Loading...
06/14/1994 - Minutes SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Salt Lake County Government Center N3319 - Flood Control/Engineering Conference Room 2001 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Tuesday, June 14, 1994 1:00P.M. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sandy Remediation Site - Discussion and Decision Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities provided upon request; for information contact Personnel, 468-2351. agenda94.615 Minutes of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council held Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 1:00 P.M. in Room #N3319, Flood Control and Highway Conference Room, Salt Lake County Government Center, 2001 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Those present: Brad Stewart Salt Lake City Russell Willardson COG, West Valley City Kent Miner Salt Lake City/County Health Dept. Lonnie Johnson Salt Lake County Dr. Ryan Dupont Utah State University Other in attendance: Daniel L. Bauer Solid Waste Management Roy VanOs Utah State DEQ Ralph Bohn Utah State DEQ Dr. Mel K. Muir Salt Lake City/County Health Dept. Joyce Harmon EPA Catherine Hofman Salt Lake City Dave Lore Solid Waste Management Ted Sonnenburg E.T. Technologies Paul Maughan Salt Lake Co. Attorney Romney M. Stewart Solid Waste Management Pam Derbidge Secretary 1. Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sandy Remediation Site - Discussion and Decision Brad Stewart, Acting Chairman, welcomed members of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council and visitors in attendance. He noted that the meeting was called to address a single issue - acceptance of some contaminated soil from the Sandy area as part of an accelerated cleanup site. In mid May, the Landfill received a letter from Region 8 EPA in Denver (copy attached) indicating that EPA was preparing to conduct a time-critical removal of lead contaminated soil from the Sandy area. Members of the Council received copies of the letter as part of their premeeting packet. EPA has reviewed the compliance history and construction of the Salt Lake Valley Landfill and determined that the Salt Lake .Valley Landfill could accept the material. The EPA has determined that this disposal option would be protective of human health and environment. The soil contains elevated levels of up to 9,000 ppm total lead. However, this waste is not a regulated waste under RCRA Subtitle C and can be disposed of at a Subtitle D facility. The 1 contaminated soils are not a listed hazardous waste per RCRA nor do they exhibit characteristics that would make them a regulated hazardous waste. The test results indicate that the waste does not meet regulatory levels that would require disposal as a hazardous waste. EPA anticipates that 24,400 tons of contaminated soil will be removed from the Sandy site beginning June 15, 1994. Acceptable uses for this material would be to provide a daily cover at the Landfill. The material could also be used for construction of the final cap. Brad Stewart indicated that the Council had also received a letter from the State Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (copy attached) stating that the Salt Lake City/County Landfill is both a Class I and Municipal Landfill, allowing it to accept nonhazardous solid waste generated within the government jurisdictional boundaries, if the Landfill chooses to do so. Under Utah Code R3-15-301, the soil removed from Sandy City, which is within the County boundaries, may be disposed of at the City/County Landfill if this soil is characterized as a nonhazardous waste and if the Landfill is not a "for profit" entity. Brad Stewart noted that the Salt Lake City/County Health Department had also submitted a letter supporting a Council's decision to accept the soil for disposal. Also included in the packet set to members of the Council was the recommendation from the management and staff at the Landfill. Five points were listed for consideration, i.e.: 1. According to EPA, State DEQ, and City/County Health Department guidelines, the Salt Lake Valley Landfill can accept the 24,400 tons of soil from Sandy under their current permit. 2. The fees generated from acceptance of the soil would be of economic benefit to the Landfill and the material could be used as daily or intermediate cover. 3. None of the Landfill capacity would be consumed by accepting the material it can be applied as needed cover material. 4. The material is substantially different from the Portland Cement kiln dust in chemical composition, in that the cement kiln dust contains heavy metals and is classified as a hazardous substance under CERCLA definitions; the cement kiln dust would consume an enormous amount of valuable landfill space. 