HomeMy WebLinkAbout931603.tiff ORkiii1AL
HEARING BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT April 5, 1993
IN RE:
CENTRAL WELD/GREELEY-MILLIKEN LANDFILL -
WASTE SERVICES CORPORATION.
APPEARANCES:
ARTHUR P. ROY, ESQ.
1011 - 11th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
and
SAUNDERS, SNYDER, ROSS & DICKSON, P.C.
By Eugene F. Megyesy, Jr. , Esq.
707 - 17th Streeet, Suite 3500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Appearing on behalf of
Waste Services Coporation.
HOBBS, TROUT & RALEY, P.C.
By Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. , Esq.
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1300
Denver, Colorado 80203
Appearing on behalf of Ashton-Daniels
Neighborhood Association.
LEE D. MORRISON, ESQ.
Office of the Weld County Attorney
915 - 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Appearing on behalf of the
Weld County Commissioners.
fB R `S-1 BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
EK � pd t Registered Profession'
•
9316D3
r Z
Greeley Fort Collins
(303)356-3306
4,37 710- 11th Avenue.Suite 106 X800-546 3306
356.33 419 Canyon Avenue,Suite 220
Greeley. Colorado 80631 Fnx(wa>aw3�a2 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
2
1 Weld County Commissioners: Constance Harbert, Chairman
W. H. Webster
2 George E. Baxter
Dale K. Hall
3 Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
4 Clerk to the Board: Carol Harding
County Finance Office: Don Warden
5 Planning Services: Chuck Cunliffe
Weld County Health Dept. : John S. Pickle
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
" 084
3
1 PROCEEDINGS 9 : 17 a.m.
2 MS. HARBERT: We will now reconvene
3 the regular meeting of the Weld County Board of
4 Commissioners, and our next item is Planning,
5 Item 1, Consider Probable Cause Hearing for Central
6 Weld/Greeley-Milliken Landfill - Waste Services
7 Corporation.
8 Carol Harding, our clerk of the board, will
9 be passing out cards. If you care to speak for or
10 against, we would recommend that you fill out a card,
11 and your names will be called in the order they are
12 turned into me. Anybody that needs a card needs to
13 make sure that Carol gets one to you.
14 Would you please, on the card, in the upper
15 left-hand corner, would you write "for" or "against" so
16 that we may have an orderly testimony here. Just write
17 "for" or "against. "
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For or against what?
19 MS. HARBERT: The probable cause hearing.
20 Are you for or against having a show cause hearing?
21 That's what we're here today for, is to decide whether
22 we will be having a show cause hearing.
23 MR. HOBBS: Chairperson Harbert, I 'm Greg
24 Hobbs representing the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood
25 Association. We did, prior to the hearing, submit a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
:3 1.06
4
1 suggestion that at least the members of our group be
2 considered in a presentation for about an hour.
3 And I would at least, would like to clarify
4 for those who are filling out cards in our group, that
5 if they would indicate that they are members of the
6 Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association, perhaps those
7 cards could be called as we present our matter.
8 Also, there is a matter of convenience with
9 respect to citizen attendance. This may be a long day,
10 unfortunately, for all of us. We had asked that
11 sometime early or mid-afternoon, that we be granted at
12 least an hour to present our material.
13 I do have a meeting in Northern Colorado --
14 I represent the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
15 District -- tomorrow morning in Loveland. If it's at
16 all possible to be able to present the neighborhood
17 association's presentation this afternoon, it would
18 certainly be appreciated.
19 MS. HARBERT: We certainly hope that you
20 will have that opportunity this afternoon, also.
21 MR. HOBBS: Thank you.
22 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Anyone who would
23 like to be a part or is part of the Ashton-Daniels
24 group, if you will write that at the top of your card,
25 also. And, Carol, if you would divide those so they
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
^ 1.964
5
1 are all together, and we will discuss how we are going
2 to call those after a while. Thank you.
3 I would like to read a statement prior to
4 this which has been prepared by our legal staff.
5 This is a probable cause hearing to
6 determine if there is reasonable grounds for belief
7 that there are facts showing violations of Special Use
8 Permit No. 116 and Certificate of Designation No. 26
9 for the Greeley-Milliken Landfill, also known as the
10 Central Weld, which would warrant proceedings for the
11 show cause hearing.
12 The show cause could result in a revocation
13 or suspension of permits for the landfill . This
14 proceeding is to be conducted informally and not in
15 accordance with strict rules of procedure, as would be
16 the case in a court of law.
17 The Department of Health and Planning
18 Services will make the initial presentation, followed
19 by the permit holder. Members of the public will be
20 given an opportunity, and I understand the
21 Ashton-Daniels group has asked for a block of time to
22 give their presentation. The board cannot guarantee
23 the time for the presentation, but will try to
24 accommodate any group that has a spokesman or organized
25 presentation.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE :C1061
6
1 The permit holders will have the first
2 opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. Formal
3 cross-examination is not going to be used, but anyone
4 making a presentation is free to pose questions to
5 others giving evidence. The Board will see that the
6 questions are answered, preferably all together.
7 Please, everyone, including the permit
8 holders and the County departments, keep your
9 presentations as short and concise as possible.
10 Remember that this is a preliminary hearing and that
11 further proceedings are possible. Please do not repeat
12 the evidence that has been given before, and direct
13 your presentations toward the issues framed by the
14 staff.
15 We recognize that you are all intensely
16 interested in this matter, but outbursts from the
17 audience or interference with other parties ' testimony
18 will not be tolerated. Please direct your testimony to
19 the Board from the podium, so that all evidence can be
20 on record. We do have a court reporter here. The
21 microphone is at the podium here for anyone that
22 speaks. It is on tape; you will be recorded.
23 I will now turn it over to our staff for
24 their presentation.
25 MR. CUNLIFFE: Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
7
1 Department of Planning Services. These comments are in
2 reference to Case No. ZCH-96 in the name of Waste
3 Services Corporation. The description is part of the
4 W2 SW4 and the SE4 SW4 of Section 32 , T5N, R66W of the
5 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location is
6 approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of the town of
7 Milliken.
8 "It is the opinion of the Department of
9 Planning Services ' staff that Condition of Approval #1,
10 as approved for Special Use Permit #116, is not in
11 compliance.
12 "Condition of Approval #1 states: That any
13 sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be
14 approved by the State Health Department.
15 "Mr. John Pickle, in his memoranda dated
16 February 22 , 1993 and March 30, 1993 , to Chuck Cunliffe
17 and his memorandum dated April 1, 1993 , to the Board of
18 County Commissioners, has identified the items of
19 noncompliance with Condition of Approval #1 for Special
20 Use Permit #116.
21 "On April 1, 1993 , Waste Services
22 Corporation submitted applications for Amended Special
23 Use permit #116 and amended Certification of
24 Designation #26. Bill Hedberg' s letter of March 31,
25 1993, is attached. The Department of Planning Services
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
8
1 is proceeding with the processing of the applications.
2 "Based upon the above information, the
3 Department of Planning Services and the Weld County
4 Health Department recommends that the probable cause
5 hearing be continued to December 1, 1993, to allow
6 sufficient time for the amended Special Use permit and
7 amended Certificate of Designation applications to be
8 reviewed and considered by Weld County during the
9 standard land-use application review procedures. "
10 MS. HARBERT: Do you have anything else you
11 want to present?
12 MR. CUNLIFFE: Not at this time.
13 MS. HARBERT: John, do you?
14 MR. PICKLE: John Pickle. Do you wish to
15 proceed?
16 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
17 MR. CUNLIFFE: I guess we are -- we would
18 prefer not to give additional testimony at this time
19 unless the Board so chooses. We are prepared on
20 that -- at least, Mr. Pickle is prepared to present the
21 supporting documentation that we believe that Condition
22 No. 1 is still in violation.
23 But based upon our recommendation, we would
24 only give that testimony if the Board would ask us to,
25 or have additional questions based upon the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1,081
9
1 recommendation.
2 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Do you wish to hear
3 additional testimony or would you rather wait until it
4 comes up during the hearing?
5 MS. KIRKMEYER: Wait.
6 MS. HARBERT: We will go ahead and proceed
7 with the applicant.
8 MR. MORRISON: Technically, we have the
9 respondent next. They have replied but that' s not the
10 proceeding before you today.
11 MS. HARBERT: Sorry, I misspoke. The
12 respondent, then. We will go ahead, and you may make
13 your presentation. And, again, we ask you to keep it
14 as brief as possible.
15 MR. HOBBS: Excuse me, Madam Chairman.
16 MS. HARBERT: I 'm sorry, sir, you are out
17 of order.
18 MR. HOBBS: I have a point of clarification
19 on the procedure.
20 MS. HARBERT: Would you like to come to the
21 microphone and state your name, please.
22 MR. HOBBS: Of course. Greg Hobbs. I am
23 the attorney for the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood
24 Association. I merely have a point of clarification
25 here.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 9n41061
10
1 When the recommendation of the staff was
2 made, it wasn't clear to -- as to whether or not they
3 were going to present evidence today, in my opinion.
4 They left that to the discretion of the chair.
5 I believe that the chair should exercise
6 discretion to hear evidence, because I think it's going
7 to be necessary in order to go to the next stage, which
8 would be a probable -- would be a show cause hearing
9 for that evidence to be presented.
10 So I am asking the commissioners basically
11 to hear at least a summary of the evidence of
12 violation, particularly of Condition 1 of the original
13 resolution. Without a summary of that evidence, I
14 don't believe the commissioners can make the
15 determination that is the issue before this commission
16 this morning.
17 The issue is not whether to continue the
18 hearing. The issue is whether to grant a hearing on a
19 show cause. That ' s what was noticed to the public.
20 That's what we are prepared to address today. Thank
21 you.
22 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
23 Legal counsel, would you advise us on that,
24 please.
25 MR. MORRISON: Well, I guess it would
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 9 "1.06
11
1 probably assist everyone if you directed Mr. Pickle to
2 go ahead and present his evidence at this point.
3 Unless you want to -- unless someone is prepared to
4 continue -- to move to continue this on the basis of
5 the application.
6 Otherwise, I would suggest Mr. Pickle go
7 ahead and present his -- at least a summary of his
8 evidence. I think that will assist everyone.
9 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Thank you.
10 John?
11 MR. PICKLE: John Pickle with Weld County
12 Health Department.
13 Madam Chairman, I 've prepared a packet with
14 my statements. I would like to place that into the
15 record, but should I read that at this point or
16 summarize it?
17 MS. HARBERT: I think that we've probably
18 all had copies of it, but I think because of the people
19 that are here today, perhaps -- do you have a summary
20 written there?
21 MR. PICKLE: Yes.
22 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Pickle, is that the
23 memo of April 1 --
24 MR. PICKLE: That's right.
25 MR. MORRISON: -- directed to the Board of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
12
1 County Commissioners?
2 MR. PICKLE: That's correct.
3 MR. MORRISON: That' s been marked as
4 Exhibit GG.
5 MR. PICKLE: "The Central Weld Sanitary
6 Landfill has been in operation at least since 1971.
7 Waste Services Corporation took over the operation in
8 1989 and merged with Waste Management of Colorado,
9 Inc. , in 1991.
10 "The site has been monitored over the years
11 by the Colorado Department of Health, as well as Weld
12 County Health Department. Our Department has tried to
13 maintain an inspection frequency of at least four
14 visits per year. In addition, our laboratory sampled
15 Central Weld' s monitoring wells until the discovery of
16 Volatile Organics indicated a more sophisticated
17 monitoring program was necessary.
18 "In July of 1992 , I met with Bill Hedberg
19 of Waste Services at this facility. At that meeting we
20 discussed the history of groundwater problems at this
21 site and Waste Management' s efforts to control them to
22 date. Mr. Hedberg also informed me at that meeting
23 that Waste Management' s Laboratory had discovered low
24 levels of contaminants in several downgradient
25 monitoring wells and that a full written report would
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 9:1.061
13
1 be forthcoming. He asked that in light of these
2 findings Central Weld be allowed to discontinue its
3 agreement with Weld County for monitoring, and contract
4 with a more sophisticated laboratory. I readily agreed
5 with this proposal since our lab could not test for
6 Volatile Organic Compounds.
7 "As clarification for the Board, Volatile
8 Organic Compounds are contaminants commonly from
9 landfill leachate, as well as underground storage
10 tanks, agricultural runoff, and other sources. VOCs
11 are common constituents in industrial and household
12 solvents pesticides, and other chemical products.
13 Toxicological studies have shown that some of these
14 organics have the potential for carcinogenesis in human
15 beings. Consequently, their presence in the
16 groundwater is a public health concern.
17 "In August, 1992 , we received
18 the Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for
19 the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, Weld County
20 Colorado. After review and discussion with Colorado
21 Department of Health personnel, we cited the Central
22 Weld facility in October, 1992 . "
23 There' s two letters in your packet I would
24 like to enter into the record. And this is a complete
25 copy of the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Report
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
14
1 that I would like to also enter into the record.
2 "Waste Management performed confirmation
3 sampling at the Central Weld facility in September,
4 1992 . The results confirmed previous findings
5 submitted in the Hydrogeological Characterization of
6 July. "
7 This is a full copy of the Central Weld
8 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling, and I would like to
9 place that into the record.
10 "Golder Associates Inc. performed an
11 Expanded Hydrogeological Investigation at the Central
12 Weld Sanitary Landfill, Colorado in October, 1992 . The
13 purpose of this investigation was to determine the
14 extent of" the contamination -- or "extent of migration
15 of VOCs offsite. "
16 And here also is a copy of that report,
17 the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill Confirmation
18 Groundwater Samplings, which I would like to place into
19 the record. I have included portions of these in the
20 packet for brevity.
21 "Since October, subsequent inspections,
22 discussions with Colorado Department of Health
23 personnel, and meetings with Waste Management have
24 culminated in Weld County Health Department citing the
25 Central Weld facility for four (4) violations, and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
�' Z..Oa
15
1 requesting this Hearing. "
2 "The Department contends that Central Weld
3 Sanitary Landfill is in non-compliance with existing
4 rules in the following areas:
5 "1. The operators of the . . . Landfill
6 have not submitted a complete Design and Operations
7 Plan. There is some question as to whether or not this
8 was a requirement at the time this facility was
9 permitted. Such a report was required in the 1971
10 Amendments to the Solid Waste Act prior to the hearing
11 by the Board of County Commissioners, but the Act
12 requires such a report only, 'as may be required by the
13 (State Health) Department by regulation. ' The State
14 appears to have decided that no report was necessary as
15 they treated the landfill as a grandfathered site.
16 "Regardless of the State' s position, it
17 appears that the Board of County Commissioners expected
18 such a review and that one never occurred. A review of
19 the files does not show that there ever has been an
20 'approval ' by the State Health Department.
21 "The Board of County Commissioners
22 requested a Design and Operations Plan for this
23 facility by November 12 , 1992 . A partial submission
24 was made by Waste Management. After review, this
25 submission was considered incomplete. "
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
t M_i-i ()WA.
16
1 A copy of a letter of February 22 , which I
2 would like to also place into the record.
3 "This is a violation of 30-20-103, Colorado
4 Revised Statutes.
5 "2 . The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
6 continues to operate without required Discharge
7 Permits. This fact is documented in letters from Waste
8 Management, November 16, 1992 , and Colorado Department
9 of Health, November 17, 1992 , " which I would like to
10 also place into the record.
11 "Colorado Department of Health, Water
12 Quality Division personnel have indicated that despite
13 application for required permits, the facility is in
14 technical violation of the rules, but they are holding
15 further enforcement in abeyance so long as the facility
16 continues in good faith with the application process. "
17 We agree that "this is a violation of
18 Subsection 2 . 1. 2 of the Solid Waste Regulations and
19 25-8-501, Colorado Revised Statutes, " which are
20 attached, "but it appears this condition is near final
21 correction. "
22 "3 . The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
23 continues to contaminate the groundwater, and this
24 contamination has migrated offsite. This fact is
25 evidenced by Waste Management in two documents: The
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
17
1 Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Characterization for
2 the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, July 1992 ,
3 pages 41, 42 , 55, and 57; and the Expanded
4 Hydrogeological Investigation at the Central Weld
5 Sanitary Landfill, Colorado, pages 5, and 6. The
6 Department feels that this is a violation of
7 Subsections 2 . 1. 2 of the Solid Waste Regulations,
8 specifically, 3 . 11.5 of the Water Quality Commission
9 Rules, and 2 . 1.4 of the Solid Waste Regulations. That
10 this is a violation of 2 . 1. 4 is also indicated in a
11 letter from Colorado Department of Health to Waste
12 Management dated December 21, 1992, specifically
13 page 4, paragraph C. 1.
14 "That this is" -- which I would like to
15 also place that letter in the record.
16 "That this is a violation is also further
17 indicated in an Attorney General ' s Opinion dated
18 March 5, 1993 .
19 "4 . The Central Weld Sanitary Landfill has
20 allowed solid waste to come into contact with
21 groundwater on this site. This is documented in the
22 Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization for the
23 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill, July, 1992 , page 34 .
24 This condition results in the production of leachate, a
25 source of groundwater pollution and public nuisance.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
18
1 "This is a violation of Subsection 2 . 1.4 of
2 the Solid Waste Regulations. In addition, this too is
3 indicated in the Attorney General ' s Opinion dated
4 March 5, 1993 .
5 "An inspection by our staff on March 2 ,
6 1993, indicated that the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill
7 was still in non-compliance in the areas referenced
8 above. Further, the Weld County Health Department and
9 the Colorado Department of Health feel that items #3
10 and #4 constitute a public nuisance. We would ask that
11 the Board of County Commissioners find that, on
12 balance, there are sufficient facts shown to justify
13 proceeding with a Show Cause Hearing. "
14 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Do you have
15 anything else?
16 MR. PICKLE: No. Thank you.
17 MS. HARBERT: All right. Now, the
18 respondents may give their presentation.
19 MR. HEDBERG: Good morning. My name is
20 Bill Hedberg. I 'm division vice president for Waste
21 Services Waste Management Company, and my
22 responsibilities include the direct management of the
23 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill .
24 We are pleased to be before you this
25 morning to address some of the allegations that have
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
19
1 been raised about the facility, and I would like to
2 take just a couple minutes of the Board' s time, take a
3 couple minutes to introduce a few of the team members
4 that have come up to either be part of the presentation
5 or be available for the County Commissioners for direct
6 questions that you may have.
7 MS. HARBERT: Excuse me just a moment. Can
8 everyone hear?
9 UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS: No.
10 MS. HARBERT: Is it this microphone that
11 you aren't hearing? All of them.
12 MR. TELEP: He might speak louder.
13 MS. HARBERT: Sometimes these mikes need to
14 be spoken into directly, so you might remember that as
15 you come forward to speak. Thank you.
16 MR. HEDBERG: Thank you. Do I need to
17 repeat any of the lead-in information?
18 MS. HARBERT: Is that okay now? Is that
19 better?
20 MR. HOBBS: Yes.
21 MS. HARBERT: All right. Thank you.
22 No, I think that's fine. Go ahead.
23 MR. HEDBERG: Again, to start with, a few
24 very brief introductions. I would like to introduce
25 Mr. Brad Keirnes, which is a previous shareholder of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE {�
1.'.7!'/71
20
1 the Waste Services Corporation; Mr. Bob Damico, which
2 is the mountain region vice-president, manager; Bill
3 Jeffry, which is mountain region general legal counsel;
4 Gene Megyesy, which is outside counsel from the firm of
5 Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, which has worked with
6 the company for this and other law issues.
7 Mr. Art Roy is our local legal counsel; Mr. Alan
8 Scheere is the environmental specialist for the
9 facility; Mr. Neal Schuessler is division
10 vice-president and comptroller for the facility.
11 I would like to introduce Mary King, which
12 is the legal counsel for the West Group for
13 Environmental Issues. Leonard Butler is the
14 vice-president and environmental manager for the
15 mountain region. Ward Herst is representing Golder
16 Associates, an independent consulting firm that we have
17 engaged.
18 And Mr. Tom Buchholz is the division
19 vice-president, or division president and general
20 manager for the Colorado Landfill Division.
21 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
22 MR. HEDBERG: We have a little presentation
23 notebook that may summarize some of the things that
24 will be presented to you verbally today, and we would
25 like to pass it out.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
21
1 In respect for the time this morning, I
2 would like to take just a few minutes to give a very
3 brief history of the facility. The facility was
4 properly permitted in 1971 and basically operated under
5 various ownership until 1979, at which time it became
6 under ownership of the Keirnes family.
7 And I would like to introduce again
8 Mr. Brad Keirnes to talk a little bit about its history
9 and some of the upgrades and operational interests of
10 the facility during the 19 -- late ' 70s, ' 80s, and
11 early ' 90s.
12 MR. KEIRNES: Good morning. This is a
13 little high now.
14 Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
15 Brad Keirnes, for the record. I am a former
16 shareholder in Waste Services Corporation and formerly
17 did manage the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill.
18 If you' ll turn with me to Section 1 of the
19 overview you've just been handed, I would like to take
20 just about five minutes and give you a brief overview
21 of the history of the site from 1979 , when my family
22 became involved with it, to July of 1991, when we
23 merged our family-owned company with Waste Management
24 of Colorado.
25 To start off, contained in this section is
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE ��++
r ,;,1.0 g
22
1 a copy of a service area map that came out of a
2 feasibility study we did for Weld County in 1979, that
3 took a look at all the solid waste management needs
4 throughout the county and established a county-wide
5 system that incorporated service areas. And at that
6 time the Central Weld Landfill was in existence and
7 became a facility to provide the solid waste disposal
8 capability for the central service area.
9 The same concept that has, in my opinion,
10 served the county very well during the last 12 to 13
11 years was also adopted into the Weld County
12 Comprehensive Plan, which currently projects a useful
13 capacity or remaining life for the facility of between
14 20 and 60 years.
15 When my family became involved with this
16 site, we set out to investigate its environmental
17 status, and we did start that effort by conducting a
18 geotechnical investigation in 1980, and that work was
19 done by Empire Laboratories. That study identified the
20 need to install an underdrain beneath the western
21 portion of the site to prevent the site and,
22 specifically, that area from impacts from artificial
23 groundwater conditions caused by upgradient land uses.
24 That study also identified the benefit of
25 beginning the staged installation of a surface and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
n �1•.1gt
23
1 groundwater diversion system and to further protect the
2 site from those unnatural groundwater conditions and
3 also provide for diversion of surface water run-on
4 around the facility.
5 Later, in 1984 , we engaged Warzyn
6 Engineering to conduct a hydrogeologic assessment of
7 the facility, which affirmed the benefit of the
8 continued staged installation of that diversion system,
9 and it also established the first-ever groundwater
10 monitoring program at the facility. And that program,
11 which was begun in 1984 , monitored both upgradient and
12 downgradient groundwater around the facility for base
13 parameters.
14 And shortly after installing that
15 monitoring system in 1984 , we then entered into a
16 contract with the Weld County Department of Health to
17 come out and actually perform the sampling and
18 analysis.
19 Moving on, some of the operational
20 considerations of the facility, we as a family made our
21 best effort to operate the site in compliance with
22 applicable regulations in a manner that would be
23 compatible with surrounding agricultural land uses, and
24 I think the record of compliance inspections that were
25 performed on the facility during the 12 years we were
BILLINGS 1REPORTING SERVICE
931061
24
1 involved with it do show that there was a consistent
2 operational compliance history there.
3 And, in addition to being concerned with
4 compliance matters, we also made a sincere and best
5 effort to be a good neighbor to our neighbors in the
6 same manner that they try to be good neighbors to each
7 other. We tried to be sensitive to their concerns and
8 responsive, participated in some of the improvements
9 that were made to the area in terms of irrigation
10 systems and things of that nature.
11 So we were committed to being a good
12 neighbor, and I hope we succeeded to some degree. In
13 1990, 1991, we started looking forward to where the
14 industry was headed, and we saw Subtitle D on the
15 horizon, the new EPA regulations, and we felt a need to
16 assess the ability of that particular facility, the
17 Central Weld Landfill, to comply with those
18 regulations, and we had a preliminary assessment done
19 of the site, which found that it could be made to
20 comply with Subtitle D.
21 And at the same time, we internally
22 assessed our ability as a family to meet the various
23 demands associated with Subtitle D, financially and
24 otherwise, and recognized very definitely a need to
25 have greater environmental expertise, added financial
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
25
1 strength to pay the costs associated with ongoing
2 compliance, and also the real need for longevity to
3 bear the perpetual responsibilities associated with the
4 facilities.
5 And we found, after honestly examining
6 where we were at as a family, that even though we knew
7 where we needed to get, we felt we couldn't get there
8 from here. So we felt the best thing we could do was
9 to merge our family-owned company with Waste
10 Management.
11 And I had known Waste Management, as I had
12 all of the other large waste companies. They have been
13 customers, competitors during the last 12 years, and I
14 felt that Waste Management was head and shoulders above
15 the rest in terms of their commitment to do it right,
16 to serve the County' s interest, to provide the service
17 that' s needed, to serve their customers and also to be
18 a good neighbor.
19 I felt also that they had the competence
20 necessary to meet the environmental, legal and
21 operational requirements associated with solid waste
22 facilities. And I also felt, in addition to having the
23 right commitments and the competence, they had the
24 ingredient that we probably lacked most, and that was
25 the capability to meet the financial demands and bear
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
26
1 the long-term responsibilities.
2 So we did decide, as a family -- it was the
3 hardest decision that I have probably ever made in my
4 business life -- to sell our family business, but I
5 feel, looking back on it, that it was the right one.
6 Everything that I thought to be true of Waste
7 Management was proving to be true.
8 Immediately after the merger, they hit the
9 ground running and, in terms of investigating the
10 facility, going the next step in the process we had
11 begun during the '70s and ' 80s, in addition to doing
12 the investigation, they also started applying expertise
13 to interpret data that they had gathered, to start
14 properly planning for the continued operation of the
15 facility and its eventual proper closure.
16 With that, I will hand it back over to Bill
17 Hedberg. I will be happy to answer any questions.
18 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions?
19 MR. KEIRNES: Thank you.
20 MS. HARBERT: Brad, I just have one
21 question. In 1980 it was determined that there was
22 a need for an underdrain. Did you install that
23 underdrain?
24 MR. KEIRNES: We did. We did install that.
25 MS. HARBERT: And then you also installed a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
27
1 diversion system?
2 MR. KEIRNES: We began installing the
3 diversion system around the upgradient portion of the
4 site.
5 MS. KIRKMEYER: In your history, you have
6 useful capacity for the facility is 20 to 60 years.
7 Does that take into account the recent approval of the
8 landfill near Keenesburg, or any other landfills in the
9 southern part of the county?
10 MR. KEIRNES: It probably did not. I
11 think that estimate contained in the Weld County
12 Comprehensive Plan was probably made before East Weld
13 was permitted, in which case, if you were to do the
14 same estimate today, it would probably be significantly
15 longer than 20 to 60 years.
16 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
17 MR. KEIRNES: Thank you.
18 MS. HARBERT: Sir, you will be given a
19 chance after their presentation to ask any questions.
20 MR. HOBBS: I see. May I just clarify
21 that? Then we have to record our questions as each
22 witness is up, and then ask?
23 MS. HARBERT: Yes. That was explained in
24 our statement previously.
25 MR. HOBBS: And they will all be available
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
28
1 to answer questions?
2 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
3 MR. HOBBS: Thank you very much.
4 MR. HEDBERG: Madam Chair, I would like to
5 take the opportunity to bring the history from the time
6 of the merger on up till basically the present time.
7 I joined Waste Services after spending
8 about 13 years in public accounting with
9 Anderson-Whitney in 1991 -- 1990, 1991, and at that
10 point in time was more planning and finance director,
11 moving on into the spring and summer of ' 91 as
12 vice-president and general manager, and then, through
13 the combination, have stayed on as the site manager, in
14 that role, just for a little history on my background.
15 Basically, the facility, as Brad indicated,
16 after the combination with Waste Management was looked
17 into, from an environmental standpoint, from an
18 operational standpoint, for any waste that we could
19 take, what had been done by the previous owners and
20 operators and either continue or looking for waste to
21 improve either the knowledge or the operations.
22 A lot of what was being done was in line
23 with the, basically, the environmental plans and
24 principles that Waste Management has, that 's exhibited
25 that. I won't take the time right now, because of the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
29
1 time constraints we have on today, but I 've included
2 that for the board members to be able to look into what
3 are the various principles and policies that Waste
4 Management has for environmental issues.
5 Nevertheless, as Brad mentioned, we hit the
6 ground running, completed the groundwater and service
7 water diversion structures that were on the upgradient
8 sides of the site. That was completed in the September
9 or October 1991 area. Got to about the end of the
10 year, contracts were in place to engage our selected
11 independent consultant, Golder Associates, to determine
12 a comprehensive evaluation of the hydrogeologic and
13 geotechnical aspects of the facility.
14 I would like to just run through some of
15 these things real quick. Getting into those areas, I
16 would like Mr. Leonard Butler, our environmental
17 director for the region, to be able to talk about the
18 particular engineering aspects of each. But basically
19 looking down the list, we engaged them for that.
20 We engaged SEC Donahue, which is now RUST,
21 for the preparation of the formal design and operations
22 plan, feeling that this was not a legal requirement;
23 nevertheless, it met with the principles and goals of
24 Waste Management to have the comprehensive document to
25 govern and discuss the various attributes of the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
30
1 operation and the development of the facility.
2 Basically, the -- in February, also, we
3 were advised the existing special waste acceptance and
4 screening plan, formalized that in a document and
5 submitted that for review and approval by the various
6 health agencies of both County and State.
7 The fieldwork during that springtime was
8 being conducted for both the screening plan and the
9 geotechnical investigation. In July, we received a
10 draft report of that initial Golder investigation, and
11 it was at this time that we had an indication that
12 there were some very light concentrations of volatile
13 organic compounds in three of the downgradient wells
14 and the --
15 We felt this was not a legal issue, but it
16 was a concern to us because of things that could go
17 into potential health risks. We got together with the
18 health departments, both County and State, got together
19 with the impacted neighbors, to let them know that,
20 and basically set a course of action to further
21 characterize and get better understanding, really, of
22 what we were dealing with at the facility.
23 This additional testing was performed. We
24 first did operation sampling. Then we engaged Golder
25 again to perform a standard hydrologic and geotechnical
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
31
1 investigation dealing specifically with VOC on the
2 downgradient side to found out not only further
3 investigation of concentrations, but also any
4 indications of migration.
5 Also in September, completed a new and
6 updated groundwater, a gas monitoring program. The --
7 also, during that same fall, '92 now, there had been
8 some concerns raised on some of the surface water
9 conditions around the site, so we engaged Golder to
10 perform a surface water investigation, looking at
11 quality and changes of various surface waters around
12 the facility.
13 Then in November we submitted the
14 application for the discharge permit, for the
15 underdrain. Also in November submitted the conceptual
16 design plans for the facility at the request of the
17 Board of Commissioners at that time, basically talking
18 about what the contours and sequence filling of the
19 facility would be over the remainder of its normal
20 life.
