Pickle: Is more extensive testing required by Subsection D of Federal regulations? No significant difference between upgrade and Waste Mgt: ther downgrade t will'lgatherd goodher testing background ndata.Wi )on 'tll rneed assess facility , line. No assessment monitoring. Filling occurred up to property offset migration now on south perimeter. Pickle: Should determine whether there is a problem. Worried about VOC's on south perimeter. Mallory: Needs sufficient data up front to kick in Table II . Waste M: Added perameters IA testing not in Subs D. Requires 8 quarters testing--showing nothing--further not. required. Pickle: When can I get something more definitive than these drawings? Bruce:. Will instruct .Go�dirblondcontinue samples wethsdeplicates�ceWa�i groundwater monitoring. All by same technician, run samples same way • Mallory: Internal Duplicate samples? Waste M: Yes Scheere: Working with Golder. Doing everything we can. Bruce: Last thing we want is to impact environment and water supply. Safe distance to well . Will put in controls and design suitable. Pickle: Will hydropUnching be on a regular basis? routinely: . Neighbors are very sensitive--interested in doing right things. How best to mitigate impact if there is any? WARD (Golder) Only moves 10' a year Pickle: How do you get that figure? What about underground channels? Ward: Testing in shallow wells. Soil gas probes into water . Drains from flow direction. Pickle: Will water preferentially travel faster . WARD: No evidence of conduit or sand lens in all drilling and testing. LYNN: No evidence of any transporting sand lens. Moiving JO , per year . springs and seeps along North side sidesid aretaso is te. dfal with irrigation in division trenche_ all s and rises every few years. Can figure rate of movement in oil by looking up soil type in a book. WASTE M Will have proposal in a co.iple weeks on recommendations. L: nn: WM trying to find out what happened over 20► years and find solutions. Waste M: Will have text for Plan of Operation by end of year. (ej 924061 i� '�- / V i,;, W.r.. � Lt S-Li (/) r. .ARNAAskol ca)._ `ILer.v uSe tes die ,3ti erl .Sk- ,Lizza>„ D c_k_AJLI yD v Ply 331061 /608 ✓ c7 / fH � .� � lva —zG�u� oc.o 1 4 2 • . 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. 921061 I o 9 S. 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 sits contamination. Since the identity and extent of the contamination is unknown, we urge you to recommend further tasting 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: i. 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 leant 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 Landflll and the lack of regulation and misapplication of Colorado and Federal Law. Sincerely, Michael S. Haye► 8200 W. 49th St. Greeley, Co 80634 cc: County Commissioners, Weld County John Pickle, Weld County Health Dept. Kent Hansen /k 331061 / 7o NOV-17-92 TUE 16:09 WELD Cr 4EALTH DEPT FAX N0, 3033F^"966 P, 02 thrr DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 151716 AVENUE COURT ' GREELEY, COLORADO 60631 ADMINISTRATION (303)353-0566 TEGT• HEALTH ION(303)353 0635 COMMUNITYY HEALTH(303)353-0633 COLORADO 11-17-1992 Mr. Glenn Mallory Solid and Hazardous Waste Division Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Glenn: I have reviewed Mr. Albion Carison's letter of November 10,1992 regarding section 3 of the proposed new Solid Waste Regulations. I can attest to the statements he offers in this letter. I am not sure of the implications of his recommendation on a statewide basis, but do agree with him as he relates to the Central Weld facility. I would appreciate your consideration of his suggestion. Very truly yours, L � .Pickle, Director Environmental Protection Services Division DEC- 1-92 TUE 16:58 WELD c0 HEALTH DEFT FAX NO. 3033564966 P, 02 vat* DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1517 • 18 AVENUE COURT GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION(303)353.0635 HEALTH PROTECTION (303)353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (3031 3530639 COLORADO November 30, 1992 4 Mr. Glenn Mallory Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Dear Glenn: Our Director of Environmental Protection. John S. Pickle, has appraised me of the current situation at Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. He indicated that he has met with you and your staff on October 30, 1992, and again, with you and Waste Management on November 16, 1992, to discuss the Central Weld facility. Trevor Jiricek spoke with your staff on November 24, 1992. After the October 30th meeting, we were of the impression that your Division's preliminary assessment was that an enforcement action was justified baled upon violation of the minimum standards of the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities." A final decision was to be made after the November 16, 1992, meeting with Waste Management, but was not. Roger Doak did indicate by phone, a letter citing violations of the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Regulations is justified and will be written. we request that this letter be drafted as soon as possible. Any delay places the County in an untenable position. We are unable to respond in a timely manner to the residents in the communities adjacent to this facility without your response. Further, you are aware of the threats of litigation. and the increasing community concern regarding this issue. We need to know which direction to proceed in order to remain consistent with your Division's position. Under the circumstances however, a continued delay in determining this direction is not a suitable option. 931.061 / � 1-&c JUL 15:b9 WELD O . EALTfi DEPT PAX NU, 3033564966 P, 03 Mr. Glenn Mallory November 30, 1992 Page 2 This letter is a formal request that you complete your review of this issue without delay. Your most prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Since�e�ly, Randolph L. Gordon, M.D. , M.P.H. Director Weld County Health Department .RGUSP/lam-2429 F 931061 � Waste .'.lanaqment cr Ncrtn Arnraca. .nc. NO" 56M 0n'ain wc-: U , 5660`: �.vocc: �!aza :i:vd. E:;aie,vood. ac.^ :.�7 Swte December 17, 1992 RECEI .� r- , CA Y. ti Mr. John Pickle OFl, 1 1992 Weld County Department of Health 1517 - 16 Avenue Court Greeley, CO 80631 ; ., _ Mr. Glen Mallory Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80222-1530 RE: Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (CWSL) Dear Mr. Pickle and Mr. Mallory: Waste Services Corporation (WSC) would like to meet with the Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) regarding WSC's suggestions for interim remedial measures to mitigate offsite groundwater contamination. Specifically, we would: like to discuss the potential for placing air sparging wells upgradient of Groundwater Monitoring Well (GWMW) 5, which is located offsite at the southeast end of the CWSL. The purpose of these wells would be to treat volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were detected at low levels in a limited area around GWMW-5 and thereby provide a prompt and effective remedy to the identified presence of VOCs in the shallow groundwater in that area. In addition, WSC envisions installing a treatment device such as a shallow tray air stripper or a granular activated carbon treatment unit for the outfall of the underdrain located west of the CWSL. Either device would be used to remove low levels of VOCs detected in the outfall that drains to one of four manmade ponds referred to as the Spomer Lakes. BACKGROUND Prior to the July 1991 merger of WSC with Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (WMC) , WSC conducted hydrogeologic and groundwater investigations at the site. These investigations include: * War:yn Engineering Inc. , 1984, "Hydrogeologic Assessment, Greeley Landfil :. Weld County, Colorado. " f: CWSL 3.1 to\L&M\dec10.01\ehi /4- 931061 19-0 Mr. John Pickle Mr. Glen Mallory Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Page 2 * Industrial Compliance, 1991, "Ground-Water Investigation, Waste Services Corporation, Central Weld Sanitary Landfill. " The Warzyn, 1984 , report was based on a field investigation program which consisted of installing five shallow groundwater monitoring wells (GWMW-1 through GWMW-5) , conducting in-site permeability tests, and groundwater/surface water quality sampling. The geology, hydrogeology, and water quality of the site were evaluated in this report. The Industrial Compliance, 1991, report characterized the site for the potential of leachate and methane generation. In addition, an evaluation of the conceptual design of a diversion ditch was presented. The field investigation involved the installation of several piezometers to observe groundwater elevations in and around the site. After the merger, WSC conducted an additional hydrogeologic characterization of CWSL which included: (1) installing ten new groundwater monitoring wells; (2) significantly increasing the number of groundwater constituents analyzed; and (3) expanding the number of sample locations to include the new groundwater monitoring wells, a culvert for upgradient surface water at the north