5. Acceptance of the Sandy material does not constitute a precedent requiring the Landfill to accept material from other remediation sites. Each situation and request should be handled on a case by case basis and acceptance would be based on origin, composition, quantity, suitability, landfill needs. etc. Brad Stewart mentioned that East Carbon Development Corporation send a letter expressing concern that the Landfill was considering accepting the waste and suggested that it would be 2 inappropriate for the Landfill to accept the material for disposal to earn a $600,000 profit. ECDC pointed out that they are permitted as a commercial, non hazardous facility and that Class I Landfills such as the Salt Lake Valley Landfill are not permitted to accept these types of waste. ECDC suggested that these types of waste should be managed in a Class V facility. ECDC pointed out that the material being excavated in Sandy is industrial waste and represents a potential hazard if not handled correctly. ECDC expressed concern over using tax dollars to compete with ECDC. ECDC suggested that the residents of Magna should be invited to a public hearing before the material is moved. Also, the Salt Lake Valley Landfill should be required to pay the same management fees to DEQ as other Class V facilities within the State of Utah. Brad Stewart stated that he and Romney Stewart, Landfill Manager, had discussed the situation; there is no formal written policy governing the acceptance of these types of materials. Romney Stewart listed criteria they used in their assessment of the Sandy soil which could become the basis of a policy for acceptance of similar materials in the future. Brad Stewart asked members of the Landfill Council to consider producing a formal written policy that would assist in making appropriate decisions on these matters. Dr. Ryan Dupont commented that a policy already existed for acceptance of nonhazardous soil. Romney Stewart noted that with the number of remediation sites throughout the valley that a formal policy in place would be very beneficial. If there will be challenges to the Landfill practice of accepting non hazardous soil, a policy would be appropriate. The issue of acceptance of soil will continue to come up periodically. Dr. Dupont noted that ECDC apparently does not accept the standard classification of the material; ECDC considers the material to be hazardous. However, ECDC does not make the rules governing hazardous material. Obviously, ECDC is interested in the revenue. Brad Stewart suggested that a formal policy would be useful in determining when the Council should convene to address the acceptance of these types of materials. Even though a written policy has not been prepared, there are screening practices governing the acceptance soils of this nature heretofore used. For example, material from a closed landfill that was unearthed as part of the Airport runway construction; the Council declined acceptance of the material. Accepting the material would consume valuable Landfill space; the Landfill is designed for another purpose. The cement kiln dust is another example; the Council declined to accept the material. The two main concerns in accepting the kiln dust at that time was the volume - filling a year's capacity - and the characteristics of the material needing disposal. A third example was material from behind the Capital that at one time was a shooting range and contained lead contaminated soil. The Council agreed to accept that material because it was material that management was familiar with handling. The test results were below the hazardous standards that would cause concern. The material did not take up Landfill space. The material in question today would be similar to the material brought to the Capital from behind the Capital. Dr. Dupont suggested that the parameters of the policy would be that the material would require no special handling, the material would not reduce the life of the Landfill and the material is not considered hazardous. He suggested that there are probably more hazardous materials in the Landfill than would be found in the soil in question. In addition, the Council would rely on the 3 regulatory agencies to determine what is hazardous or non hazardous. Roy VanOs, Utah State DEQ, Emergency Response and Remediation, indicated that there will be remediation sites throughout the Salt Lake Valley similar to the Sandy site; he stated that the test results of the material indicated the material could be accepted at the Salt Lake Valley Landfill for use as intermediate and final cover; disposal at the Landfill will save the taxpayers or the responsible party money by allowing the material to be used at the Salt Lake Valley Landfill. His agency is very careful in designating the material as non hazardous; the material would not be declared non hazardous if it really was hazardous. There is the potential that other sites may exist that are classified as non hazardous that would fail every test. He suggested that the Council have a policy that would review every proposal case by case. If a particular site material is determined to be non hazardous at a regulatory level, the Council may decide not to take the material under the guidelines of the policy. Brad Stewart agreed with the suggestion; the volume of the material in question or the characteristics of the material may be the determining factor. Ralph Bohn indicated the State DEQ had received a copy of the letter from ECDC. His office is preparing a letter for submission to Landfill management requesting a determination that the Salt Lake Valley Landfill is a non profit Landfill. Lonnie Johnson requested information regarding the removal of the material from the Sandy site. Joyce Harmon, EPA, indicated that the material being removed is from 34 homes containing the highest concentration (4,000 ppm). The material is being removed because the soil is considered to be a health hazard by EPA. The workers involved in the