21 December, we completed the rest of the
22 document dealing with the preliminary design operations
23 and closure plan. In January, we had gotten some
24 responses back from the State Health Department asking
25 for additional testing in regard to the discharge
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
32
1 permit for the underdrain. That situation was
2 performed, or that sampling was performed, and
3 submitted in March to meet their requests and desires.
4 Again, in March, we also completely revised
5 all these various site documents that had been
6 prepared. I might throw this up so that the audience
7 will have a chance to see that, as well.
8 Basically, this (indicating) would be a
9 summary of the site documents that were basically
10 codified during March to -- in preparation of
11 voluntarily submitting an application to amend the
12 existing CD and special use permit.
13 Basically, what it includes is all of the
14 documents we've talked about up to this time, but
15 trying to codify those together to make that
16 comprehensive review that would be made available in
17 the amendment process a little easier for both the
18 commissioners and the various planning and health
19 agencies, as well as the other agencies that would be
20 included in that, in that referral process.
21 At this time I would like to field any
22 questions you might have, and then turn the
23 presentation over to Leonard Butler to get more details
24 into some of the environmental issues.
25 MR. ROY: Could I rise to a point of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
33
1 clarification?
2 MS. HARBERT: State your name.
3 MR. ROY: Yes. My name is Arthur Roy,
4 attorney, counsel to Waste Management and Waste
5 Services.
6 Mr. Hobbs raised a procedural point and I
7 raise one. The initial comments indicated that there
8 wasn't going to be formal cross-examination, that we
9 would answer questions.
10 I gathered from Mr. Hobbs' request at the
11 end of the first presenter that they wish to ask
12 something in the nature of cross-examination. If
13 that's going to occur, we' ll be here all day. If they
14 have generic questions for us at the end of the
15 presentation, we may be able to prepare answers and
16 present them. But to go through some sort of direct
17 questioning is going to take a long time.
18 MS. HARBERT: I will refer to Lee, but
19 usually our procedure is for the presenter to present
20 their presentation and for those that object to the
21 cause will come back and present theirs, and present
22 any questions to you. And then you have the last
23 rebuttal, to answer those questions, not -- it won't be
24 a back and forth type of thing.
25 I think you are familiar with our
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
34
1 procedure.
2 MR. ROY: Normally, a probable cause
3 hearing is between the County and the operator, and is
4 a bi-parte proceeding, not a tri-parte proceeding.
5 MS. HARBERT: I realize that.
6 MR. ROY: And I understand there is a need
7 to have public input, and we don't object to the public
8 input, but it can become a circus if it gets out of
9 hand.
10 MS. HARBERT: We understand that, also.
11 Lee, would you like to comment?
12 MR. MORRISON: We haven't seen the nature
13 of Mr. Hobbs ' questions. It is not -- although it's
14 principally brought by the departments and heard by the
15 commissioners, it doesn't preclude public testimony in
16 this kind of proceeding.
17 So I think we' ll deal with the nature of
18 the questions when they are posed.
19 MS. HARBERT: I agree with that.
20 MR. HEDBERG: Thank you. I would like to
21 present Mr. Leonard Butler for the engineering side of
22 this.
23 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
24 MR. BUTLER: Good morning. Chairperson
25 Harbert, Weld County Commissioners, my name is Leonard
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
35
1 Butler, and as Bill Hedberg introduced me, I am the
2 environmental manager with Waste Management of
3 Colorado.
4 I might first tell you a little bit about
5 what specially qualifies me for my job. I have a BS
6 and MS in environmental engineering, I am a
7 professional engineer in the state of Colorado, and a
8 diplomats with the American Academy of Environmental
9 Engineers.
10 Along with my presentation, to assist in
11 any questions that you have this morning, I 've asked
12 the facility engineer, Alan Scheere, who is here.
13 Alan's background is 13 years as an environmental
14 health professional . He formerly was with Tri-County
15 Health Department and has a bachelor of arts in
16 environmental sciences from the University of Colorado.
17 In addition, I 've asked Warren Herst.
18 Warren is with Golder and Associates. Warren has
19 almost 10 years of experience as a professional
20 hydrogeologist and as a certified geologist. This is
21 my technical team, and I 'd like to go ahead.
22 In your presentation notebook, you' ll note
23 I 've put together an outline. And in that outline I 've
24 attached the overall summary of my presentation this
25 morning. What I would like to do is highlight for you,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
36
1 given the nature and time of this hearing, to a very
2 brief but very important overview, and I ' ll use some
3 posters and some overheads.
4 As you' ll note in this presentation, I ' ll
5 be speaking about three different areas. The first is
6 with regard to our environmental assessments at the
7 site. The second pertains to the design or
8 development, operations and closure plans, and finally,
9 I would like to talk about our environmental
10 commitments.
11 You might ask, as you look over at this
12 table, what are all these notebooks? As I think you
13 saw from Bill Hedberg' s presentation, many of them are
14 part of the amended application. In fact, all of these
15 are part of the amended application, but they are built
16 from all of these documents and all of these plans.
17 So over the last year and a half, we've
18 been very busy. You might ask, why are we doing this?
19 Well, first, as a company, Waste Management of Colorado
20 has 14 environmental principles, of which two of them I
21 would like to highlight. The first is to protect the
22 environment and the second is compliance.
23 And we feel that, to meet our own high
24 standards, we needed to initiate an assessment and
25 prepare for the upcoming Subtitle D regulations. That
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061.
37
1 preparation, which has gone over the last year and a
2 half, we've spent close to three-quarters of a million
3 dollars doing this effort, and we're prepared today,
4 with today's engineering, to resolve any of the issues
5 at the site through an amended application process.
6 I believe that in our working relationships
7 with the Weld County Health Department, the Planning
8 Department, and the Colorado Department of Health, we
9 have exhibited a high spirit of cooperation in working
10 to protect the environment.
11 Moving first to the first of three topics,
12 environmental assessments, as Brad Keirnes indicated,
13 prior to the merger between Waste Services Corporation
14 and Waste Management of Colorado there were various
15 investigations conducted. After 1991 a number of
16 investigations were conducted, which are exhibited on
17 this table.
18 Well, what did we do out at the site? In a
19 nutshell, what we did is we tripled the number of
20 groundwater monitoring wells, we installed over 35
21 investigatory borings to assess the character of water
22 quality, and also to implement a gas -- landfill gas
23 monitoring program.
24 Can you excuse me a moment? I 'm finding
25 I 'm getting dry just standing up here.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
38
1 (Pause. )
2 MR. BUTLER: Getting over the infamous
3 sinus infection of northern Colorado.
4 Based on the information collected from
5 this investigation, I would like to summarize nine of
6 our findings. First, we looked at landfill gas, and we
7 found that landfill gas concentrations are generally
8 nondetectable.
9 We also looked at the surface water
10 drainage works, which consisted of diversion ditches
11 and then associated French drains, and found those to
12 be functioning properly, as designed.
13 We also, through this investigation, looked
14 at shallow groundwater and deep groundwater. Shallow
15 groundwater generally flows from north to south. I
16 have a figure here which further illustrates -- I ' ll
17 use this one just for a moment -- which illustrates
18 with a number of colored dots all of the investigatory
19 borings, landfill gas monitoring wells.
20 MS. HARBERT: Sir, you need to take the
21 microphone.
22 MR. BUTLER: Do I need to do that? I ' ll
23 try and speak louder. I will stay here, rather than do
24 that.
25 The poster shows a series of investigatory
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
39
1 borings, which are established groundwater monitoring
2 wells, landfill gas probes, geotechnical property,
3 boring holes, and all of this was used to summarize
4 these findings. And we found -- I wanted to get into
5 shallow groundwater. It moves generally from north to
6 south. Deep groundwater also mirrors that pattern and
7 flows from the northwest to southeast.
8 We also found that the potential for
9 contamination -- or excuse me -- communication between
10 the shallow and the deep groundwater system is low,
11 based on this information. We sampled the deep
12 groundwater. We found no impacts from the landfill to
13 the deep groundwater.
14 We did an assessment of all the groundwater
15 and all the registered and unregistered used wells in
16 the vicinity, and I would like to move to the next one
17 that shows the location and the vicinity of wells.
18 And the nearest wells were approximately 2, 000 feet
19 downgradient of the site.
20 As I mentioned, we found no impacts to deep
21 groundwater. What we found was that there was a
22 shallow groundwater table which had low levels of
23 volatile organic compounds. As Mr. Pickle indicated,
24 these can be from a variety of different sources, but
25 regardless, we've taken them and have been addressing
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061.
40
1 them in an environmentally responsible manner.
2 We believe that the cause of these is
3 because of an isolated area located up in the northwest
4 portion of the site where, because of off-site
5 irrigation practices of our neighbor to the north, that
6 has caused -- and which we believe has been impacted
7 from over the last few years -- land tiling and
8 artificially high groundwater, which we will talk about
9 in a moment, with how we intend to minimize future
10 contact of that water in that very isolated northwest
11 corner of the site.
12 But as a result of that contact, what we
13 believe has occurred is limited volatile organic
14 compound impacts in the shallow groundwater, as
15 delineated in this overhead. As you can see, the area
16 is very small, it' s very limited. It' s shown in a
17 light brown color on the south side of the facility.
18 MR. MORRISON: Before you go further, are
19 these figures contained in the Golder and Associates
20 report? And are these something that have previously
21 been put into evidence?
22 MR. BUTLER: This is the only exhibit that
23 is not contained. It' s in the presentation notebooks,
24 which we believe would be a record of this
25 presentation.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
41
1 MR. MORRISON: So the overhead is in the
2 presentation?
3 MR. BUTLER: It' s in the presentation
4 notebook as an exhibit, and should be kept as a part of
5 the record.
6 MR. MORRISON: Okay.
7 MR. BUTLER: Those were our findings.
8 Where do we go from here, you might ask. Well, we
9 retained Golder and Associates, as mentioned, and
10 prepared a hydrogeologic model of the site.
11 And what we found was that the primary
12 aquifer underlying the facility is the Laramie-Fox
13 Hills aquifer, although this area of the aquifer is
14 outside the Denver Basin, and we further delineated for
15 the hydrogeologic model three geologic units, of which
16 the surficial or uppermost unit was deemed to be a
17 silty clay to clay silt material.
18 Based on engineering property of soil tests
19 done on that, we found that the horizontal groundwater
20 flow could be estimated at approximately 95 feet per
21 year. Now, when we look at this figure again, as we
22 all know, this landfill has been open for approximately
23 22 years.
24 I think that, again, we enforced that,
25 although groundwater moves at 95 feet per year, we are
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9J1061
42
1 seeing a volatile organic compound concentration, which
2 is moving slow and is no more than 30 feet to 200 feet
3 maximum, based on our investigation, off of the
4 landfill boundary.
5 I would like to move to further discussion
6 of what else we found in the groundwater in our
7 determination of existing environmental conditions.
8 What we found after extensive testing -- and we are not
9 dealing with fiction here, we are dealing with fact --
10 the fact we spent a tremendous amount of money going
11 above and beyond the State regulations, the County
12 regulations, but to our own company high standards in a
13 spirit of cooperation, we have done a tremendous amount
14 of testing.
15 And what we found are basically four
16 volatile organic compounds which exist in the shallow
17 groundwater. This might make some sense to some folks,
18 but I will mention them, because I think it's important
19 that there are only four. And these are called
20 1, 1-dichloroethane, 1, 2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene
21 and tetrachlorethene. These are common volatile
22 organic compounds which can be easily treated, and we
23 will get into that a little bit later in my
24 presentation.
25 However, the important thing to note, the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
43
1 concentrations that we found are only slightly above,
2 only slightly exceeding the State of Colorado and
3 Federal drinking water standards. VOCs were not
4 detected in the deep groundwater. Further, no
5 pesticides or herbicides were detected in the
6 groundwater.
7 I think this is an important point to draw
8 out, because this site was listed on what' s called
9 CERCLIS. CERCLIS is a Federal inventory of all of the
10 disposal sites in our country, and there was an
11 assessment done many years ago to determine if the
12 disposal of pesticides may have caused a problem at
13 this site.
14 We believe that the testing we have done
15 shows that there is no leakage from the landfill that
16 would cause or that we could detect a problem from.
17 Further, we analyzed metals. We found no detectable
18 concentrations. We looked for radionuclides,
19 radioactivity. Those all appear to be natural .
20 The only surface water sample which
21 exhibited a detectable concentration of VOCs was the
22 landfill underdrain outlet, and there were only two
23 volatile organic compounds in the underdrain.
24 So we went further downstream to see if in
25 Spomer Lakes we could detect it. We went farther
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
44
1 downstream in the discharge from Spomer Lakes. And in
2 both instances we found no organic compounds.
3 We found no pesticides or herbicides
4 detected in any of the water samples. Through this
5 focus sampling of the creek water downstream of the
6 landfill, it was determined -- and the State has
7 reviewed our findings -- that the milky white color in
8 the creek is probably caused by natural conditions.
9 The odors are also probably caused by natural
10 conditions which result in the decomposition of
11 sulfites.
12 I would like to move to the second part of
13 my presentation, the second of three, regarding the
14 development, operation and closure plans. These plans,
15 which are included in a number of large sheets which
16 were filed on March 31 with Weld County, go over the
17 design, operation and closure methods to be used by the
18 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill.
19 I think it's important to note, again, in a
20 spirit of cooperation, even though in 1971 plans
21 were -- of this nature were not required, we went
22 ahead, even before Chairman Kennedy' s letter in
23 October, and initiated the preparation of these plans.
24 And we've had an ongoing dialogue since
25 October with the Weld County Health Department and with
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:x`1061
45
1 the Colorado Department of Health regarding the
2 development and evolution.
3 The development plans include some basic
4 features which I 'd like to go over. The first one is
5 with regard to surface water management. Alan is going
6 to be putting up a poster here which goes over and
7 shows in blue some of the diversion works, French drain
8 that's been installed at the site.
9 These are necessary because of irrigation
10 activities upgradient, which have required more
11 extensive management of water levels within the
12 landfill, and by the construction of a landfill
13 underdrain, interceptor trench, and French drain.
14 As part of the amended permit application
15 submitted in March, 1993 , we're proposing to do three
16 key components. The first is to enhance and further
17 develop a system brought on/brought off perimeter
18 ditches.
19 These are shown in key design details. The
20 key design details first point out in the upper left
21 column two different ditches. One ditch will be used
22 for handling site runoff from the landfill . The second
23 will be used for handling site run-on, principally from
24 the practices of the property owner to the north of our
25 landfill.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91061
46
1 Secondly, I 'd like to go over the surface
2 water and irrigation water control system, which
3 enhances the existing French drain system and helps by
4 improving the French drain to further draw down the
5 shallow water that we've seen in a very isolated and
6 very small portion of the northwest corner of the site.
7 And, finally, what you see on the bottom of
8 the poster is a large schematic of a 54-inch CNP that
9 will be used to divert these irrigation waters around
10 our north perimeter and to the west of the facility.
11 In the evolution of the development plans,
12 we've worked very hard on determining how best to meet
13 Subtitle D for future service to Greeley and Weld
14 County. And what we have recently done is sign an
15 agreement to purchase an additional hundred acres of
16 land east, south and west of the existing site.
17 We believe this is important because it
18 provides us the elbow room in which to install interim
19 measures needed for future operation of the site,
20 including establishing true points of compliance for
21 the facility.
22 The landfill will not expand into the
23 buffer zone. Rather, the buffer zone will be used for,
24 one, elbow room to do interim measures and, number two,
25 as a source of soils to be used in the operation and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
47
1 closure of the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill .
2 I would like to talk about the next part of
3 the development operations and closure plan, which is
4 the operations plan. The operations plan addresses how
5 the facility will be operated. One of the major
6 components of the facility is with regard to how we
7 inspect incoming waste loads. These waste loads are
8 inspected at the gate and again at the time of
9 disposal.
10 We've implemented a hazardous waste
11 exclusion program and an access control plan, which is
12 included within the amended application process. What
13 is this about? Well, this program basically provides a
14 plan to identify and screen, both visually and through
15 extensive analytical testing, that no regulated
16 hazardous wastes, liquid wastes, or PCB wastes are
17 received at the site.
18 The plans also show with regard to
19 operations fill sequencing. A fill sequence plan is
20 broken basically into series of sequences to engineer
21 the proper development of the final gradient plan.
22 Another key component of the operations
23 plan is environmental monitoring, and the environmental
24 monitoring plan will include monitoring of groundwater,
25 landfill gas, and surface water. As I mentioned
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
48
1 earlier, we have already tripled the number of
2 groundwater monitoring wells.
3 This was not required by the State. It was
4 not required by the County. And yet, we chose to do it
5 in a spirit of cooperation, voluntarily, to make sure
6 that we protected the environment, again which you will
7 recall is our first environmental principle.
8 In addition, in the amended application we
9 are proposing three points of compliance to address the
10 quality of groundwater downgradient of the site.
11 Finally, in operations must come closure,
12 and in the closure plan is a grading and drainage
13 configuration. The final elevation will be
14 approximately 40 feet higher than existing ground.
15 This contour will be necessary to achieve proper
16 drainage and blend with the surrounding area, to ease
17 the concerns of height and view restrictions.
18 This contouring, which will be necessary in
19 order to protect the environment, since, as you will
20 recall, a few minutes ago I mentioned that the
21 groundwater impacts are not coming from waste being put
22 on top, but they're coming from groundwater, shallow,
23 coming into contact with existing refuse placed at the
24 site in a very small and isolated portion, will provide
25 this central part of Weld County with approximately 12
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9310611
49
1 to 15 years, depending upon ours and your success in
2 waste reduction, recycling and minimization.
3 The post-closure, under the new Subtitle D
4 regulations, which we plan to meet if we're allowed to
5 continue to operate, will provide for post-closure care
6 for a 30-year period.
7 If the site is forced to close through
8 probable cause and show cause proceedings, this site
9 will not be governed by the same standards. We will
10 not all have the same high level of monitoring that is
11 now not required by current regulation.
12 Finally, the third part of my presentation
13 goes over environmental commitments. We believe that,
14 through our extensive work, we will demonstrate to the
15 satisfaction of Weld County and the State of Colorado
16 that our facility will meet all of the anticipated
17 Subtitle D regulations which will upgrade Colorado' s
18 solid waste program.
19 We acknowledge that shallow groundwater
20 immediately downgradient of the landfill contains VOCs
21 and that these VOCs are slightly above recognized
22 standards.
23 What we propose is to do two things: One
24 is to redesign the diversion trench and French drain,
25 and two is to evaluate the effectiveness of treating
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
331061
50
1 the groundwater via some new technology that has had
2 remarkable success over the last five years.
3 This technique is known as air sparging,
4 which specifically uses a series of wells to inject air
5 into the shallow groundwater. The bubbling effect
6 basically volatilizes the volatile organic compounds.
7 The effectiveness of the system can be measured in the
8 monitoring probe shown in the overhead, and we can
9 extract the vapors through a vapor extraction well.
10 What we propose to do, as contained in our
11 amended application, is to proceed on a pilot test
12 program the implementation of this air sparging
13 technique.
14 We believe a pilot scale test is
15 appropriate and should be done for a short time, until
16 it's expanded to treat that very small area in the
17 buffer area, which we plan to acquire. And then, once
18 the testing and the monitoring is concluded, we would
19 propose then to expand air sparging or choose another
20 suitable technique.
21 In summary, I think I 've gone over the high
22 degree of work that' s gone on over the last year and a
23 half with regard to environmental assessments and
24 preparation of design, development, operation and
25 closure plans.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9431061
51
1 The site is there. We've identified some
2 issues. As a good neighbor, we are prepared to deal
3 with them. So far, much of our work has all been
4 voluntary, and we will meet all the regulations that
5 are applicable to the site to comply with the future
6 Subtitle D regulations.
7 But with regard to the four points
8 addressed in Mr. Pickle's letter, I would like to point
9 out that, one, with regard to the lack of plans, I
10 believe the tape of the 1971 hearing will show that
11 Mr. Stoddard, as representing the Colorado Department
12 of Health, reviewed the application, concurred with the
13 application, and that even before Chairman Kennedy's
14 letter, we were in the midst of preparing development,
15 operation and closure plans, that these plans had been
16 coordinated closely with the Weld County Department of
17 Health.
18 With the same dialogue that we had had with
19 the hydrogeologic assessments, we had hoped to have
20 with the development plans, so for whatever reasons we
21 didn't have it, what I had proposed to do in our
22 submittal is present conceptual plans which would
23 establish a dialogue. This dialogue would be used for
24 the preparation of preliminary plans, and finally, we
25 would use this dialogue and comments received to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
52
1 incorporate any additional Subtitle D regulations into
2 final plans.
3 But after submitting the conceptual plans
4 in November and our written text accompanying those
5 plans in December, although we did hear from Mr. Pickle
6 in February that the plans were incomplete, we never
7 heard what the details of the incompleteness were,
8 other than there were four sheets regarding drainage,
9 which we had discussed with the Weld County Health
10 Department prior to looking at acquisitions of the
11 buffer area.
12 And so, other than having now submitted
13 those additional four sheets, we have not heard
14 anything extra that may be incomplete or lacking with
15 regard to these plans. But, nevertheless, we will work
16 closely with the Weld County Health Department, in our
17 continued spirit of cooperation, to address any issues
18 that come up in our amended application.
19 The second point of Mr. Pickle' s letter was
20 a lack of discharge permits. We filed for those. As
21 stated, those discharge permits are imminent, and we
22 should be receiving those shortly.
23 Finally, with regard to violation of
24 Section 2 . 1. 4 , we take exception to this, based on the
25 fact that inspections for the last 20 years, up until
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
331061
53
1 September of '92 , these inspections have continually
2 noted that the facility was in compliance.
3 The details of this compliance were that
4 there was adequate cover being applied, surface
5 drainage was adequate, and that, as an operator, the
6 facility continued to minimize nuisance conditions.
7 Therefore, we believe that we are not in violation of
8 Section 2 . 1.4 .
9 In summary, I believe that the historical
10 practices by Mr. Brad Keirnes, and current practices
11 over the last year and a half, illustrate a commitment
12 to compliance and protection of the environment, and
13 that we are here today to address in our amended
14 application any corrective issues that need to be done
15 to assure long-term compliance of this facility over
16 its useful life.
17 Thank you very much.
18 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
19 Mr. Butler?
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: I have a question. You
21 said you submitted additional sheets regarding drainage
22 to Mr. John Pickle. When did you submit those?
23 MR. BUTLER: We submitted those in
24 conjunction with our amended application March 31.
25 And the reason, again, those were delayed was because
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3j1961
54
1 we had worked closely with the project manager from the
2 Weld County Health Department and the State Health
3 Department, and we were trying to incorporate some
4 additional drainage improvements which could be
5 facilitated with the buffer area that was acquired
6 early in March.
7 MS. KIRKMEYER: And you made a statement
8 about, if the landfill were to close or were closed
9 today, or whatever, that the same standards wouldn't
10 apply.
11 MR. BUTLER: That 's correct.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: What standards apply to the
13 landfill now?
14 MR. BUTLER: The existing State of Colorado
15 standards that have not incorporated Subtitle D.
16 MS. KIRKMEYER: And so what standards would
17 apply if the landfill closed now?
18 MR. BUTLER: The existing standards that do
19 not incorporate Subtitle D. The State of Colorado, in
20 May, will consider incorporation of the Subtitle D
21 standards into the state regulations. Currently, the
22 State of Colorado doesn't have a post-closure period
23 required.
24 MS. HARBERT: Any other questions?
25 MR. BAXTER: Madam Chairman, I would like
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
.1.,;1961
55
1 to clarify something with Mr. Pickle. On this, the
2 sheets, then, that were sent to you, do they complete
3 the report? You said it was incomplete.
4 MR. PICKLE: At the time that I received
5 those sheets -- and they came in with the amended CD,
6 and I did not have time to review those -- no.
7 MS. HARBERT: Any other questions? We will
8 declare a 10-minute recess. We will come back at 20
9 minutes until 11: 00.
10 There is a canteen on the second floor and
11 there are restrooms on all floors.
12 (Recess from 10: 30 to 10: 42 a.m. )
13 MS. HARBERT: Before we begin again, I
14 think it's quite obvious that there 's major
15 construction going on within the building, and we just
16 ask that you be extremely careful, that you don't trip
17 and fall over some of the plywood and rugs that have
18 been put out to save the flooring from the construction
19 process, and that you -- that we sincerely apologize
20 for noise that might go on.
21 We try to minimize that, especially during
22 times like this, but progress is in motion.
23 Mr. Butler, did you have something
24 additional to your presentation?
25 MR. BUTLER: I just wanted to make one
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
56
1 comment and introduce Bill Hedberg, who will introduce
2 the next speaker.
3 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
4 MR. BUTLER: And my final comment, which I
5 think is important after our break and we returned, is
6 that, in our close working relationships since our
7 presence and historically, is that in those working
8 meetings and all the characterization activities we've
9 performed, that we agree with the Colorado Department
10 of Health, and that, by their actions, there is not an
11 immediate threat to the public health, and would agree
12 with their desire to proceed with corrective action.
13 With that, I would like to introduce
14 Mr. Bill Hedberg again.
15 MR. HEDBERG: Thank you, Leonard. I would
16 like to maybe help draw this back together. Also,
17 there is one thing that, I wanted to make sure we
18 didn't have a misunderstanding with the members of the
19 Board of Commissioners.
20 We had talked with the Weld County
21 comprehensive plan has included a 20- to 60-year life.
22 I believe that was back in 1987 when the plan was
23 drafted, and then updated through last year.
24 The contours that Mr. Butler talked about
25 of the highest point about 40 feet are not the same as
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
57
1 what was included in the comprehensive plan. These
2 contours that we proposed in our amended application,
3 filed on April 1, would give an expected life of
4 probably 10 to 12 years, and so this --
5 MS. HARBERT: Additional?
6 MR. HEDBERG: This is significantly less
7 than what the County was assuming in the comprehensive
8 plan and, basically, that was reduced to those levels,
9 basically in response to some of the comments we had
10 gotten from some of our neighbors, that the contours
11 needed to maybe blend in a little closer to the road
12 terrain, and not try to maximize the available capacity
13 of the facility, although it does reduce the ability of
14 the facility to meet the needs of the service area for
15 those later years.
16 I just wanted to make sure there was not a
17 misunderstanding.
18 MS. HARBERT: So you' re saying 10 to 12
19 additional years?
20 MR. HEDBERG: Yes, ma 'am. That' s basically
21 what's included in the amendment process that we're
22 proposing.
23 We've talked a lot about the engineering, a
24 lot about the types of things that the facility
25 management and environmental engineering staff has
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
58
1 done. A lot of these things have been voluntary.
2 They've been above and beyond what the legal
3 requirements are.
4 That's consistent with what the commitment
5 of the company is. Basically, what we' re trying to
6 focus on is not only what is legally required, but
7 above that, what' s in the best interest of the
8 facility, the needs of the service area, the
9 environment of that neighborhood, and the needs of the
10 neighbors that we live next to out there.
11 However, there are some legal issues that
12 have been brought in through the allegations, and so I
13 would like to introduce our local counsel, Mr. Arthur
14 Roy, to address some of those issues.
15 MR. ROY: Good morning. My name is Arthur
16 Roy. You have, I believe, in your notebooks a sort of
17 an outline of what I want to address. You will be
18 happy to know I am, one, not going to read it to you,
19 and two, it's a basis for the discussion. And you can
20 read it, as well as listen to my comments.
21 The first alleged violation that has been
22 discussed is a failure to have an engineering design
23 and operations plan filed. This is alleged to be a
24 violation of CRS 30-20-103 by the Public -- Weld County
25 Health Department and Weld County Planning Department.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
59
1 The Colorado State Health Department disagrees and says
2 that that was not and is not a requirement for this
3 landfill. And this landfill was certified and
4 permitted to open in 1971.
5 Prior to that, the law was the Landfill Act
6 of 1967, which did not speak at all to an engineering
7 and design and operation plan, and the regulations
8 issued by the Colorado Department of Health in 1967
9 dealt solely with operational matters, not with the
10 application process.
11 If you read 30-20-103 and its predecessors,
12 it is an application statute. It is not an operational
13 statute. It deals with what an applicant must do, what
14 an applicant must submit before his application can be
15 reviewed and approved.
16 In 1971, effective April of that year, the
17 legislature adopted an act which added language to the
18 application section. That language is set out in the
19 outline, but the language was the first time there was
20 mention of doing geologic and hydrologic work, as a
21 part of the application required that that information
22 be submitted to the Department of Health in accordance
23 with regulations the Department of Health was to adopt.
24 The hearing on this matter before the Weld
25 County Commissioners occurred September 21 of 1971.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 931%j
60
1 The regulations of the Health Department implementing
2 the statute were not adopted until February of 1972,
3 and were not effective until April of 1972 . And so the
4 regulations that called for this information and set
5 forth how it was to be presented were not in existence
6 at the time this landfill was certificated.
7 The State Department of Health, which has
8 the primary responsibility for the enforcement of these
9 regulations and drafted them and approved and enacted
10 them, has taken the position that existing landfills as
11 of the effective date of those regulations are
12 grandfathered. And this landfill meets that criteria.
13 And so there is not now and there never has
14 been a requirement that there be such a plan. If you
15 don't take the Department of Health's word for the fact
16 that this plan was not required and is not required, I
17 would address your attention to the 1991 amendments to
18 the Solid Waste Disposal statute.
19 And that statute says -- and I will take
20 the time to quote that -- No existing solid waste
21 disposal site facility which is operated pursuant to a
22 valid certificate of designation shall be deemed to be
23 in violation of any provision of this Part 1 because of
24 any failure to comply with application procedures which
25 are enacted subsequent to the issuance of such
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
61
1 certificate of designation.
2 And so I would submit, not only has the
3 Department of Health grandfathered this facility; so
4 has the State Legislature, as recently as 1991.
5 Now, the regulations were originally
6 proposed to the State Department of Health for
7 enactment in October, shortly after this hearing,
8 shortly after the hearing at which this facility was
9 certificated.
10 Mr. Stoddard, who was the representative of
11 the State Department of Health, was present at the
12 hearing in September. His testimony is in the record.
13 His testimony is also quoted in my notes before you.
14 Basically, what he says is that
15 Mr. Moffat had submitted to the State Department of
16 Health in August of 1971 essentially what the State
17 Department of Health was going to require in their
18 regulations, and that that had been gone over by the
19 State Health Department, and they felt this was a good
20 site.
21 Now, that's not going through the formal
22 process, because the formal process didn't exist. But
23 a colorable effort to meet the process was, in fact,
24 undertaken, and the approval, be it informal, was in
25 fact given.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9.1961
62
1 Now, the one last remaining possibility, I
2 suppose, under this first violation, and that is, that
3 we have now, in fact, submitted that. There may be
4 those who say, Well, yeah, you submitted them two or
5 three days before the hearing. Big deal.
6 These documents take a long time to
7 prepare. They take lots of engineering work to
8 prepare, and according to the testimony, almost
9 three-quarters of a million dollars in expense.
10 These documents did not appear in the last
11 two weeks, the last month, the last six weeks, or the
12 last two months. These documents have been in the
13 course of being prepared for months. We've only known
14 the problem for a little over six months.