end of the site, an outfall for the french drain at the east end of the site, and the outfall for the previously-mentioned landfill underdrain. The analytical results from the additional characterization has shown the presence of low levels of VOCs in certain shallow groundwater monitoring wells, including GWMW-5, at the downgradient (south) side of the site. Low levels of VOCs were also detected in the outfall of the landfill underdrain. The locations of all monitoring/sampling points are shown on Figure 1. This additional site characterization effort (including the analytical results) was presented to the WCDH and the CDH in a report entitled "Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado" dated July 1992 . In addition, and based on this additional site characterization work, WSC supplemented its existing groundwater monitoring program by preparing the "Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado" dated August 1992 . This more extensive plan has been submitted to WCDH and CD: f: CWSL 3.1 is\L&M\dec10.01\ehi f 931061 n i Mr. John Pickle Mr. Glen Mallory Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Page 3 Confirmation sampling conducted by WSC under its own initiative verified the presence of VOCs in the monitoring locations where VOCs had been initially detected. Based on this analytical data, an expanded investigation was conducted by WSC south of the site to characterize the lateral extent of VOCs in the shallow groundwater. This investigation showed low levels of VOCs in the area immediately adjacent to GWMW-5, about 25 feet south of the site near the southeast corner. No VOCs were detected at sampling locations 200 feet downgradient of the site. The results of this investigation were presented to WCDH and CDH in a report entitled "Expanded Hydrogeological Investigation at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Colorado", dated October 23 , 1992 . SHALLOW GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION USING AIR SPARGING Air sparging is a physical/chemical remediation technique for removing dissolved contamination by introducing oxygen into the groundwater and converting the contamination compounds into the vapor phase. Air injection wells are typically installed into areas of contaminated groundwater, and positive pressure is applied to the wells. The air is diffused through the screened interval of the well into the formation groundwater. Air bubbles contacting dissolved/adsorbed phase contaminants cause the VOCs to volatilize. Air sparging essentially turns the saturated zone into an air stripper using the soil as packing. The air carrying the volatilized compounds migrates to the ground surface through natural mechanisms. A conceptual schematic of an air sparging system is provided in Figure 2 . LANDFILL UNDERDRAIN REMEDIATION OF VOCs As previously indicated, two potential types of treatment for the landfill underdrain outfall are air stripping and granular activated carbon treatment. Shallow tray air strippers use air which is forced through baffled aeration trays to remove VOCs from water. The water to be treated is sprayed into an inlet chamber of the unit and flows along a baffled aeration tray. Air, blown up through small holes in the aeration tray, forms a froth of bubbles generating a large mass transfer surface area where the VOCs are volatilized. A conceptual illustration of a shallow tray air stripper is included as Figure 3 . Granular activated carbon treatment, or carbon adsorption, would use sealed single-use canisters packed with activated carbon. Carbon adsorption is a physical/chemical process that removes VOCs from an aqueous or vapor phase and bonds them to the surface of a solid phase medium (carbon) . A typical adsorption operation would f: CwSL 3.1 is\L&M\dec10.01\ehi 91061 A ion Mr. John Pickle Mr. Glen Mallory Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Page 4 likely consist of two treatment canisters connected in series. Water to be treated would enter the canister inlet, flow through the carbon, and exit at the outlet. The internal pore structure of the activated carbon provides a large surface area for adsorption of VOCs. WSC filed a Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) application for the landfill underdrain with the CDH Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) on November 25, 1992 . Employment of either method for treating VOCs in the underdrain will be subject to WQCD's approval based on its review of the application. FUTURE REMEDIAL MEASURES WSC is currently performing quarterly sampling and analysis of the groundwater monitoring wells. After eight sampling events are completed (2nd quarter, 1994) a statistical program will be developed to determine the potential impact of groundwater from the landfill. Development of this program is in response to requirements of Section 2 .2 . 3 of the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities" Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, Colorado Revised Statutes. The program will be modified as necessary to conform to any changes brought about by the State of Colorado's anticipated 1993 Subtitle D Program. Until a statistical program is in place and a permanent remedy is determined, the air sparging wells could serve as an interim remedy to address the presence of VOCs in offsite shallow groundwater. It must be recognized, however, that by proceeding with a remediation method (e.g. air sparging) prior to completion of the eight quarters of sampling, the remediation may affect the statistical data on which a long term remedy would be based for GWMW-5 and GWMW-5N which is located onsite immediately north of GWMW-5. Whether the potential downside impacts on development of the statistical data base override the positive aspects of undertaking an interim remedy is an issue we would like to discuss . with WCDH and CDH. Regardless of the approach ultimately decided upon, WSC wishes to reaffirm its commitment to employ appropriate measures necessary to mitigate and prevent adverse site-related environmental impacts. f: CWSL 3.1 is\LSM\dec10.01\ehi /1- 931061 /3/ Mr. John Pickle Mr. Glen Mallory Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Page 5 Please contact Bill Hedberg at 330-2641 (Greeley) or Alan Scheere at 770-3324 (Englewood) should you have questions. We will call you in the next few days to request a meeting date convenient to your schedules. Sincerely, • Sl y �l att-fi ce-ketz Bill Hedberg Alan Scheere Division V.P. Landfill Operations Environmental Specialist Enclosures cc: Trevor Jiricek, WCDH Roger Doak, CDH Patricia Nelson, CDH, WQCD Barbara Taylor, CDH, WQCD Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney f: CWSL 3.1 is\L&M\dec10.01\ehi /� 921061 /8, - -S( ,-.t v6 -et In Y F oNa t B GGt w. Is sw Pd Y g oTa oz Ii Z u� so oz / i m W Wa s« ar l La� .4 z m z ,r fi7ti ki an wit wi ER .., t� g _ n" < ttc N V _ _ ,\.;. W z . —� `9 t - --'",� I • � '_� \ c, _ < h �ii a ti's 5 I „ 7 _ i \ \ iu 61 \ ,I . . R \ a. iiit 3 s. 1a la \\ :i ��, �I� \: (e, _r\t C. � � J _\ N.--NN \�� _ l I �\ / ` l �. 1 I` ' t` ' 1 II \ � � , �-� �1 ! iy i a n W Po yol ra _ Ui0. • g iy. co S` J $ f, _ _ ' � � 0 12 o y a �[�O.'�' n.:.�i. :f::l'•i gem 6) Q O1 LL g . :.; tt6��OII3OOO!:. :f`:-:i:?iq.icrY:_..:i.;i..r-i?::Tj?c (- F PA AbCOn 4AVP�aYm r ! 4 �agoe4oa � �, 9: on }toV.r:;::(:...::.:.:a:r,•.;: jt •004.041 g � ) a Q Wn �O'O. F1. 9¢ Q J C!. CteN{u,. C., " fitragtali ; lot ��0.C'f9Paf6GOA'Qb�tiii':;:.ZVe; is ..c GDuaii•Wild:4 CV CI) .C•BOO.Q3ffCDQO,::t::i.:.Y':::..:'.Y.:rC...�W a%Q E.4a+a,g1:::�Yl�rri l�f(.`}/ V 'WYE. 1'.�,i�.�.:.. Q Q fey' :. .1': i. i.-‹,,�;tzt :i4M v;04:i i=ii -J`i:r.jyj:�.t. li:i-g>l.c•i:N;:' t�r3:a:'Ltiv:.tr jib:%:SS.}.: ti. . 1f::bi8i`:\4,::Jr•�./,'ii!'{y:i:1+`•i� i?:i.}•: :SS's; • !ii'.:::::�"'�yt:':'}ni:}`Vi,J,II...?flj .1T �1, a F' of O - ��if e:=:i:::e_; (4'.';i�;c:::L• 'i'i`iia:i° l::i:iiE ip W c i::,„:„...::,..,...:.::„........:..;,..„...:..:.........„....„,,, ..... .... . . .. . ... ... .... i:::.,.,„:„..„:„.„.„.,„,,,.,,::,,,,.„,.:„......„,..„,„,..„,„,,„ a a. W i� g• /&3 331061 Conceptual Illustration of a Shallow Tray Air Stripper AIR FLOW GAGE AIR PRESSURE GAGE TAR PRESSURE SWITCH h AIR EXHAUST WIRE PORT IIIIESSURLOr RCN,METER CONTROL LL` AERATION lie. ' TRAY y 000 e , a'CLEANOUT PARTS It H. AEPATWN 6'T MANGLES •RAW HORN d"INSPECTION PORT INLET BLOWER, WATERLE/EL AIR INTAKE MALT I1r SIGHT TUBE a. SLOWER • HOLDING y MY SNAKE PORT G Ai.I PRESSURE GAGE TEMPERATURE GAGEHAM LEVEL MARY HIGH FLOAT SWITCH FLOW CONTROL VALVE; ddTLET PUMP U' Pt.OAT SWITCHRA `. CU UM PP OVAL E SHE) • T FRAME FRONT YRW ROW SIDE VIEW WWI TL LIT - �•gowII+N�cToro�R • a 3 3 l F asAn0N MMX lOP YRW Note: This figure is intended to generally illustrate the system configuration. The actual system required may vary based on project specifications. Figure 3 931061 /F5 DEC-23-92 WED 12!46 P. 02 0 .3: STATE OF COLQIZAU ;,. • •. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH �' COLORADO p� �g �>"'�:_" . Dedcatrd to protecting n i prz arbtlro health and G�J i IS amlronment of the prop CoMrarlo t 4100 Cherry Creek Or.S. Laboratory Building Denver,Cotuedo x0222.1530 ez10 E.i i d,Avenue Phone 003)697.2000 Denver,Colorado 00220-3716 Coy Ramer 003)641-4700 • C.evun°' December 21, 1992 CERTIFIED # P 895 190 471 pa,kake�MD,MPH Bill Hedberg Waste Services Corporation 5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 400 Englewood, Colorado 80111 RE: Additional Hydrogeologicat and Geotechnical Characterization and Site Operations Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hedberg: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Health(the Division)has completed the review of the following documents submitted by Waste Services Corporation:Sanitary ail, Volgumeogical and II and II; Groundwat�Monitoring Plan for the Characterizadon for the Central Weld Sanitary Central Weld Sanitary landfill; Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan for Central Weld Sanitary ' . Landfill; Confirmation Groundwater Sampling Results for Central Weld Sanitary Landfill; Expanded ITydrogeologic l Investigation at the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill; Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Third Quarter 1992 Landfill Gas Monitoring eRul�t ;Central Wnd Sanitary Landfill Third Quarter 1992 Groundwater Sampling Results; andT de itional Surface Water Sampling and Analysis at the Central Weld Sanitary have been made under the authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Site and thereunder, Facilitiesiegd • Title Article 20, C.R.S. and with proposed t Regulations Solid Waste Regulations 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations). T were also given consideration. The operation of this facility will be governed by these regulations as soon,as they become effective. Based on the information presented in these documents the.Division has identified three areas of concern,: A. Issues which are incomplete or needing clarification. • B. Operational hnprovements. • . C Areas of non-compliance. " a;:, , • . • • -. •• . i 94.061 Ft a •d 9961799££0£ 'ON Xd3 1d30 HIld3H 00 013M LZ)91 03M Z6-EZ,03U DEC-23-92 WED 12:47 P. 03 • •Bill Hedberg . Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 2/5 A_ ISSUES WHICH ARE INCOMPLETE OR NEEDING CLARIFICATION 1_ Point #2 from the October 27, 1992 letter sent by the Division requested a cross-section relating the on-site geology, and hydrology to all ground water wells within a 1/4 mile of the facility. Please provide this information. 2. Please provide documentation which would identify if the retention pond is in direct comotunicationwith ground water,and provide clarification between the relationship of the retention pond and ground water. • 3. There seems to be some confusion over Point #8 fro the OctoberQ�,p9n2 letter. The Division requests cross-sections along (intercepting g points TP-1,1T-6 and GWMW-7)and perpendicular(intercepting monitoring points t3WMW-6, TP-6, Tf-7 SG-14 and SG-11) to the underdrain_ The Division apologizes for any misunderstanding. 4. Please provide as-built drawings for the perimeter french drain. If as-built drawings ate not available, provide an illustration which shows the extent of lined ortions, thicknesses and types of construction materials,relationship of geologic and saturated geologic units to the french drain.and 5. The Division requests that additional hydrogeologic evaluations be performed to the west of the facility. This investigation shall determine whether the Spomer Lakes are influencing ground water characteristics along the western boundary of the facility. '6. To understand the relationship between the quality of ground water from the private wells in the vicinity of the site and those at the facility, the Division requests that the following wells be sampled,.(permit159091,-i #765, 011090, and #90580). These wells shall be analyzedPleaseprovideid nrosal parameters as. the.monitoring wells at the facility. sections through the private wells to show the relationship of the landfill geologic and saturated geologic units to those of the private wells. . .. 1, Figure 1 from"Responses to Colorado Department of Health Comments on • the Hydrogeologie and Geotecbnical Characterization Report for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill" indicates an historical maximum water leveL What is the date of this water level? Please illustrate the top of the ground water. . :. surface between monitoring points. • Ground water is shown below the the eter.•rTP-4?' Please ptovide'l.an:. . • completion depth of trash • e water at this location.'..': .. explanation/data which verifies depth ground • £0 'd 996P99EE0E 'ON Mid Ld30 Hl1d3N 00 013M `8 '' 6-£Z 303 . DEC-23-92 WED 12 47 P 004 • • • a Bill Hedberg Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 3/5 8. Please explain why the detection limits were increased(Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Third Quarter 1992 Groundwater Sampling Results) for volatile organic analyses for monitoring well GWMW-5N. It appears that these limits were raised exclusively on OWMW-5N. In addition, VOC samples from monitoring wells GWMW-5N and GWMW-10,when checked by the lab(PX), did not have the required preservation of a pH less than 2. In the Division's judgement these samples are invalid and these wells must be resatnpled. • • B. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 1. In the judgement of the Division, the number of ground water monitoring points are not adequate for the southern and southeastern boundaries of the facility to delineate contaminant migration. To improve the ground water monitoring situation the Division request that additional nested wells be Installed along the south and southeastern property boundaries. Please provide all information to the Division for review. • 2. Please provide documentation which demonstrates that the french drain is adequate to transport water,and prevent continued recharge to the shallow aquifer. If the construction of the perimeter french drain is not appropriate, please provide design improvements. 3. Surface water sample locations (landfill underdraln, north discharge pipe, discharge from the french drain Into.the retention pond, and Sportier Lakes) shall be sampled for eight (8) consecutive quarters. 4. All deep ground water monitoring wells shall be monitored for eight (8) •, consecutive quarters and include all parameters as requested by the Division. Monitoring frequency and parameters may be modified, at the request of the applicant and approval by the Division,. after. completion. of required background sampling. . • 5. The proposed revised Solid Waste Regulations do not allow for field filtering • of water samples. Please make this change in all texts and Implement this plan during the neat sampling event. • • • • • , • • • • • t . • • . • . 921061 /38 60 'd 996699££0£ 'ON Xd3 J.d30 H,L183H 00 013M 8d:91 03M d6-63-030 DEC-23-9£ WED "e:48 P. 05 Bill Hedberg Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 4/5 6. Table 5.1 in the 'Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County, Colorado" is inadequate. The following parameters shall be added to Table 5-1: all 34 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) included iu the "fiydrogeological and Geotecbnlcal Characterization for the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill' carbon disulfide; dicbloroditluoromethane and trichloroiluoromethane; radionuclides; chromium; barium and nickel Table 5-1 shall be changed to read "Groundwater and Surface Water Parameter List Central Weld Sanitary Landfill 7. Ail piccometers shall be monitored for depth to ground water. Monitoring shall be conducted during each quarterly sampling event and data submitted to the Division. 8. The Division requests that those constituents identified from monitoring well GWMW-5N(target parameter list)be analyzed on a monthly basis. Sampling shall commence during January 1993 and continue for twelve(12) consecutive months. Routine quarterly sampling of this well shall continue for the established suite of parameters. If additional constituents are identified during quarterly sampling they will be added to the target list The Division will evaluate sample frequency and parameters after completion of this sampling schedule C. AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE 1. Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has contaminated the ground water. This is a violation of subsection 2.1.4 of the Regulations. The Regulations clearly state a site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall prevent water pollution. Please provide a corrective action plan which addresses the contamination issues on and off site. 2. Solid wastes have been placed into ground water at this facility. The Purpose, Scope and Applicability as defined in Section 3 of the proposed revised State's Solid Waste Regulations,defines standards for new landfills,existing landfills • •• and lateral expansions. Subsection 3.1.11 (draft of November 5, 1992)states • , landfills shalt not place wastes below or into surface water or groundwater_."... . :• •. f • • • • • • A 90 'd 9961799££0E 'ON X8d Id30 H,lld3H 00 013N 6Z:9l 03N ?6-E?