removal will be wearing level D work clothes, coveralls, steel toed boots, and hard hats. There will be monitoring of the dust level as well to determine there is no respiratory problem. If it is determined that there is a respiratory problem, the use of respirators would be considered. The material will not be stockpiled, but rather used as it comes into the Landfill over a three month period for daily intermediate cover. Lonnie Johnson expressed concern over the air borne health hazards from the material in the Magna area. Several calls have been received by the Commission Office, 3 from legislators, regarding the acceptance of the material. Dr Mel Muir, City/County Health Department, indicated he doubted there would be a problem with air borne materials from the soil in question blowing into the Magna area; he thought it was an impossibility. Dr. Ryan Dupont questioned whether the decision not to accept the material was being made on political grounds; he wondered if those questioning the disposal of the material would provide the funds to dispose of the material at ECDC. Lonnie Johnson indicated the County Commissioners would not fund the additional cost of removal to ECDC because it was not the County's problem. He suggested the material from Sandy should go to the TransJordan Landfill. However, the TransJordan Landfill is not a Subtitle D Landfill and could not accept the material. Lonnie indicated that the Council's decision will be forwarded to the elected officials for review. Initially, the disposal of the material was acceptable by the Commissioners; 4 however, with privatization an issue, ECDC is a logical choice for the disposal site. Brad Stewart responded that Salt Lake City is willing to approve the disposal of the material at the Salt Lake Valley Landfill. Lonnie stated the decision not to accept the material by the County Commission is solely a political decision based on their concerns for the residents and the Landfill infringing on the private sector. Dr. Muir indicated that the lead in the material has been determined to be harmful to infants up to 2 years of age; there is no evidence that the material impacts adults to the extent it affects children. The material is being removed because children could sit in the dirt and eat it. The children are the key target of the health risk; children absorb more into their bodies than adults. Ted Sonnenburg, E.T. Technologies, indicated he lived in Magna as well and was not concerned about the material in question due to his background. He did suggest that monitoring of the material and informing residents of what is happening would lay any fears residents may have to rest. Daniel Bauer indicated that the material would be brought to the Landfill over a three month period and would not be stockpiled; rather the material would be used as it came in. The highest level of lead in the soil is 9000 ppm. The material is not much higher than levels in West Jordan that were excavated and deposited on Kennecott property. The material in question in Sandy is smelter fallout from a smelter in operation in the area in 1880. Brad Stewart noted that the Council's decision would be forwarded to the elected officials involved for approval. Ryan Dupont made a motion to accept the material from the Sandy City sites based on the information from the regulatory agencies and the staff at the Landfill. The motion was seconded by Kent Miner; the motion pass unanimously 4 - 1. Lonnie Johnson cast the no vote. Brad Stewart asked that the minutes be forwarded to the elected officials for review and approval be forwarded. Lonnie Johnson asked that in lieu of minutes that a specific request in letter form asking for Commission approval be forwarded. Paul Maughan suggested that the request include the history of the material so that the elected officials have sufficient information to make a decision. Copies of the letter exchanged should be attached. Dr. Muir reiterated that the waste was from smelters in operation in 1880; the material is only dangerous to minors if ingested. Dr. Dupont suggested that the letter include how the Landfill plans to use the material when it is delivered at the Landfill. Landfill workers have the same level of protection as the EPA workers are using at the excavation site. Joyce Harmon, EPA, indicated that the material will be excavated at various levels depending on the contamination. The maximum excavation will be 18 inches; the sites will then be covered with clean top soil after the excavation is complete. Meeting adjourned: 1:45 A.M. 5 • SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE SALT LAKE VALLEY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 4 .1916- 0/ 9s<,o �P P.O. Box 308 aP`� Midvale, Utah 84047 (801) 974-6920 FAX (801) 974-6936 Romney M.Stewart Deedee Corradini,Chairman Director,Solid Waste Disposal Mayor,Salt Lake City Manager,S.L.Valley Landfill Randy Horiuchi Joyce Y.Leach Commissioner.Salt Lake County Recycling Coordinator Dr.Thomas Schlenker MD PH,Director Salt Lake City&County Health Department Date: June 13, 1994 Jerry Wright Mayor,West Valley City Dr.Ryan DuPont To: Salt Lake Valle Solid Waste Management Council MembersSchoolat Engineeringrs y g Uttahah State University Sity From: Romney M. Stewart, Director of Solid Waste Dan Bauer, Associate Director Dave Lore, Environmental Technician Subject: Acceptance of Contaminated Soil From Sandy We submit the following points for consideration: 1. According to EPA, State DEQ, and the City/County Health Department, the Salt Lake Valley Landfill can accept the 24,400 tons of soil from Sandy under our current permit status. 