15 So I don't think it can be argued that
16 Waste Management or Waste Services has been dilatory in
17 meeting its obligations and coming forward with a
18 comprehensive plan, which I submit to this date it is
19 not required to do.
20 Now, with respect to alleged Violation 2 ,
21 alleged Violation 2 alleges that the landfill is
22 discharging into the surface water. Waters are divided
23 into at least two categories, surface water and
24 groundwater.
25 The surface water allocation relates to the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
63
1 underdrain, which I think Chairman Harbert asked if
2 that had, in fact, been installed. It was, in fact,
3 installed in the 1980s, and it comes out adjacent to
4 Spomer Lake 2 .
5 There are now four Spomer Lakes. We number
6 them from the bottom, north -- one, two, three, four.
7 The underdrain comes out adjacent to or into Spomer
8 Lake 2 . It was not until mid-1992 that there was any
9 awareness that a discharge permit was required. Tests
10 had been done pursuant to a contract with the County,
11 and all the reports have been favorable up to that
12 point.
13 When Waste Management of Colorado became
14 involved in the ownership of the operator, it
15 voluntarily undertook a much more aggressive, much
16 broader evaluation of this site, and using its own
17 laboratories and using laboratories of its consultants,
18 began to test for a wide range of compounds, including
19 volatile organic compounds. They found these to exist,
20 and that was not confirmed until confirmatory tests
21 were done in the fall of 1992 .
22 The application for a discharge permit was
23 made in the fall of 1992, October -- November of
24 1992 -- I 'm sorry. That's pretty speedy work for a
25 company that has just taken over a site and just made
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3i1961
64
1 the determination for the first time that a discharge
2 permit is required.
3 Application is pending on that; Waste
4 Services is diligently pursuing it. Things take time
5 in the Colorado Department of Health. We believed we
6 would have it by now. We have no reason to believe it
7 won't ultimately be granted.
8 What ' s coming out of that underdrain are
9 the VOCs that have been discussed, have been described
10 to you. Those are ethenes and ethanes. Ethenes and
11 ethanes are very light organic compounds. They are
12 very volatile. The result is they come out of the
13 water almost as soon as the water is exposed to the
14 air.
15 The best evidence of that has been pointed
16 out to you, that there is no trace of them in Spomer
17 Lake No. 2 . There is no trace of them in Spomer Lake
18 No. 1. There is no trace of them in the discharge
19 point at Spomer Lake No. 1, nor is there any trace of
20 them downstream.
21 That doesn't make the discharge of them
22 legal, but I would submit to you that the discharge is
23 a minor one. It is being corrected. The discharge
24 permit will be granted, or in all likelihood will be
25 granted.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE (31061
65
1 The third violation -- and I might add,
2 both the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado
3 State Health Department have indicated that they would
4 not take action with respect to this as long as an
5 application is pending. And I would suggest that you
6 take their advice and take the same course of action.
7 With respect to the alleged Violation 3 ,
8 alleged Violation 3 deals with the groundwater, to be
9 distinguished from the surface water, along the south
10 edge of the landfill . Most particularly, at the very
11 southeast corner of the landfill, volatile organic
12 compounds have been detected in the shallow
13 groundwater.
14 This is believed to be the product of
15 trash, waste coming into contact with subsurface water
16 in the northwest quadrant of the landfill, where it's
17 been subjected to groundwater encroachment, and perhaps
18 has been for some time. This was determined by wells
19 drilled subsequent to the acquisition of the site,
20 subsequent to the acquisition of Waste Services by
21 Waste Management.
22 There are three holes up in that northwest
23 corner. One of the holes is wet in the bottom. Two of
24 them within a few hundred feet of those holes are dry,
25 which indicates that the area of encroachment is
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
66
1 relatively minor. That area of encroachment is minor,
2 also, measured by another scale. There is very little
3 methane production in this landfill.
4 MS. HARBERT: Do you have an overhead of
5 that?
6 MR. HERST: I can point. These are the
7 holes that he' s referring to up here (indicating) .
8 MS. HARBERT: Which one is wet and which
9 one is dry?
10 MR. HERST: This is the only one that' s
11 shown direct continual groundwater (indicating) .
12 MR. WEBSTER: What is the depth of that?
13 MR. HERST: The depth of the wells is
14 approximately 30 to 35 feet. They were drilled through
15 the base of the solid waste. I could be off a little
16 bit on the actual depth. The important thing is they
17 were drilled through the baseline, though.
18 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
20 MR. ROY: The three I am referring to, the
21 upper one is wet; the two immediately to the south and
22 flanking it are dry.
23 The question becomes, is this a violation
24 of -- is the presentation of these volatile organic
25 compounds in the groundwater a violation of 2 . 1.2 or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
67
1 2 . 1.4? And I 'm not going to read all of those to you,
2 but I 've set them out verbatim in a note.
3 Suffice it to say that 2 . 1.4 is really the
4 governing regulation. It uses two terms: It uses
5 "minimize" and it uses "prevent. " It uses minimize
6 with respect to nuisance conditions, which can include
7 water within the definition. I would add that nuisance
8 condition is a defined term in the regulation.
9 The use of the word minimize assumes that
10 there' s going to be some impact from the operation of
11 any human activity, including a landfill. The
12 obligation of the operator is to minimize these
13 nuisance conditions, there being a recognition by the
14 State Department of Health by the use of the word
15 minimize, to be distinguished from the word prevent,
16 which is also used in the same section of the same
17 regulation, which gives you some indication that the
18 State Health Department knows the difference between
19 the two and intended a different meaning when it used
20 the different terms.
21 Minimize is what we are doing, and minimize
22 is what is planned. The groundwater encroachment is
23 caused, according to the hydrologists and geologists
24 who studied the matter, by the upgradient irrigation.
25 I read in the paper just last night
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
68
1 statements from Mr. Telep to the effect that he had
2 installed underdrains on his land, and he had also
3 installed ponds, both of which would affect our
4 groundwater. We have already taken remedial action
5 across the north side of the public facility and
6 historically along the north edge of the facility.
7 The plan calls for even more. The
8 hydrologists and hydroengineers say that remedial
9 action in all likelihood will cure the problem, will
10 cure the encroachment of the groundwater, which is the
11 cause that is believed the problem.
12 The second aspect of dealing with the
13 problem is the air sparging on the south edge where we
14 have, in fact, had some movement of the volatile
15 organic compounds in the groundwater.
16 The second word used in 2 . 1. 4 is
17 "prevent. " Prevent is used in the language dealing
18 with cover and drainage on-site. It says we will cover
19 and we will compact and we will use suitable material
20 to prevent ponding of water, to prevent -- with
21 adequate design for drainage, and prevent water
22 pollution. That's what the regs say.
23 There are 20 years of reports on this site
24 dealing with a cover. They've been alluded to already.
25 The cover has always been approved.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
69
1 Now, you say, Well, that isn't quite
2 enough, Mr. Roy. Just the fact it has been approved
3 isn't quite enough.
4 I would point out to you that this
5 landfill, with the exception of one low area, is dry.
6 Now, if there were encroachment through the cover, it
7 would not be dry. It would be wet at the top. It
8 would be wet all the way through.
9 That is not what the test borings show.
10 The test borings show water only in one isolated area,
11 and that is at the bottom of the landfill .
12 So the water that you' re seeing in there
13 that's causing the possible generation of volatile
14 organic compounds is not water that' s come through the
15 roof. It' s water that's come into the basement.
16 We have prevented the ponding. We have
17 used adequate cover. And we have, by that, prevented
18 the encroachment of water in a landfill, and that' s
19 what the regulation requires.
20 Everybody has concluded that this is a
21 nuisance condition. "Nuisance condition" is a defined
22 term in the regulation. The mere existence of volatile
23 organic compounds in the groundwater is not a nuisance
24 under the department's regulations, in and of itself.
25 More must be shown.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
70
1 Nuisance conditions are defined as those
2 which may result from water pollution. There must be
3 something more than the mere existence of contaminants
4 to have a nuisance condition under the wording of the
5 State Department of Health's regulation.
6 The position of the operator is that it has
7 minimized groundwater contamination. It has done that
8 by aggressively testing for it, but promptly and
9 honestly reporting it to the regulatory agencies
10 responsible and interested, by proposing and taking
11 remedial action, and by being prepared to take
12 additional remedial action.
13 The alleged Violation 4 is basically a
14 repeat of alleged Violation 3 for all intents and
15 purposes. The difference is, in Violation 4 it
16 focuses on the fact that some of the trash is in the
17 groundwater, or has encroached upon by groundwater.
18 It speculates that that might be a violation of a
19 future proposed regulation of the State Water Quality
20 Commission.
21 That proposed regulation and the proposing
22 process has changed since the allegation was made, and
23 under the one being currently considered by the Water
24 Quality Control Commission, this would not, in fact, be
25 a violation. For the reasons I 've already discussed
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
71
1 with respect to the construction of 2 . 1. 4 and 2 . 1. 2, we
2 submit no violation exists.
3 The two issues you need to address are, Has
4 there been a violation? The second issue you have to
5 address is, What are you going to do about it if there
6 has been?
7 This proceeding that you are now engaged
8 in, if taken to fruition, could result in a termination
9 of the zoning and require the closure of the facility.
10 This is a result which is contrary to the
11 recommendation that you have received from your
12 Department of Health, it's contrary to the
13 recommendation you have received from your Department
14 of Planning, contrary to the recommendations of
15 engineering and environmental specialists retained by
16 Waste Services, contrary to the recommendation of Waste
17 Services, contrary to the more comprehensive and modern
18 regulatory scheme envisioned by Subtitle D, which talks
19 not about termination and closure, but talks about
20 remedial and corrective action, and it's contrary,
21 though they may not believe it, to the long-term best
22 interests of the adjacent property owners.
23 Waste Services has before you a series of
24 items, which are corrective action plan, a future
25 operations plan, a closure plan and a post-closure
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
72
1 plan. Those plans are designed to close this facility
2 in an orderly fashion, in accordance with current
3 engineering practice, in accordance with future
4 comprehensive -- a future comprehensive regulatory
5 environment, and if those plans are adopted, your
6 operator has agreed to be involved in the post-closure
7 period, an obligation he does not now have.
8 I would submit to you that you take the
9 advice of your own advisers and, one, find no probable
10 cause, but, two, if you cannot be so persuaded,
11 continue this matter until you've had an obligation to
12 look at what is going to happen in the future with
13 respect to this site.
14 If you look at the diagrams that are in
15 your materials and you look at the chart that' s behind
16 me, you will see that this facility is flat on top,
17 large areas of very little gradient, basically flat.
18 I think your engineer will tell you, I
19 think the people familiar with regulation of landfills
20 will tell you, you don't close a landfill in that
21 configuration. You close a landfill with a dome on it.
22 That permits drainage. That seals the top of that
23 landfill in a way that it will remain safe, not only
24 immediately, but for the entire post-closure period,
25 for some 30 years.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
73
1 I would submit to you that there is no
2 violation, and that if there is a violation, that needs
3 to be addressed by means other than a show cause
4 hearing and a possible termination of the site.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. WEBSTER: I have a question for
7 Mr. Roy.
8 MS. HARBERT: Is there anyone that has
9 questions of Mr. Roy?
10 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Roy --
11 MS. KIRKMEYER: Tried to get away, didn't
12 you?
13 MR. WEBSTER: Violation No. 2 , I would like
14 to read one thing, and I don't quite understand. It
15 says VOCs were detected at the underdrain discharge
16 point which discharges into or near Spomer Lake No. 2 .
17 The next sentence says no VOCs have been
18 detected in Spomer Lake No. 2 or at any downstream
19 location.
20 Which is it?
21 MR. ROY: Both. There is -- tests have
22 been made at this location, Spomer Lake No. 2 , Spomer
23 Lake No. 2 water. The tests have been made at the
24 discharge point at Spomer Lake 1, and tests were made
25 downstream. No volatile organic compounds have been
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1961
74
1 found in those waters.
2 They do, in fact -- they have, in
3 fact, been found at the very outlet of that drain.
4 Someone facetiously said to me -- and I
5 take it to be somewhat true -- if you took a glass of
6 water with these volatile organic compounds in it, they
7 would evaporate from the water before you drink it.
8 They are that light and that volatile. They do not
9 stay in the water.
10 Department of Health, I understand, says
11 that anything that' s in this underdrain will be treated
12 ultravioletly while in these two lakes, if it's in
13 those two lakes. So it's naturally treated in those
14 two lakes, to the extent that it gets there.
15 The milky -- there was some laughter at the
16 time we talked about the milky water, the milky water
17 in the streams --
18 (Brief interruption. )
19 MR. ROY: -- that is caused by the
20 background compounds in the water observed in almost
21 equal quantity above and below the landfill .
22 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
23 MS. HARBERT: Are there any other questions
24 for Mr. Roy?
25 Thank you.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
75
1 MR. ROY: Thank you.
2 MS. HARBERT: I would like to say that we
3 will be adjourning for lunch at 11: 30, due to the fact
4 that the commissioners are all speaking at an
5 engagement this afternoon, and we will reconvene at
6 1: 15. So you can judge your presentation by those
7 hours.
8 MR. HEDBERG: Thank you very much. My
9 closing comments will be very brief.
10 Basically, we 've heard a lot. We've heard
11 a lot about the history of this facility, we've heard
12 it's being properly permitted in the beginning, that it
13 was run through the years with a focus on compliance.
14 It was operated -- it still is operated with an
15 extremely high focus on compliance.
16 We have also heard that it was through our
17 focus on that compliance and investigating a site for
18 anything that might exist, that we ourselves did find
19 the issues that we are talking about today.
20 We found those ourselves, we further
21 investigated those ourselves, we proposed remediation
22 of those ourselves, and we plan to follow through with
23 those ourselves. We feel this has all been able to be
24 accomplished.
25 We feel we have a good relationship with
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3_1961
76
1 the Departments of Health, both State and County, and
2 we anticipate to continue that good working
3 relationship with both agencies, as well as anything
4 that would come under the special use permit of the
5 planning and zoning area.
6 One thing that we probably need to close up
7 with here is just one last focus, and that is that the
8 facility is permitted. It's functioning as a service
9 to that central service area. We are addressing issues
10 that we raised and, again, are of concern to the
11 County.
12 And the other thing I guess we need to
13 focus on here is, What ' s the best course of action for
14 all people involved? That would be the company, of
15 course, it would be the citizens that live around the
16 facility, it would be the citizens of the service area
17 of Central Weld County, and it would also be the
18 environment that we all love, live and grow up in.
19 I guess I would submit to you that the
20 proposal that we have taken, that is, the amended
21 application process that we submitted, is the best
22 route to take. In that application process, we have
23 addressed any of the concerns, whether they are legal,
24 or just -- just that they make sense. We've addressed
25 each of those concerns in the application process.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
77
1 I guess we would concur again with staff
2 that the best route to take at this point in time would
3 be to let that process travel its natural route, and
4 that would be that it would go out for basic review and
5 comment.
6 It would be submitted to various government
7 and quasi-governmental agencies for their reviews,
8 comments, that we would provide, I guess, a positive
9 process to be able to continue to upgrade the facility,
10 as necessary, to meet the ever-changing needs, both the
11 environmental needs and the surface area needs.
12 And I guess I would like to close in
13 bringing to your attention two letters that we've
14 received that illustrate, I guess, what we are out
15 there in business for. One is dated March 31, signed
16 by Karen Sekich, the chairman of the Weld Economic
17 Development Action Partnership, EDAP.
18 And if I can just briefly read it into the
19 record -- they're both very brief -- it says:
20 "Dear Ms. Harbert: The availability of a
21 regional state-of-the-art solid waste management
22 facility is important to the retention and attraction
23 of industry to Weld County. At a recent meeting of the
24 Executive Committee of the Greeley/Weld Economic
25 Development Action Partnership (EDAP) , we reaffirmed
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
78
1 the above statement and endorsed the process of
2 re-permitting the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill.
3 "We encourage the Weld County Commissioners
4 to favorably consider the re-permitting of the subject
5 facility. "
6 The other letter of a similar nature.
7 This is a letter dated April 2 , addressed to the
8 commissioners, signed by Mr. Paul Grattet, the City
9 Manager of the City of Greeley, and it says:
10 "Dear Commissioners: It is my
11 understanding that the Board will be discussing the
12 Central Weld Sanitary Landfill on Monday, April 5,
13 1993 .
14 "The continued availability of this
15 conveniently located landfill for the disposal of solid
16 waste generated within the City of Greeley is vital to
17 our residents and businesses.
18 "I respectfully request you proceed with
19 the process for considering an amended permit as
20 quickly as possible.
21 "Concerns of area residents should be heard
22 and considered, however sudden closure or prolonged
23 delay in issuing an amended permit would be harmful to
24 the economic future of Greeley.
25 "If there is any assistance I can provide
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE _
9:_11061
79
1 in this matter, please let me know. "
2 This illustrates what we are in business
3 for. We are in business to take care of the solid
4 waste that's generated in the service area. We try to
5 take care of that in an environmentally sound manner,
6 and if things do come up, we take care of those. We
7 try to take care of them in an economically sound
8 manner, to make it a cost-effective facility for the
9 benefits of the economic base of the region here.
10 And I guess we would propose that the
11 highest and best track to take at this point in time
12 would be to either find that there is not probable
13 cause or, at a minimum, suspend the probable cause
14 hearing in preference of the higher and better route to
15 take through the application process.
16 Thank you very much.
17 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
18 MR. HEDBERG: Any questions?
19 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions?
20 MR. HALL: I have one question. As far
21 as Mr. Roy's presentation on the alleged Violation
22 No. 4 -- he may be the one to ask, but may not be -- I
23 guess I 'm curious as to the second paragraph, or third
24 paragraph on the second page, where it says the
25 remedial action has been proposed and implementation of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 931061
80
1 some has already occurred.
2 Can you just briefly explain what that
3 means?
4 MR. HEDBERG: Yes. This is on the
5 identified infiltration of groundwater into the basic
6 refuse? Is that it?
7 MR. HALL: It's essentially, the trash is
8 in contact with groundwater.
9 MR. HEDBERG: That goes back, just as a
10 point of clarification -- and if I need further
11 consultation, I ' ll lean on my engineering staff for
12 sure. But, basically, when we were talking about the
13 54-inch corrugated metal culvert, and they were talking
14 about how that would be, I guess, blended into the
15 existing surface diversion ditch that' s on the -- in
16 the northwest side of the property, presently that's a
17 service water diversion ditch only, it ' s presently not
18 lined, and what's believed is that, as that carries the
19 surface water around the site to the west, that there
20 may be some infiltration just from seepage into that
21 very upper northern portion of the site.
22 What' s being proposed in the amendment
23 process is to basically enclose that in a metal pipe so
24 it will shut off the seepage tendency and, therefore,
25 if you shut off the source, then that area will join
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
81
1 the other areas in being a dry facility.
2 MS. HARBERT: Otherwise, that' s why the one
3 hole up there is wet.
4 MR. HEDBERG: Yes, ma'am. That's what
5 we believe, is that that one, what they call
6 piezometer -- it' s a boring that tests the water
7 levels in conjunction with the base of trash. And it's
8 believed that in that area -- Leonard can probably
9 explain this better than I can -- it' s believed that
10 that's what' s causing the moisture in that area.
11 MR. BUTLER: It' s --
12 MS. HARBERT: State your name, please.
13 MR. BUTLER: I 'm sorry. Leonard Butler
14 with Waste Services.
15 To respond succinctly to your question, in
16 the fall of ' 91, we proceeded to enhance the diversion
17 ditch on along the north side by construction of a
18 French drain. That's some of the activity, as well as
19 the planning work that was referenced by Mr. Hedberg.
20 MS. HARBERT: Does that answer your
21 question?
22 MR. WEBSTER: Where is the outlet of that
23 drain then to occur? Where are you going to take that
24 water, once you collect it?
25 MR. BUTLER: Mr. Herst is pointing out on
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
82
1 the poster that this runoff will be diverted around the
2 west and will be discharged along the western boundary
3 through the Spomer Lakes.
4 MR. WEBSTER: And all the water is not a
5 problem at that collection point?
6 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: It' s upgrading the
7 quality.
8 MR. BUTLER: It's of acceptable quality.
9 It' s above the landfill .
10 MR. BAXTER: In other words, it's foreign
11 water?
12 MR. BUTLER: You can use that term, foreign
13 or on-site or off-site.
14 MS. HARBERT: That would be water that came
15 to that field from the north? It could be agricultural
16 runoff or something like, similar to that?
17 MR. BUTLER: Yes, ma'am.
18 MS. HARBERT: So it wouldn't have any
19 connection with the landfill at all , actually.
20 MR. BUTLER: That' s correct.
21 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Are there any other
22 questions for Waste Management?
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: I have a question for Art
24 Roy.
25 MR. ROY: Yes, ma'am. I was going to get
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
83
1 my notes, but I put them away.
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: You said the act, the 1967
3 Act, that you quoted earlier, is there anything in that
4 act that required the applicant to submit any reports,
5 engineering or operational data to the Department of
6 Health, Colorado Department of Health, for review, and
7 the Department of Health is supposed to write any kind
8 of recommendation of approval?
9 MR. ROY: Neither was true under the 1967
10 Act. It' s interesting that the 1967 Act -- and it may
11 be true also of the 1971 Act -- is not under the
12 article dealing with Health. It's under the article
13 dealing with County Powers. Okay? And it allowed the
14 County to certificate these things and left it with the
15 County to make that determination.
16 The 1971 Act, which became effective April
17 of that year, was the first act that talked about the
18 State Department of Health being involved in the
19 permitting process. And it did that two ways,
20 basically.
21 One, it said in the Application section
22 that's now 30-20-102 or 103 , that engineering -- or not
23 -- but hydrological or geological information would be
24 submitted to the Department of Health in accordance
25 with its regulations.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
84
1 Later, in the 1971 amendment, it also says
2 that the County will not permit, without the approval
3 the Department of Health -- or I shouldn't say this --
4 I think the exact language is something to the effect
5 that you will not permit over the disapproval of the
6 Department of Health. If the Department of Health
7 disapproves it, you cannot permit it.
8 The -- that regulation was not in
9 existence, and apparently was only in a preliminary
10 draft form at the time of the hearing in September of
11 1971.
12 MR. WEBSTER: In either one of those acts
13 of ' 67 or '71, were there any recognizing written
14 factors as to the -- what goes into the landfills,
15 hazardous waste or anything like that, recognized -- in
16 the '71, in particular?
17 MR. ROY: I would have to look at the
18 regulations that were in existence in 196- -- under the
19 1967 act, to answer that question.
20 My belief is that, without looking at them,
21 and subject to correction from looking at them, is that
22 the distinction that we now have between hazardous
23 waste, nonhazardous waste and household waste, those
24 distinctions are relatively new, as is the total
25 regulatory environment in which this landfill is now
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
85
1 being required to operate.
2 Most of what we're talking about, in terms
3 of all of these plans and so forth, are creations of
4 legislatures and regulatory bodies after this landfill
5 started operation and, for the most part, after the
6 early waste was placed in the landfill, including the
7 waste up in the northwest corner.
8 The current operator is addressing those
9 issues, even though, quite frankly, it is not the
10 present operator' s fault.
11 MR. WEBSTER: Because you are not under the
12 subtitle.
13 MR. ROY: Not under Subtitle D.
14 MR. WEBSTER: I just wondered if they
15 picked up anything in '71.
16 MR. ROY: I don't believe -- I ' ll check
17 over the noon hour and ascertain that. The ' 67
18 regulations dealt entirely with operation, and were
19 very brief, called them dumps. I mean, all this -- you
20 know, it was crude by today's standards.
21 MS. HARBERT: Are there any additional
22 questions for Waste Management?
23 MR. ROY: Thank you.
24 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Since it's 25
25 after 11: 00 and I said we would adjourn at, or we would
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
86
1 recess -- excuse me -- at 11: 30, I think this is an
2 appropriate time to break.
3 MR. BAXTER: I believe John had something
4 he wanted to say.
5 MR. PICKLE: I just want to say, we do have
6 representatives from the State Department of Health, if
7 you wish to talk with them. I 'm not sure they' ll be
8 able to stay all afternoon. So I just mention that.
9 MS. HARBERT: All right. Are there any
10 five-minute questions for the Department of Health?
11 (No response. )
12 MS. HARBERT: All right. We will recess,
13 and we will reconvene at 1: 15.
14 (The hearing recessed at 11: 25 a.m. , to be
15 reconvened at 1: 15 p.m. )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
87
1 AFTERNOON SESSION 1: 18 p.m.
2 MS. HARBERT: We will proceed with the
3 probable cause hearing for Waste Management for the
4 Central Landfill. Let the record show it is
5 approximately 18 after 1: 00 and all five commissioners
6 are present.
7 THE CLERK: Do you want to remind them of
8 the cards?
9 MS. HARBERT: If anyone has come in since
10 this morning, we do have cards on the Clerk to the
11 Board's desk up here, if you will please fill those
12 cards out if you wish to speak for or against the
13 probable cause.
14 There was a question asked before we
15 dismissed this morning of Mr. Roy, and he has asked if
16 he can answer that question.
17 MR. ROY: Commissioner Webster asked about
18 the rules and regulations of the Department of Health
19 in 1967 . I have a copy of those rules. They are 6
20 pages in length -- 5-1/2 , actually -- double-spaced,
21 wide margins.
22 They do distinguish -- to be compared, I
23 might add with the current regulations which are this
24 thick, 58 pages, single-spaced, narrow margins. The
25 1967 regulations did refer to hazardous waste. I
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
88
1 indicated I didn't think they did. I wanted to correct
2 that.
3 It defined hazardous wastes. Hazardous
4 materials and toxic substances are liquids and/or
5 solids which can be dangerous to human, animal and
6 plant life. I have not read the regulations word for
7 word, but the only reference I could see in them to
8 hazardous wastes and toxic substances appears in the
9 last subsection.
10 And it says, Hazardous and toxic substances
11 received at a solid waste disposal site shall be
12 denatured to a form which is harmless to human life to
13 final disposal and . . . hazardous and toxic
14 substances, stocks of merchandise, including foods,
15 drugs and vegetables, is prohibited.
16 That's all it says, to my knowledge, about
17 hazardous waste. But the regulations are demonstrably
18 shorter and simpler than they were.
19 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay.
21 MS. HARBERT: I assume that Waste
22 Management has completed their presentation; is that
23 correct?
24 MR. HEDBERG: Yes, ma'am, we have.
25 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
89
1 We will now call for the opposition' s
2 testimony. Mr. Hobbs, I believe you are representing
3 that group; is that correct?
4 MR. HOBBS: That' s correct.
5 MS. HARBERT: All right. Would you come to
6 the microphone, please.
7 MR. HOBBS: Thank you. My name is Greg
8 Hobbs. I represent a group of Weld County citizens
9 today, some of whom you will hear from, many of whom
10 will not testify because we felt that the testimony
11 might be duplicative.
12 However, Mr. Hayes, the primary spokesman
13 for the group, will reflect the views of the citizens
14 who are not speaking today.
15 I would like to hand my long-time
16 colleague, Mr. Megyesy, who represents Waste Management
17 Inc. , a copy of our materials. And, Mr. Roy, I 'm
18 sorry, I don't have an extra copy. Maybe you can share
19 it.
20 MR. MEGYESY: We will .
21 MR. HOBBS: I would like the record to
22 reflect that we will distribute right now to each of
23 the commissioners our exhibits and summary of our
24 presentation. So if I may have a moment to have those
25 distributed before I refer to them.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931961
90
1 For the record, I would also like to state
2 that the original exhibits and summary of the
3 Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association has been handed
4 to Mr. Morrison to be included in the record of today' s
5 proceedings.
6 MR. MORRISON: I might also note that those
7 have been marked by Mr. Hobbs as AD, beginning with
8 No. 1, and I believe he has also included a summary of
9 all those, so there won't be a separate record of
10 those.
11 MR. HOBBS: That is correct. We have 47
12 exhibits before you that we would like to be included
13 in this proceeding. You will also find a summary of
14 our presentation, which I hope you will find useful,
15 of the pertinent facts and some of the law.
16 I do want to emphasize that this procedure
17 is a little bit unfamiliar to me, and any of my
18 questions this morning, please, I was just trying to
19 figure out the nature of the proceeding. I believe I
20 understand now that what this is, is an informational
21 hearing. It is not a hearing on the merits of whether
22 or not violations have occurred.
23 The regs that the County was kind enough to
24 provide me last week regarding probable cause hearings
25 state pretty clearly that your duty today is to see if
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
91
1 there is a reasonable ground for belief in the
2 existence of facts warranting the proceedings
3 complained of.
4 It is not to find facts, it' s not to make
5 conclusions of law, it's not to take -- and the
6 chairperson pointed this out to me very directly and I
7 believe I understand it now -- this is not the
8 opportunity for cross-examination. That would be
9 reserved, as I understand it, for a full-scale hearing
10 in which evidence would be taken, the findings of fact
11 might be made, conclusions of law might be made, and
12 interested persons, including the public, would have
13 the opportunity to fully participate.
14 So, therefore, we do come before you this
15 afternoon in the spirit of your own rules, and it's not
16 to prove facts. It' s to prove the reasonable ground
17 for belief that facts may exist that you should explore
18 fully in the context of a proceeding.
19 So, therefore, we are asking you today, as
20 a result of the information we will present, to go to a
21 full-scale hearing as soon as possible on the
22 revocation of the land use approval and the certificate
23 of designation for this landfill.
24 We believe that it is necessary for the
25 commissioners to do this in the public interest, and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
92
1 also because, as we will set forth today, there has
2 been a constant improper disposal of material at this
3 landfill since 1971. It' s gone on much too long and,
4 basically, we need to get on to the full-scale
5 hearing.
6 Now, of course, we did not know until this
7 morning that the staff might recommend a continuance.
8 We, of course, understand you sit as members, elected
9 officials of the County, and can take or reject staff
10 recommendations, also that the staff may itself, after
11 it hears our evidence, want to rescind their suggestion
12 for a continuance.
13 We believe that for the first time this
14 afternoon, it will be clear from the record, both to
15 the County Land Use Department, to yourselves, and to
16 the environmental folks, why we believe that this
17 landfill has operated illegally and must be closed.
18 Now, let me address what you've heard this
19 morning. Waste Services and Waste Management, Inc. --
20 and I have no doubt about it, that Waste Management,
21 Inc. knows what the state-of-the-art is and technology
22 for remediation and for landfills.
23 It is clear to us sitting in the audience,
24 however, that Waste Management and Waste Services are
25 trying to blend two issues here that cannot be
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
93
1 blended. They would like to expand the operations of
2 the landfill. They would like to file an operations
3 plan allowing for expansion. They would like, in
4 effect, a permit that this facility has never had to
5 operate at this location in Weld County.
6 We have no objection to Waste Services
7 seeking a permit to operate this facility if and when a
8 proper plan for design, operation, construction and
9 remediation is presented to Weld County and the Health
10 Department for approval . But, please, under the
11 statute, it is clear that this hearing has to do with
12 whether or not the land use conditions that attach to
13 approval of this landfill in the first place, have or
14 have not been violated, is a reasonable belief to
15 proceed to a hearing on that basis, not that you have
16 to determine it today, but you have to determine
17 whether there is reasonable belief.