-030 DEC-23 92 LOLL 12:it P, 06 • • Bill Hedberg Central Weld Sanitary Landfill December 21, 1992 page 5/5 Please be aware, the Division fully expects the proposed revised Solid Waste Regulations will become effective in the very near future. At that time Central Weld Sanitary Landfill will be in violation of area 'C, point #2 as detailed above. As the owner and operator of this facility, Waste Services Corporation, is notified that the areas of non-compliance described above are a public nuisance. Please be advised that the Division will take whatever action is deemed appropriate and necessary to obtain correction of these violations and protect the public health and environment. • These conclude the Division's comments concerning issues raised about Central Weld Sanitary LandfilL Please respond to the issues detailed above in a comprehensive document within two weeks of the receipt of this letter. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 303.692.3437. Sincerely, R Doak Glenn . Mallory Geologist Section Leader Solid Waste Section Solid Waste Section Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and • Waste Management Division Waste Management Division cc: 1. Pickle, Weld County Health Department L. Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney A Scheere, Waste Management of North America B. Taylor, CDR, WOO) L Perrault, Attorney General's Office Weld County Department of Plannirg Weld County Co¢aissioners Filet SW/WLD/CEN/('orrespondence • • ' • ...._..._.'_'....._mow_.._.,,,.,,..: 91461 90 'd 996b99£E0E 'ON Xfid Ida! Hlld3N 00 413M 63:91 (13M 36-£3-O30 9C STATE Oi , COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH t Dedicated to protecting and im rovkt the health and y. 1 0 `' r " • P g 9 V . ; U;� ; . environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building c'" • �� " e ravc' Denver,Colorado 80222.1530 4210 E.11th Avenue Phone(303)692.2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 ate,Romer (303)691-4700 i Governor Patricia Nolan,MD,MPH December 22 , 1992 A r w Exeaaive Director Bill Hedberg (y rv�r 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?— 9 31061 of 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 Taylo Environmental Engineer Water Quality Control Section Colorado Department of Health LETTER.WEL 12/22/92 PAGE 2 91,1061 /9,2 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 931061 / 98 TABLE 1 ORGANICS PESTICIDES Benzene Simazine Benzidine Vydate (Oxamyl) Bromochloromethane Picloram Bromoform Aldrin 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 6 INORGANICS Dinitrophenol 2,4 Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) Aluminum Diphenylhydrazine 1,2 Ethylbenzene Copper Heptachlor Nickel Heptachlor epoxide Zinc Hexachlorobenzene Cyanide Hexachlorobutadiene Nitrate Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma Nitrite (Lindane) Sulfide Hexachlorocyclohexane, Alpha Isophorone Methoxychlor Nitrobenzene PCB'a Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4-5 Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trichloroethane 1,1,2 Tr ichloroethene RADIOACTIVE Trichloroethylene Trichlorophenol 2,4,6 Uranium Trichlorophenoxyproprionic acid (2,4,5-tp) Vinyl chloride OTHER PARAMETERS Fecal coliforms Total suspended solids • 9n106-1 /94 December 28 , 1992 Governor Roy Romer 127 State Capitol Denver, CO 80203 Dear Governor Romer: This is a letter that has been forming for a long time. It is a letter of frustration and disappointment over responses we have received concerning Central Weld Landfill . We have written several letters to you . Two letters went to the Citizens Advocate Office . That office in turn directed aricto Colorado Department of Health and one to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The Citizens Advocate Office requested these departments reply to us directly and send them a copy. The Colorado Department of Local Affairs has not responded to date. The State Health Department responded with a letter signed by Glenn Mallory. He talked of a phase two report that was due around November 13th. He stated the report should provide a basis for any necessary remedial activities. (We also are in receipt of a letter by George Kennedy, Weld County Commissioner, asking for this phase two report: "a plan containing geological , hydrological , engineering, and operational information" and that it be submitted by November 13th. ) On November 12th, Central weld Landfill presented the Health Department with computerized drawings, no text, and verbally explained they proposed a trash mountain on this unlined, leaching facility, six blocks from the Big Thompson. After a few days, my husband called Glenn Mallory. Mr. Mallory said he had erred and that the report wasn ' t due, should be in soon, if it wasn ' t he would request it be and concluded, "They didn ' t want Central Weld Landfill to shoot them out of the saddle" . This hardly exudes confidence in our health department. I called Susen Schmitt at the Citizens Advocate Office and reported the non-action. She promised to call Glenn Mallory and respond. She never did. we are also in receipt of letters written to our elected representatives by the EPA stating . . "neither the EPA nor Colorado Department of Health have detected any significant impact on water quality in the Big Thompson or South Platte River from Central Weld Landfill" . We have been unable to get results nor admission that water tests have been done on the rivers, ( further, the discharge point from Central Weld Landfill into the river should be tested. ) Page Governor Roy Romer The letter goes on to say, "Colorado Department of Health conducted a preliminary site assessment in 1987 , but the results of any tests performed at that time are not on file . " ( Please read the 'attached Colorado Department Health Report . ) The reason no results are on file is evident --- none were done . Almost the entire form is filled with "Unknown" or "None known or observed. " Why bother to fill files with meaningless paper? One has only to go over the Colorado Department of Health files concerning this landfill to fathom the frustration with the obvious neglect and indifference of past health officials to the possible impact this landfill could have on the environment. At the present time, it is further very discouraging to have letters roaming around to various offices, only to receive meaningless or no replies. Governor Romer, in a recent speech at Fort Collins , you said, "We are going to leave Colorado better than we found it . " We trust that you will carry out this promise and do all in your power to ensuz Central Weld Landfill will clean up existing pollution, and cause no more pollution to the environment . We would like replies to, this and previous letters. Please don ' t let this letter end in another dead file. Sincerely, Madeline Daniels 23732 WCR 27 1/2 Milliken, CO 80543 924061 /96 23732 WCR 27 1/2 Milliken, CO 80543 December 30, 1992 Governor Romer 136 State Capital Building Denver, CO 80203 Dear Governor Romer: This is a follow-up to my letter of December 27, 1992 . It speaks of the Phase II, operational plan that was never written. I have further comments. . . Please give ten minutes of your life to follow this story, which is not unlike the "invisible suit" in Hans Christian Anderson's, The Emperor' s New Clothes. CWSL was given a certificate of designation by the county on October 6, 1971, under the condition that it get approval from the State Health Department. It never was State approved in all these twenty-one years (It was given approval by the County, despite opposition from adjacent landowners, who told them they couldn't control the water. . .that the table was too high, there was at least one underground spring on site and when irrigation started from above they wouldn't be able to divert all the water. In the course of time allegedly pesticides and radioactive materials were deposited. Various health officials filled out forms as early as 1978 reporting "when operations are shifted to the northwest area of site, a plan outlining the method to protect natural drainage to west part is requested by the Department. " (Yet today we have Spomer Lakes! ) CONTAMINATED SOIL HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AS LATE AS LAST WEEK. Yet on December 29, 1988, the Colorado Department of Health in a letter to Mr. Lynn Keirnes says "Should you decide to receive this material on a regular basis, it is the Department's determination that this constitutes a substantial change in operation and therefore would require an amendment to the existing Certificate of Designation. (They never had an operational plan, nor did the State ever give them approval. Nor did they amend the certificate. A amoszi9 Daniels -2- December 30, 1992 THEY ACCEPTED SLUDGE. The Colorado Department of Health wrote on February 24 , 1986, "Should Mr. Keirnes decide to continue accepting sludge at the facility, he must first submit an amended application/operational plan to the Department. . . " As late as September 18 . 