The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP January 29, 1980 - - - , - 01 ANDOVER ~ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 29, 1980 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 29, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW for the purpose of discussing the landfill at 14435 Crosstown Boulevard NW and the Musket Ranch, 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others BACKGROUND OF PROBLEMS Mayor Windschit1: The City of Andover is faced with two potential problems with hazardous wastes at the Musket Ranch at 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW and at a pit located at the landfill at 14435 Crosstown Boulevard NW. On May 31, 1973, Anoka County requested that Mr. Heidelberger discontinue accepting the chemical wastes and dispose of his present inventory by June 30, 1973. The Andover City Council has very little, if any control over the enforcement. The Council met with Anoka County officials on this particular problem at one prior meeting, and at that time we couldn't get an accurate determination of what is in the containers on site. Apparently there is some 700 containers on site of various solvents, and I am hoping to find out exactly how many containers there are and what contents are in them. What proof is there that some burial hasn't gone on? There may be more containers out there. Part of the problem with the landfill, which is very troublesome and which has only recently been brought to the Council's attention, references the pit in the landfill itself. After meeting with Anoka County authorities and obtaining information, we were able to find that there is a hazardous waste pit on site. The permit was taken out in March, 1971, and apparently operated throu9h 1972 and was closed in 1973. It is estimated there are about 100,000 gallons of waste in the pit in containers of one- gallon, five-gallon, and 55-gallon drums. This is very troublesome to the City Council ~ as no one even knew it was there. It is incredible that after the pit had been sealed and left sitting in that condition that the City Council finds out it exists. Apparently nothing is being done nor any plans made to dispose of what is in there. The water table here is extremely high. Left in this present form with the containers deteriorating and rusting out where waste could eventually make its way out of the pit is extremely frightening. Another problem is with the Addendum that should have been filed regarding limiting a portion of the porperty that the landfill can operate on. The Addendum is to restrict the landfill from expanding toward Crosstown Boue1vard so it wouldn't be visible from the road. We have been unsuccessful in getting this Addendum filed. The survey was done some time ago and the City Counci~ acted on it on August 10, 1978. It hasn't been filed yet. PCA RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS - MUSKET RANCH Tom Clark, Chief of the Information Division of Solid Waste Division of the Pollution Control Agency: Basically the topics of concern are the Cecil Heidelberger situation and the Ron Roth landfill. I have with me Mr. Michael Kanner, head of the Hazardous Waste Informational Division, who can give you an accurate update of where we stand. The landfill was operating under a permit issued by the PCA in 1970, and the issue is one that the Agency and the County have been fami liar with for some time. Michael Kanner; Enforcement Section of PCA: I have been working on the Heidelberger problem for quite some time. Apparently he accumulated a huge number of tires as well as "recycling solvents" over a number of years he was doing this business. In 1973 we told him he couldn't operate. Mr. Heidelberger told us he would dispose of this material, but he hasn't. Part of the reason why Pollution Control dropped the ball on this was that the person who worked on that matter left the Agency, and we took · Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 Cecil Heidelberger's word as fact. There are still 700 barrels there. The Un ited States Environmental Protection Agency was looking for hazardous waste sites that might need some study or posed problems requiring solutions. There were a number of hazardous waste sites that were problems, but the Heidelberger situation was picked as one of the more troublesome worthy of some study and has been looked at in great deta i 1. One of the reasons for the slowness of progress is with the Environmental Protection Agency and their consultant doing the studies for them and attempting to assess the problems, including Heidelberger's. The consultant is having some con- tractura1 problems with EPA. It is hoped that some study of ground waters can be done and that we can see whether or not there is some problem. The problem as we see it is evidently there are many drums out there and that some of them are leaking. Not many of them and not at a fast rate, but it is a problem. The problem with the Musket Ranch and Trading Post became a worse problem when Mr. Heidelberger sold the tires to Mr. Rouse, now doing business as International Tires and Recycling. Mr. Heidelberger sold everything on the preperty, including the drums. Mr. Rouse stopped making payments on his contract for deed because there were these drums on site and not in compliance to PCA's rules. There were also scrap vehicles that Mr. Heidelberger owned. We have drawn up a Stipulation that we want Mr. Heidelberger to get rid of the the 700 drums as soon as possible; that would call on Mr. Heidelberger to dispose of all of the drums by June or July and haul them to a licensed hazardous waste disposal facil ity. The Stipulation is not in its final form yet. There are some problems with this because part of the land On which some of these drums are sitting is owned by