18 Now, let me read from the statute what this
19 proceeding and what the full-scale hearing would be
20 about. I read from the State Solid Waste Disposal Act,
21 30-20-112 , states as follows:
22 The governing body, which is you, the Weld
23 County Commissioners, having jurisdiction, after
24 reasonable notice of public hearing, shall temporarily
25 suspend or revoke a certificate of designation that has
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
8:31061.
94
1 been granted by it for failure of a site and facility
2 to comply with all applicable laws, resolutions -- I
3 want to underscore resolutions. We' ll come back to
4 that -- and ordinances, or to comply with the provision
5 of this Part 1 or any rule or regulation adopted
6 pursuant thereto.
7 It says shall. It doesn't say may. It
8 says you shall suspend or revoke the certificate for
9 the violation of a resolution. Now, the resolution
10 that I want to refer you to now -- and you will hear
11 our citizens speak to the matter -- is the resolution
12 adopted by the County when it issued the certificate of
13 designation.
14 That resolution is the resolution that we
15 ask you to enforce. The resolution is in your packet
16 at AD-8. Now, because the first half of this packet
17 has the transcript of the 1971 hearing, it will take a
18 while perhaps for you to find that. But I do ask that,
19 while the hammering proceeds, that you look at AD-8 in
20 your packet.
21 It' s right after, if it will help, the
22 transcript that has 66 pages and is signed by Estelle
23 Kenley, a transcriber, which is AD-7 , and there is
24 AD-8.
25 Has everybody got that?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
95
1 MS. HARBERT: Is it the resolution?
2 MR. HOBBS: It is the Resolution of Weld
3 County Commissioners dated October 6, 1971. AD-8 at
4 the bottom of the page.
5 Okay? It's right after the big transcript.
6 The date is October 6, 1971.
7 Do the commissioners have that in front of
8 them?
9 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
10 MR. HOBBS: Now, this is what I would call
11 your land use approval, zoning resolution. Recall that
12 the nature of the proceeding under state law is that
13 the County Commissioners have to determine land use
14 questions.
15 And as you recall, Governor Lamm found this
16 out, didn't he, in the mid- ' 70s. The local government
17 has always been jealous to protect its land use zoning
18 or disapproval process.
19 So it's very important to understand that
20 our laws in this state have always placed with the
21 County Commissioners the responsibility to determine
22 whether the land use shall be authorized.
23 Now, this was a land use by special
24 review. It required a specific hearing and a
25 determination as to whether the land use should be
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
96
1 allowed, and you were empowered to place conditions on
2 the land use.
3 In this case, the applicant asked for a
4 landfill in what was predominantly an agricultural
5 area. There are surrounding farms. In fact, Weld
6 County, the third largest producer of agricultural
7 products in the United States, has always been known
8 for its water and its land and its abundant crop.
9 This land use was surrounded by gorgeous
10 farmland with a view of the mountains, and the
11 applicant wanted to place a landfill in the midst of
12 the surrounding agricultural land. It had to be done
13 by a special review.
14 Now, what did the condition of the County
15 Commissioners following the hearing in '71 say? Number
16 one, that any sanitary landfill activity to be
17 installed -- underline, to be installed -- shall be
18 approved -- shall be approved by the State Department
19 of Health.
20 Now, what were they talking about? A
21 landfill installation to be installed prior to its
22 installation to deposit of any waste material under
23 that land to be approved by the State Department of
24 Health. October 1971, the land use resolution of the
25 Weld County Commissioners.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 931061
97
1 Now, as I read you from the State statute,
2 it is clear that upon a certificate of revocation
3 hearing, your own resolution can be enforced.
4 Now, one of the essential inquiries into
5 this matter is the fact that we allege, and we believe
6 the documents will show incontestably at a full-scale
7 hearing that the applicant promised an engineering,
8 design and operation plan back in '71, induced the
9 County Commissioners to approve the land use, and never
10 followed through, and that for 22 years material has
11 been deposited in that landfill illegally, improperly,
12 contrary to your resolution, and to the detriment of
13 the public interest.
14 Now, let me summarize what preceded that
15 hearing to show you that this is so. Exhibit AD-1 of
16 your packet is -- and you've heard the name before --
17 Mr. Orville Stoddard. Mr. Stoddard, on July 15 of ' 71
18 -- remember, the hearing was in September -- asked for
19 an engineering report to be supplied before the
20 hearing, to determine whether this site was suitable
21 for disposal.
22 Look at the second paragraph on Page 1.
23 The purpose of the meeting was to review, in general,
24 the suitability of the site and the submittal of an
25 engineering report required by the State Solid Waste
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
901961
98
1 Disposal Act as amended in 1971. Look at the
2 enumerated items. Look at the next paragraph.
3 The requirements for an engineering report
4 describing design and operation of this site, public
5 hearings, recommended approval by the Weld County
6 Commissioners prior to operation was discussed.
7 okay. Well, now, what happened? What
8 happened to the engineering report and the design and
9 operations plan? Please turn to AD-3 in your exhibits
10 for a moment. AD-3 . This is William Garr, director,
11 Division of Engineering and Sanitation.
12 Now, look at the second sentence.
13 Mr. Earl Moffat -- he's the one who applied for the
14 landfill -- made a valid point in his letter concerning
15 the preparation of the required engineering report
16 prior to assurance the site would be designated by the
17 County Commissioners. The information presented and a
18 site visit by members of the department, Mr. Moffat
19 indicated this to be a suitable site. It is
20 recommended the site location be approved and the
21 designation be made contingent upon the submittal of an
22 engineering report concerning the design and operation
23 of the site, as described in Regulations 3 and 4 of the
24 attached proposed regulation. Some of this was
25 included in the information submitted.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
99
1 All right. What do we have here? An
2 applicant who had an option on this property. That's
3 clear from the transcript. The option had to close
4 soon. He was begging the County Commissioners not to
5 make him file, and get an engineering firm and file a
6 plan design and operation, until he was assured that he
7 got a land use approval.
8 What happened? He induced the
9 commissioners to issue the land use approval contingent
10 upon a design and operation plan described in
11 Regulations 3 and 4 .
12 Now, what were these regulations? The
13 regulations were then in draft, as Mr. Roy has very
14 correctly pointed out to you. They were then in draft
15 and they were finalized in February. Please look -- of
16 '72 .
17 Please look at AD-4 . These are the
18 regulations that Mr. Garr was referring to and that the
19 application was warranting would be complied with
20 before any facility would be installed for operation of
21 a landfill at this site. Section 3 ; what is Section 3 ,
22 Page 4?
23 Of these standards, we heard a lot of talk
24 about voluntary this morning. This applicant, to get
25 this land use, volunteered, regardless of State law,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
100
1 regardless of when these regulations were going to be
2 put into effect, to submit a design and operations plan
3 and an engineering report that incorporated Sections 3
4 and 4 of the then-proposed regulations.
5 Why? The act had just passed. The act was
6 passed in the ' 71 General Assembly, became effective on
7 July 1. What is an agency such as yours, with a Health
8 Department, have to do when a new act is put into
9 place? They propose regulations. That doesn't mean
10 that the regulations should not be binding on
11 facilities.
12 A choice of the Weld County Commissioners
13 could have been to wait before it gave the certificate
14 of designation to Mr. Moffat until the regs had become
15 final.
16 Why didn't they wait? Because Mr. Moffat
17 said, Give me the approval and I ' ll agree that my
18 engineering report and design and operations plan,
19 before I deposit anything in that landfill, will comply
20 with those proposed rules when they become final.
21 Page 4 of the Rules, Minimum Standards.
22 Please turn on Page 5, to E of the Minimum Standards.
23 A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill
24 shall provide means of finally disposing of solid
25 wastes on land in a manner to minimize nuisance
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
92,1961
101
1 conditions such as odors, windblown debris, insects,
2 rodents, and smoke; and shall provide compacted fill
3 material; adequate cover with suitable material and
4 surface drainage designed to prevent ponding of water
5 and wind erosion and -- underscore the next clause --
6 prevent water and air pollution. Not minimize, not
7 hope to avoid, not hope to design. Prevent water and
8 air pollution.
9 Next page, Section 4 , Engineering Report
10 Design Criteria. The design of a solid waste disposal
11 facility hereinafter designated shall be such as to
12 protect surface and subsurface waters from
13 contamination. Shall be designed.
14 Now, what is -- what is this plan? This
15 design and operations plan? Recall that your
16 resolution, your predecessor' s resolution just didn't
17 take Mr. Moffat at his word that he would submit this.
18 They required it as a condition of the land use
19 approval.
20 Smart thing for a county commission to do,
21 you know, because people forget, time goes on. You do
22 things in hopes you might not be caught up with it
23 until maybe many years later. The County Commissioners
24 surrounded this in October of 1971 by saying that any
25 sanitary landfill facility to be installed shall be
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
102
1 approved by the State Health Department.
2 Now, there was an allusion this morning
3 that the State Health Department rules were not
4 retroactive before February. That is correct for
5 landfills that did not have this kind of condition in
6 their land use approval.
7 The State Health Department has not seen
8 the evidence that you have in front of you today of
9 what was behind the County Commissioners acting to
10 approve the landfill site, not that they didn't get the
11 engineering report, design and operations plan. They
12 said and thought they were protecting the public
13 interest by being sure that nothing would be deposited
14 until it was forthcoming.
15 Now, I heard a lot this morning that
16 indicates to me that what the operator and owner would
17 like to do would be to shift to the public and to the
18 County and the State the burden of having never caught
19 up with this thing.
20 What is this thing? The fact that they,
21 the ones who made the representation that they would be
22 governed by a design and operations plan, never
23 obtained one.
24 Now, at the back of your exhibits -- and we
25 marked this today based on this morning's testimony --
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
-31061
103
1 please look at the back of your folder to Exhibit
2 AD-47. If I can take a moment and let you find that,
3 AD-47. It' s inserted right in the back of the
4 material.
5 MS. KIRKMEYER: Here it is, in this book.
6 MR. HOBBS: Sorry. AD-47? Lee, is there
7 an extra copy?
8 MR. MORRISON: I 've got it here.
9 (Discussions off the record about finding
10 document. )
11 MR. HOBBS: AD-47 , you heard Mr. Keirnes
12 this morning, whose family owned this, and they sold
13 out for good and adequate reason to a much larger
14 company. But let's take a look at what the assumptions
15 of the transfer were.
16 Now, this is Colorado Department of
17 Health. Colorado Department of Health has reviewed
18 your request to change the name of the Certificate of
19 Designation for the Greeley-Milliken Sanitary Landfill
20 from Colorado Landfill, Inc. to Waste Services, Inc.
21 The Department approves your request,
22 provided -- now, here are the conditions -- one, you
23 receive approval from the Weld County Commissioners;
24 two, you commit to operating the landfill in accordance
25 with the approved operational plan, engineering design,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
0:1161
104
1 and certificate of designation.
2 Ladies and gentlemen, there was no
3 engineering design operational plan. The Health
4 Department in 1986 believed there was one. Why was
5 there not one? The operator never submitted it.
6 Did Mr. Keirnes or his family call upon the
7 State Health Department or the Weld County
8 Commissioners and say, You know, you all assumed there
9 was an approved operational plan, engineering design
10 that we have to comply with. We need to tell you there
11 isn't one.
12 Was there one submitted? Was Waste
13 Services on notice by this AD-47 that there was a plan
14 in existence? Did they find out if there was a plan in
15 existence? I heard this morning that this plan was
16 Mr. Orville Stoddard' s statement on the transcript that
17 this site was okay.
18 You remember, however, what the deal was.
19 The deal was a full-scale engineering report and design
20 and operations plan to be submitted to the Health
21 Department for their approval. Mr. Stoddard wasn't
22 saying, Everything is hunky-dory. In fact, in the
23 transcript he says our first duty is, if there is going
24 to be water contamination, we are going to shut it
25 down.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
105
1 Okay? The whole statute passed in 1971 by
2 the General Assembly was for the purpose, before trash
3 is put in the ground and starts to migrate, is to have
4 a plan that will prevent it.
5 It is uncontestable that the only plan that
6 has ever been submitted by this facility is the belated
7 attempt by the Waste Services, Inc. and Waste
8 Management, Inc. to provide you with a plan for
9 expansion of this landfill that has never been properly
10 operated.
11 Now, we believe that the law requires you
12 to revoke for violation of Condition 1 of your land use
13 zoning resolution, the certificate to operate this
14 landfill.
15 Then, if you and the State Department of
16 Health wish to entertain the operation of a landfill on
17 this site, it should meet all applicable requirements,
18 including Subpart D, including all the regulations that
19 are applicable to design, operation, closure of this
20 facility.
21 Now, that is the overview of our
22 presentation. Our presentation is -- ladies and
23 gentlemen, it's a sad fact you' re called upon to do
24 public duty that should have been done years ago, but
25 it' s just like robbing a bank or turning in an IRS
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 931061
106
1 form, you know, finally, after 10 years of not paying
2 your taxes. The government and the public can't be
3 estopped because you got away with something you were
4 supposed to do.
5 The representations that this landfill
6 would never receive material until a design and
7 operations plan was approved by the Health Department
8 as made by the applicant, the public deserves to have
9 that condition enforced and the public deserves a full
10 public hearing on this issue.
11 This is only an informational session here
12 today. And with that overview, I would like to call on
13 my case. Thank you.
14 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
15 Mr. Hobbs?
16 I just have one question. You read from, I
17 think it was 30-20-121; is that correct? Or 112?
18 MR. HOBBS: It may have been 112 .
19 MS. HARBERT: All right. Was that
20 regarding probable cause, or was that regarding show
21 cause?
22 MR. HOBBS: That is the show cause. What
23 you call the show cause, that' s a revocation hearing.
24 MS. HARBERT: Right. That' s --
25 MR. HOBBS: And I want to be clear, all we
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
107
1 are asking you to do today is, based on what you heard,
2 is that you believe, you have a reasonable belief that
3 there may be facts proven at this hearing that's
4 mentioned in the books that would lead you to revoke
5 it.
6 So -- but the standards in there, I wanted
7 to draw your attention to, and it included your land
8 use zoning resolution. It' s not just dependent upon
9 the State Health Department whether or not it wants to
10 enforce or what its standards are.
11 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Any other
12 questions from Mr. Hobbs?
13 Mr. Hayes, is that correct? Please come to
14 the podium and state your name and address.
15 MR. HAYES: Ladies and gentlemen --
16 MS. HARBERT: Will you state your name and
17 address.
18 MR. HAYES: Yes, I will. My name is
19 Michael Hayes. I live in Weld County. My family
20 resides on the farm immediately north of the landfill.
21 At this time I want to show you, present to you, ma 'am,
22 1152 names.
23 MS. HARBERT: Would you give them to Lee.
24 MR. HAYES: Sure. 1152 names of citizens
25 in Weld County who wanted this hearing. I 'd like to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
D A16s.
108
1 speak to you about two items, the 1971 County hearing
2 on the Greeley-Milliken dump and our family experiences
3 with living next to the dump.
4 In September of 1971 the County held a
5 public meeting regarding the granting of approval for
6 Earl Moffat to site a dump near Milliken at the present
7 location of the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill.
8 Chairman of the Board of the Weld County Commissioners
9 was Marsh Anderson, and Glenn Billings and Harry Ashley
10 were the other commissioners.
11 Earl Moffat was in the process of closing
12 a landfill in Evans and was searching for a location
13 for a new dump. He envisioned digging down 45 feet and
14 filling up the hole.
15 He stated, and I quote, We intend to make a
16 good piece of farm ground out of it, and we intend to
17 cover more -- cover more than is required by law, about
18 3 to 4 feet of cover when we are through with it, and
19 it will be on an even grade that will be practical to
20 irrigate. We expect a depth of 45 feet, and I think we
21 will have a 15-year goal. End quote.
22 Twenty people attended that meeting, other
23 than some of the officials from the State and County
24 Health Departments. It was pretty evident in the tapes
25 that the chairman of the Commissioners, Marsh Anderson,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9C1')61
109
1 wanted to hustle this landfill site through. At one
2 point in the tape, Marsh Anderson asked the other
3 commissioners for a vote, and Glenn Billings, county
4 commissioner, says he hasn't had a chance to walk the
5 property and wants to do so over the weekend.
6 Marsh Anderson says, muttering, His option
7 runs out on that property, I think, next Monday.
8 Commissioner Glenn Billings says, and I
9 quote, I haven't even had the time to think about it
10 and I haven't even seen it, either. End quote.
11 Marsh Anderson insisted on an immediate
12 vote, or -- and I quote -- he' ll lose his option. End
13 quote.
14 At this time, I note that Commissioner
15 Glenn Billings was the only commissioner to vote no,
16 and I reference his letter, our Exhibit AD-41, stating
17 his reasons for voting no. He states that the same
18 reasons he voted no in 1971 are the same reasons we are
19 here today.
20 I also reference Mr. Albion Carlson' s
21 statement, Exhibit AD-42 , which references the
22 hydrogeology and regulatory matters. It was clear from
23 the decision the commissioners made that they wanted to
24 get the landfill passed through, and it was my
25 understanding that they would wouldn't receive waste
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE J:Y.r�'A �
1'1(�V1
110
1 until the State approved.
2 Please reference Exhibit AD-8 where the
3 commissioners approved the landfill based on, quote, on
4 the approval of the State Health Department. End
5 quote.
6 The landfill would either be all right or
7 they wouldn't dump.
8 Mr. Orville Stoddard, of the Engineering
9 Section of the Colorado Department of Health testified,
10 and I quote, There is an amended act that pertains to
11 the regulation of land disposal sites and facilities
12 that are often mentioned. This required the applicant
13 to submit a report of engineering, geological,
14 hydrogeological and operational data, to the Department
15 for review and recommended approval prior to the
16 issuance of a certificate of designation. End quote.
17 It is important to note at this point that
18 no engineering design operations plan or report has
19 ever been filed with the County or State from 1971 to
20 present.
21 During this hearing, several neighbors and
22 residents questioned location of the proposed dump
23 because, as you can see here -- and this is from the
24 1971, you got this in your packets -- sits on six
25 drainages, six major drainages. And when you look at
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 93106 .
111
1 the original topography, there is no doubt in your mind
2 why it' s wet.
3 This was a spring in here. These are the
4 major drainages. It sits on five, six major drainages
5 if you include the spring, and a lot of seep and wet
6 ground. They were very concerned about the high
7 groundwater, the development to the draw next to the
8 Spomer Lakes. That' s that Big Western draw, the draw
9 that we have all the problems.
10 As I said, they were very concerned about
11 that high groundwater development next to the Spomer
12 Lakes, and Mr. Moffat said and I quote, We don't intend
13 to get into that draw and work into the draw. End
14 quote.
15 Several farmers expressed concern on how
16 the operators were going to prevent the groundwater
17 from coming into contact with the trash. Mr. Guy
18 Shable, a long-time resident and successful farmer --
19 who farmed the Knister Farms, I might add -- said, and
20 I quote, I think you're going to find out you have
21 water problems everywhere. Even on top of the hills
22 you are going to have water problems, end quote.
23 Mr. Ralph Waldo, who was representing Ella
24 Spomer, asked Mr. Stoddard of the State Health
25 Department, and I quote, Mr. Stoddard, if they can't
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
112
1 cut that water off, then it will be your job to stop
2 the landfill ; is that right? End quote.
3 Mr. Stoddard replied, and I 'm quoting,
4 Yeah, I have to agree. The important -- I can't get
5 that out -- the important thing that we' ll be looking
6 at, of course, is to make sure that water pollution
7 does not occur from this operation in any way, shape or
8 form. End quote.
9 Mr. Waldo asked if Earl Moffat knew about
10 the spring in the center east half of the property.
11 Mr. Moffat said, and I quote, I didn't know about that.
12 End quote.
13 Mr. Waldo further asked, quote, Would you
14 take dead bodies, dead animals? End quote.
15 Mr. Moffat replied, and I 'm quoting, Most
16 people bury their pets. The larger animals go to a
17 dead animal place. End quote.
18 In over two years he could only remember
19 burying one horse. It should be noted that thousands
20 of animals carcasses are dumped at the landfill every
21 year.
22 And I 've included some photographs to
23 substantiate that number. That's Exhibit AD-46,
24 Page 19.
25 Mr. Shable asked, and I quote, You say this
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9L1061
113
1 place will last 15 years; is that right?
2 Mr. Moffat replied, quoting, I think so.
3 Mrs. Carlson asked about the roads leading
4 into and out of the proposed landfill and the potential
5 problems with dust, litter and heavy traffic on the
6 dirt roadways.
7 The chairman of the commissioners,
8 Marsh Anderson, stated, and I 'm quoting, The law
9 says the County shall provide a road to the dump.
10 End quote.
11 Mrs. Carlson inquired about the shortcut,
12 which is 1 mile west of the Ashton School and south
13 1-3/4 miles of the landfill . That' s currently known as
14 County Road 27-1/2 .
15 Marsh Anderson replied, and I quote, The
16 road will have to be oiled, ma 'am. I don't think we' ll
17 be driving your roads when they can be driving both
18 ways on oiled roads. End quote.
19 It should be noted that County Road 27-1/2
20 is still a gravel road and currently has several ruts
21 that exceed 18 inches in depth.
22 Mrs. Myrtle Telep, my mother-in-law, asked
23 what the final design would like look. She actually
24 asked, and I quote, Well, I just think you' ll have a
25 table land, won't you? End quote.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9.31061
114
1 Mr. Earl Moffat replied, Yes -- well, no.
2 It won't just go out like this and then drop straight
3 over. End quote.
4 We've included some photographs that
5 look just like what has exactly occurred. That's
6 AD-46, Page 10.
7 Marsh Anderson at that time asked for a
8 vote, and the votes were: For the landfill, 8 people;
9 against the landfill, 12 people.
10 I would just like to spend a few moments
11 now relating the problems we've had in living next to
12 the dump. Knister Farms has been home to three
13 generations of our family. I was very proud to move to
14 Greeley and be a part of this tradition.
15 Before we moved in, I was aware of several
16 fires which had occurred, and in your packet is a
17 newspaper clipping from the Greeley Tribune dated
18 October 24, 1985. That' s Exhibit AD-46, Page 4 . The
19 clipping is of a story done on a fire that destroyed 10
20 acres of Knister Farm corn. The fire started at the
21 landfill and blew north to our fields.
22 MS. HARBERT: Would you point out, sir,
23 where you live, or where your property is?
24 MR. HAYES: Yes, ma 'am. Our property runs
25 from this corner of the landfill north. It actually
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
115
1 goes just up on the upper north side of the map, comes
2 over here, up to here, over to here -- excuse me -- and
3 then up to here (indicating) .
4 That's not my property. That's my in-law' s
5 property, ma 'am.
6 The fire started at the landfill and blew
7 north into our fields. The Milliken Fire Department
8 Chief, Lowell Tarrant, states at the end of the article
9 that the dump has a history of fires in the fall and
10 requested a hearing between the County and the fire
11 districts. I never found any record in the county
12 files regarding this meeting.
13 Since we've lived near the dump, my wife
14 Ann has had to call Brad Keirnes on two separate
15 occasions about fires that broke out after the
16 operating hours of the landfill, and the operators were
17 unaware of it.
18 The noise at the landfill is very loud. It
19 starts around 7 : 00 a.m. every morning and runs for six
20 days a week. We really look forward to Sundays because
21 it is so quiet out there. Not only do you hear all the
22 landfill equipment, but all the trash trucks go
23 barreling down our road.
24 We have asked the County several times to
25 monitor Road 27-1/2 and 49th Street, because the trucks
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
116
1 run the stop signs and travel much too fast along the
2 roads.
3 We 've had several near misses with these
4 trucks and I 've witnessed several close calls amongst
5 other travelers. Only nine days ago we had an
6 accident; a 31-year-old Johnstown woman was killed on
7 Road 27-1/2 by a 10-wheel truck going to the landfill.
8 Four children were luckily -- were lucky that they were
9 unhurt, because that car was pushed 300 feet along the
10 road.
11 That's just one of our problems. The ruts
12 on road 27-1/2 are incredible. I measured them last
13 week one day -- one day after the grader service went
14 through and graded the roads level, and I measured the
15 ruts at 18 inches deep. The trash trucks really damage
16 the road along the north-south route.
17 In listening to the County's public hearing
18 tapes on the Ault landfill, I noticed that Waste
19 Services insisted that no more than 25 trucks a day
20 would be traveling to the Central Weld Landfill . I
21 would speculate you have closer to three to five times
22 that amount today.
23 MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, I don't want
24 to interject here. But I think, Mr. Hayes, you might
25 be diverting a little bit from the issues today.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
117
1 MR. HAYES: Well, I was asked to speak as a
2 neighbor of the nuisances and the life next to it.
3 MR. MORRISON: Well, but the central issue
4 is whether there should be further hearings on whether
5 to revoke the permit, based -- and not all the issues
6 that may trouble you.
7 MR. HAYES: Are you saying nuisance factors
8 and nuisance issues --
9 (Mr. Hobbs conferred with the witness off
10 the record. )
11 MR. HAYES: Okay, I will . I ' ll wrap this
12 right on up.
13 As you can see from my chart, where the
14 hazardous traffic, the speeding traffic, the dust, the
15 road damage, it's ugly. I want you to note from the
16 previous slides, there is no landscape or visual
17 barriers.
18 The landfill generates an incredible amount
19 of the dust and it blows all across our fields. If you
20 look on the Exhibit AD-46, Page 14, you will see
21 several pictures that represent that.
22 I would like to speak just a few minutes
23 about some of the disease factors and some of the
24 problems that we see at the landfill. They spoke
25 earlier this morning on what good neighbors they were
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
118
1 and how well they stay in compliance with the law.
2 This picture was taken on a Sunday. The
3 landfill closed on Saturday. You can see the trash
4 heaps, the trucks coming in during off-duty hours.
5 This black tarp is called an alternate daily cover.
6 You can see it did not fill and cover the face.
7 This was taken a little bit closer. I want
8 you to notice the trash heaps, the orange cones, and
9 notice in this foreground. Moving a little bit closer
10 on that shot, you can see the cones.
11 It' s difficult to picture what this is.
12 All those pink things are ears of sheep carcasses left
13 open. The landfill closed on Saturday. This was taken
14 on Sunday afternoon.
15 Okay. I ' ll take just one moment and I ' ll
16 summarize and I ' ll finish.
17 In listening this morning, this landfill
18 hearing reminded me of a story I heard about Abraham
19 Lincoln. He was faced with a very similar situation as
20 yours.
21 MS. HARBERT: Does this have something to
22 do with the regulations?
23 MR. HAYES: I think it does. I think
24 you' ll find it interesting.
25 He had to make a very difficult decision
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
119
1 and, like you, he was hearing a lot of conflicting
2 information from his cabinet. Finally, he sat back in
3 his chair and he asked the group, How many legs does a
4 dog have?
5 Now, suppose that someone comes in with
6 pretty drawings and papers and certifies a tail is a
7 leg. Now, how many legs does a dog have?
8 Thank you.
9 MS. HARBERT: Is there anyone else that
10 would like to speak for or against this issue?
11 Mr. Hobbs, you are not completed; is that
12 right?
13 MR. HOBBS: We tried to put our group
14 together and tried to move it through, and I think you
15 will find the next statements are a lot briefer.
16 Mr. Hayes was called upon by the group to
17 give the overview of what this does in the way of the
18 life.
19 I would like to ask Myrtle Telep to come up
20 here, and I would like to ask the group to be as brief
21 as possible. We can hand out the written statements.
22 MS. HARBERT: I would like to add to that,
23 that if you agree with things that have been said
24 previously, that you just say that you agree with what
25 somebody else said, and not reiterate everything that 's
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
120
1 been said so far.
2 MS. TELEP: I 've never talked on one of
3 these, and I don't know how this is going to come out.
4 MS. HARBERT: I think you're doing fine.
5 MS. TELEP: My name is Myrtle Knister
6 Telep.
7 MS. HARBERT: Get closer to the mike.
8 MS. TELEP: Excuse me. My name is Myrtle
9 Knister Telep, and I am one of the few remaining people
10 who attended that 1971 hearing. I went there to
11 represent my parents who lived on the farm, as Mike
12 showed you, north of the dump. They were ill at the
13 time and quite elderly, so they wanted someone to
14 represent them, because they were very concerned about
15 just what a dump was going to mean to their property,
16 because it might spoil a view or it might be -- you
17 know, all the things. I won't go over that. You've
18 seen them.
19 And I 'm just going to touch on two issues
20 that I remember hearing very well . The first one was
21 by Guy Shable, when he was trying to tell Earl Moffat
22 how bad the water problems were out there. He did
23 everything in his power to say, I farmed that place,
24 that site. I farmed part of the Knister Farm, I farmed
25 our places with my brother, and I know what this soil
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
b31061
121
1 is. I know what you're going to have. There is seep
2 everywhere, there is water, and you are going to have
3 problems, Earl. You're going to have problems.
4 And all Earl could say was his old song and
5 dance, Well, I don't think there' s anything that we
6 can't get controlled. And that we heard several
7 times -- I heard several times.
8 And then I -- he was asked, Just what is
9 going to happen to this site, once the dump is closed,
10 as you say, in 15 years? And Earl said, I am going to
11 turn it back into very nice tillable land, agricultural
12 land. It will be a nice, gentle slope going right with
13 the topography that' s already there.
14 Ha, ha, ho. If anyone has gone out there,
15 they know what it looks like now. Please go out there.
16 MS. HARBERT: Will you address your
17 comments to the board, please.
18 MS. TELEP: Well, I think everybody here
19 has an interest. May I say that?
20 Okay. As I was walking out of the hearing
21 room that afternoon, I met Earl at the door. He saw my
22 face was rather long at the decision that was made just
23 like that (indicating) , and he said, Now, don't you
24 worry about a thing. In 12 years it will be beautiful
25 farmland. Those are quotes.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 931061
122
1 I just want to say that just recently --
2 may I say this to the crowd, Madam Chairman? This is
3 just a little quip I have, that I just wanted to have
4 today, if it's all right with you.
5 I 've been noticing in a few papers of late
6 that I 've been classified as a radical. Now, I am not
7 quite sure just what a radical means, but I -- if a
8 radical is a person who really cares for the good of
9 future generations, cares for his home, his community,
10 his country, and one who would like to leave this
11 planet in better condition than he found it, then I 'm a
12 radical. That' s all I can say.
13 MR. HOBBS: I would like to ask the
14 citizens, I know you feel stirred by that, but please,
15 let's just go ahead with the presentation. And I would
16 like to have Sharon Davis come up.
17 Let' s remember the public officials have a
18 decision to make, and that' s whether to grant a full
19 hearing.
20 MS. DAVIS: Hello. My name is Sharon
21 Davis. Do you need the address?
22 MS. HARBERT: We would prefer that, yes.
23 MS. DAVIS: Excuse me?
24 MS. HARBERT: We would prefer that,
25 yes.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
901Q6.
123
1 MS. DAVIS: Okay. 3707 - 65th Avenue. I
2 am a resident of Weld County and have been a member of
3 the local emergency planning committee at the sheriff's
4 office since 1988.