1992 , the CDH admits "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. " Thus, we have the invisible suit of Hans Christian Anderson. THEY ACCEPTED NON-FRIABLE ASBESTOS. We have Wes Potter, former Weld County Health Director stating, "Since CWSL has a Certificate of Designation from the State of Colorado, it is allowable under the above mentioned regulations for you to receive non-friable asbestos containing waste. " A letter dated as late as October 28, 1992 from WCH states they had accepted it at that time. They had no State Certificate of Designation. (Another invisible suit! ) It is hard to imagine how many "invisible suits" are buried there! It is really sad that this beautiful land so close to the Big Thompson was left to such gross neglect. Continuing on we have George Kennedy, Weld County Commissioner, requesting "a plan containing geological, hydrological, engineering and operational information. . . " by November 13th. In my previous letter, I said no text was submitted, there was a small text submitted but not what it would seem Mr. Kennedy requested. The Landfill in submitting their text says on November 12, 1992 , "These plans provide the basis for subsequent development of additional plan sheets including design details and a design and operations plan to be provided in the near future. " The government for the ordinary citizen expects a deadline to be met. Why was CWSL not forced to present their EDOR by November 13th? Why were they allowed to present a small text, promises, and computerized drawings of their proposed trash mountain on this unlined facility? Why in twenty-one years were they never given state approval or required to have an operational plan, especially given all the various wastes they accepted. Did this not work to their advantage and to the detriment of the environment? CWSL has contaminated the ground water both on and off site, a violation of subsection 2 . 1. 4 of the Regulations. Solid wastes have been placed into ground water, a violation of 3. 1. 11 of the revised State Regulations. The odor of water flowing from the landfill into Spomer Lakes and through irrigation ditches violates State Health regulations 6 CCR 1007-2 . 1. 1 (Minimum Standards) . 931061 /98 Daniels December 30, 1992 -3- l and vertically, the facility when closedppill . lot If blend allowed to expand area, in violation of 6 .4 blend into the surrounding (Minimum Standards) It was a needs to be closed water table,eaned p. proximity Th bad s tuti facility given the high the main to he river in ando rri start Mr. Paul Paulson of sD saysY the irrigation. • requirement of a landfill is that it andr and surface water. Please Please help save our precious ground help close and clean up this facility Sincerely, Madeline Daniels cc: Dr. Patricia A. Nolan, M.D. Gale Norton, Attorney General L. Perrault, Attorney General's Office Senator Tim Wirth Senator Hank Brown Campbell Senator Ben Nigh Allard Congressman Wayne Representative David T. Owen, State Aar Weld County Commissioners Weld County Planning Weld County Health Department Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Defense Fund Ms. Julie Kraus /�- 9.31061 /99 WASTE SERVICES CORPORATION Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Summary of Environmental Studies and Actions June 1979 through July 1992 Date Title of Environmental Study Description of Environmental Study and Action 1980 Nelson Engineering Report Empire Laboratories prepared a geotechnical investi— gation for Nelson Engineers. RESULTING ACTION: The surface water diversion ditch was constructed along the west half of the north boundry to reduce negative impact caused by run—on from natural drainage and seasonal irrigation flow. Sub- sequently, two lakes were constructed as replacement structures for the "Spomer Ponds"to the west. In addition, an underdrain was placed in a natural drain— age prior to the expansion in to this area for protection of groundwater. 1984 Warzyn Report Warzyn prepared a hydrogeologic assessment of the site including the installation of five groundwater monitoring wells around the perimeter of the site. In—situ permeability ariu geology, hydrogeology, and water quality were evaluated at this time. RESULTING ACTION: Initiated shallow groundwater monitoring around the site. Sampling points included five wells and underdrain. 1991 Industrial Compliance Rpt. IC prepared a pre—Subtitle D assessment of the site to characterize the potential of leachate and landfill gas generation. Included the conceptual design of a diversion ditch. RESULTING ACTION: Constructed diversion ditch and French Drain along the north—east and east property boundries to reduce any negative impact of seasonal fluctuation in groundwater due to upgradient irrigation. 1991 Golder-1 Golder prepared an anaylsis of organic vapors and explosive gas concentrations around the site. RESULTING ACTION: Further investigation planned and placement of permanent gas probes to be installed around the perimeter of the site. 1992 Golder-2 Golder prepared an analysis of the slope stability of perimeter ditch. RESULTING ACTION: Temporary repair to unstable area completed. Long—term stability to be included in design and operation plans under development. 931061 ozp WASTE SERVICES CORPORATION Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Summary of Environmental Studies and Actions — Continued June 1979 through July 1992 Date Title of Environmental Study Description of Environmental Study and Action 1992 Golder-3 Golder prepared a comprehensive hydrogeologic and geotechnical characterization of the site in preparation of Subtitle.D. Expansion of the groundwater monitoring system and sampling perameters are included. RESULTING ACTION: WSC will complete investigation and revise groundwater monitoring plan for compliance with Subtitle D and other action as necessary. 921061 oio/ July 1992 -53- 913-2403 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This "Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization Report" was prepared to provide Waste Services Corporation (WSC)with a comprehensive evaluation of the geology, hydrogeology, and geochemical conditions at the Central Weld Sanitary landfill. The information presented in this report will be the basis for developing environmental monitoring systems for groundwater, surface water, and landfill gas. The remainder of this section presents summaries and conclusions regarding site conditions. 8.1 Geology Three geologic units have been identified at the site. They are herein referred to as the Surficial Unconsolidated Unit, the Upper Weathered Bedrock and the Lower Weathered Bedrock. The Surficial Unconsolidated Unit is an eolian silty clay to clayey silt which ranges in thickness from a few feet to nearly 30 feet. The Surficial Unconsolidated Unit exhibits considerable lateral and vertical homogeneity. The Upper Weathered Bedrock is comprised of interlaminated and interbedded silty fine sandstone and claystone. The unit is typically yellowish brown, is poorly indurated and varies laterally across the site. The thickness of the unit ranges from approximately 40 to 70 feet. The Lower Weathered Bedrock is comprised of interlaminated and interbedded, medium to dark grey, silty fine sandstone and claystone. The unit is slightly less weathered than the Upper Weathered Bedrock. Thickness of the Lower Weathered Bedrock was not determined as part of this study. A- Golder Associates 801061 aoa July 1992 -54- 913-2403 8.2 FIydroeeology Three saturated zones, a perched zone, a shallow groundwater zone, and a deep groundwater zone, were encountered in this study. Each is discussed below. Perched Zone A perched zone is inferred to exist east of the diversion trench along the northeastern perimeter of the site. The perched zone rests on top of a claystone unit and receives recharge from irrigation. The irrigation results in seasonal water level rises of a few feet in the perched water. Irrigation does not occur on the landfill. Therefore, perched waters are not evident within the landfilled areas. { Shallow Saturated Zone The shallow saturated zone occurs near the top of the Upper Weathered Bedrock. Direction of flow in the shallow saturated zone is to the south-southwest. The average horizontal gradient across the site is approximately 0.03 ft./ft.. Average horizontal groundwater flow velocity is approximately 95 feet per year. In one localized area, the shallow saturated zone extends above the base of the landfill. This is evidently the result of infiltration through the diversion trench which extends along the northern boundary of the landfill. The saturated refuse may be an avenue for contaminant migration into the shallow groundwater system. Deep Saturated Zone The deep saturated zone occurs within the lower portion of the Upper Weathered Bedrock and the upper potion of the Lower Weathered Bedrock. Direction of flow is to the south-southeast. Golder Associates 931061A63 1Qs1A b3 July 1992 -55- 913-2403 The average horizontal gradient across the site is approximately 0.02 ft./ft.. Avenge horizontal groundwater flow velocity is approximately 11 feet per year. During drilling, a relatively dry zone approximately 5 to 10 feet thick was generally noted between the shallow groundwater and the deep groundwater. The presence of the dry zone suggests that the degree of communication between the shallow and deep groundwater systems is minimal. Vertical Groundwater Flow Downward vertical gradients exist at the shallow/deep well pairs across the site except near Spomer Lakes where weak downward to slightly upward gradients have been calculated. Apparently the lakes are locally contributing a constant head recharge to the groundwater. 