2. The fee charges and revenue resulting from accepting the soil will total an estimated $440,000. The material is a clay soil which can be placed upon delivery, as we direct, for use as daily or intermediate cover. The cost to purchase and import comparable material in the same quantity is estimated to be an additional $110,000. Having this material available and delivered this summer will also free up our scrapers and attendant operators to move and apply E.T. soil on completed modules. This factor is an additional savings to be considered. In summary, accepting this material will result in at least a$550,000 economic benefit which can be used to cover the cost of operations, make capital improvements, to build needed reserve funds, or for waste diversion programs. 3. Absolutely none of our landfill capacity would be consumed by accepting this material because it can be applied in a very beneficial way as needed cover material. 4. The material is substantially different from the Portland Cement kiln dust in that the kiln dust has a different chemical composition (highly alkaline), it contains several heavy metals which are leachable, it can not be used beneficially because of its powdery matrix, it would consume an enormous amount of valuable landfill space, and is classified as a hazardous substance under CERCLA definitions. 5. Acceptance of the Sandy material does not constitute a precedent requiring us to accept material from other remediation sites. Each situation and request should be handled on a case by case basis and . acceptance should be based on origin, composition uantit suitability, landfill needs, etc. Printed on Recycled 'aper 06/13/04 13: 26 FAX 801 538 6715 UTAH DSHO' 11002/002 1%, �. I:' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY °,E"°'°o"�� • DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE . Michael O. Leavitt 2S8 North 1460 west Governor P,O. Box 144880 • Diannc R. Nielson, PhD. Salt Lake City,Utah 841 14.4880 Exccuuvc Director (801)538-6170 Dennis R.Downs (801)538-6715 Fax Dlrcctor (801)536-4414 T.D.D June 13, 1994 Steve Hawthorn, On-Scene Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202-2446 Dear Mr. Hawthorn: This letter is in response to your inquiry to the Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) on whether the soil removed during the EPA time critical removal action, under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), in Sandy City may be disposed of at the Salt Lake City/County landfill. The Salt Lake City/County landfill is both a Class I and Municipal landfill, allowing it to accept nonhazardous solid waste generated within the government jurisdictional boundaries, if the landfill chooses to do so. Under Utah Code R315-301, the soil removed from Sandy City, which is within the county boundaries, may be disposed of at the City/County landfill if this soil is characterized as a nonhazardous waste and if the landfill is not a "for profit" entity. Should you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact Ralph Bohn of my staff at (801) 538-6170 or Brent Everett, the DERR Project Manager for the Sandy Smelter project at (801) 536-4100. Sincerely, Dennis R. Downs, irector Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste c: Thomas L. Schlenker, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Salt Lake City/County Health Department David Larr, Salt Lake Valley Landfill Brent Everett, DERR JUN-09-94 THU 10:56 ECDC ENVIRONMENTAL, L, C. FAX NO. 801 355 9167 P. 02/O3 elth'ir)‘ ECDC ENVIRONMENTAL,uc 127 South 500 East, Sure 675 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Telephone 801-355-9166 laesimilc 801-355-9167 June 9, 1994 Mr. Ralph Bohn Hand Delivered 6/9/94 Section Manager, Division of Solid Waste Utah Department of Environmental Quality 168 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 RE: Proposed use of Salt Lake City-County landfill for "Commercial T nndfill Purpose" Dear Ralph: It has come to our attention that it is proposed that the soil which is being removed because of heavy metal contamination in Sandy, Utah may be disposed of at the Salt Lake City/County landfill. The County has indicated that they can make a "$600,000 profit" by accepting the material. As you know, ECDC has spent and continues to spend significant dollars to meet current state law and UDEQ rules and regulations to accept these kinds of special wastes. ECDC is permitted as a commercial nonhazardous facility to accept industrial wastes. Class I landfills are clearly not permitted to accept these types of waste. If Salt Lake County landfill can accept these wastes under DEQ regulations, then any landfill that meets subtitle D requirements, lined or unlined, such as Weber County or Davis County's existing footprint could accept these types of waste. It is clearly the intent of the State Legislature and your office that these types of waste should be managed in a Class V facility. The material that is being excavated in Sandy clearly is industrial waste and represents a potential health hazard if not handled correctly or EPA would not be removing the material from the residential neighborhood. If Salt lake County landfill is desirous of accepting this type of material and using our tax dollars to compete with ECDC, then Salt Lake County landfill should apply for a Class V landfill permit and give proper notice to the residents of Magna through a public hearing process allowing the landfill to accept this type of waste. Salt Lake County landfill should also be required to meet the same regulations and pay the same management fees to the DEQ as other Class V facilities within the State of Utah, JUN-09-94 THU 10;57 [CDC ENVIRONMENTAL, I.,C, FAN NO. NI 355 9167 P.03/03 ,, , I-%k, ECDC rNVIRONMENTaL,Lc Mr. Ralph Bolus June 9. 