5 Can you hear me all right?
6 MS. HARBERT: Are you picking her up?
7 MR. WEBSTER: You might tip the mike up.
8 MS. DAVIS: My husband and I have had
9 careers of music nearly all of our lives and run a
10 small music publishing business. 5-1/2 years ago we
11 moved to a property southwest of Greeley. One of our
12 plans was to build a small recording studio there as
13 part of our business activity. However, those plans
14 were immediately foiled after hearing all the trucks
15 enroute to and from the Milliken landfill -- loud,
16 rumbling and noisily downshifting as they approached
17 the intersection at our corner, which is a
18 four-way stop.
19 This activity did not manifest itself
20 during the times we looked at the house before
21 purchasing the property. Since moving there, we have
22 been aghast at the number of near misses at the
23 intersection. Not only cars and pickups, but trash
24 trucks zoom past the stop signs without stopping,
25 even with other vehicles at the intersection.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
21061
124
1 We dread the time when just such a
2 foolhardy driver rushes through the intersection,
3 unexpectedly meeting a propane or gas truck coming
4 around the corner. That could certainly be the end
5 of this Ashton schoolhouse and everything in its
6 proximity.
7 We have the litter on the ground from
8 all the trucks and cars traveling with their fragrant
9 loads for dumping. We have to regularly clean up
10 branches, old lumber, auto parts, trash bags, and other
11 debris left on the roads, for safety sake as much as
12 for appearance.
13 The region around the landfill has a
14 special beauty -- broad views of the horizon, soft
15 rolling hills at the beginning of the prairies, slow,
16 winding creeks and rivers, calm bucolic scenes of
17 livestock winding its way through the pastures and by
18 aging old trees, and the freedom of birds and other
19 wildlife reminding us we are part of the earth.
20 These are features that drew us to the
21 area, features now being endangered by the shattering
22 effects of the landfill . The groundwater adjacent to
23 the landfill has been found to be polluted with
24 contaminants and is spreading out to other areas via
25 irrigation ditches, the Big Thompson and the South
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
924061
125
1 Platte Rivers, to say nothing of underground aquifers.
2 This contamination touches all of us
3 eventually, regardless of our proximity to the
4 offending source.
5 I have been alarmed at the apathy of so
6 many people in our county at the invasion into our
7 lives of various forms of pollutants which end up
8 affecting each of us in some way.
9 The ideal of everyone being affected by one
10 another was eloquently stated in 1627 by the English
11 poet in Divine, John Donne. And I quote:
12 "No man is an island, entire of itself;
13 every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the
14 main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is
15 the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as
16 if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any
17 man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in
18 mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the
19 bell tolls; it tolls for thee. "
20 I therefore ask the commissioners -- the
21 end of the quote, by the way.
22 I therefore ask the commissioners to hold a
23 final hearing immediately, so the people of this county
24 can learn the real facts pertaining to the Milliken
25 Landfill operation.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9 1064
126
1 We need to resolve this matter, not for the
2 aggrandizement of the world's largest waste hauling and
3 disposal company, but for the betterment of this
4 community's health and future.
5 Thank you.
6 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
7 MR. HOBBS: Madeline Daniels.
8 MS. DANIELS: Madam Chairman, Members of
9 the Board --
10 MS. HARBERT: Would you like to drop the
11 microphone a little bit, please.
12 Thank you.
13 MS. DANIELS: Ms. Harbert and Mr. Webster,
14 you know I am not a public speaker, so if I get shaking
15 up here -- and I don't think I can change what I 'm
16 saying, because it' s too late.
17 Chairman, Members of the Board of County
18 Commissioners, my name is Madeline Daniels. I live at
19 23732 Weld County Road 27-1/2 , Milliken. I live
20 approximately 1/4 mile southeast of the landfill.
21 Unlike Myrtle, I was not at the '71 hearing. Harold
22 and I worked in Denver and I had not yet met Harold.
23 His dad was in the hospital. His mom, at 85, signed a
24 petition against the landfill, but was unable to
25 attend.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
127
1 Our farm has been in the Daniels family
2 since the 1860s. In 1987 my husband retired from
3 C.U. Medical Center and I left the Denver public school
4 system to move back to Weld County so that we could
5 raise our son, Tom II in a safe, healthy environment.
6 We restored a house that Weld County had
7 built on our property in the 1880s, and we furnished it
8 with items from the period. We talked of some day
9 opening a bed and breakfast and establishing a small
10 museum with antique farm implements and artifacts of
11 Weld County's rich pioneer history.
12 Living on land that has been designated a
13 Centennial farm, we considered ourselves stewards of a
14 legacy, not only for our son, but his entire
15 generation.
16 We began organic gardening, believing that
17 vegetables grown without chemicals would provide a
18 healthier life. We were living the American dream of
19 Thomas Henry Daniels I. One afternoon our son came
20 running into tell us that our American dream had turned
21 into a nightmare.
22 The irrigation ditch was flowing with a
23 milky, foul smelling substance. The irrigation ditch
24 flows from the Spomer Lakes area through our farm into
25 the Big Thompson. This is the irrigation water we had
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
128
1 been putting on our crops.
2 As we talked with our neighbors, we learned
3 that the water tests done by private labs, as well as
4 Golder and Associates, revealed the presence of heavy
5 metals and organic compounds. We were afraid to water
6 the garden, we were afraid to eat the vegetables we had
7 grown.
8 Plans for having a recreation room for our
9 teenage son are on hold. We do not know if the ground
10 is contaminated.
11 And who would ever visit a bed and
12 breakfast on the edge of a contaminated landfill?
13 We also worry about wildlife. We learned
14 last summer that the landfill was accepting
15 petroleum-contaminated dirt. Trucks filled with dirt
16 arrived continuously. When the air around the landfill
17 became hazy and filled with fumes, we were afraid to
18 sleep with our windows open, even in the worst of the
19 August heat.
20 Not knowing what was being disposed of or
21 what had accumulated for over 20 years causes us
22 anxiety and fear that cannot be described. When I look
23 out the window and look at the landfill and see it
24 growing higher each week, I am constantly reminded that
25 20 years of virtually unregulated disposal of sludge,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
129
1 asbestos, contaminated dirt and countless other
2 documented, as well as undocumented wastes could be
3 endangering the life and land that we love here in Weld
4 County.
5 When the landfill was designated in 1971,
6 there were fewer Federal, State and County level
7 regulations. There were fewer regulations at the
8 Federal, State and County levels. We did, however,
9 know that trash should not be placed in groundwater,
10 since the water would flow through the trash and leach
11 out chemicals.
12 In hearings to permit the landfill, local
13 farmers warned that groundwater was a problem,
14 particularly during the irrigation season. On our
15 farm, we have observed with regularity a spring which
16 appears shortly after farmers to the north begin
17 irrigating. It is obvious that water is moving through
18 the ground near the surface at a fairly rapid rate.
19 In '85, Orville Stoddard, an engineer at
20 the State Department of Health, analyzed existing
21 landfills in Weld County for suitability for disposal
22 of hazardous wastes. He determined all existing
23 landfills, of which Central Weld is one, were located
24 in aquifer recharge areas, floodplains or irrigated
25 farms.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
130
1 The overall drainage pattern in Weld County
2 is dendritic, resulting in a high degree of
3 interrelationship between streams and rivers.
4 Pollution of any part may result in pollution of the
5 whole, he said.
6 Therefore, he concluded that no hazardous
7 wastes, particularly pesticides, should be disposed of
8 in existing landfills, in order to protect ground and
9 surface water. We need to be no less careful about how
10 we handle household wastes, including lawn fertilizers
11 and pesticides, paint cans and solvents used for
12 cleaning, and especially contaminated dirt, asbestos,
13 sludge and other special wastes.
14 These wastes end up in landfills, and when
15 these landfills exist, as this one does, within a high
16 water table, we are inviting disaster in and for the
17 years to come. The potential for contact with
18 groundwater and surface water in the Big Thompson, as
19 well as other local rivers, made the siting of the
20 landfill an unwise decision in 1971.
21 Continuation and expansion of the landfill
22 22 years later is more than unwise. It is incredibly
23 foolish, now that we have experience to show that the
24 farmers ' warnings in 1971 were right.
25 We believe that our elected officials have
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9310ss
131
1 the wisdom to learn from over 20 years experience. We
2 ask you to close the landfill and require its cleanup
3 according to the new Federal standards in order to
4 protect the citizens and the environment of Weld
5 County.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. HOBBS: Jane Carlson, speaking on
8 behalf of the Carlson family.
9 MS. HARBERT: Ms. Carlson.
10 MS. CARLSON: My name is Jane Carlson. I
11 live at 7191 - 49th Street. Our family has been there
12 since 1884 .
13 I 'm the mother of Albion Carlson, who is an
14 environmental scientist with the State of New Mexico
15 and who attended the School of Mines and graduated from
16 the University of Wyoming as a geologist. He has
17 submitted a statement, written statement, to the Board,
18 which is rather lengthy, but I would like to just
19 summarize a few of the main things here.
20 He lived in this community all his life
21 until he moved to New Mexico. The things that he's
22 concerned about are that the Central Weld Landfill is
23 located in a historic year-round wetland and slough
24 area, draining into the Big Thompson, Spomer Lakes,
25 wetlands, ponds and ditches and a significant area of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931%1
132
1 groundwater recharge. That the wetting and drying of
2 the clinging soil in this area expands and contracts,
3 creating a phenomenon known as piping, and that is when
4 it expands and dries, and then you have the holes. The
5 pipes that go through the ground that will conduct
6 groundwater, transfers water laterally and vertically
7 as far as water can flow, and eventually to the depths
8 of the formations that contain clay.
9 That high rate of water flow into the
10 landfill from the Knister Farms on the north side
11 always have, for 100 years gone in there during growing
12 season. That 's approximately four months, I guess, the
13 irrigation season, and it impacts it and it makes it
14 almost like a tropical area there, as far as water is
15 concerned.
16 The humidity is high, the amount of water
17 flowing through there is large. And the base of the
18 refuse and biomass is currently below the water level
19 in the Central Weld Landfill.
20 Now, he says that in New Mexico -- and he
21 writes a lot of regulations for New Mexico and
22 testifies as an expert down there -- and he says that
23 the waste in the groundwater would be sufficient for
24 closure of the landfill in New Mexico, and that those
25 were drafted -- those regulations were being drafted
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
133
1 here in this state in 1993 , prior to February 1993 when
2 the officers of Waste Management requested that the
3 approval reword the sentence to state that the
4 operation of sites and facilities placing waste in the
5 groundwater after the date of these regulations is
6 prohibited.
7 Actually, we all know -- I was there when
8 this landfill started and I saw waste dumped into the
9 water. I know that it was done. I don't think anyone
10 denies it.
11 By way of analogy, the New Mexico solid
12 waste and landfill regulations are unaltered, and they
13 state that they prohibit burying trash within 100 feet
14 of an identified water table. Well, we know that the
15 water goes through there, particularly at irrigation
16 time, through this piping phenomenon, much above that.
17 Another thing he was concerned about, as
18 far as the regulations are concerned, was that there
19 was a request by Waste Management to permit field
20 filtering of the samples prior to laboratory analysis,
21 and he thinks that that is not a scientifically correct
22 thing to do. And, also, as far as they talked about
23 the dry zone and the low zone, and that there cannot be
24 a scientific degree of certainty about water going from
25 one level to another.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
134
1 Based upon his years of examining the
2 feasibility and measures called for in site closure,
3 he says that a purchaser of a landfill -- this is how
4 New Mexico looks at it -- requires no investigative
5 rights to derive economic gain any more than any other
6 citizen buying any business. And under the regulations
7 that there -- if they had taken the pains before they
8 made the purchase, that they would have known that
9 there were significant things there.
10 If we go to another meeting, another
11 hearing, I think Albion would be able to come. He had
12 a prior commitment for tomorrow and couldn't leave
13 New Mexico.
14 As for myself, I want to say this. On
15 behalf of my family, my neighbors and community, I want
16 to ask, What's going on here? We are faced with an
17 unsanitary, unlined landfill, located in soggy ground,
18 leaching into the Big Thompson River.
19 A big company bought it. They say, We
20 didn't cause these problems -- these nuisances that we
21 are here today on. Let us fix it. We can spend any
22 amount of money to fix this, but we can't do that
23 unless we can run it for another 12 , 15, 20 years, so
24 we can earn the money to fix it. We will have to
25 expand it to the south -- well, they say today they are
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
135
1 not going to dump to the south -- but, anyway, going to
2 buy more land to the south, another hundred acres.
3 And what you should say to them is, This
4 operation is in violation of health standards, it's
5 hurting the public, it cannot continue. You bought the
6 problem when you bought the site. You made a bad
7 deal. You can't fix it by first making it worse and
8 then fixing a bigger problem. It' s your obligation to
9 fix it now.
10 And you ought to tell them to fix it now.
11 And these threats this morning about, Well, if you
12 close it down now, then we 're not going to be under
13 those regulations and we're not going to have to fix
14 it, that's not true at all. There are all kinds of
15 regulations that, when people have assumed this
16 responsibility, they are going to have to fix it.
17 MR. HOBBS: We are almost done.
18 MS. HARBERT: I think we are getting
19 somewhat repetitive. If you will please ask your
20 people, if they want to say the same thing as someone
21 before them, just to state that.
22 MR. HOBBS: All right. I understand that.
23 I am going to ask the public -- it' s very hard, there
24 has been pent-up frustration, and this is a public
25 proceeding, and the citizens don't need an apology, but
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9431061
136
1 we will ask them, please, to, if you agree with what
2 was said before, say so. If you have something new to
3 add, add it.
4 Leon Tomczak.
5 MR. TOMCZAK: Ladies and gentlemen, good
6 afternoon. My name is Leon Tomczak. I live at
7 1107 - 30th Street Road in Greeley. I haven't brought
8 charts. I 'm a private citizen, and I 'm extremely
9 grateful to the Ashton-Daniels group for making
10 everyone of aware of what's happening so we don't
11 repeat the same problem again.
12 I had -- I listened this morning to Waste
13 Management making some comments, and this is perhaps a
14 little unusual, but I only have these to show you.
15 (Mr. Tomczak handed Mr. Morrison
16 jars of water. )
17 MR. TOMCZAK: Now, I heard this morning
18 there is no trace -- and I know that maybe this black
19 one here, if it evaporates, someone is going to be
20 willing to drink it. I wouldn't. I 've gone out
21 yesterday to Spomer Lakes and this is where I got it.
22 And I saw muskrats swimming and ducks, and I hope
23 nobody hunted the ducks after I seen them. There are
24 dairy cows drinking this water, and I mean, I don't --
25 if you want something different, I 'm sorry.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
137
1 MS. HARBERT: Would you like to explain for
2 legal counsel how to mark these exhibits, please.
3 MR. TOMCZAK: I ' ll -- sure. I guess A and
4 B.
5 MS. HARBERT: Which is which?
6 MR. MORRISON: The darker one, would you
7 explain where you got it?
8 MR. TOMCZAK: The dark bottle is from
9 Spomer Lake. Now, I 'm not sure if we are going from
10 which direction, because we were told that the drainage
11 one is in the third, I believe. And I -- or the
12 second. And I 've gotten this one from the third lake
13 from the north, as I 'm looking at it.
14 The other one is from my kitchen sink. I
15 hope I got those right. I don 't know what 's in it.
16 It, obviously, doesn't look good for wildlife, and this
17 is at a point of the lake that 's actually in the shadow
18 of this supposedly flat landfill. It overlooks it and
19 then we come down into the lakes, and this is where I
20 got that water.
21 I had a statement, and I just want to read
22 one sentence. And that is, if you kill the water, you
23 kill the life that depends on it, your own included.
24 That's natural law and it's common sense. And that 's
25 all I wanted to say and I appreciate you listening.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9.; 1061
138
1 MR. HOBBS: Dennis Dakan.
2 MR. DAKAN: Madam Chairman and Members of
3 the Commission, I am Denny Dakan. I live now in
4 Aurora, Colorado, and I grew up right here in Greeley.
5 Mr. Telep asked me to come up.
6 I am an international consultant on the
7 environment. Currently, my clients include the Federal
8 Government and the Republic of Germany. My concern and
9 tasks there are involved in the cleanup of the former
10 Russian air bases. I am also an international
11 consultant with Hierly Corporation out of Zurich,
12 Switzerland, doing work in Singapore.
13 I am concerned, and I believe if I may put
14 it in some relevance to you, the members of this
15 commission, I think that we have heard some very
16 compelling remarks on both sides of the issue today,
17 both from the Waste Management and from the local
18 personnel that live and very deeply are involved within
19 this community at large here.
20 I would like to focus, if I may, your
21 attention to the concerns that I think that are most
22 primate to the issue at the moment. And that is the
23 concern that I want to protect Weld County for what it
24 is, and I know that you do, too.
25 That is an issue that I believe, based on
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
139
1 the testimony, the geology of the surface, the ground,
2 the underground that we have here in Weld County, with
3 the water, which is prime and premium to this County' s
4 existence.
5 I believe, and it is forthcoming upon you
6 to ensure that we hear not only an opening, but in the
7 full court system of this commission, to hear and make
8 decisions that must be done in handling both the
9 groundwater issues and the solid waste issues.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. HOBBS: We have one concluding remark.
12 That is from Mr. Kent Hanson, a colleague of mine who
13 is a environmental specialist, a lawyer. He will
14 summarize the state of the regulations.
15 Again, we want to underscore that we are
16 seeking to have a full public hearing on whether or not
17 your zoning and land use approval was violated for
18 failure to have a proper and adequate engineering
19 operation plan for the facility.
20 Mr. Hanson.
21 There are other members of the public who
22 would like to testify, but that would conclude our
23 block of the presentation. I would urge you to hear
24 other citizens who are interested.
25 MR. HANSON: My name is Kent Hanson. I 'm
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9 . 1061
140
1 an attorney. I would like to address just some of the
2 legal questions that have been raised here.
3 Mr. Roy stated this morning that there are
4 two questions that this commission must answer. First
5 is, Have there been violations out at the site? And
6 the second is, What should be done? We agree on the
7 questions. We disagree on the answers.
8 If we take a look at what Waste Services '
9 position is, we can see that there have been violations
10 in each and every area that has been alleged by the
11 County staff in this case.
12 The first issue is whether or not an
13 engineering design and operations plan or report is
14 required. In Mr. Roy' s comments, he went through and
15 pointed out that the statute, under Section 103 in
16 particular, is an application statute. And from that
17 he concluded that, because it is an application
18 statute, that any deficiencies that exist with regard
19 to the approval of the initial applicant 's application
20 in this case is untimely; any challenge to that is
21 untimely at this point.
22 He also goes and he points out that the
23 statute now says that there are no requirements that
24 can be imposed on people who already have their
25 application -- no new application requirements.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91061
141
1 Now, it has been pointed out, in particular
2 by Mr. Hobbs, in going through the various exhibits in
3 this case, in particular, the reports of the health
4 department. And also you have been directed to the
5 transcript of the proceeding of September of 1971.
6 When we take a look at that, what we see is
7 that, as Mr. Hobbs pointed out, there was a commitment
8 that was made, a commitment by the applicant to abide
9 by the draft regulations, that the County took the
10 applicant at his word, and as a result, incorporated in
11 the County's resolution the requirement that the
12 Department of Health review the application and all
13 plans for his proposed landfill facility. And it 's
14 that commitment that forms the legal basis for the
15 action that has been requested by the staff in this
16 case.
17 It' s that commitment and its incorporation
18 into the resolution as a legal requirement that has
19 been violated. So we need not even take a look at the
20 statute and see which statutory provisions we have to
21 analyze here.
22 There's been some suggestion, in particular
23 in a prior application, prior submittal to the County
24 by Waste Services, that there is some perhaps ambiguity
25 in the County requirements.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91061
142
1 I would like to point out that the law on
2 this point is very clear in Colorado. If a requirement
3 in a permit of any kind is unclear, it does not give
4 the applicant carte blanche to do whatever it wishes to
5 do. It imposes an obligation on the applicant to clear
6 up any ambiguity.
7 There are a number of cases, including a
8 case out of the Colorado Supreme Court. The name of
9 the case is a Flynn versus Treadwell, which was a case
10 in which a resident in Fort Collins built a garage, and
11 argued that the permit to build the garage was
12 ambiguous. The Court ruled that he knew it was
13 ambiguous before he built his garage and made him take
14 down the garage because he failed to clear up the
15 ambiguity.
16 There are similar other cases. Follett
17 versus Lakewood, in which there was a question about
18 what the meaning of a storage barn is and, again, the
19 Court said, If you are going to assume what it means as
20 an applicant, you act at your peril.
21 And here, the resolution is quite clear,
22 and it is supplemented by the underlying record. And
23 the Court there has also said that if there is any
24 question about what a requirement of a permit really
25 means, you look at the record.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061.
143
1 And if you look back at the proceedings in
2 July of 1971, Exhibit No. 1 in your packet, AD-1, if we
3 look at the communications from the Health Department
4 in August of 1971, the communications from Mr. Garr, I
5 believe, you see that it is very clear, the requirement
6 that was being imposed by the government, by the County
7 and by the State, on the applicant.
8 And then if we look at the transcript and
9 we look at Mr. Moffat 's own statements -- I won't
10 bother to take you through the transcript right now --
11 but if we look at his own statements, we can see in
12 those statements in response to many questions, about
13 seepage in particular, about the final closure of the
14 facility, his response was, there are many regulations
15 that are brand-new now that we are going to have to
16 comply with.
17 And he undertook several times over to
18 comply with those new regulations. So was there a
19 engineering design and operations report required?
20 Definitely, yes, and the record shows amply that none
21 was ever submitted.
22 Now, what 's the importance of that? That
23 gets to the question of, What does the commission do?
24 In light of that evidence, the commission today's only
25 action is really to grant a hearing, a hearing on the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
301061
144
1 larger question of, What's the remedy? Waste Services
2 would like to skip over this and have this commission
3 adopt right now after this preliminary hearing a
4 remedy, and that's to allow them to amend their
5 application.
6 Under the staff's proposal, they too would
7 like to put things off and allow continued violations,
8 grant them nearly another year, effectively, after the
9 applications are submitted and the proceedings take
10 place, another year to try to bring things into line.
11 The only question here is, What is the
12 authority of this commission? And that is answered by
13 Section 30-20-112, which Mr. Hobbs referred to in his
14 remarks. And the Commission's authority is simply
15 this. To determine if there was a violation and then
16 to select from among the available remedies, and those
17 remedies include only temporary suspension or
18 revocation.
19 Whether or not Waste Services is entitled
20 to amend its application is a proceeding that is
21 self-contained. It is on a separate track. This
22 track, pursuant to the law, is to determine only one
23 thing. Are there violations and should the permit be
24 suspended? That is the issue to be determined by this
25 body after we have the full-blown show cause hearing.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
145
1 Now, the second point, we don't have to
2 spend any time on, because in the written remarks and
3 in the statements of the various Waste Services people,
4 it has been admitted that there are discharges of
5 pollutants into the waters of the State. That's an
6 admitted violation.
7 That alone should be sufficient to have
8 this proceeding go to the next stage, the show cause
9 hearing.
10 Violation No. 3 is the violation concerning
11 the contamination of groundwater. Waste Services
12 argument is essentially this: That because the
13 language of the regulation says that a cover is
14 required to prevent certain things -- and that includes
15 blowing debris, ponding of water, and in the language
16 of the regulation, is to include prevention of
17 surface -- or of water pollution and air pollution,
18 that they are subject to violations only if it can be
19 demonstrated if groundwater in the trash is a result of
20 an inadequate cover.
21 I would submit that that argument is fairly
22 absurd for a couple of reasons. If we do look at the
23 regulation, it does read in one clause that the
24 facility shall provide an adequate cover with suitable
25 material and surface drainage denatured to prevent
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
146
1 ponding of water and wind erosion and prevent water and
2 air pollution.
3 But, obviously, the regulations are
4 designed to prevent water pollution from a facility,
5 regardless of whether it's due to inadequate cover or
6 inadequate handling of groundwater, preventing
7 infiltration or preventing discharge from a facility.
8 And if we look at other parts of the regulations, such
9 as 2 .4 . 5, which is applicable to this facility, and
10 every facility, whether or not it is, quote,
11 grandfathered or not, it says water pollution shall not
12 occur at or beyond the site boundary after closure.
13 Well, if it 's gotten out before closure,
14 it's pretty hard to suck it in after closure. And the
15 regulations go on, and in other parts, 4 . 2 . 1 specifies
16 that groundwater shall be protected from water
17 pollution by leachate from the facility for solid waste
18 disposal. We see there are other provisions in there.
19 Also, we can see what happened with this
20 regulation if we go back and we look at the 1972
21 regulations, which this operator, the predecessor,
22 agreed to abide by.
23 And in those 1972 regulations, which are
24 found at Tab 4 of your materials, and on
25 Page 5 it's very clear. There was a semicolon in
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
147
1 there. A semicolon that divided the requirements about
2 cover in order to protect from windblown debris and
3 from ponding, semicolon, and to prevent water and air
4 pollution. So it' s not just related to the cover
5 argument.
6 So what do we have here? Do we have
7 groundwater contamination? Yes. Need it be related
8 only to some problem with cover at the site? Obviously
9 not. Does No. 3 show a reasonable belief that there is
10 a violation of the statute? Definitely.
11 No. 4, again, that violation is one that
12 pertains to trash in the groundwater. And they've
13 admitted in a written statement, trash is in contact
14 with groundwater in the north end of the facility.
15 They put an interesting twist on things in
16 order to try to explain. They say, We didn't put our
17 trash in the groundwater; the groundwater got into our
18 trash. Well, the regulations don't differentiate
19 between that, because it recognizes that trash and
20 groundwater don't go together. They create problems.
21 What this argument means to imply and, in
22 fact, they did imply, they just said this is a problem
23 that's really created by the farmers in the area by
24 agricultural activities, which were there long before
25 the landfill. Again, that' s -- even if that were true,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
148
1 and I submit it is not, it is not an excuse for the
2 violation.
3 So if we look through on each of the four
4 violations that have been specified by the County
5 staff, we see that the evidence is, I think, pretty
6 clear. It certainly gives rise to a reasonable belief
7 that there has been a violation and, as a result, we
8 need to go on to the next step.
9 Now, let' s talk about that next step for a
10 minute. Waste Services would ask this commission to
11 leapfrog that next step; in fact, to ignore it
12 altogether. They say, Let us amend our application.
13 Well, there 's a couple problems with that.
14 One is just the legal requirements and one is a hidden
15 agenda. Let' s talk about the legal requirements
16 first. The statute is very clear. It says, if there
17 is a violation, you then determine if there should be a
18 suspension or revocation. It says nothing about
19 allowing an amendment.
20 An amendment is something that anticipates
21 an existing facility in compliance that says, We would
22 like to do something new. We would like to expand our
23 operation, which by the way, they have been doing all
24 along, anyway. But we would like to expand our
25 operation. Let's ask for an amendment before we
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3:31061.
149
1 expand.
2 You don't ask for an amendment to avoid the
3 sanctions that the law imposes for failure to comply,
4 especially when that failure to comply has been for 22
5 years. So you've got two tracks. They are very
6 separate. You can't merge them. You can't put both
7 trains on the same track.
8 The County's job at this point is to
9 proceed on the track to determine, Is there a violation
10 and should there be suspension or revocation as a
11 result of the next hearing? That' s the sole issue.
12 You can't leapfrog it; you can't ignore it.
13 I 'll submit also that the staff's request
14 that this matter be delayed until December 1 achieves
15 the same result, to ignore the responsibilities and
16 authorities that this commission has in light of the
17 violation, and to await the outcome of the amendment
18 proceeding.
19 That gets us to the hidden agenda. A
20 couple of things are going on here. One, they do not
21 want their permit revoked for a number of reasons.
22 Why? Because if it's revoked, all of their facility by
23 the time they get a new permit is going to have to
24 comply with Subtitle D. Right now the existing
25 facility is grandfathered in under Subtitle D.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9241061
150
1 And Subtitle D says it applies only to
2 horizontal expansion, to new parts of the facility.
3 Subtitle D does not apply to vertical expansion.
4 That' s why, contrary to the representations and
5 commitments of Mr. Moffat when he came in here and said
6 that the elevation would be equal to the surrounding
7 grade, would be benched and stepped down from there,
8 and somebody that would have been required in their
9 EDOR, if we look at the regs under Tab 4, there is a
10 specific provision that says right upfront, when you do
11 your original engineering and design report, you have
12 to address the question of final elevation because
13 that's going to be your standard.
14 And by the way, the EDOR is very important,
15 too, because it is an enforceable part of what a
16 permittee must comply with. The regulations are
17 performance goals. It says, Don't pollute. They don't
18 tell you how not to pollute. They just say, Don't
19 pollute.
20 The EDOR is the specific plan by which the
21 government determines which way the applicant is going
22 to meet those standards. Then they become enforceable,
23 too. It never existed here in this case.
24 When we get back to Subtitle D, if this
25 permit is revoked, what happens is, all of their
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
:l!J64
151
1 facility, if they go back for a new application or
2 amendment, as they call it, will have to comply with
3 Subtitle D. They don't want to. That' s expensive.
4 They would rather go up another 50 or 60
5 feet as their plans propose. It's a lot cheaper for
6 them. And despite all their expressed concerns for the
7 environment, it's not nearly as protective of the
8 environment as complying with Subtitle D.
9 It' s also detrimental to the neighbors. A
10 trash mountain doesn't protect property values. They
11 failed to consider the effect of the facility on
12 property values.
13 So that now we get to the second part of
14 the hidden agenda. Will you get that chance? If Waste
15 Services has its way, the answer to that is no. They
16 ask you to put this off, and they will come back in
17 here and they will argue, just as they argued in the
18 FDIC versus Arapahoe County, in which Waste Management
19 was also a party.
20 In there, they argued that a county has no
21 authority under the regulations to consider an
22 amendment for certificate of designation. There' s a
23 flaw in the regulations that gives way, makes way for
24 this argument and, as being a lawyer, we can argue
25 about whether or not their argument is correct.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
152
1 But they won this argument, and they
2 flashed this argument at least a couple times in this
3 case already in their correspondence to the County.
4 And they've said, We won it there and we are going to
5 apply it here.
6 What is that argument? Under the
7 regulations, in order to expand, a permit holder need
8 only submit an amended application. There is no
9 requirement in the regulations that they get an amended
10 certificate of designation. And, indeed, in the FDIC
11 case, they argued that there was no requirement for a
12 public hearing by the County and that the only thing
13 they needed to do was go to the Department of Health
14 and to submit their application and get it approved by
15 them, and So long, County.
16 So that' s the second part of the hidden
17 agenda. We've got this legal posturing going on. So
18 to delay action, the action that 's required by the
19 statute -- to delay action in this case, a delay for
20 them is victory.
21 And it means not only that will they not be
22 held up to the standard imposed by statute, but that
23 they will not ever be held up to the standards imposed
24 by the statute, and under their FDIC argument, you will
25 not even have an opportunity to consider granting an
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
153
1 amended certificate of designation. That will be out
2 of your hands.