8.3 Water Ouality Water quality samples were collected from all of the groundwater monitoring wells and from three surface water sampling points. The following parameters were analyzed: ► Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC); ► Pesticides and Herbicides; ► Trace Metals; ► Nutrients; ► Major Anions and Cations;and, ► Radionuclides and Radioactivity. Volatile organic compounds were detected in four downgradient shallow groundwater monitoring wells (GWMW-4, GWMW-5, GWMW-5N and GWMW-7), upgradient monitoring well GWMW-2, and in the surface water sample from the landfill underdrain (LF-UD). The only VOC detected in GWMW-2 was acetone, which is presented as a result of laboratory Golder Associates 901061 ad9 July 1992 -56- 913-2403 contamination. The maximum concentration of volatile organic compounds in the downgradient monitoring wells generally exceed EPA or State of Colorado standards. VOCs were not detected in any deep wells. No pesticides or herbicides were detected in any of the water quality samples analyzed. Four trace metals (barium, cadmium, iron and manganese) were detected in one or more of the samples. In general, no trend was observed for occurrence of metals with respect to shallow versus deep wells or upgradient versus downgradient wells. The presence of iron in the deep monitoring wells but not the shallow monitoring wells suggests that water in the deeper saturated zone is chemically under reducing (anaerobic) conditions whereas water in the shallow saturated zone is under oxidizing (aerobic) conditions. Ammonia was detected in six of the seven deep wells but none of the shallow wells. The presence of ammonia in the deep wells is another indication of anaerobic conditions in the deep saturated zone and suggests that a source of ammonia exists upgradient of the landfill. Nitrate was detected in all but one of the water quality samples. The detection of nitrate in upgradient as well as downgradient wells suggests an agricultural source. The water quality samples classify as calcium-sulfate to magnesium-sulfate based on the analysis of major anions and cations. Fifteen of the eighteen groundwater samples exceed the EPA and State of Colorado drinking water standard for Gross Alpha activity. Two samples exceed the EPA and State of Colorado drinking water standard for combined Radium 226 and 228. The source of radionuclides and radioactivity appears to be natural and related to geologic materials occurring beneath the site. A Golder Associates 931061 '4°5- July 1992 -57- 913-2403 The water quality results discussed above suggest that the landfill has contributed volatile organic compounds to the shallow saturated zone and the landfill underdrain. Concentrations exhibited by an off-site (approximately 15 feet from the landfill boundary), downgradient, shallow monitoring well (GWMW-5) suggest that volatile organic compounds have migrated off-site. Based on other analytical data collected as part of this study, the landfill does not appear to be a significant source of metals, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, major anion and cations, or radionuclides. The deeper groundwater system has apparently not been adversely impacted by the landfill operations but has evidently been impacted by upgradient activities. Upgradient groundwater sample results for nitrate, sulfate, radionuclides, and radioactivity indicate that the shallow groundwater near the landfill does not meet drinking water standards due to naturally occurring conditions or upgradient impacts. However, two downgradient water wells are permitted by the State of Colorado to withdraw shallow groundwater for domestic or stock use. These two wells represent potential receptor points for volatile organic compound migration via shallow groundwater. The following section presents recommendations for upgrades to site operations and additional investigative activities based on the data presented in this report. A Golder Associates 931061 o' July 1992 -58- 913-2403 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information presented in this report, the following recommendations are made to upgrade the site operations and to further define the site hydrogeological and geochemical conditions: ► The design of the unlined portion of the diversion trench located along the northern boundary of the site should be revised to prevent continued recharge to the shallow aquifer system. ► The extent of off-site volatile organic compound migration south of the landfill should be delineated. ► The current use of the downgradient water wells south of the landfill should be determined through interviews with well owners. ► Surface water in Spomer I acres should be sampled to determine if discharge frnm the landfill underdrain is measurably impacting the lakes. ► 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. ► The potential impacts from upgradient irrigation activities should be defined through quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells. ► Seasonal water level changes should be determined through quarterly monitoring of water levels in all monitoring wells and soil gas probes. ► The extent of saturated refuse in the northern portion of the landfill should be determined through installation of additional piezometers. n Golder Associates 921061 0109- . i ' .FG1 J irpwoI. . A \ X4 06 3O 2 �� I A - �) V�A / a i 1 6Bz= � 6B /�)( V\• c.' v5)I.� V 1 � -_ �,v � APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION �� i *.,`vr „� , IF\H \ FL kIL )) '1, 1,•"\ \\ \\.- )1 ' \r‘;‘,, ‘i ' \ , IC',— : ) 5 J1 :, Q ' \ —� i {c),22,‘) ;\:)--,7; ',k\ I .11` LAIC _•s I, � — E. �� (� �, �eu:° ((-).-----5, ,, = r f t ti a4. A dA ' \ F \ \ - yrrt sr ao `,A hod v •',L-?1. , ,I \ tit__ti _ •i t 1] Bp �1 a� 9i u. $fly � 4y�xx� vj , $ a Mil aREA l/ I � l iv '9" WWII _ • I.. 1P/o26. -__- -_—_ I/ - ode -- c- / ___ —" .y� �^4lK.;, 65/0 iej Daniely �-.�°1 '\'. \ —d ITC.,H..- in$CII : ,mis —,t, ,,is,gls6' cz3S d1B ti ryjON _ . 7 TITLE VGolder GENERAL SITE LOCATION MAP s'Associates Denver, Colorado CLIENT/PROJECT DRAWN KAW DATE JUNE 1992 .Joe NO. 923-2403 WASTE SERVICES CORPORATION CNECRED .1C scu.E r,2000" —two NO./REV. NO. CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILL REVIEWED we.i FILE N0. FIGURE NO. 1-2 G 931.061 ao8 I in eV y 4 * §iiiilWS 0 Pi 1; i 9 N Q y S C� r 'i,, 1' ,r1 I t I _1a i 1. 7 ei 4 1 fi? /1 _ ) 1 , ° ,r. s 1 i \ i II t i • /' r ! 1 1 1 ' 111' �Iil 1 ,` i . \.. l� w kcic ita s y' \\.,.,44\‘; /I , 1 I - I 1 i 32 I ci 3” jN I A- 37'1.061 X09 q N J 04 T O k' a o Ea iii2p. IZ U 4 El fwy . ' 1 "r $ al gi th a g b ill P,IC O ` 044 . 0Ily c Iii = W2 � ; : � _ — sthth � EW N y ry Y S pp / M r• h :g{ _ .R , 4 .Z , 1d a r IC ) f ' y / \ C! i- 3.l 14 4!n 4/4195 1' •�. ) It UZ x I wl b a ya 2 3 _OD � ��9'' e t� f `k a :2 iff o . • 3 N(1• 1 t --- 7-"---— -----. '''''_—____,- , 1 I l - to S W ?i• 'l li i',...y1 ?Li\) 2 , ‘o \ \ \V \\I 1 I 71 ) I I // '' eI l % .° dE ,,;,ic, i:i/ ca 1 . „ i is i4 , it O - .. . > (�i v v v }. w., zap ; u " I 4n1 nal a 10 5\' / �� y 40; 0) ! • Pt rif k \'\S aH 30 u 29( cis\ - =e • ol. -v WT:Tt �� 1 �I wa PP , I \ 6:50 i -.- �48551 \ i , r4;\ $4, ) 31; o 32 J 4 eUI — -Y` n.aJa is� � L R� u10� ..1 ` r SCE u 3, 1 kf a. I tall i . �'= ,ru ® 11 ,1 fit. Oj ,: it $ 1 , , \J 4>5o C��... - \ �a e >"46911 .__— J 5 4 ---- IAd 6k6aT� (A i . ) /pi r� )Koyj, pson I - / N I I' ; KH9I 1. 4.59 I 7 Daniels k • - .a,rCM__/Lseh Ln5 LEGEND <73a s>1e ti I N • � pt NUMBER of PEwarrED wEus / / N QUARTER/QUARTER SECTION p ® .NB WELL PERMIT MER 0 7 i •A SEE TEXT FOR DISCUSSION / / _ . TIRE ` ,' Golder PERMITTED WELLS WITHINA _ Aw Associates Denver, Colorado ONE LILF RADIUS OF TFE SITE CUENT/PROJECT DRAWN KAW DATE JULY 1992 409 No. 9X3-2403 WASTE SERVICES CORPORATION cHECD semi t•2000 bwc No./REv. No. CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILLjAr: REVIEWED WEi PIE NO. FIGURE NO. 2-7 TABLE 2-4 PERMITTED WELLS DOWNGRADIENT OF THE CENTRAL WELD SANITARY LANDFILL 1 ,4 > WELL DEPT} WA1' t,.> t PERMIT+ '" fW 0.1° . I0' Fx Y„' '.(tt ' ` z 6a, z' 11S .. #765 Robert Race 263 NA D Parker, Colorado #11090 GA& MJ Shable 37 8 S Milliken, Colorado #90580 H Daniels 22 9 D Denver, Colorado Notes: NA : Data not available Usage Codes D - Domestic S- Stock Source: Colorado State Engineer, Division of Water Resources August 1992 913-2403 !� 931061 a colder Ax�oclates TABLE 6-2 REPORTING LIMITS FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS "4 V p� . 