1994 Page two We would request that you review this matter and inform us as to whether or not we are correctly or incorrectly interpreting your rules. It is the intent of the remediation contractor to begin excavations next week. If you have any questions, please call me or Steve Noble at the ECDC landfill. Steve Noble's telephone number is(801)8884451. Thank you for your prompt response. Sincerely, / d" " lrn� g-7 /CF_"- R Steve Creamer II President/CEO cc: Romney Stuart. Salt Lake County landfill tF° °w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SiGiort vlll to:4,4) 999 Lath STREET' - SUITS SOO DENVER, COLORADO 8020Z•24ee MAY 18 ly�� Ref: SHWM•YR Mr. Ronney Stewart, Director salt Lake City/County Landfill Salt Lake City, UT 54111 Dear Mr. Stewart: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to conduct a time-critical removal of lead contaminated soil in Sandy, Utah. Currently, the Agency ie requesting disposal bide from locations in and around the Sandy site. RPA has reviewed the compliance history and construction of the landfill and determined that the Salt bake City County Landfill could accept the material. SPA has determined that this disposal option would be protective of human health and the environment. This moil contains elevated levale of up to 9000 ppm total lead, However, this waste is not a regulated waste under RCRA Subtitle C and can be disposed of at a Subtitle D facility. The contaminated soils are not a listed hazardous waste per RCRA nor do they exhibit characteristics that would make them a regulated hazardous waste. Attached is a table of total lead and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedures (TCLP) results. As you can sea from these results, the waste does not meet regulatory levels that would require disposal ea a hazardous waste. EPA anticipates that 24,400 tons of Contaminated soil will be removed from the Sandy site this summer beginning Tune 15; 1994. Acceptable uses for this material would be to provide a daily cover at the landfill. The materiel could also be used for construction of the final cap but should be placed under 18 inches of clean fill. Pleaav advise me of Salt Lake City/County'e position on accepting this material in their landfill. Should you have any additional questions, please contact Steve Hawthorn of my staff at (303) 293-1224. Thank you for your assistance. Since ly, R bert Ll u hector Hazardous Waste D vision cet R. Gray, UDIII4 M. Muir, SLC AfhbMK(of Aeeyalod Pv !A ,,N. 4-40 z = June 14, 1994 140, �o�Q yf QLt Mr. Romney Stewart, Director DIVISION OF Salt Lake Valley Landfill ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 308 Midvale, Utah 84047 1954 E.Fort Union Boulevard RE: Landfill Acceptance of Sandy Soils Salt Lake City,UT 84121 801-944-6608 Fax Dear Romney: Division Director The Salt Lake City-County Health Department, Division of Environmental Terry Sadler, R.S.,M.S.P.H. Health, has reviewed the information available on the lead contaminated soils 801-944-6600 proposed to be excavated from selected Sandy City residences and transported to the Salt Lake Valley Landfill. We support the landfill's Air Pollution Control acceptance of this soil since the landfill meets Subtitle D requirements and Sanitation&Safety is protective of human health and the environment. Food Protection Water Quality/Hazardous Waste The EPA has ruled that this waste is not a regulated waste under Subtitle C and can be disposed of at a Subtitle D facility. Acceptable uses for this material would be to provide daily cover at the landfill and for construction of the final cap when placed 18" under clean fill material. These contaminated soils are not a listed hazardous waste per RCRA nor do they exhibit characteristics that would make them a regulated hazardous waste. As with standard operating practices at your Subtitle D landfill, we expect that the lead contaminated soils will be handled in the appropriate manner to protect workers at the landfill and that the lead soil will be appropriately covered and contained to prevent erosion and off-site migration both during stock piling and final deposition as daily cover. Why we are able to give you our opinion regarding the acceptance of the Sandy lead soil, final authority on acceptance of this material rests with the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality who has primacy over your landfill. We also advise you to contact the County Attorney's Office on any concerns they may have on acceptance of this soil. Sincerely, Terry D. Sadler, Director Division of Environmental Health TDS/MM/br cc: Commissioner Brent Overson Dr. Thomas Schlenker Dennis Downs, Department of Environmental Quality Tom Christensen, County Attorney's Office