3 So what's your next step? Your next step
4 is required by the statute, is to have the show cause
5 hearing. And I submit that that hearing should be held
6 at the soonest practicable date. Otherwise, the County
7 would be in the position of actually condoning
8 continued violation at the site, not the County's role,
9 and that at the conclusion of that hearing, I believe
10 the evidence that we've seen here today alone, but the
11 evidence at that hearing will show that the appropriate
12 sanction will be revocation of the permit to operate.
13 MR. HOBBS: That concludes our
14 presentation, and according to the ruling, I am
15 submitting several questions I would like to be
16 addressed in the rebuttal of Waste Management. And one
17 clearly is, Is there other landfill and capacity in
18 Weld County that could take this material if you
19 determine that there is a violation and this should be
20 closed?
21 I believe the only landfill operator, by
22 the way, is Waste Services and Waste Management, has
23 plenty of capacity, if it would help the commission. I
24 think that will help, but they said it's in the public
25 interest to keep this open.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
92,106,►
154
1 We think you have already sanctioned a
2 much, much better plan operated by these same
3 people, and the trash in Weld County can go there
4 rather than to a facility that does not comply.
5 But I would like to tender to the county
6 attorney these questions, and in your discretion, you
7 may or may not ask them.
8 Thank you very much.
9 MS. HARBERT: Lee, do you want those
10 questions read for the record or what?
11 MR. MORRISON: It might be more effective
12 when we get to rebuttal. I mean, I can -- I think it
13 would probably be best to provide that at that point.
14 Madam Chairman, the State Health Department
15 has representatives here. I 'm not sure how much longer
16 they are able to stay, so if there are questions to
17 pose to them, or they have comments, now might be a
18 good time.
19 MS. HARBERT: Could we have a
20 representative of the State Health Department come
21 forward, please.
22 (Mr. Mowry came forward. )
23 MS. HARBERT: Are there questions you would
24 like to ask?
25 MS. KIRKMEYER: Maybe you would like to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9.'1061
155
1 make a statement first.
2 MR. MOWRY: I am not prepared to make a
3 statement.
4 MS. HARBERT: Would you state your name and
5 address.
6 MR. MOWRY: For the record, I am Glen
7 Mowry, and I 'm the section chief of the solid waste
8 unit. And I ' ll give my work address, which is the
9 Colorado Department of Health, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive
10 South -- is my work address. And I ' ll answer questions
11 that I can. I really don't have a prepared statement.
12 MS. HARBERT: Are there questions for
13 Mr. Mowry?
14 MS. KIRKMEYER: I guess the first question
15 would be what Mr. Hanson said, that if they were
16 allowed to amend their certificate of designation,
17 there would have to be a hearing by the Weld County
18 Commissioners.
19 MR. MOWRY: I would have to look at the
20 statute to find that. I think 30-20-103 or 104 from
21 the 1992 amendment would require a public hearing for
22 an amended application.
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: A public hearing with the
24 Board of County Commissioners or a public hearing at
25 the Department of Health?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061 '
156
1 MR. MOWRY: At this level, the County --
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: At this level?
3 MR. MOWRY: The State Health Department
4 does not conduct public hearings. They are always done
5 on the local level.
6 MS. HARBERT: Are you looking that up, or
7 do you concur with that?
8 MR. MORRISON: I am looking.
9 MS. HARBERT: While he is looking, are
10 there other questions for Mr. Mowry?
11 MR. HALL: Has there been any approval of
12 this landfill site by the State Department of Health?
13 MR. MOWRY: I think the testimony today
14 says that in 1971, the department, quote, approved it.
15 I would like the Board to understand that the
16 Department of Health does not and never has approved
17 landfills in that sense of the word.
18 They make a recommendation to the Board of
19 Health that they feel that the particular landfill can
20 or cannot meet the minimum standards that we review
21 landfills for. The actual approval is on your level.
22 MS. KIRKMEYER: So has there been an actual
23 recommendation of approval made by the Department of
24 Health?
25 MR. MOWRY: The only thing I 've seen, the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
991061
157
1 portion of testimony from 1971, and I would assume that
2 would be called a recommendation for approval.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: But is there any other
4 written documentation?
5 MR. MOWRY: Not that I 'm aware of, no.
6 MS. KIRKMEYER: What about back to what
7 Mr. Hobbs was saying, Condition No. 1 on the
8 resolution, that states that any sanitary landfill
9 facility to be installed shall be approved by the State
10 Health Department?
11 He has made reference to this condition,
12 saying this was one reason why this site is not
13 grandfathered in.
14 MR. MOWRY: I think that' s a legal argument
15 that I am not prepared to address.
16 MS. KIRKMEYER: My other question, if
17 nobody else has any, the proposed solid waste
18 regulations, the draft that' s out there right now, can
19 you give us an idea of time frame of adoption of those
20 regulations?
21 MR. MOWRY: We have a hearing coming up the
22 third Wednesday in May. If the Health Department
23 approves the draft regulations at that time, they
24 become effective 20 days after that date.
25 MR. WEBSTER: You're the person that has
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:;1063
158
1 approved -- not approved -- but reviewed the discharge
2 permit?
3 MR. MOWRY: No, I 'm not. Barbara, from our
4 water Quality Division, has reviewed that.
5 MR. WEBSTER: She has, that's all I have.
6 MS. HARBERT: Do you have a question?
7 MR. WEBSTER: No. I just wondered
8 whether --
9 MS. KIRKMEYER: Maybe she could give us a
10 time frame, because as far as we know, the discharge
11 permit hasn't been approved yet. Has it been approved
12 yet, the discharge permit?
13 MS. TAYLOR: No, it hasn't.
14 MS. HARBERT: Would you come to the
15 microphone, please, and state your name.
16 MS. TAYLOR: Okay.
17 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
18 MS. TAYLOR: My name is Barbara Taylor.
19 I am an environmental engineer, and I 'm reviewing the
20 discharge permits. The permit is presently in the
21 review process, which will involve -- well, I asked
22 Waste Services to go back and perform many more tests
23 on their discharge, which delayed the process
24 considerably.
25 MS. HARBERT: Can you give us a time frame
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
159
1 at all?
2 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Don't look at me.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: Are there any number of
4 days, the process can only last so long?
5 MR. MOWRY: Yes, 180 days from the time the
6 application is made.
7 MR. WEBSTER: What was that time?
8 MS. HARBERT: Someone?
9 MS. KIRKMEYER: November or December.
10 MS. HARBERT: It was submitted in November
11 of '92 . So 180 days is about up?
12 (Off record comments among commissioners. )
13 MS. TAYLOR: 180. But we did postpone it
14 to get additional chemical testing on the discharge.
15 MR. BAXTER: Have you received additional
16 tests? You required them and you received those
17 additional samples from Waste Services?
18 MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, and for several of
19 them, they had to go to other laboratories, several
20 different laboratories, because we had several
21 pesticides measured, and several volatiles, heavy
22 metals.
23 MR. WEBSTER: None of these tests were
24 collected to be forwarded by our own Health Department
25 to the State Health Department?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
901%61
160
1 MS. TAYLOR: No.
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: Maybe you could explain.
3 We already heard Arthur Roy's explanation of why you
4 could find VOCs at the discharge area, but not at
5 Spomer Lake 2 .
6 MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. This isn't real
7 uncommon for this type of VOC. These are ethenes and
8 ethanes, they're very light, and there are relatively
9 few carbon compounds, and they volatilize very easily.
10 And I 'm sure that that 's what' s happening on the way to
11 Spomer Lake.
12 Also, there is a change in chemistry from
13 the top of the landfill to the bottom of the landfill.
14 It's relatively sodium rich at the top, and by the time
15 we get to the bottom of the landfill , there is Spomer
16 Lake, we are dealing with calcium magnesium compound,
17 and our hydrogen sulfide, HS, is being converted to
18 H2S, and that would explain the odor that we are
19 getting.
20 And, also, the milky appearance of the
21 water. I guess --
22 MS. HARBERT: Say that again in layman's
23 language.
24 MR. MOWRY: Well, calcium magnesium is what
25 you are getting when you mix a Pepto Bismol tablet in
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 9.:1061.
161
1 some water, okay?
2 MS. HARBERT: So we have that type of layer
3 of soil or chemical in the earth?
4 MS. TAYLOR: Yes. And it varies with
5 temperature and pH. And, most likely, we are getting
6 it there during the period of warmer temperature, I
7 would guess.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Have any tests been taken at
9 the mouth of the stream that goes into the Thompson
10 River, above and below at that point?
11 MS. TAYLOR: As a matter of fact, I have a
12 whole sheet of paper with results from the Thompson
13 stream at that point. The hardness, which is a measure
14 of calcium magnesium, is up in the 700s at that point,
15 which is very high.
16 Just to give you an idea, most
17 municipalities try to keep theirs down below 200 for
18 drinking water. But it's only aesthetically not
19 pleasing. It's not a health problem, as such.
20 MR. WEBSTER: No, that isn't a health
21 problem. But my next question, have you talked for VOC
22 or anything like that?
23 MS. TAYLOR: Yes, I have all those results
24 on the map. And in the process of granting a discharge
25 permit, Waste Services will have to meet the best
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061.
162
1 standard that they can meet to the mouth of that river,
2 assuming that their waste is going to go to the mouth
3 of that river.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Those figures you don't have
5 completed yet; is that what you' re saying?
6 MS. TAYLOR: I have them on a huge sheet of
7 paper. They are on a data retrieval sheet of paper, if
8 you want to see them.
9 MS. HARBERT: I guess I 'm still concerned
10 about this magnesium chloride -- or calcium. Which is
11 it?
12 MS. TAYLOR: It' s calcium and magnesium
13 carbonate.
14 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Would that be there
15 whether there was a landfill or not? That' s what I am
16 trying to figure out. Is this a natural formation of
17 land or is it a cause of the landfill, and is it high
18 at the mouth of the river because there is a landfill
19 or just because that' s the makeup of the land around
20 there?
21 MS. TAYLOR: Well I can't say whether the
22 landfill would contribute to it in any way or not by
23 selective osmosis through the exchange through the
24 piping that's under there. I do know that the region
25 itself is very rich in calcium magnesium, and also the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061.
163
1 radioactives that were found. It's a radioactive
2 material.
3 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: Was the underdrain, was it
5 required to have a discharge permit back in 1982 when
6 they put it in?
7 MS. TAYLOR: The one to the northern end?
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: No. It would be the 1982 .
9 MR. ROY: I think she is referring to the
10 one that comes down to the landfill to --
11 MS. TAYLOR: Oh, no. Huh-uh. Any more
12 questions?
13 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
14 MR. ROY: May we ask questions of the
15 Health Department, since we made a representation on
16 our position?
17 MS. HARBERT: You can pretty soon.
18 MR. ROY: Does the landfill -- sorry.
19 MR. MORRISON: Do you want him to ask
20 questions now or wait until he has his rebuttal?
21 Are you going to be able to stay?
22 MR. ROY: Never mind.
23 MS. HARBERT: Art, if you want to come to
24 the mike and ask questions --
25 MR. ROY: No.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
164
1 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Hobbs, do you have
2 questions of the Health Department?
3 MR. HOBBS: Not if this isn't the time to
4 ask questions. I am trying to abide by the rules of
5 chair. I would love to.
6 MS. HARBERT: Well, we are trying to
7 accommodate the Health Department because they need to
8 go back to Denver. I think probably, because of that,
9 we might go out of order. If you do have a question, I
10 would entertain it at this time.
11 MR. HOBBS: I have one question.
12 MS. HARBERT: Come to the mike and state
13 your name and ask the question, please.
14 MR. HOBBS: My question would be this.
15 Could you rule out the landfill contributing to the --
16 (Brief interruption. )
17 MR. HOBBS: If I may, I don't see what 's so
18 funny. Waste Services has laughed at me for trying to
19 get the facts.
20 MS. HARBERT: Would you state the question
21 again so the court reporter may hear it.
22 MR. HOBBS: You were asked whether or not
23 you could say it was a natural occurrence to do the
24 landfill. You said you couldn't say.
25 What would you need to have tested or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE aq��
S A.062.
165
1 analyzed to see whether the landfill was contributing
2 to the high levels you saw near the Big Thompson?
3 MS. TAYLOR: I suppose, right offhand, just
4 thinking of something I did in graduate school, I
5 suppose what we would have to do is construct a pilot
6 landfill in the area and see if we get the same
7 response. I can't say.
8 MS. HARBERT: Can you -- would to be fair
9 to say that if you tested the water above the landfill
10 on the upside of the river and you got similar
11 readings, just because that whole area is about the
12 same makeup, that that would give you a comparison?
13 MS. TAYLOR: You mean upstream, up and down
14 from the landfill?
15 MS. HARBERT: Uh-huh.
16 MS. TAYLOR: Not really, because I really
17 don't know what's going on there in terms of
18 temperature or pH, or depth or flow, change in
19 gradient. All those things are going to affect what
20 precipitates out on its way down there.
21 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
22 Art, do you have a question?
23 MR. ROY: Yes.
24 MS. HARBERT: Would you come to the
25 microphone, please.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
92,1061
166
1 MR. ROY: If the opinion -- two questions.
2 If the opinion of the Colorado Department of Health,
3 does the landfill constitute an immediate threat to
4 health or environmental risk?
5 Second, what is the position of the
6 Colorado Department of Health, if it has one, with
7 respect to its preference as to whether the landfill be
8 shut down in its present state or that the operation
9 continue and corrective action or remediation take
10 place?
11 MS. HARBERT: Which one of you would like
12 to answer that?
13 MR. MOWRY: I don't know if I want to try.
14 My name, for the reporter, again, is Glen Mowry. Could
15 I have your questions again?
16 MR. ROY: That's the short, abbreviated
17 version of it.
18 MR. MOWRY: I think the key word in the
19 question was -- the question is, Does the landfill pose
20 an immediate health or environmental risk? And I think
21 the key word is immediate, and my answer to that is
22 no. If this is allowed to go on unchecked for some
23 indeterminable period of time, I would probably change
24 my mind.
25 As far as the reaction to whether the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061.
168
1 regulations. They are national standards.
2 The regulations I mentioned to your earlier
3 question regarding the May hearing of the Board of
4 Health and Colorado Department of Health is a draft
5 regulation that takes the Federal Subtitle D and
6 integrates it into State regulation.
7 The State of Colorado is going to apply for
8 approved state status under the Subtitle D to enforce
9 the intent in Subtitle D.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: You say they are going to
11 apply?
12 MR. MOWRY: Yes, we will be applying,
13 hopefully, before the end of this month.
14 MS. KIRKMEYER: What' s it contingent upon?
15 MR. MOWRY: We have to have regulations
16 that meet Subtitle D. To start with, we have to have
17 certain personnel and budget and various things.
18 Then the EPA makes a decision within six
19 months of the application whether or not we are
20 approved, and can then enforce the Subtitle D, or
21 whether we as a State are not approved, in which case
22 the whole system reverts to the EPA.
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: EPA then would approve --
24 or would enforce Subtitle D?
25 MR. MOWRY: Yes. There is no approval or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91061
169
1 disapproval at this point in time for new landfills,
2 because EPA has no permitting program. They don't have
3 personnel, and it' s questionable whether they have
4 authority.
5 MS. HARBERT: I would like to ask if you're
6 taking these remediation plans back with you, how long
7 does this -- are you permitted to have them before you
8 make a decision?
9 MR. MOWRY: If we treat it as an amended
10 application, it's 180 days. If we treat it as a
11 remediation plan, there is really no statutory how long
12 it is, just a matter of how long it takes the staff
13 people to read the gist, comment, get information back.
14 It's apt to take a few months just as a remediation
15 plan.
16 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
17 MR. HOBBS: If I may, just one, and this is
18 an important question that follows right after yours.
19 MS. HARBERT: All right.
20 MR. HOBBS : If there is no amendment --
21 MS. HARBERT: Would you come to the mike
22 and state your name, please.
23 MR. HOBBS: Mr. Mowry
, if there is no
24 amendment, no expansion, is it your testimony that you
25 currently have authority to require remediation of this
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
170
1 landfill?
2 MR. MOWRY: Yes.
3 MS. HARBERT: Are there any other questions
4 of Mr. Mowry or the State Health Department?
5 If not, thank you very much for coming. We
6 appreciate your presence here.
7 I 'm sorry to keep reiterating, Come to the
8 microphone, but tape recorders do not have eyes and
9 they cannot tell always and, you know, all of you
10 are -- or those that have been legally involved in this
11 have listened to the tapes of the previous hearing in
12 1971 and, therefore, it's very important that you do
13 state your name when you come to the microphone.
14 I think we need a break. Can we take a
15 10-minute break? We will resume at 3 : 30. Thank you.
16 (Recess from 3 : 20 to 3 : 30)
17 MS. HARBERT: I have an announcement to
18 make. The final score was the Mets 3 and Rockies zero.
19 (Discussion off the record. )
20 MS. HARBERT: Let' s see. Where were we?
21 Is there anyone else -- we are taking public
22 testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to
23 speak for or against the proposal before us? Would you
24 come to the microphone.
25 Oh, we have cards. Why don 't I just call
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931%61
171
1 these? Would that be all right?
2 MS. HARBERT: What 's your name, sir?
3 MR. HAYES: Van Hayes.
4 MS. HARBERT: Would Clarence Kammerzell
5 take a seat right here in the front row and be ready to
6 speak.
7 Oh, Wait. He is against.
8 (Discussion off the record. )
9 MR. HAYES: I hope that we 're not getting
10 out of context here. I am for the continuation of the
11 landfill, and I represent the group --
12 MS. HARBERT: We need your name and address
13 for the record, please.
14 MR. HAYES: My name is Van Hayes. I 'm from
15 Saratoga, Wyoming. My wife is the former Ella Marie
16 Spomer. She and her sister, Susanne Stephens, are the
17 present owners of the Spomer place, which is adjacent
18 to the landfill on both sides, south and west.
19 We have better than a full mile of county
20 roads. They've been there since 1911, and I would say
21 we are the fourth generation on the place.
22 I have been associated with the farm myself
23 for more than 40 years and act as spokesman for the
24 families that I represent. The Spomer place, as I
25 said, surrounds the landfill on two sides, and we are
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
301961
172
1 the only owner on the south and the west sides. There
2 is no one else.
3 We have a full quarter mile on the south,
4 full quarter mile on the west. We are on the downslope
5 side all the way through. We are the ones most
6 directly and immediately affected by any contaminants
7 that might arise off the landfill.
8 The past landfill operations have not
9 allowed adequate space from the fill liquid, and they
10 are filled right up to the boundary lines. I 'm not
11 going to deny it. We sold this land or have a contract
12 to sell land to the landfill company. We are not going
13 to get rich on it.
14 But the thing here is, the way it is right
15 now, they need room to remediate any possible problems
16 that they have now or in the future. We have done
17 this, and it has allowed the landfill already to come
18 in and set down several new wells and monitoring sites
19 that they would not have been able to do if we had not
20 cooperated.
21 We have a contract on the place to sell a
22 buffer strip. That buffer strip does not allow -- the
23 contract does not allow any additional waste or any
24 waste at all to be placed in it. It is to be used only
25 for additional fill material to continue and complete
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
321061
173
1 operations.
2 As I stated earlier, we are the only ones
3 who are really in the immediate vicinity that is at
4 risk right now. I 'm not going to go into the past
5 history. I have it here. But I see no problem with
6 what's already been given. I 'm not going to go through
7 it again.
8 MS. HARBERT: We appreciate that.
9 MR. HAYES: Now, water from the Spomer
10 Lakes is being used to irrigate land we have below it
11 for the last, as long as as I can remember. It's my
12 wife's place. Our family feels some water
13 contamination has taken place and has occurred on the
14 farm. We have been assured by Waste Management that
15 that will be taken care of.
16 We also personally collected some water
17 samples last year and had them analyzed. Naturally,
18 they have not going into VOCs and heavy metals and so
19 forth. Agricultural labs don't do that. But the
20 report we have back indicates that the water was
21 satisfactory for both irrigation and for livestock
22 use.
23 Just last week my wife and I were up at the
24 lake. We saw a lot of birds, ducks, a pair of geese, a
25 lot of redwing blackbirds -- obviously, what this other
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9.21061
174
1 gentleman said he saw up here. We also have fish in
2 the lake. There are fish in there. My son saw some
3 last year. That's not a dead lake, folks.
4 The Ashton-Daniels group now has focused
5 attention on possible pollution and they advocate
6 closing the landfill right now. They have given the
7 impression they speak for all the landowners in the
8 area. In reality, they only speak for a few.
9 We haven't had time to canvass all the
10 people in the area. But looking at the map here, you
11 can see where the site location is for the landfill .
12 The colored-in areas around it are areas that are
13 people that we have canvassed and talked with, that
14 they have no objection to the landfill continuing until
15 the proper time to close it.
16 Now, I think we passed to you folks last
17 week a pamphlet with a number of letters and some other
18 information on it. This map is in there.
19 Approximately 35 individuals within 2-1/2 miles of the
20 landfill were also named in there and have a vested
21 interest in land in the area.
22 Other issues now raised by the
23 Ashton-Daniels group and their associates indicates --
24 includes the implication that local wells have been
25 contaminated and are no longer useable for human
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
aa- 2,1061
175
1 consumption. Even wells as far away as two miles have
2 been alluded to as being undrinkable, unuseable, and
3 they are alluding to the landfill problem.
4 At our farm, which is just south, and in
5 that area, we have never, and I repeat never, been able
6 to drink the water from wells in that area. 40 years
7 ago, when I got married to my wife, and prior to that
8 as long as she can remember -- and that' s not just
9 yesterday -- now I 'm in trouble -- but they had Dan the
10 Water Man here in Greeley deliver water to cisterns.
11 Our neighbors did, too.
12 I can't say specifically how far and how
13 much country that covered, but I do know below that
14 landfill there, we never have had wells that we could
15 utilize, not for human consumption.
16 While we don 't approve of the
17 Ashton-Daniels methods, we do feel they have provided
18 a service by bringing this problem to the community.
19 However, their stated goal that appeared in their
20 January 15, 1993 , newsletter was, I quote, When we
21 first started this endeavor, all we really wanted was a
22 public hearing and the opportunity to be heard.
23 Unquote.
24 Their goal is being met today. Now, it
25 appears they are looking for larger and better things.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
176
1 Although we originally opposed the CWSL, we must now
2 deal with present reality, folks. The mistakes of the
3 past are coming back to haunt us.
4 Closure at this time, I don't feel, is in
5 the best interest of the people of Weld County.
6 Premature closer sure will not allow Waste Management
7 any time and means for crowning that will allow proper
8 runoff from the landfill.
9 Proper crowning and sealing is absolutely
10 necessary. This will reduce infiltration, percolation
11 down through the soil, and trash, and reduce the
12 incidence of any runoff or leachates that might be down
13 there already coming in there, or compound it in the
14 future. Just placing a cap on a landfill is not going
15 to solve those problems.
16 As it stands right now, there are basically
17 level areas up there. There are rolling areas. It's
18 undulated. You fill those areas and leave it flat, and
19 you are going to get runoff, not coming. You are going
20 to get water running in, leaching in, soaking in.
21 I 'm now retired, and after 30 years with
22 the USDA Soil Conservation Service, I am a trained and
23 knowledgeable soil conservationist.
24 The way in which a landfill is closed and
25 when it' s closed will determine for many years what
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE n
✓ _L19g1
177
1 problems we may determine or may have in the future.
2 My chief -- my family's chief concern with the
3 continued operation is the environmental and sound
4 closure, that CWSL is done properly.
5 We are concerned about scenic values, but
6 we are more concerned about the environmental issues at
7 stake. We believe that these environmental issues
8 affect our family more than anyone else in this room.
9 Our contacts with management and employees
10 of Waste Management have demonstrated to us a high
11 degree of professionalism and concern for the neighbors
12 and protection of the environment. They are the ones
13 that have the expertise and the ability to do the job
14 right.
15 We are convinced that Waste Management is
16 our best alternative. They can professionally operate
17 and at the proper time close the landfill in a safe and
18 professional manner. As a quick sidelight --
19 basically, that' s my prepared notes, so I might make a
20 couple more quick thoughts here.
21 In a closing thought, we heard from the
22 attorneys, we've heard from just about everybody, it
23 seems like -- and I am sure everybody is getting
24 tired -- but who is responsible for monitoring a
25 landfill?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
178
1 21 years ago a decision was made to put it
2 in. You don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
3 Somebody dropped the ball . The gentleman that came up
4 with the water here a minute ago, obviously, he was
5 trespassing. We have never posted the place, but in
6 visiting with him here a little bit ago and trying to
7 determine where he picked that water up on the place,
8 he can't tell me. He doesn't know which pond it was
9 out of.
10 He says there was a light somewhere in
11 there. We don't have any lights on the post, not like
12 he's describing. He came in on a gravel or dirt road.
13 We are right on the pavement. The access to the place
14 is on the pavement. So I question, actually, if he
15 even knows where he got that from.
16 One other question I do have, and then I
17 will sit down. In the presentations, there is
18 ambiguity to me in terms of height above existing
19 terrain. On our place alone, we have better -- I 'd say
20 better than a 100-foot elevation in that half mile to
21 the west side.
22 Are you starting at the bottom of the
23 drainage, or are you starting at the top of the hill
24 for your original amount of fill you put in? There is
25 no defined notification of this anywhere.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
A
9fl061t
179
1 It seems to me that attorneys can argue,
2 that people can become emotional, but what 's the real
3 issue? The issue is what are we going to do with
4 what's happening now, not what happened 20 years ago.
5 What you folks do here today or tomorrow or the next
6 day, when you make your decision on whether you are
7 going to continue to allow the landfill to fill and
8 close properly, is going to determine what happens to
9 our place down there.
10 Is the County ready to clean it up? They
11 haven't done so in 20 years. They haven't monitored it
12 in 20 years. I know it's not your fault. But, again,
13 someone dropped the ball.
14 As far as some of these landfill papers,
15 recommendations from County, State, Federal Government,
16 it takes time to get things through the bureaucracy.
17 I 've worked in it for years. And I hope things will
18 move along so we can all have a decision on this in a
19 very short time.
20 Thank you for your attention. Do you have
21 any questions?
22 MS. HARBERT: Any questions for Mr. Hayes?
23 Thank you, Mr. Hayes.
24 Mr. Kammerzell? Or Mrs. Kammerzell.
25 Mrs. Florence Kammerzell . I apologize.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
180
1 (Off record comments. )
2 MS. KAMMERZELL: I am Florence Kammerzell.
3 I guess I 'm the new kid on the block. We have only
4 been on our farm since 1963 .
5 Madam Chairman, County Commissioners, I
6 endorse what Mr. Van Hayes said. I swear he read my
7 notes. The only thing I want to endorse is that the
8 issue is like spilled milk. The 1971 engineering plans
9 and Mr. Moffat's plans are behind us.
10 That the landfill was used and operated
11 under poor County Commissioners ' judgment is not the
12 point today. By the way, who was the County attorney
13 at that time? Today's point is we do have a cleanup
14 job. Mr. Hayes ' graphic photographs endorse that, and
15 I agree.
16 May I address the Waste Management or the
17 Waste Services? Do I understand that Waste Management
18 is already making physical improvements to correct the
19 past 20 years and will continue to clean up the
20 problems and close the landfill in a proper and
21 ecological, fit manner?
22 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes.
23 MS. KAMMERZELL: Then I ask, do we of Weld
24 County, do you, the County Commissioners, plan to pay
25 for the cleanup if the landfill is closed?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
181
1 If pollutants are there, then I believe we
2 should let the Waste Management get on to the
3 commitment, according to Health and State regulations,
4 for our future protection.
5 Thank you.
6 MS. HARBERT: Thank you, Florence.
7 Fred Rehmer; is that correct?
8 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: He had to leave.
9 MS. HARBERT: He had to leave, all right.
10 Some of you may not have chosen to speak, and that' s
11 fine.
12 Sharon Davis, you've already spoken; is
13 that correct?
14 MS. DAVIS: Yes.
15 MS. HARBERT: Diane McMullin?
16 MS. McMULLIN: I 'm against, not for.
17 That's written incorrectly.
18 My name is Diane McMullin. I live at
19 1012 Cranford Place. I am a student at UNC. And on
20 behalf of COPIRG, which is Colorado Public Interest
21 Research Group, the University of Northern Colorado
22 Chapter of COPIRG supports the efforts of the Colorado
23 residents concerned over water.
24 The issues being discussed today concerning
25 the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill are more the rule
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9. 1961
182
1 than the exception to landfills around the state.
2 According to information released by the United States
3 Public Interest Research Group and COPIRG, more than
4 half the landfills in the state will close within five
5 years because they cannot meet Federal RCRA standards.
6 Environmental and health problems
7 surrounding unlined and unregulated lakes concern
8 COPIRG, and COPIRG sees the need to clean up landfills
9 that are hazardous to the land and people around them.
10 Thank you.
11 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
12 The court reporter has asked that anyone
13 that reads a prepared statement give a copy of it to
14 her with your name on it. It makes it easier for her
15 to transcribe it later on.
16 If you have a prepared statement and would
17 bring it up to her, we would appreciate it. If you
18 want it back, make a note on it that you want it back,
19 and she will see that you get it returned. Thank you.
20 Dr. Ray Knapp?
21 Would June Kane, if you are in the
22 audience, would you be prepared to be next, please.
23 DR. KNAPP: I 'm Ray Knapp. I am live at
24 5960 - 37th Street. I have been living there for
25 26 years. When the landfill first opened up there, I
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
331061
183
1 was really quite supportive of it, because it was close
2 to only three miles from where I lived and it seemed to
3 be a much better location than the previous dumps.
4 Back in 1966, when I first came here, we
5 were taking our tin cans and bottles -- at that time
6 you didn't take all your trash to the dump, but we took
7 them to the dump by Kersey, and it was dumped in a pit
8 right close to the river, just like right on the flood
9 plain.
10 The second dump site that we took it to was
11 down in Evans, again right near the river. I thought
12 these were just horrible places to be dumping trash.
13 So this seemed to be a much better place. It was
14 located higher, a little bit farther away from the
15 river.
16 I 've been hauling my own trash to the dump
17 for all these 26 years. I have a little 4-by-7 foot
18 trailer. The most that Weld County landfill ever
19 charged me for taking my trash to the dump was $7. 00.
20 But then we had a change of management; Waste
21 Management came in. I found out they wanted $18.50.
22 Mr. Butler says Waste Management wants to
23 be neighborly. I don't know if that' s a very
24 neighborly thing to increase the fees on a neighbor by
25 200 percent. I got to thinking, maybe a lot of people,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
331061 '
184
1 rather than taking their trash to the dump and paying
2 those high rates, will say, Hey, maybe some other place
3 I can just dump it alongside of the road.
4 So I think that 's an issue which we haven't
5 really thought about, these high rates they are going
6 to be charging. It seems like they are not only --
7 well, I walked out there and found at their gate they
8 have actually raised their rates, so now it will cost
9 me $20 for my little trailerload of trash.
10 I guess over the years that I 've been
11 there, I live on this major route -- there's two major
12 routes going from the city of Greeley out to the dump.
13 My 37th Street is one of them, and I have been picking
14 up trash for years.