1, 2-Dichloroethane 3 ug/1 1,1-Dichloroethene 5 ug/1 1,2-Dichloropropane 5 ug/1 Methylene Chloride 5 ug/1 Tetrachloroethene 5 ug/1 Trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene (total) 3 ug/1 Trichloroethene 5 ug/1 Total Organic Carbon 1.0 mg/1 NOTE: Reporting limits provided by contracted laboratory, Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Inc. Total Organic Carbon is not strictly a volatile organic parameter. August 1992 913-2403 A- Golder Associates 931061 a/3 TABLE 6-1 REPORTING LIMITS FOR INORGANIC GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS` Cy Q �< t yt•( �• t«d' �Y::.. ..Y < ::xti..:. r:" • .r V'..... 004010, tR . 1r�� <x. `H 7d a'FZ p b�s�vi !trS•;w >t u:,.. ` Y.. lGu .-. :a�c:•:x.Y?i '• � '�: %' 'q•" ..,;3...: ,`fi.: Q• .9 gag 4. •}Ni , 1•t•. Y .!!K:.'•"i: '� PJ•.., f.i ..�.,.`.`:v,:`f,':`:`��r;. :::CS•�..)ry+Str2�r?•'�"% S �'.vw:y,<,r. 9.a.n0'n✓`SJ 1rq .� :�• ' •: h:•- � t. t� ♦ '1 dQ:)�X Pjf•..g ScFby:o.\Y. ' �' • s�,�k•.t •% 1 {% '' <rJ.i�k.,0 y� iY 1i ry •D� Alkalinity 10 mg/1 Ammonia 0.02 mg/1 Cadmium 5 ug/1 Calcium 5 mg/1 Chemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/1 Chloride 0.5 mg/1 Iron 100 ug/1 Lead 5 ug/1 Magnesium 0.2 ug/1 Manganese 15 ug/1 Mercury 0.2 ug/1 1 Nitrate/Nitrite 0.05 mg/1 Potassium 5 mg/1 Sodium 5 mg/1 Sulfate 5 mg/1 Zinc 20 ug/1 NOTE: 1) Reporting limits provided by contracted laboratory, Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Inc. August 1992 913-2403 Golder Associates c�4,1 Os j ?'4 / ``- Satisfaction Guaranteed or Double Ynur Traci: Back P.O. Box 28 VA 3315 State Street \--6V Evans, Colorado 80620 (303) 339-5245 Decrinber 16, 1992 4 ) 9 Dear Customer: At this time we would like to thank you for your loyalty and patronage to this empany. Loyaity count for a lot and we don' t take it lightly. hunting Trash Service is a locally owned family business, entering our 25th year of service. Our desire is to continue to bring stability to the sanitation industry in Weld County, and to give you the best service available. '1Lis letter is to inform you of a rate increase which will be effective - king nr 1st 1993. Our increase is based upon rate increases impos- "I i u s,' xi irom the landfill. In the past 3 years, to the projected-next voar, our tipping fee'zrrthe landfill ha; increased by 67%." At this Lind we unir:t raise our rates in order to coven these increases. i!:�,a rite will be te' gtuliti,i>� � t . call if you have any questions. And once. again we would like to th:liL you tor letting us serve you. `iu:ereiy, • l.or, 11 A. Bunting, Pres. bunting Trash Service, Inc. I fl d.ib * 1993 annual tipping fee will be a projected $400,000.00 up from 333,000.00 in 1992. a 9ry,1061 0o/C" STATE p .. LORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Gov c0 Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and N� = environment of the people of Colorado - r w ,� �; u 0 . 4`il * 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building •r876 r* Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue -_ Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 C (303)691-4700 ! Roy Romer Governor Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPH Executive Director January 12, 1993 Dear Citizen: We have received numerous letters from individuals that have expressed concerns about the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill northeast of Milliken. The enclosed fact sheet is an effort to provide answers to the most frequently asked questions about the landfill. I hope you find it useful and informative. The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, will continue to work diligently with the citizens, the Weld County Health Department,and the landfill owner/operators to better understand and resolve the situation at the landfill. Thank you for your concern and interest. Sincerely, David C. Shelton, Director Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division encl: fact sheet cc: file of Coto rho January 1993 } t,-i * Central Weld Sanitary Landfill \Jaye . , Colorado Questions and Answers Department of Health This question and answer fact sheet is the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) response to questions and concerns raised by the public over the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill (CWSL) northeast of Milliken in Weld County. Q. Is the landfill regulated? A. Yes. Even though the landfill received its Certificate of Designation in 1971 before many of the current solid waste regulations were on the books, the landfill must still comply with the minimum standards (Section 2) of Colorado's "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal and Facili- ties." In addition, the landfill will soon be governed by newly-revised solid waste regulations. In many cases, the proposed regulations are more restrictive than the current regulations. Q• Has the landfill contaminated ground water in the area? A. The owner/operator of the landfill has completed extensive investigations of the ground water over a large area. As a result of these investigations, CDH and Weld County were notified that there is minimal contamination of the ground water by volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in four monitoring wells, two on the southeast edge and two on the southwest edge of the landfill. VOCs are solvents commonly found in paint and cleaning fluids. Both CDH and Weld County have For more information on the CWSL please contact: • Roger Doak, Geologist, Solid Waste Section,Hazardous Materials and Waste Manage- ment Division, Colorado Department of Health (303) 692.3437 • Barbara Taylor, Environmental Engineer,Water Quality Control Section,Water Quality Control Division,Colorado Department of Health (303) 692-3615. 3'1.061 requested the landfill operator conduct more ground and surface water testing for a wider variety of contaminants to gain a better understanding of the problem. The landfill owner/operator has been informed that the levels of VOCs in this monitoring well constitute a non-compliance with the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. CDH and Weld County are currently reviewing a plan filed by the landfill owner/operator to clean up the contamination. Q. What about the milky color and the odor of Spomer Lakes? A. The milky color and odor of Spomer Lakes appear intermittently. Test results show that the water in the ponds is high in calcium, magnesium and sulfate. These minerals are associated with car- bonates and bicarbonates, not with "heavy metals." These minerals are characteristic of"hard water" and common to both the surface and subsurface water in the area. The minerals in this hard water, under the proper temperature and conditions, could precipitate out and make the water whitish or milky. The odor in the ponds is likely a result of sulfides in the water, a by- product of the sulfate ion. Q. Is the landfill responsible for the condition of Spomer Lakes? A. The original analysis showed that water in the lakes is rich in magnesium, calcium and sulfate. These minerals are naturally occurring in the water of the entire drainage area, both north and south of the landfill. Water in the nearby Big Thompson River also is rich in these minerals. Based on the data submitted, it is unlikely that the landfill is the source of the colors and odors of Spomer Lakes. CDH has requested additional testing for constituents not included in the original sampling. CDH will not move forward on the landfill operator's request for a water discharge permit until further testing is completed. Q. Why would you give the landfill a permit to discharge water to Spomer Lakes when the lakes appear polluted? A. The actual condition of the lakes is not yet known, and CDH cannot legally deny a water discharge permit if the applicant meets all the conditions of such a permit [Colorado Revised Statutes Section 25-8-503 (2,3,4)]. A decision has not yet been made as to whether these conditions have been met. A permit would actually give CDH a regulatory tool to insure that all conditions of environmental and public health and safety are met. Page 2 931061 3 8 Q. Isn't the ground and surface water contaminated by heavy metals? A. Trace concentrations of heavy metals have been found both up-gradient and down-gradient of the landfill. CDH has requested more testing for heavy metals to better analyze the situation. Sample results submitted by citizens have been taken into account in requesting the landfill to complete additional testing. Q. Will private wells in the area be tested? A. Yes. CDH has requested the landfill operator sample several private wells in the area with the owner's permission. Q. Has the landfill submitted engineering and operation plans? A Yes. Both CDH and the Weld County Health Department have been reviewing numerous plans for monitoring of ground water and methane. CDH and Weld County also have been reviewing engineering documents that characterize the geology and ground water of the area. These plans were first submitted in July and August of 1992. CDH and Weld County both have required numerous additions and improvements to these plans. Q. Is the landfill in the water table, and isn't this illegal? A. While it has been alleged that trash has been placed in the near-surface water of the landfill, on- going studies should determine if this is true. We know that solid wastes are not currently being placed in the water table. The near-surface water fluctuates according to the time of year and the irrigation practices of farmers in the area. The drainage systems in place attempt to keep water out of the landfill by transporting water around or beneath the landfill, water that otherwise would flow into the landfill from the fields to the north. Current minimum standards of the regulations say that landfills cannot pollute water. Future regulations will be even more specific and likely more restrictive. g� Recycled Paper 21.fte 4 jt4G r©"V & ka !. c Attorneys At Law .. 