HomeMy WebLinkAbout971732.tiff1
rh
June 26, 1997
Barbara Kirkmeyer
Commissioner of Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer:
I am a property owner, resident and a member of Ranch Eggs Neighborhood Association.
I am deeply concerned about some of the changes being made in the Operating Plan and
Site Specific Development Plan (USE925) at Front Range Landfill. I am requesting your
help and counsel on the items addressed in this letter.
In 1991, the residents of Ranch Eggs did not oppose the permitting of this landfill,
realizing there was a need for a landfill, we embraced Ted Zigans approach to landfilling
for two reasons:
Most of the waste brought to the landfill would go through the recycling process.
The hazardous and household hazardous waste would be sorted out and properly
disposed of
At the time it was our feeling this would be the blueprint for future landfills in Weld
County and/or Colorado. It still can be with your help and support.
I recently discovered that in December of 1995 at Sanifill's request an administrative
change was made to the Site Specific Development Plan (USR925). This change was
characterized as an insignificant change. In effect this change allows all household and
restaurant waste to go into the landfill without going through the recycling process or
have the hazardous waste sorted out. This is not an insignificant change! Sanifill, now
USA Waste, calls this insignificant change a "waste exclusion program." This defeats the
whole concept of establishing the relatively safe landfill. This concept is also in direct
conflict with Weld County Ordinances 164 and 164A.
I'd like to take a moment to detail my concerns and offer some solutions. The reality of
the situation is that since the landfill opened none of the residential or restaurant waste has
gone through the recycling process or has been screened for hazardous waste. The stated
primary reason is that this waste stream is typically wet so the paper and cardboard is of
no commercial value. Does this also devalue the glass, aluminum, plastic and steel in that
waste stream? The secondary reason is that the recycling process could cause the spread
971732
2
of pathogens and be a danger to employees. In USA Waste's can and can't sheet (which
by the way, appears to be the Waste Exclusion Program), they state that it is dangerous to
put household hazardous waste in the landfill. There are several solutions to this problem:
Eliminate all residential and restaurant waste from the waste stream.
All waste can be recycled and screened for hazardous waste at the Franklin Street
Recycling Station using the proper protective measures and equipment for the
employees.
Do nothing and continue to allow the hazardous to go into the landfill. (I oppose
this solution.)
Before a waste exclusion or any other program is instituted to replace the recycling and
sorting plan initially approved by Weld County and Ranch Eggs Neighborhood
Association. A method of measuring the success or failure of the program must be
established. Keeping in mind, the objective is protecting the health, safety and welfare of
current and future residents of Weld County.
I suggest that Weld County and/or Erie hire a firm or education institution (C.U., C.S.U.,
U.N.C., etc.) to do a statistical evaluation of the waste stream. What is the level of
hazardous waste going into the landfill? What is the difference in hazardous volume from
area to area , Denver vs Longmont, Boulder, etc. The results of this study should include:
1. The degree of reliability that reasonably can be achieved.
2. The degree of error.
3. How the screening program should be done.
4. The point of diminishing return.
5. Point when 100% screening can decrease or cease.
6. How random sampling should be done.
I would request that a member of the Ranch Eggs Association be involved with setting the
parameters of the evaluation because they are an integral part of this landfill.
The other concern I have is how Erie is planning to use the monies it receives as a result
of the Inter -governmental Agreement with Weld County. Instead of using these monies
for waste management as outlined in Weld County Ordinance 164, 164A and CRS 30-20-
115. The Town of Erie plans to use these monies to pave the town streets. I'm not
opposed to Erie paving their streets, but I am opposed to using Waste Management &
Facilities Fund monies to do it. The Mayor's response to this concern is, "it's not only
legal its appropriate." Can you explain how monies collected for the Waste Management
& Facilities Fund can be used for this purpose? What statutes or ordinances allow this to
be done?
I look forward to your reply.
Respectfully,
/22 -2< -771 -
an Hand
cc: Mayor Vic Smith, Town of Erie
Trevor Jircek, Weld County Health Dept.
Ranch Eggs Neighborhood Association
Trustees, Town of Erie
Marvn Hand
2720 175th Ave
Erie CO 80516
Mrs,
wlOc
COLORADO
Mary Hanel
2720 175th Ave
Erie, CO 80516
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391
FAX: (970) 352-0242
915 TENTH STREET
P.O. Box 1948
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
August 13, 1997
RE: Your Letter of June 26, 1997
Dear Mr Hanel:
Weld County appreciates receiving your comments and questions regarding the operation of the
Sanifill Land Fill. The County, at this point in time, no longer has jurisdiction over the land fill
pursuant to C.R.S., § 30-20-103, since the land fill has been annexed by the Town of Erie. Both
the Town and Sanifill have continued to cooperate with the County with respect to the permit
previously issued by the County and the County Health Department has contracted with Erie to
provide inspection services . At this point in time, the local jurisdiction with authority over the
land fill is the Town of Erie with the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Hazardous Solid Waste Division as the state agency with jurisdiction.
The decision you referred to occurred in December, 1995, was to determine whether or not the
operator of the land fill would continue to be considered in compliance with the permit if the
residential recycling activities took place at the curb side or other screening process as opposed
to an onsite MRF. The information contained in the memorandum by Trevor Jiricek of
November 7, 1995 coupled with the subsequent waste exclusion plans and education program
was the basis of the conclusion that the facility was not proposing to operate in in a manner
which is not a material deviation from the existing permit. The town has continued to follow up
on these requirements. It should also be noted that since that date, Weld County has opened a
Household Hazardous Waste facility in south county which is available assist in diverting such
waste from the land fill.
You have also questioned the use of monies by the Town of Erie for road improvements. Weld
County and Erie chose to avoid any dispute over authority of Weld County to collect solid waste
surcharges within a municipality by means of the revenue sharing agreement. The agreement
avoids that debate and provides a means by which the two jurisdictions can mitigate the impacts
from the land fill while maintaining county programs such as the Household Hazardous Waste
Aim
n/y/97
ems' Pt; x,'09
program. The agreement provides that the first half of the funds collected continue to go into the
County Household Hamardous Waste Program. The next forty per cent goes to the entity which
has jurisdiction over the solid waste facility, which in the case of Sanifill, is the Town of Erie.
The Town decides on the expenditures of these funds according to Town standards not county
ordinance. The remaining ten per cent is placed into a jointly administered fund which must be
spent specifically in the area of Erie land fills and is administered jointly by the Town and
County with a provision which allows for arbitration if there is a dispute.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Your truly,
Lee D. Morrison
Assistant Weld County Attorney
LDM/db:Let/Hanel
xc: Kirkmeyer, Environmental Health, Town of Erie
i
Hello