15 I mean, it' s all kinds of trash, old
16 furniture, limbs are dropped off loads. I do know that
17 the landfill has a sign up there saying, If you bring
18 an uncovered load, we will charge you more, but it 's
19 been very ineffective. We still have a tremendous
20 amount of trash being dumped.
21 If the Waste Management was really
22 neighborly, I think they would be patrolling these
23 major routes and picking up this trash that their
24 customers dropped off their loads. That ' s really --
25 one other thing I might say.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
185
1 I was looking around for another place to
2 take my trash last January, and so I wound up way down
3 at Erie, that landfill, and that was really an eye
4 opening for me. I drove in there, and there was this
5 huge, great big pit down there, very deep, had a large
6 capacity, and it was lined. It opened up my eyes to
7 what a landfill should really look like.
8 I said, Well, this is such an improvement
9 over what we have here in Central Weld County. Why
10 can't we have this kind of a dump to take our trash
11 to? So I really think we have to look at the broad
12 issue.
13 And it sort of irked me this morning when
14 I heard the people from Waste Management trying to
15 grandfather themselves into this process. I think back
16 in the 1960s, early 1970s, we weren't very much
17 environmentally aware as we are today. They are more
18 sophisticated, and we shouldn't accept the conditions
19 that were laid down 22 years ago for the operation of
20 10 or 15 years.
21 Well, that' s my statement. Thank you.
22 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
23 Dr. Knapp?
24 I have one. How much did it cost you to
25 take your trash to Erie?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
31.06
186
1 DR. KNAPP: It's $11. 00.
2 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
3 DR. KNAPP: So it was a bit cheaper.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: Plus gas?
5 MS. HARBERT: Plus your gas.
6 DR. KNAPP: Plus my gas. I don't like to
7 drive that far, but . . .
8 Maybe I ' ll find another place. But it
9 seems like Waste Management will be taking over every
10 dump and will have a monopoly and they can raise the
11 rates as high as they want to.
12 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Are there any
13 other questions.
14 June Kane?
15 Ella Marie Hayes, would you be the next to
16 speak, please.
17 MS. KANE: My name is June Kane. I live at
18 712 - 14th Avenue. Madam Chairperson and
19 Commissioners, my comments will be brief and I hope
20 pertinent to your mission.
21 I represent today the Greeley Audubon
22 Society and its 220 members throughout Weld County.
23 Our goals are to share our pleasure in the natural
24 world and to encourage healthy, life-supporting
25 surroundings for all creatures.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91061
187
1 We are here to listen and to learn. We do
2 question what effect a much larger landfill operating
3 for many more years might have on the nearby Big
4 Thompson River. We hope this hearing will clarify the
5 condition of groundwaters and of the river water both
6 now and in some future projection.
7 On our field trips to the area and river,
8 we see a variety of animals and birds, including our
9 great national bird, bald eagles, whose main food is
10 fish from rivers. We must keep our waterways as pure
11 as possible for ourselves and for wildlife.
12 Businesses that bring money to the
13 community must not receive greater consideration than
14 the health and well-being of people and wildlife. If
15 there has been a lack of consistent, orderly monitoring
16 of this operation under an approved design and
17 operations plan, then it is the duty of the County and
18 State to take action.
19 Waste Management, probably the largest
20 disposal business in the United States, reportedly
21 takes in 4 billion dollars a year. If the company
22 inherited problems at the site, we assume it is willing
23 to help rectify past mistakes and oversights to bring
24 this landfill in line with the best available
25 practices.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
188
1 Also, is waste being trucked into this
2 landfill from other counties and states? We are told
3 there is a recycling program at the landfill and we
4 commend the owners for this.
5 You commissioners are charged with
6 promoting a healthy economic environment which need not
7 be inconsistent with a healthy natural environment. We
8 commend the Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Action Group
9 for alerting the community to this matter, and we thank
10 all participants in this hearing.
11 Thank you.
12 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
13 Ella Marie Hayes. And then Jon Stephens.
14 MS. HAYES: Madam Chairman, Members of the
15 Board, I 'm Ella Marie Hayes from Saratoga, Wyoming, and
16 I am a Spomer. My sister, Susanne Spomer Stephens, and
17 I are the property owners directly south of the
18 landfill .
19 My husband spoke for us, and I believe he
20 basically covered everything that I needed to say, and
21 Florence Kammerzell also did say some things. I just
22 had a couple of points I wanted to make.
23 The gentleman that brought the black water
24 up, number one, obviously, trespassing on our land, and
25 this, if the term radical was used -- and I might have
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
8C1061.
189
1 been the one guilty of using the term radical -- I was
2 not referring to being environmentally open, because
3 I 'm an environmentalist myself. What I was referring
4 to were the methods that have been used. This was not
5 a very scientific method.
6 I recall as a child -- and that 's obviously
7 before the landfill went in -- we began to -- we begged
8 and pestered our parents to go swim in the lake.
9 Within a few minutes of being in that lake, we emerged
10 covered with black muck. We never were allowed to go
11 swim in that lake again.
12 So I don't think that was a very scientific
13 exhibit. And this is the thing that we have objected
14 to. So many of the exhibits are taken out of context.
15 Are they really valid?
16 And we are not here today to decide whether
17 1991 (sic) was correct. I think we all agree it
18 wasn't. We don't understand why it wasn 't put in
19 writing. We all know today written agreements.
20 We are here to decide what we are going to
21 do in 1993 to determine the best future for ourselves
22 and our next generation. And we do feel that Waste
23 Management has already made a commitment, they've
24 already started, and we do feel that they are the ones
25 that can go forward and clean up this.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
190
1 And I do think that the Ashton-Daniels
2 group still has a role to play. Keep watch. And
3 everyone can do this. But I still believe Waste
4 Management is the way to go, and we would like to see
5 them be able to continue operation.
6 Thank you.
7 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Stephens.
8 MR. STEPHENS: Chairperson Harbert and
9 Commissioners, my name is Jon Stephens, Stove Prairie,
10 Colorado. I would like to say that I agree with Van
11 Hayes and the others that have spoken as far as the
12 best future for the Central Weld County Landfill.
13 What I would like to urge is now a spirit
14 of cooperation between the Commissioners, the County
15 Health Department, the State Health Department, Waste
16 Management, to solve this problem. This is not going
17 to go away by our meeting here today.
18 That problem is sitting out there festering
19 right now while we talk. And the only way we are going
20 to be able to solve that problem is technology,
21 financial capability, and the determination and the
22 oversight provided by the State and County officials to
23 make sure that it' s done.
24 Thank you. Do you have any questions?
25 MS. HARBERT: Do you have any questions of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9C1n61
191
1 Mr. Stephens?
2 MR. STEPHENS: Thank you.
3 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
4 Susanne Stephens.
5 MS. STEPHENS: Madam Chairperson and County
6 Commissioners, I 'm the other half of the Spomer
7 landowners, and I think everyone in my family has just
8 spoken and given me -- said everything that I feel in
9 my heart. And I think we have to not concentrate on
10 1971; it' s 1993 . We have to go forward. We have to
11 have this problem corrected.
12 And, again, Waste Management is the company
13 that has the expertise and the finances to do it. Does
14 the County? Does the State? And I think they are
15 committed, and with all of us cooperating, it will be
16 done.
17 And I thank you.
18 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
19 (Discussion off the record. )
20 Did you not say your name?
21 MR. WEBSTER: You said you are related.
22 MS. STEPHENS: I 'm sorry. I 'm Susanne
23 Spomer Stephens. I 'm sorry.
24 MS. HARBERT: I have a Bradley Carver.
25 MR. CARVER: Yes. I 'm here to speak on
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3:1061
192
1 behalf --
2 MS. HARBERT: Would you state your name.
3 MR. CARVER: My name is Bradley Carver. I 'm
4 the board chair for the Colorado Public Interest
5 Research Group, and I am just here to speak on behalf
6 the University of Northern Colorado. We fully support
7 the efforts to close and clean up the Central Weld
8 Sanitary Landfill for the following reasons -- and just
9 forgive me. I 'm just going to read the statement, due
10 to brevity.
11 According to estimates by the Environmental
12 Protection Agency, 50 percent of Colorado' s landfills
13 will close in the next five to eight years because they
14 cannot meet Federal health and safety laws. By these
15 standards, the Central Weld Landfill is certainly not
16 the exception, rather the rule.
17 As an unlined facility located in a major
18 drainage basin, and having accepted several forms of
19 unacceptable waste, this landfill cannot meet the
20 standards necessary to ensure public health and safety.
21 In addition, the cost of cleaning up a
22 100-acre landfill in Colorado to meet with Federal
23 regulations would be approximately $65 million. Rather
24 than extending the life of this unsafe landfill for
25 another decade and escalating the costs of its eventual
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061 _
193
1 cleanup, we at COPIRG feel the resources must be
2 focused on closing the site and cleaning it up now.
3 In addition, the development of effective
4 recycling programs, from collection to processing, to
5 purchasing, must be implemented to divert trash from
6 the waste stream and extend the lives of the truly safe
7 and sanitary landfills already in operation today, such
8 as the facility located near Ault, Colorado.
9 Thank you.
10 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
11 J.B. Merrell.
12 MR. MERRELL: Thank you. My name is J.B.
13 Merrell. I live on East 18th, and I am representing
14 Bunting Trash Service today. I am not representing our
15 over 7, 000 customers, but I would like to think that we
16 are speaking in their best interests.
17 We know all about the increase in the
18 landfill rates, and we can empathize, too, with the
19 good doctor, what he has had to bear in increased
20 rates. However, we are against an immediate closing of
21 the landfill.
22 We, too, would like to believe the best
23 about Waste Management and their ability to close the
24 landfill properly. If the landfill were closed
25 immediately, that drastically changes our mode of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 30106a
194
1 operations and where we have to dump all of our
2 customers' trash, which is going to be in the Ault
3 area.
4 That is going to increase our overhead, and
5 as water trickles down, we would like to think the best
6 about our ability to control that and not pass that
7 increase to our customers, but that could very much be
8 a reality.
9 So we are in favor of a closing, the
10 inevitable closing of this landfill, but not an
11 immediate closing, and we would like to think that our
12 position is in the best interest of over 7 , 000 business
13 and private consumers.
14 Thank you.
15 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
16 That 's all the cards I have. Is there
17 anyone else who would like to speak for or against?
18 MS. KAMMERZELL: I have a postscript.
19 MS. HARBERT: We don't usually allow that.
20 Just this one.
21 MS. KAMMERZELL: This is Florence
22 Kammerzell. I did want to emphasize our farm was on
23 the map. We are about a mile and a half north of the
24 landfill, so, therefore, our water table is much higher
25 than the Thompson drainage. We have never been able to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
301064
195
1 drill a well for water consumption due to the high
2 mineral content, hard water.
3 MS. HARBERT: Is there anyone else who
4 would like to speak for or against?
5 State your name, please.
6 MR. DANIELS: Tom Daniels. I live at
7 2732 Weld County Road 27-1/2, Milliken. I 'm worried
8 about what is in the landfill . Waste Management
9 collects or samples and sends them to their labs. Then
10 they send a report to the Health Department. I 'd feel
11 safer if the Health Department took samples and did
12 testing in their lab.
13 For four generations we have lived by the
14 Big Thompson. I 'd like to have my family here, but I 'm
15 scared of what I see in the ditches. I want future
16 generations to be able to live by the Big Thompson and
17 have a good life like everyone deserves.
18 Please help my generation' s dreams come
19 true by closing the landfill . Thank you.
20 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
21 Is there anyone else that would like to
22 speak for or against?
23 Come forward, please. If you have not
24 spoken before, come forward and state your name and
25 address for the record.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
196
1 MS. CHENEY: I am Kay Cheney. I am a
2 member of the Greeley Audubon Society and I live out in
3 Weld County, 52230 Weld County Road 149 .
4 And I would like an answer to a question,
5 if possible. Are we getting a lot of truckloads coming
6 into the landfill from other counties and from other
7 states?
8 MS. HARBERT: I 'm not sure that really
9 concerns our question today, but we' ll see that Waste
10 Management answers that when the time comes.
11 MR. ROY: The answer is no. The short
12 answer is no.
13 MS. CHENEY: Thank you.
14 MS. HARBERT: Is there anyone else who has
15 not spoken who would like to speak for or against the
16 probable cause hearing -- the show cause hearing?
17 Hearing none, Waste Management, we will
18 give you the floor to rebut. We are now closing the
19 public hearing part, portion of this hearing, the
20 public input of this hearing.
21 MR. ROY: Am I to understand I 'm last?
22 MS. HARBERT: You are last, sir, thank
23 goodness.
24 MR. ROY: Good. First, to address the
25 questions from the neighborhood that were proposed in
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
197
1 writing through the County Attorney.
2 MS. HARBERT: We don't have those
3 questions.
4 MR. ROY: I ' ll read you the questions and
5 give you the answers.
6 MS. HARBERT: All right. Thank you.
7 MR. ROY: The first question is -- and
8 they weren't numbered, so I ' ll say it' s the first
9 question -- Waste Services, Inc. and Waste Management,
10 Inc. , where are your other landfills in Weld County and
11 Colorado?
12 I didn't see the tag to that about
13 Colorado. There are two other landfills operated by
14 Waste Services or Waste Management in Weld County. One
15 is on Highway 14 east of -- or correction -- west of
16 Ault, Colorado, approximately 25 miles from Greeley.
17 The other is located near Keenesburg, was recently
18 certificated, is not open, and probably will not be
19 open for a year, and is substantially further away from
20 Greeley than is the facility near Ault.
21 Second question is -- and there are others
22 in Colorado, I think down further south -- What is the
23 expected life of your other facilities in Weld County
24 and the state of Colorado?
25 Again addressing the Weld County
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
a146t
198
1 facilities, both are anticipated to have a life of
2 30-plus years. That estimate obviously contemplates
3 Central Weld remaining open for a while, and so those
4 lives may be somewhat shortened, if Central Weld were
5 closed.
6 Third, if Central Weld Landfill is closed,
7 is there capacity available in or in the near term to
8 take solid waste in Weld County?
9 The obvious answer is yes, but not without
10 expense, and not without two kinds of expense and
11 costs. One is the obvious increased cost of
12 transportation for the major metropolitan area in Weld
13 County, which is Greeley and its environs, to a solid
14 waste disposal site. And that' s already been alluded
15 to by one of the witnesses.
16 Also included, or should be calculated, is
17 environmental costs of transporting that waste that
18 distance, heavy trucks operating over a much larger
19 distance, consuming much more fuel, having an impact on
20 the air far in excess of what is now the case.
21 And there is a third and perhaps more
22 indirect impact that Dr. Knapp, perhaps inadvertently,
23 referred to. And that is when he said, Perhaps I ' ll
24 find a better place. He had driven down to Laidlaw,
25 which is, I think, 30 miles. He says he will find a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE n
199
1 better place.
2 I suggest many others will find a better
3 place and leave it in the borrow pits around the county
4 rather than drive to Ault or Laidlaw or drive to
5 Keenesburg, and that is an environmental impact you can
6 almost be assured will occur if the availability of
7 safe disposal becomes more inconvenient to the
8 consuming public.
9 The licensed carriers, obviously, will have
10 to abide by those rules, but the private people like
11 Dr. Knapp might find a, quote, better place.
12 Questions were addressed basically to Brad
13 Keirnes, the second group of questions. What are the
14 dates of his family ownership of the landfill?
15 His family ownership of the landfill or the
16 ownership of the landfill by corporations which his
17 family controlled commenced in June of 1979 and
18 terminated in July of 1991.
19 Did his family file an engineering report
20 and design and operations plan with the State of
21 Colorado Department of Health for its approval?
22 I think the answer is that they did not
23 file any document bearing that name. They filed a
24 large number of documents with the Department of
25 Health, some of which were prepared by engineers who
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
nsos 1
200
1 were consulting engineers to them, dealing with the
2 operation of the landfill. Whether those constitute,
3 in collection, such a document, I don't know.
4 But suffice it to say, during their
5 ownership they were in fairly constant contact and
6 worked with the Colorado Department of Health.
7 Was there an engineering report and design
8 and operations plan submitted to the State Department
9 of Health for its approval by those who owned and
10 operated the landfill prior to his family ownership?
11 Well, whoever wrote the question knows that
12 Mr. Keirnes can't answer that question. He wasn't
13 there. Any answer he would give would be speculative.
14 There is allusion in the letter submitted by counsel
15 that there was one. The -- when the landfill was
16 transferred, it alluded to one. The State Department
17 of Public Health can't find one now. That doesn't mean
18 there was not one. We will get back to that discussion
19 later.
20 Was there an engineering -- last question,
21 I believe -- was an engineering report and design and
22 operation plan in existence at the time the ownership
23 was transferred to Waste Services?
24 We don't know. The only allusion to the
25 existence of one is the letter by the State Department
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
201
1 of Health, which indicated there, in fact, was one.
2 Now, rebuttals are always disorganized
3 because you jump from subject to subject, and I
4 apologize for it being -- perhaps jumping around. And
5 my clients -- and there are 12 of them here -- all have
6 ideas of what I should say, and have all bit my ears
7 about what I should say, and I probably won't satisfy
8 any of them with what I 'm going to say, but I ' ll try to
9 go through everything that ' s been said and try to
10 respond to it in some order.
11 Mr. Hayes got up and distributed or showed
12 some picture on the view graph, as I recall, of some
13 dead animals in the landfill, and alluded that those
14 pictures were taken very recently, I think as early as
15 last weekend, or as recently as last weekend.
16 According to the exhibit prepared by the
17 Ashton-Daniels neighborhood and submitted to you as
18 Exhibit AD-46, those same pictures would show the ears
19 of the dead animals were taken in January of 1992 .
20 Now, either Mr. Hayes is mistaken or I misunderstood
21 what he said, or the exhibit is wrong.
22 The pictures were, in fact, taken in
23 January of '92 . They were taken at a time when the
24 landfill was experimenting with this plastic cover,
25 temporary cover, which I don't believe is still in use.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE vsns•
202
1 And there is no reason to believe the pictures don't
2 accurately depict what was there at the time they were
3 taken.
4 There are some pictures that were taken in
5 '93 in the exhibit that show trash and the fences and
6 show the operation, and those pictures that were
7 taken in March of '93 , you can review on your own time,
8 are not all that objectionable and indicate that the
9 operation is being operated reasonably well ,
10 considering the type of operation it is.
11 They -- he alluded to a fire that burned
12 some of the family crop. That was in the paper,
13 newspaper article about that fire, is in your
14 exhibits. That fire was not caused by the landfill as
15 a landfill. That fire was caused when -- I think it
16 was Mr. Len Keirnes was doing some weed burning, which
17 everybody does.
18 And to my knowledge, in the county, there
19 are at least three or four traffic accidents a year
20 attributed to weed burning along the roads. Weed
21 burning sometimes gets out of control and damages
22 things. That weed burning did get out of control and
23 damaged the crop, and the Telep family, I understand,
24 was fully compensated for that damage.
25 I get the impression from hearing a lot of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
203
1 people in the neighborhood -- and I might add that
2 includes people who have generally spoken in favor of
3 Waste Services -- that they don't like landfills. They
4 don't like a landfill in their neighborhood.
5 They basically take two approaches to that,
6 however. One group says, Close it. One group says, Be
7 careful. One group says, Let's be orderly, let's be
8 responsible, let' s close it in an orderly fashion.
9 I would submit neither one of those groups,
10 if you were to have an application for a landfill,
11 would come in here and do handstands. But there really
12 are two approaches. One, I submit, is irresponsible,
13 and one is not.
14 And those suggested by the Spomers and
15 others who, in fact, live downstream or downgradient
16 happen to be the more responsible response.
17 Counsel made a lot of arguments to you
18 about the impact or failure to have a design and
19 operations plan. Now -- and essentially argues that
20 this landfill has been void, ab initio, been void since
21 it started, okay, because there is no design and
22 operations plan. Never was one, according to him. I
23 don't think that' s the law.
24 Another thing I would tell you is that you
25 have an attorney sitting with you, and you have an
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
; 2106
204
1 attorney sitting with you and he has a bunch more
2 upstairs, and they know the law. And I am sure you
3 will get your advice from them, and I would recommend
4 you do so.
5 So the arguments I make or the arguments
6 that counsel for the neighborhood make will ultimately
7 be deciphered by Mr. Morrison, and he will tell you
8 what you can and cannot do with respect to these
9 proceedings.
10 I ' ll submit to you that the administrative
11 proceedings that took place in 1971 are entitled to a
12 presumption of regularity. That presumption carries
13 until a substantial body of evidence to the contrary is
14 presented. You cannot prove a negative.
15 The certificate of designation was issued.
16 It was issued in October of 1971, after a hearing held
17 in September of 1971. The resolution was prepared and
18 signed by the County Commissioners on the same date.
19 That certificate of designation and that use permit has
20 been in continuous use for over 20 years. It has been
21 back before this body on at least five occasions.
22 No one has questioned the validity of that
23 certificate of designation, and nobody has questioned
24 the validity of this land use in all of these years.
25 And I would submit to do so now and to use that as a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
205
1 precursor for shutting the landfill is wrong legally,
2 and it's wrong morally, and it' s wrong ethically.
3 The statements made by the presenters at
4 the meeting in 1971 do not constitute a condition.
5 The conditions are in the resolution. The fact that
6 someone said they were going to grade it a certain way,
7 the fact they thought it might be used for an irrigated
8 farm, the fact they thought it might close in 15 years,
9 all of those things are statements made in a hearing.
10 They are not conditions on the use of this land. The
11 conditions are contained in the resolution.
12 And if you are not convinced of that, if
13 you are not convinced about the attitude of the Weld
14 County Commissioners in 1971, bless them, I commend
15 to you to read the letter of Ralph Waldo dated
16 December 14 , 1971, addressed to his clients. He
17 appeared at the hearing in 1971. He represented the
18 opposition to the landfill .
19 On December 14, 1971, he wrote a letter to
20 his clients and said, I have tried to get the County
21 Commissioners to put conditions on this operation.
22 They refuse. Now, it wasn't like they weren't
23 approached to put conditions on. It was not as if
24 conditions weren't suggested. They were.
25 What came out of that is the resolution
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
831.06't
206
1 that's before you. It contains no conditions, save
2 the two. Courts do not apply laws retroactively.
3 Administrative agencies do not apply laws
4 retroactively.
5 Mr. Mowry stated he can't give a legal
6 opinion. He gave an opinion in a letter to the
7 neighborhood counsel this year that this landfill was
8 grandfathered.
9 MR. HOBBS: Objection. He did not. I
10 would like to respond to that.
11 MR. ROY: The letter was from Mr. Austin
12 Buckingham to Mr. Hanson, not Mr. Mowry. I stand
13 corrected, and I apologize.
14 MR. HOBBS: I would like to explain.
15 MR. ROY: If that didn't grandfather it,
16 the legislation in 1991 did. There is no ambiguity in
17 the permit, so one need not look for an ambiguity.
18 The neighborhood would like you to revisit
19 1971. They would like you to rehear this application
20 20 years later. You cannot do that. At that hearing,
21 a representative of the State Department of Health
22 recommended approval. His -- the text of his remarks
23 are before you two or three times over. You can read
24 it.
25 A great deal has been said about an
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 93106a
207
1 expansion proposal. The proposal that' s before you is
2 not an expansion proposal. I have not studied it in
3 detail. My clients advise me it is, in fact, a
4 reduction over what could be done on that site as it's
5 presently certificated.
6 There has been a lot of argument by counsel
7 that we are seeking to avoid enforcement of Subtitle D.
8 The contrary is true. If we wanted to avoid the impact
9 of Subtitle D, we would close the landfill now under
10 State regulations, close it with the remedial action
11 required by the State.
12 Those requirements and regulations are
13 substantially below those which we will face if the
14 landfill remains open after October of 1993 and
15 Subtitle D comes into effect.
16 There are lots of other things that are
17 missing if we close it before Subtitle D comes into
18 effect. Financial assurance is missing. Financial
19 post-closure care is omitted. All of those things,
20 this operator is not trying to avoid; he is, indeed,
21 willing and able to undertake.
22 As a matter of fact, in meetings with my
23 clients, I asked them, Why don't you just close it? I
24 mean, there are business reasons for keeping it open,
25 obviously. Why not close it? Then you don't have to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3:1061
208
1 put up money to financially ensure 30 years of
2 post-closure maintenance. You don't have to do
3 remedial action for the next 30 years and guarantee it
4 financially. You can close in accordance with the
5 existing regulations, which is cheaper and has a lot
6 less exposure.
7 They would prefer to continue to operate
8 it. They would prefer to be responsible. They would
9 prefer to close it in due course. They would prefer
10 to close it in accordance with the most modern
11 restrictions and regulations, and not those currently
12 in effect.
13 The allusion was made that we would like to
14 avoid a public hearing and we did so in the SFLIC case
15 and, therefore, we've got some sort of hidden agenda
16 and are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
17 I don't think anybody in Waste Management
18 underestimates your sophistication or underestimates
19 your ability to require us to meet whatever
20 requirements there are. And we are certainly not
21 trying to pull the wool over your eyes and have no
22 hidden agendas that have not already been disclosed,
23 including what happened in the FSLIC case.
24 Mr. Megyesy is here, was counsel to Waste
25 Management in that case. He advises me in that case
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 1
J1 i1 0cc t 4
209
1 Arapahoe County didn't want to have a public hearing.
2 The County Commissioners did not want a hearing, and
3 the issue was, Was a hearing required, and the answer
4 was, No, it was not. And Waste Management in that case
5 aligned itself with the Arapahoe County Commissioners.
6 Had the Arapahoe County Commissioners
7 wanted a public hearing, Waste Services would have been
8 there, or Waste Management would have been there. It
9 was the commissioners who did not want a hearing.
10 The question or the issue has been
11 addressed that this landfill cannot comply with
12 Subtitle D -- and this is by the university students --
13 cannot comply. Umpteen landfills are going to close in
14 the next five years because they can not comply. Waste
15 Management believes this landfill can comply. Waste
16 Management believes this landfill will comply.
17 Waste Management is willing to put its
18 money where its mouth is and make it comply. And I
19 would suggest to you that that is better for the
20 neighborhood than the alternatives which have been
21 suggested.
22 If the landfill is continued, permitted to
23 continue to operate, you will have closure with four
24 feet of cover, compacted in accordance with Federal
25 standards, raised according to Federal standards,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:31.06°
210
1 permitability in accordance with Federal standards of
2 the cap. You will have post-closure maintenance, and
3 you will have financial assurance of closure,
4 post-closure and corrective action.
5 You will have remedial action by the
6 operator for the existing problems. And you will have
7 Subtitle D compliance, in all its glory. A lot of
8 people have talked to you today who inherited their
9 land or received their land, one or another, through
10 their families. I suggest we do not inherit the land
11 from our parents. We hold the land in trust for our
12 children.
13 To shut this landfill down in its present
14 condition violates that trust. You have -- and your
15 counsel will advise you as to what your alternatives
16 are -- you have the right to not find probable cause,
17 which we believe has not been shown.
18 You can continue these proceedings until
19 some other time in the future, after you have had a
20 chance to review the plans that have been submitted to
21 you. But even if you find a violation has occurred, I
22 would commend you to the language of the regulations
23 and to the statement of your counsel when this started,
24 Does the violation warrant a show cause hearing? Do
25 the violations you've heard warrant a show cause
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
:1061
211
1 hearing?
2 I suggest they don't, even if you find them
3 to exist. You are not locked into a show cause hearing
4 by virtue of having this hearing. Your flexibility is
5 significant. And we would suggest, A, there is no
6 evidence to support probable cause.
7 We would suggest, two, all the evidence
8 that might suggest probable cause, we produced, we
9 voluntarily disclosed, and made available to all other
10 relevant officials. And three, if you think there was
11 evidence for probable cause, you have many options
12 short of a show cause hearing, and we would suggest
13 that you exercise one or more of those options.
14 Do you have any questions? Sorry to ramble
15 and skip around.
16 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
17 Mr. Roy?
18 I guess I have a question, and that is,
19 in -- we have not seen your remediation plan, had the
20 chance to look it over.
21 MR. ROY: I understand that.
22 MS. HARBERT: How long a period of time
23 would it take to do whatever is in the remediation
24 plan? What time period is considered in that?
25 MR. BUTLER: The pilot scale proposed will
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
8:1061
212
1 take between four to six months as addressed in our
2 remediation measures. Once that pilot test is done, we
3 will evaluate the success of it and then determine how
4 to expand it and what additional time will be needed
5 for additional cleanup along that very small area south
6 of the current landfill.
7 MS. HARBERT: And what constitutes this
8 pilot program? I mean, you can't go into detail, I
9 realize, but what are you going to do to put this pilot
10 program into operation?
11 MR. BUTLER: What we are going to do is
12 install a technique we discussed earlier today, called
13 air sparging.
14 MS. HARBERT: All right.
15 MR. BUTLER: This involves putting in a
16 well where we inject air into the shallow groundwater.
17 We funnel it in. We have monitoring wells that will be
18 installed, or use existing ones to measure its
19 effectiveness. We will be taking monitoring data and
20 will be monitoring not only water quality, but the
21 equipment that's bubbling in, what the rates are,
22 pressures, what works, what doesn't work with that
23 particular aquifer's characteristics.
24 MS. HARBERT: Is that basically what you
25 described this morning is your pilot plan?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
.92)1061in61
213
1 MR. BUTLER: Yes, ma'am
2 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
3 MR. ROY: There is a second aspect of that,
4 and that is the improvement of the drains north of the
5 site.
6 Leonard, do you know how the drains north
7 of the site are reduced to lower the ground table, when
8 those can or will be installed?
9 MR. BUTLER: The second part, in the
10 interim measures that 's addressed specifically in the
11 development plan, is the enhancement of the French
12 drain. That work, as proposed in our amended
13 application, would presumably be worked through review
14 by the Weld County Health Department, State Health
15 Department.
16 Depending upon that review and that
17 process, we would be prepared to do it at the
18 appropriate time. If we could get through it early, we
19 would like to do it this summer. If we have to go
20 through what I believe is, as Glen Mowry indicated
21 earlier a 180-day process, because of weather and other
22 constraints, it may be ' 94 before it can be put in.
23 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Lee, I have a question
24 for you, and that is, Do we have a letter of credit or
25 any financial surety right now, that the landfill would
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
S12;1061
214
1 be closed properly?
2 MR. MORRISON: No. The current Federal
3 Subtitle D regulations and proposed regulations -- and
4 our two or three most recent permits all have those
5 provisions -- but this site and others of its era do
6 not. And the closure provisions under existing State
7 regulations are fairly short, nonspecific as to how a
8 closure is to occur.
9 MS. HARBERT: Okay. I guess what my
10 question is, is if we found them in violation at a show
11 cause hearing, who would bear the expense of cleaning
12 up the landfill?
13 MR. MORRISON: Well --
14 MS. HARBERT: I mean --
15 MR. MORRISON: Well , I think our position
16 would be they would still be bearing the expense.
17 However, to some extent, it depends on whether this
18 stays as a solid waste site or if it is categorized as
19 a CERCLIS cleanup site. It changes the rules for under
20 which responsible parties my have to contribute to the
21 cleanup.