1775 Sherman Street • Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 C-(_F.`-.i (303) 861-1963 • Fax: (303) 832-4465 9 1 ! 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. h1 Va-T LJ Cc- ' / &, `l1 j 6CaJic,4c ..,J ,!/ + 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. 0_29 �.0�4. 3 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. 1121 064 C7 Ms. Connie Harbert January 18, 1993 Page 5 DATED this 18th day of January , 1993 . Respectfully sub- mitted by the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association. b`1L.n4 OCA&Lw.LSO Kent E. Hanson :nriGregory 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 11493104 931064 5 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 931064 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 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 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, it 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 landfill completed? 16 931061 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 a draw 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 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 C 9 A06, Io 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 (? ) How 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 something. But if we can use, say 80 acres of that ground to a depth of approximately 45 feet, I think 27 CY 931O61 ' I 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 . 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 Cy 931064 is 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 G 931061 13 Waldo: Well, it just keeps coming. Moffatt: Certainly, but once 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 7--kik 770 a t& k_ , P C. - , - ' -, , if% Attorneys At Law 1775 Sherman Street • Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 r' (303) 861-1963 • Fax: (303) 832-4465 ill I; Ext. 123 January 19, 1993 Ms. Connie Harbert, Chairperson Weld County Commissioners 915 - 10th St. , P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: Transcript of September 22, 1971 Hearing on Central Weld Landfill Dear Chairperson Harbert: Enclosed please find the complete transcript of the September 21, 1971 Hearing by the Board regarding the Central Weld Landfill . Excerpts from this transcript were attached to our Janury 18, 1993 request for a Certificate of Designation Revocation Hearing. Sincerely, c Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. for HOBBS, TROUT & RALEY, P.C. GJH/det c: ■ Mr. Tom David ■ Mr. John Pickle 11993105 Ejc h', lam+ D P�, 0 c� ; !U��c d c� 921061 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 931061 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 931061 _3 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 ` , _ r 931061 �/ 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 92106 ) 5 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 931061 n 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 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 D 931061 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 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 D 9 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 its 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 S31061 o 17 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 ( 7 ) and this was roughly our idea when you start a deadline ( ? ) 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 931061 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 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 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 D 91].06k ; a 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. [1 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 31061 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 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 921061 14 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 9.31061. 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 j) 931061 /G 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: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, it 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 landfill completed? 16 7) 921061 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 a draw 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 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 -) 921061 /8 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 931061 /9 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 931061 D 4o 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 1) 931061 oR1 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 mMaana. 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 931061 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 D 931061 �3 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 j 931061 (14- 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, well we're talking about going to a depth of maybe 50 feet. 24 931061 �5 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 -) 921061 4(e, 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 ( ? ) 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 26 921.061 �4 D 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 (? ) How 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 something. But if we can use, say 80 acres of that ground to a depth of approximately 45 feet, I think 27 D 9.1O61 a8 we' ll have at least a 15-year goal. At the present, if you increase it that much more for the cutdown ( 7 ) 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 . 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 9211061 29 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 D •061 So 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 I) 931.061 dl 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 once 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 92,11 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 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 7 93106,34 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 some of Knister place and I find out that we have lots of seep trouble up there and 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 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 T 931.06 85 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, if it' s hard 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 on top of the hills you are going to have water problems . Moffatt: 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. . . . 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 93106 , --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 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 9. i iR1 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 the 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 _ . 83106f 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 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 D 93196 39 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 :3210€1 40 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 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 1) 9310641 4,), 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 theman 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 92106 ZF3 I) 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 we ? 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 ( ? ) 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 9-1sst 061 4g D Curley? Right, even this place next door, they pick 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 931961 145 Carlson: Carol Carlson, Route 3 , Box 430 . 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. That' s all we 45 S3106.1 IIL 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 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 1 33106 Carlson: Well, I saw votes 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 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 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 'm really sorry that you couldn't find some other place 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 9.210618 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 D 931064 Liq 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 do you think that raise will have to be? Bob: Two hours a day at 45% 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? 49 911.06' -o 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 15 miles. Voice: Bob: Putting in a transfer station, and I don't think the City of Greeley like transfer stations or dumps 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. l J" / i�N Lo Este Ze nscri er 50 Hello