22 So I don't think in either case that they
23 lose their responsibility. But current regulations, in
24 terms of how it' s cleaned up, if it 's under the solid
25 waste regulations, are very sketchy.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
W y1�6"
215
1 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. Are there any
2 other questions?
3 MR. BAXTER: Just a follow-up on that.
4 Then you concur with the contention that if they closed
5 it now, it would be a lot cheaper and a lot -- wouldn't
6 follow near the regulations as if it was kept open and
7 closed later.
8 MR. MORRISON: I 'm not going to judge
9 whether it's cheaper or not. There will be more
10 extensive regulations to go into effect in October of
11 this year, either by the State regulations or the
12 Federal, by default.
13 There is some issue as to whether, to the
14 extent those regulations apply to vertical expansion of
15 existing areas. They clearly apply to areas that are
16 greater horizontally from the operations prior to
17 October. But I think, in general, there is much more
18 detailed regulations that will pertain if they continue
19 to operate past that date and expand horizontally.
20 MR. HALL: What would be the grandfathering
21 clause, or whatever you want to call that, of the
22 October '93 rules and regulations as pertaining to this
23 specific issue?
24 MR. MORRISON: Well, there wouldn't be for
25 any new horizontal area. That would require meeting
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE /�
✓: 146 b
216
1 whatever the State -- the states approve those
2 regulations. There may be some opportunity to continue
3 to operate certain -- in terms of currently filled
4 areas, without full compliance.
5 You don't have to go back in, for instance.
6 At least, you don't have a prima facie requirement that
7 you go back in and line a site that' s already been
8 filled. And some of the remediation measures -- and
9 John, you can help me on this -- will come in under
10 certain circumstances and then another time frame in
11 '95.
12 So, again, it's not a black and white. You
13 just can't -- you' re not allowed to continue operating
14 any way you want after that period if it 's not a
15 horizontal expansion. On the other hand, the
16 requirements are less unless you fit into one of the
17 special categories.
18 One of the debates has been over what
19 category you put, whether there is contact between
20 groundwater and waste, in terms of whether the ' 95 will
21 provide another critical point.
22 MR. PICKLE: 1996.
23 MR. MORRISON: ' 96?
24 MR. PICKLE: Right.
25 MR. MORRISON: Thanks.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
::. 1061
217
1 MS. HARBERT: John, do you have anything
2 you will like to add to that?
3 MR. PICKLE: What Lee alluded to is that
4 there are other considerations that come into play in
5 1996 that would toughen up the requirements for sites
6 to qualify to continue operation.
7 One of the debates here was, of course,
8 solid waste in contact with groundwater. And at this
9 point that still is up in the air as to whether that 's
10 a regulation or not according to the State.
11 I really think that ' s the only one that
12 would apply right now. But there are some
13 considerations as far as sites that would prevent
14 operation past October ' 96. And that's in the Federal
15 guidelines.
16 MS. HARBERT: Any more questions?
17 MR. WEBSTER: Yep. If you were to -- No. 1
18 question. On the extension of height, what do you
19 think you need to go up, or what is your --
20 MR. ROY: I haven't seen the profiles.
21 It' s my understanding that the final sillouette of the
22 facility will not be above, or substantially above the
23 existing grade at the top of the landfill is 5 percent.
24 It' s my perception it 's going to extend out
25 further, perhaps slightly higher, but we are not
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
83106a
218
1 talking about substantial height over the land, north
2 edge of the landfill, but that plan will have to speak
3 for itself. I am speaking from what I have been told.
4 I have not seen the plan.
5 MR. WEBSTER: My next question, then, you
6 couldn't answer. How many feet would be necessary to
7 put a proper mound on it and cap it?
8 MR. ROY: Now?
9 MR. WEBSTER: At this point. If you went
10 ahead and started to fill to the low spots and then put
11 on a cap or a mounding situation, so that you would --
12 MR. ROY: We are talking 12 years. 12
13 years of operation, and that's a lot of dirt to haul
14 in.
15 MR. WEBSTER: 12 years to cap it?
16 MR. ROY: 12 years to get the fill to get
17 the profile to cap it.
18 MS. HARBERT: To get the mound, to put the
19 right drainage mound on it? Is that what you' re
20 saying?
21 MR. ROY: 12 to 14 years. I have heard
22 various figures. I think the most authorative is 12 to
23 14 years, depending on how effective recycling is. If
24 recycling is more effective, it will extend the life as
25 much as two years.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
X1!6'
219
1 MS. HARBERT: Did you have something,
2 Mr. Butler?
3 MR. BUTLER: Yes, please. Leonard Butler.
4 I wanted to be very succinct again, given the hour, but
5 to respond directly to your question, Commissioners.
6 What has been discussed here, and
7 specifically that as laid out by Mr. Roy, is, in fact,
8 what we feel is a significant reduction from what was
9 envisioned by Weld County back in their more
10 comprehensive solid waste plan.
11 And that reduction basically accounts for a
12 minimum slope by providing for a significant reduction
13 in what may have been envisioned by the operator and
14 Weld County three or four years ago, and that that, by
15 that reduction, we are looking again, as Mr. Roy
16 pointed out, on the success that we have with recycling,
17 as well as per capita waste generation rates, of a
18 minimum of 12 years.
19 MR. HALL: A couple questions for John.
20 MR. BUTLER: Excuse me. That was maximum,
21 not minimum.
22 MR. HALL: What is the County's role in the
23 monitoring of the wells and how progress is moving
24 forward and that type of thing, as far as --
25 MR. PICKLE: As I indicated earlier, up
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE aa.3lll.+ /�
st
220
1 until this May or June we monitored these wells
2 quarterly only for the required constituents, which did
3 not include VOCs. So we discontinued any monitoring of
4 the wells in our lab when Waste Management offered the
5 fact that they had discovered VOCs and suggested that
6 they may be able to find a better lab to do that, which
7 I am sure they can.
8 We can't do VOCs. We do receive and they
9 do submit to us any laboratory results that they do or
10 have conducted. And we've reviewed several from
11 several different labs since -- during this whole
12 process. So they have been open with laboratory
13 results that they've received and send us a copy of
14 those, but we do no monitoring ourselves.
15 MR. HALL: How do you -- I guess this is
16 almost a pointed question -- but how do you assure that
17 those reports or those samples are properly taken?
18 MR. PICKLE: Well, there is a standard
19 process for sampling and a standard chain of custody
20 and the forms are all pretty much standard. I can't be
21 there with the person, so I couldn't sit here and swear
22 to you that every sample was taken in accordance with
23 the care that we would take them, or anybody else.
24 But these laboratories are professional
25 laboratories, and they do have a license and there is,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
821.06
221
1 in fact, the -- you can take action against the lab if
2 you can prove they fraudulently provided information,
3 and it's quite a hefty fine and, of course, would
4 totally ruin a laboratory.
5 So the assurances remain the economical
6 ones, you know. But the government is just not capable
7 of financially providing that type of service for all
8 the different industries today.
9 So it 's been privatized, but I think
10 there's enough safeguards within the privatization
11 system where it should -- you shouldn't see a lot of
12 any type of fraudulent reporting or that sort of thing.
13 MR. BAXTER: Those labs are involved in
14 taking those samples? The obvious question in
15 everybody's mind, you know, whatever lab you send them
16 to, is where they are taken, who takes them. So those
17 labs are involved in the sampling?
18 MR. PICKLE: In most instances that I 've
19 seen reports from Waste Services and Waste Management,
20 the laboratory that conducted, or did the collection,
21 also did the analysis.
22 And I know that when we did the analysis,
23 we also did the collection, too. I think that 's fairly
24 standard practice.
25 MR. WEBSTER: Could I ask John a question?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
: v1�V
222
1 If -- let's say that we stay out of the picture,
2 meaning we don't -- we defer or whatever, and the
3 State's findings, by continuing their tests, the State
4 people who were here, and they complete those tests and
5 they deny them a discharge permit, would the State
6 close down the landfill or would they look to us to
7 close down the landfill?
8 MR. PICKLE: That' s a legal question.
9 MR. MORRISON: Yeah. The revocation of
10 permits for a solid disposal site is a function of the
11 Board of County Commissioners.
12 MR. WEBSTER: So they will direct us to do
13 it.
14 MR. MORRISON: But the discharge permit is
15 a different issue. It might require --
16 MR. WEBSTER: Let 's say they are out of
17 compliance. Let's not use that particular point.
18 Let's just say that they found contamination in the
19 river and they found contamination of the lakes, and
20 the monitoring wells show satisfactory, as far as
21 pollutants and so forth. They have to direct us to do
22 it?
23 MR. ROY: I think I can give you a
24 practical answer.
25 MR. MORRISON: I would appreciate it if you
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
22106
223
1 would give them an answer.
2 MR. ROY: The practical answer, the permit
3 that's been applied for, for discharge, relates to the
4 underdrain, the drains into or near Spomer Lake. The
5 Waste Services has already proposed or suggested or
6 discussed with the State installing a treatment
7 facility there that would treat that water before it' s
8 released. They would basically aerate the water, get
9 rid of the VOCs before it' s discharged.
10 The State ' s response was, Why do that,
11 because they are naturally disposed of immediately
12 after they are discharged from the drain.
13 But if they were to deny us a discharge
14 permit, we would stop discharging.
15 MR. MORRISON: I think you have to
16 understand the discharge permit is a different
17 situation. Basically, if you can meet the standards
18 that the State sets for the discharge permit, you would
19 be allowed the permit. It ' s a matter of standard
20 setting, whereas -- and you can either meet it or you
21 don't, in which case you don't discharge if you can't
22 meet the standards set.
23 Whether they can operate without the
24 ability to have that discharge permit is a judgment
25 they have to make. That's separate. The State is not
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
831061
224
1 going to come in and take over this problem that's on
2 your plate because there 's a minimum discharge.
3 MR. ROY: The simple, short answer is,
4 if we are denied a discharge permit, we will stop
5 discharging.
6 MR. WEBSTER: What about -- let 's throw the
7 discharge permit out and use the other violations that
8 the State talks about.
9 MR. MORRISON: Excuse me, Mr. Webster, is
10 that to Mr. Roy or to me?
11 MR. WEBSTER: Yeah.
12 MR. ROY: The discharge we applied for
13 relates to surface water, okay, contamination and
14 discharge. The other matters relate to groundwater
15 contamination, and the highest groundwater table. We
16 have not asked for a permit. We are not -- we are,
17 according to what we have been told, not in compliance.
18 Our suggestion is to direct that with
19 remediation, which involves upstream diversion of the
20 irrigation water and downstream air injection. Because
21 the VOCs are highly volatile, as soon as they are hit
22 by the air, they will vaporize and come out of the
23 well. That's the first technology we are suggesting be
24 tried.
25 If that technology proves unsatisfactory,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
82,1061
225
1 there are secondary and tertiary techniques that can be
2 applied.
3 MR. HOBBS: Chairperson Harbert --
4 MS. HARBERT: When Mr. Roy is done.
5 Do you have something that is totally new
6 evidence, or new, that you want to talk about?
7 MR. HOBBS: I want to correct a statement
8 that is very important.
9 MS. HARBERT: Is it totally new material?
10 MR. HOBBS: Yes.
11 MS. HARBERT: Are you sure it 's totally new
12 material?
13 MR. HOBBS: In view of what he said, I need
14 to -- at least, before you make a decision, I need to
15 address this.
16 MS. HARBERT: Will you go to the
17 microphone, please.
18 MR. HOBBS: We sat here for almost an hour
19 listening to a legal exchange. I would like to suggest
20 that these questions can only be addressed at a public
21 hearing, and we are prepared to brief these legal
22 issues.
23 But I want to correct a misstatement and,
24 therefore, it's new information which Mr. Roy made, and
25 it's contained on the face of the exhibit that he
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
Oc"4f6 1
226
1 cited, Austin Buckingham's letter of -- it 's marked
2 as AD-48 -- and I would just like to read you one
3 statement from the letter, which was not brought to
4 your attention.
5 "To the Division's knowledge, no design or
6 operations plan has ever been developed for the
7 landfill, nor are any plans of this nature contained in
8 the Division files. " Paragraph 2 , Page 2 of the
9 Buckingham letter.
10 This is very important. As Mr. Hanson
11 stated, if there is a design operations plan, it
12 controls the operation and the closure. If there is
13 no plan, there was a violation ab initio of your
14 resolution.
15 It is unfair, I believe, of counsel to say
16 the State grandfathered this facility, when the State
17 itself says that there was never any design or
18 operations plan.
19 If there is one -- and he suggested there
20 was one based on the ' 86 transfer -- then for that
21 reason alone, you need to order the hearing and have
22 the Health Department come and show whether or not
23 there is such a plan, because if there is such a plan,
24 it governs this facility. If there is not, you have no
25 compliance with the land use approval.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
.9:106.1
227
1 And, again, I don't want to expand this.
2 We are very tired, all of us. They tried the case here
3 on the merits just now in legal arguments. I didn't
4 get a chance to respond. All we are asking for is a
5 hearing. That's the reason for today's meeting. I
6 wish it were not so.
7 I would have preferred to have come here in
8 one fell sweep. That's not how your procedures were
9 set up. We want a chance to brief this and have the
10 evidence here.
11 MS. HARBERT: Let the record show that the
12 person speaking was Greg Hobbs, the attorney for the
13 Ashton-Daniels Neighborhood Association.
14 MR. ROY: That same exhibit, Page 2 , dated
15 September 18, 1992 : "The Central Weld County Landfill
16 received a Certificate of Designation on October 6,
17 1971. At that time, the state had not promulgated
18 solid waste regulations pursuant to the Statute.
19 Between 1968 (the date the Statute became effective)
20 and 1972 , solid waste disposal sites and facilities
21 complied with the minimum standards set forth in the
22 Statute. The minimum standards detailed operational
23 standards, but did not specifically require a design
24 and operations plan. In 1972 regulations were
25 promulgated pursuant to the Statute. That 1972
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931()61
228
1 regulation set forth the requirement that all landfills
2 with an existing Certificate of Designation were
3 'grandfathered, ' that is they were required to meet the
4 minimum standards of section 3 , but not the standards
5 of section 4 (which applied to all solid waste disposal
6 sites and facilities that were designated after the
7 effective date of regulation) . In 1983 , when the
8 regulations were revised to their current form. "
9 And then there is the paragraph quoted by
10 counsel.
11 MS. KIRKMEYER: I would like you to address
12 that question of grandfathering, Condition No. 1 on the
13 resolutions. No. 1, any sanitary landfill facilities
14 being installed shall be approved by the State Health
15 Department.
16 MR. ROY: I -- I 'm sorry.
17 MR. MORRISON: First, I guess I would
18 remind you that the standards you are dealing with is a
19 fairly minimal one in terms of making a finding that
20 you need to go to the next stage, so that you don't
21 need to make a final determination.
22 And, in fact, any of your findings here are
23 preliminary in nature, only for the purpose of
24 determining whether we go to the show cause. I think
25 you are going to -- I think you are going to have to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
931061
229
1 weigh evidence that maybe points in two directions.
2 There are statements from Mr. Stoddard on
3 the record that have been presented to you about this,
4 essentially, that this is an okay site. But there are
5 two letters, an exchange of letters that have to do
6 prior to the hearing in, I believe, July of ' 71, where
7 the -- Mr. Moffat was requested to provide the
8 engineering. He then argued that, you know, he didn't
9 want to go to that expense until he knew whether the
10 site would be approved.
11 There is, of course, this letter that both
12 sides have now quoted from Austin Buckingham. What is
13 clear is, I think the State could have required in 1971
14 that Mr. Moffat submit a complete engineering and
15 design package, because the statute was in effect.
16 And I think you ultimately have to make a
17 judgment whether, when you get to this issue -- and I 'm
18 not sure you have to finally resolve it today -- when
19 you get to this issue, was the set of representations
20 and the -- when the commissioners arrived at this
21 conclusion, it has to comply with State Health
22 Department regulations. Was that based on a view that
23 there was something more coming? Was there a planning
24 coming? Or had it already occurred when Mr. Stoddard
25 stood up and said it was an okay site?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
JiJS!l6
230
1 MS. KIRKMEYER: I guess, to that, I would
2 say, in reading some of the other documentation here in
3 the transcripts, there was supposed to be a plan
4 coming, because it said in the documentation or the
5 transcript that it was supposed to be presented to the
6 Board of Health after that, in 1971, after this initial
7 hearing in September for their adoption of that plan.
8 MR. MORRISON: Well, I 'd appreciate --
9 Mr. Roy, I would appreciate it -- what I am trying to
10 tell you is that, although it is primarily a legal
11 question, you still have some intent to determine.
12 Whether it was, was that the intent? We are not trying
13 to create new standards that aren't shown on this
14 resolution. We are trying to interpret, I believe, the
15 intent of that provision.
16 And I 'm not contending that if someone
17 stands up in regulation and says it 's only going to be
18 2 feet high, or stands up at a hearing and says the
19 mound will only be 2 feet high, that they are bound to
20 that. What I am saying is, you are looking at that
21 process of approval and trying to interpret your
22 prior -- your prior Board's resolution, and you're
23 looking at the intent of the Board when they passed
24 that resolution.
25 And that is at least a part -- that part of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
•O6s
231
1 it is a factual judgment based on all the records that
2 you have before you.
3 MS. HARBERT: Are there any more questions?
4 MR. BAXTER: Madam Chairman, I would like
5 a clarification, with all respect to the two attorneys
6 out here, that obviously, it 's their business to have a
7 vested opinion. I find a legal opinion -- I don't want
8 to put Lee on the spot, but your contention is we don't
9 have to make that initial legal determination right
10 now? That can be saved for a show cause hearing?
11 MR. MORRISON: That 's true, because all you
12 need -- I mean, the standard that you have to meet
13 today is a probable cause, which is a reasonable ground
14 for belief in the existence of facts warranting the
15 proceedings complained of.
16 That cuts both ways. If you find probable
17 cause today, that doesn't assure that you will find
18 grounds to revoke in the future. But what I 'm saying
19 is, you don't have to determine with finality the facts
20 upon which you base your decision.
21 You need to weigh them and say, Is there
22 grounds to go forward? Are there enough facts that
23 have been laid out to justify having a more complete
24 hearing?
25 MR. BAXTER: Thank you.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
831061
232
1 MS. HARBERT: Do you have anything else?
2 MR. CUNLIFFE: Yes. I guess we would like
3 to explain the position that we took.
4 MS. HARBERT: State your name. It's been a
5 long time since you spoke.
6 MR. CUNLIFFE: Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County
7 Department of Planning Services.
8 We would like to explain the position that
9 we took and, hopefully, it will shed some light on
10 this. Some people have questioned the length of time
11 that we asked for the continuance. The purpose of the
12 hearing today was, as Lee has just explained, to
13 determine whether or not probable cause exists.
14 If you find no probable cause, we can all
15 go home and forget it. If you find probable cause,
16 then the staff looked at three different scenarios,
17 the first one being to continue the probable cause
18 hearing until December 1 of 1993 .
19 And in looking at that, that was a
20 three-step process that has been or is consistent with
21 how we've handled probable cause hearings in the past.
22 And the length of time involved requires the six-month
23 review by the State Health Department, which they are
24 required by statute, and also historically have taken
25 the six months.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 0
233
1 We then need a minimum of 30 days before
2 the first Planning Commission hearing. And again, we
3 have waited until we actually have in hand the
4 recommendation of the State Health Department on the
5 certificate of designation before we schedule the
6 Planning Commission hearing.
7 Following the Planning Commission hearing,
8 then it's roughly three or four weeks before it comes
9 before the Board of County Commissioners. So that's
10 the date that we looked at, December 1, taking into
11 account that three-step process and the time frame that
12 historically has been there.
13 The other two possibilities which we did
14 not recommend was you could schedule a show cause
15 hearing in a relatively short time frame. The other
16 possibility we looked at was to schedule a show cause
17 hearing. Again, staff would, if the Board so chose
18 that, again, we would recommend the December 1, 1993,
19 hearing date. That allows the amended applications for
20 the special use permit and certificate of designation
21 to follow that time line.
22 And I guess the reason that both the
23 Planning Department and the Health Department felt that
24 that was, I guess, reasonable, is that the remediation
25 plan addressing the problems with groundwater is
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
234
1 included as a part of that amended application
2 process.
3 So that was the way, I guess, we went about
4 the reasoning behind what we recommended. I don't know
5 if that will help the Board, but again, we would like
6 to stress that has been consistent with what we have
7 done when we have gone to probable cause and the
8 applicant has come forward with an amended application.
9 And we've allowed that or recommended that
10 the application proceed to give him due process to come
11 into compliance, or at least direct the issues that we
12 were attempting to focus on today.
13 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. That gives us a
14 lot of clarification as to what our options are.
15 The time being 5: 15, I need to caucus my
16 commissioners up here as to how you want to proceed.
17 Do you want to -- I guess we have three options. We
18 can take a break, we can go on until we finish, or we
19 can recess until tomorrow morning. So those are our
20 three options, and I guess I need to get some input
21 from you before we go on.
22 MS. KIRKMEYER: I would like to go on until
23 we finish.
24 MR. BAXTER: I 'm for going on.
25 MR. WEBSTER: Fine.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9:1061
235
1 MS. HARBERT: All right. That' s all I need
2 to know.
3 MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, I have two
4 points to clarify.
5 (Discussion off the record. )
6 MR. MORRISON: One is the State is not
7 required to take, I think, 150 days, but they
8 inevitably seem to, so . . .
9 MR. CUNLIFFE: I guess -- we checked with
10 the State, with Glen Mowry today, and they said they
11 had to take 180 days.
12 MR. MORRISON: That 's consistent. They
13 have never done them any more quickly than the time
14 allowed.
15 MR. CUNLIFFE: I think the other thing we
16 need to point out is that that six months could extend
17 if they request additional information. So that's
18 looking at the minimums, with no problems.
19 MR. MORRISON: The other clarification from
20 my statement, when we were talking about what would
21 happen in terms of closure, the Subtitle D regulations
22 do apply to landfills currently operating with respect
23 to additional closure requirements more strict than
24 what the State currently requires.
25 So they -- that 's the one, if you don't
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
::2106 .
236
1 close before October of this year, you still have to
2 comply with regulations, closure requirements.
3 It's an additional closure requirement, not
4 post-closure monitoring, not posting collateral, but in
5 terms of how you go about closure.
6 MS. HARBERT: So what you're saying is, if
7 we would have a show cause hearing before October 1,
8 their requirements wouldn't be as stringent as if we
9 had a show cause hearing after October 1.
10 MR. MORRISON: If they were revoked before
11 versus revoked afterwards, yes. My answer to that
12 question is the same. It ' s just that I neglected to
13 advise you, in Section 258 . 6 (a) 2 of the Subtitle D
14 regulations does require some additional physical means
15 of closure, even though they cease operation before the
16 October date.
17 MS. HARBERT: I guess, is the Board ready
18 to make a decision or --
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: Do we have any more
20 questions?
21 MS. HARBERT: Are there any more questions?
22 MS. KIRKMEYER: I would move the Board of
23 County Commissioners determine that there is probable
24 cause and reasonable grounds to believe that facts
25 exist that Central Weld County Landfill and its owner
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
8:1061
237
1 is not in compliance with SUP-116.
2 And why don't we schedule a show cause
3 hearing. I am open for a date here, maybe the first
4 Wednesday in October.
5 MS. HARBERT: I would prefer to take staff
6 recommendation on December 1, but I guess I need to
7 have some input.
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: Maybe I should stop my
9 motion that we schedule a show cause hearing and make
10 another motion for the date.
11 MR. WEBSTER: Time to be determined later.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: We need to do that.
13 MR. BAXTER: Madam Chairman, could I ask
14 Chuck a question? Does that present a problem you can
15 see, if it goes before December?
16 MR. CUNLIFFE: If it goes before December,
17 then the State may not have completed its review.
18 Regardless of what happens here today, we are
19 processing the amended applications for Special Use
20 Permit 116 and CD-26, so that will continue on in the
21 process.
22 But you're looking at six months from today
23 before we get any kind of a response back from the
24 State Health Department, unless they ask for additional
25 information from Waste Services.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE cc
:Z S!J .
238
1 MR. WEBSTER: That' s terrible. I 'm
2 irritated with the State. So that's my problem.
3 MS. HARBERT: That's not helping us make
4 our decision at all. If we could have a State
5 recommendation back next month, well, it would
6 certainly help us, but there's no way that we can do
7 that.
8 And I feel that we at least need their
9 input into this. And if we can't -- if we can 't get
10 theirs back for six months, and then it takes what,
11 approximately four weeks after that to post --
12 MR. CUNLIFFE: Get to the Planning
13 Commission.
14 MS. HARBERT: -- do the hearings and so on,
15 we are to December 1, and I think that 's why Chuck
16 recommended that. I think our hands are somewhat tied
17 in a way, if we want the State 's input on it.
18 MS. KIRKMEYER: I guess, first of all,
19 Chuck is talking about an amended certificate of
20 designation plan or application, and there 's also the
21 remedial plan. So are they one and the same?
22 MR. CUNLIFFE: They are an element of the
23 application.
24 MS. KIRKMEYER: So they could rule on the
25 remedial plan in any length of time? They don't have
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3:1061
239
1 any deadline or anything of that nature?
2 MR. CUNLIFFE: That's true. But, again,
3 historically, they have taken as much time as they
4 choose to, and Mr. Mowry indicated in his testimony
5 earlier, there is no set deadline, so they don't have
6 to have it out in six months. They can take seven
7 months or eight months.
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: Or indefinitely?
9 MR. CUNLIFFE: That 's right.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: If we don't set a deadline,
11 that can keep them going indefinitely?
12 MR. CUNLIFFE: Weill , again, the
13 remediation plan is part of the application for use by
14 special review and amended CD. That 's locked into the
15 180 days, so they have to have something back to us.
16 So we're assuming they will have a response back to us
17 in the six months on the remediation plan.
18 MR. MORRISON: The other side of that,
19 though, is, if you go to the next level, I think the --
20 that I 've heard Waste Management say that that
21 remediation plan portion of the permit application goes
22 to show how they are going to resolve any violations.
23 So you want, hopefully, to have the State
24 comments on that plan, whether you do the show cause
25 first or not. I mean, you can -- you know, the fact is
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
JJ.!s b
240
1 you can proceed with the show cause. You are not
2 precluded from doing that in an earlier order, or
3 setting that and not -- and without knowing exactly
4 when the permit might be heard.
5 MS. HARBERT: Well, we can always set a
6 show cause hearing date, too, and if we don't have the
7 information we want, we can continue it without having
8 the hearing. That's what you're saying?
9 MR. MORRISON: Yes.
10 MS. HARBERT: I mean, if we set it for
11 October 15 and we don 't have the information we need,
12 we can gather it October 15 and continue it to whenever
13 we want to?
14 MR. MORRISON: Yes.
15 MS. HARBERT: I mean, that' s an example.
16 MR. MORRISON: Yes.
17 MS. KIRKMEYER: Carol, could you give me a
18 date in October around the 15th?
19 MS. HARDING: 13th.
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: I would add that to my
21 motion, and schedule show cause hearing on October 13 ,
22 1993 .
23 MR. WEBSTER: Second.
24 MS. HARBERT: It ' s been moved by Barbara
25 Kirkmeyer and seconded by Bill Webster to schedule a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
241
1 show cause hearing for October 13, 1993 . That is a
2 Wednesday, at 10: 00 in the morning.
3 Is there any further discussion?
4 MR. BAXTER: I just have a question maybe
5 of legal counsel, and maybe Chuck, whoever is involved
6 in this. This in no way hampers going ahead with the
7 amended permit, or be construed as putting a damper on
8 that?
9 MR. MORRISON: Not if that 's your -- I
10 mean, that should not. It could affect -- if, under
11 the scenario that the existing permits are revoked, you
12 could still hold a hearing on the new application. It
13 might change the framework under which it ' s judged
14 because some of these grandfathering provisions would
15 evaporate.
16 But it wouldn't prevent -- and you could
17 revoke, could have revoked it today. It wouldn't
18 prevent the application and the processing. And as
19 long as it 's a complete application and one that isn't
20 prohibited in some fashion in the regulations, I think
21 we have to process it.
22 MS. HARBERT: Any other discussion?
23 MR. HALL: It seems like, to me, though,
24 that the best possible solution to this whole process
25 is to review the use by special review -- or permit by
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
O:106t
242
1 use of special review amendment process, and I guess
2 I 'm not convinced totally that we have probable cause
3 in this situation.
4 My preference would be to allow a
5 continuation of this probable cause hearing.
6 MS. KIRKMEYER: I guess, to that, I would
7 answer, not only has Waste Management stated they feel
8 there is a violation. Whether it' s minor or they think
9 it could be remedied, it's still a violation.
10 Also, the Attorney General 's letter of
11 March 5, 1993 , that concurs with the Colorado
12 Department of Health that there is a violation of
13 2. 1. 4 . And our own Weld County Health Department also
14 cited the operation for four violations that they still
15 feel they are not in compliance with.
16 MS. HARBERT: Roll call, please.
17 MS. HARDING: George Baxter.
18 MR. BAXTER: : Aye.
19 MS. HARDING: Dale Hall .
20 MR. HALL: No.
21 MS. HARDING: Barbara Kirkmeyer.
22 MS. KIRKMEYER: Yes.
23 MS. HARDING: Bill Webster.
24 MR. WEBSTER: Yes.
25 MS. HARDING: Connie Harbert.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
921061
243
1 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
2 Thank you. I have to terminate the
3 meeting. I forgot we started at 9: 00 this morning. At
4 this time, there being no other business to come before
5 the regular Board of County Commissioners of Weld
6 County, I declare us adjourned.
7 I would like to say that I thank each and
8 every one of you for spending the day with us. It's
9 been a long day for both us and you, both, and the
10 commissioners, also. But things like this are really
11 necessary, and it' s what makes our democracy work.
12 Thank you very much for coming.
13 (Proceedings concluded at 5 : 30 p.m. )
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
831061
244
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 COUNTY OF WELD
3 I, Barbara Billings, do hereby certify that
4 I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
5 within the State of Colorado.
6 I further certify that these proceedings
7 were taken in shorthand by me at the time and place
8 herein set forth and were thereafter reduced to
9 typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a
10 true and correct transcript.
11 I further certify that I am not related to,
12 employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or
13 attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the
14 result of the within action.
15 In witness whereof, I have affixed my
16 signature and seal this 8th of May, 1993 .
17 My commission expires April 11, 1994 .
18
19
20 =O �Y'e.1.49 '1
BARBARA } ��i B rbara BillingsR-CM
21 i B , 710 - 11th Avenue, Suite 106
BILLINGS }ce1s Greeley, Colorado 80631
22 11N.%
.......23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
245
1
BILLINGS REPORTING & VIDEO, INC.
2 710 - 11th Avenue, Suite 106
Greeley, Colorado 80631
3 (303) 356-3306
4
5
PLEASE ATTACH TO YOUR COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
6
THE CENTRAL WELD/GREELEY-MILLIKEN LANDFILL HEARING
7
8
9
10
THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED WITH:
11
Clerk to the Board, Weld County Commissioners
12
On approximately the 10th day of May, 1993 .
13
14 cc: All Counsel
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
Hello