Mr. Rouse and (?) . We are reluctant to release anyone of liability involved in the problem. We don't know if Mr. Heidelberger will be able to remove the problem. And we don't want to release Mr. Rouse of any responsibility at this point. We want to make sure the problem is cleaned up, and whoever has the resources and able to clean it up should do so. The problem in terms of the Stipulation is trying to cover who might solve the problem. Other than the barrels, we don't have any information showing that Mr. Heidelberger disposed of the materials on the site. All he did was recycle the waste materials. It is my understanding that materials in those barrels are mostly solvents. Mr. Heidelberger claims they are alcohol-based solvents, which are evidently paints and resins. Mr. Rouse used these materials and sold them to people who used them as fue 1. There has been a certain amount of spillage, but we believe they are mostly solvents. Mayor Windschit1: No one has taken time to do a chemical analysis to make a determina- t10n as to what is out there? Mr. Kanner: About a month ago we took samples of some of the drums and the Health Department is now making an analysis of them. We think it is mostly solvents. It is difficult to tell exactly what is in the barrels, and the Health Department picked a few solvents and hopefully will be able to tell us what is inside those barrels. Mayor Windschit1: It is astonishing that a problem can go on since 1973 and to this aate no one knows what's going in there. Mr. Kanner: Mr. Heidelberger accumulated the barrels before the Agency knew it. I guess we can say it in public, we don't quite trust Mr. Heidelberger and what he says is in there. It is very difficult to analyze what is in there. Mayor Windschitl: Can't we take some random samples to a chemical laboratory and find them out? Mr. Kanner: The Health Department is making that analysis now. Mayor Windschit1: They are already contaminating ground water as one well has already been contalnl nated. Srecial City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 Mr. Kanner: As I understand it, there was a smelter to the east, northeast; and they used to burn fuels in it, and that perhaps he was contaminating his own water. That well is only 10 to 14 feet deep. There are some levels of chemical solvents in it. If there are any other wells in the area, we have no evidence of contamination. It is complicated, particularly in the sense that Mr. Heidelberger is pointing the problem at other people. Councilman Lachinski: Have any residents' wells in the area been tested? Mr. Kanner: Not that I know of. After completing the analysis of the barrels, if we f1nd some problem, we plan on using the analysis asa.means of analyzing deep and shallow wells of residents. Councilman Peach: You know one well was contaminated in the area. Why haven't you checked the other wells for the same components? Mr. Kanner: I believe it was all solvents, MIBK and might have been to~uene. It is not something you would want to drink. It is dangereous and you would have to abandon the well. I'm not sure, but I don't think we have tested other wells. It has a definite odor and taste when present in the smallest concentrations. Part of the reasoning for not sampling other wells might have been if it was present, they would have been noticing there is something wrong with their water. It has a very obvious odor or taste. Councilman Ortte1: How far from the barrels is this well? Is it reasonable to expect the chemicals to travel that far? Mr. Kanner: I think it could have traveled that distance. Councilman Orttel: Did you say some companies are allowed to burn this? Mr. Kanner: The companies that were allowed to burn these chemicals burned these as fuel. Councilman Ortte1: Did you say Mr. Rouse sold these to somebody who had the ability to burn 1t as fuel? Mr. Kanner: Mr. Rouse is the current property owner. Most of the barrels have been removed to the adjoining property to the southwest. Councilman Ortte1: Who did you say burned these chemicals as fuel? Mr. Kanner: In the past Mr. Heidelberger sold much of the material to people to use as fuel. He sold it to Hy Friedman, owner of the asphalt plants, as fuel. I think it is still going on, but we will have some control with the new hazardous waste control going into effect this summer where originators of hazardous wastes will be required to obtain permits from the Agency. Councilman Ortte1: Where will these barrels be disposed to? Mr. Kanner: Under the Stipulation we drafted, we don't name a place. It would have to go to a commercial facility, and he would have to obtain permits. Wisconsin and Illinois have such facilities. Some of the alternatives to Mr. Heidelberger are to haul it to these facilities. Another alternative is to look into the possibility of burning it in local facilities such as asphalt facilities. It is important to get rid of it. But at the same time random samples of random drums to determine contents would have to be done. Another alternative is to allow Mr. Heidelberger to do more extensive sampling of his drums and find asphalt facilities which might burn it. But they would have to prove that the materials and incinerators are compatible without causing a hazardous situation when it is burned. Councilman Ortte1: Has any soil samples been taken out there? Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Kanner: I am not familiar with hydrology, but generally believe we are dealing wlth sandy soils and high ground water tables. Ma¥or Windschitl: Given the time this has gone on, I don't hold out much hope for Mr. He1delberger entering into an agreement to solve this problem. There is a very large quantity of solvents out there. It seems to me some place within the PCA's budget or ability to request funds that the Agency would look to the State Legislature in trying to obtain the necessary funds to solve the problem. We just can't sit here in limbo waiting for somebody to do something. It has already gone on seven years. The Legislature is in session now, and it seems to me that something of this significance, when you have a known water problem, that the Agency would be looking to the State for an allocation, would then get it out of there, and then argue about who is going to pay for it. I can't see this sitting here forever. Mr. Heide1beríer: Everything that has gone On in the City of Andover, I have been blamed for. have had those barrels and recycled them for 30 years, and now I am being hassled about them. But Bill Batson and Sherne11, behind where Bob's Auto Parts is now located, dumped 10's and 100's of thousands of barrels of the same ink solvents in that same swamp. And PCA knows this. They didn't recycle the barrels but just dumped them. There are a hundred million barrels of solvents and paints, and we allow that to go on. I want something done about that place of Bob's. I had Dick Cable of PCA was out in 1972/73. We took 40-foot samples. We never found one bit of pollution in the sand. Those people bought the land from me in the back. Their well is only 15 feet down. Within 30 feet of the well I dug a hole for a car body, which was used for a cesspool. They bought ink from me. They dumped it on the ground. When they sold the place 8/10 months ago, they were given a clean bill of health on those we 11 s. The Council and Building Inspector should have never let that place be sold as those wells were contaminated. Those people should have never let that place be sold. There was a cesspool with a car body in it. They removed the house trailer. I sold them the four acres that they have and have been hassled by them ever since. Do you think I would spill ink solvents On the ground when I could sell it? Those test wells were allover the place. Mr. Dick Cable has proof of that. Mayor Windschit1: Can you give more detail about the other barrels. Mr. Heidelberger: In that swamp behind Bob's Auto Parts. They just dumped them. And there are no records of how many there are. Mayor Windschitl: How many barrels are on your property? Mr. Heidelberger: It doesn't exceed 400 barrels. If I put a match to it, it would burn up as it is alcohol based. So there is no reason to worry about polluting the ground. This evaporates up. It is the residue of the ink, and it doesn't go into the ground. There is no way I am going to ship those barrels out of the State at $50 a barre 1:. I will set them on fire first. Mayor Windschitl: How long have the barrels been sitting there? Mr. Heide1ber~er: My records state that we moved 300 barrels off Rouse's property so we can glve h1m a clean bill of health so I can put mOney in escrow for testing. Dick Cable and his crew made test holes at 30 to 40 feet deep, and results show there is no contamination in the soil at all. This is explosive alcohol. Hy Friedman was using it; this could be recycled. The Elk River bituminous plant too. There is no reason why this has to be wasted. Mayor Windschitl: Are you going to be in a position to sign the PCA Stipulation? Mr. Heidelberger: They will have to give me a release from Rouse. When they give Rouse release of all responsibility for any ground water contaminents, I will haul them to get rid of the barrels in the proper way. if Rouse will get a release saying he is not liable. If I can give him a release from the PCA. he has to pay me $20,000 back payments. I am willing to put so much a month in escrow for the wells. I told SRecia1 City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 them, PCA, in August, any time they are going to test my wells to see if there is a problem and to see that the ground is tested under Bob's Auto Parts. I have 400 barrels. Mayor Windschit1: The PCA has drafted a Stipulation. Are you going to be signing the agreement? Mr. Heide1beryer: I won't sign any agreement until they give me a release from Rouse. Then will sign a release. Mayor Windschitl: What is PCA's position On this? Mr. Kanner: We are not in the final stages of this and are not sure of what our f1nal position is. We are interested in getting the problem solved. We're looking at how much the amount would be for Mr. Heidelberger's solution of his problem. I suppose we could sign what he has suggested with payment to be escrowed from Mr. Rouse's payments to him so there would be some money that Mr. Heidelberger would have committed to the disposing of those barrels. Mayor Windschit1: If the barrels had to be hauled to Wisconsin or Illinois, what is the estlmate of the cost? Mr. Kanner: Roughly guestimating to Chicago, $30,000. Mayor Windschit1: Isn't there anything in your budget or anyone with ability to request to the State Legislature, we can't find $30,000 to remove the problem and then resolve the money problem? Mr. Kanner: We had a meeting with Cecil and there was talk of escrowing funds. We are st111 hoping an agreement can be signed in the next few weeks. The Agency doesn't have $30,000 for it. It is also difficult to ask the Legislature. In addition, there are many sites that are less or more serious than Mr. Heidelberger's, which would mean a lot of money to the State. Mayor Windschit1: I can't imagine that if a request was made to the Legislature that you couldn't get $30,000 of funding to solve the problem, knowing that you may have to be reimbursed for part or all of it later on. This thing has already gone on seven years with barrels gradually rusting and getting in worse condition. Councilman Lachinski: What happens if Mr. Heidelberger doesn't meet the deadline stated 1n the St1pu1ation? Mr. Kanner: The Agency wouldn't be against the Legislature providing funds to correct the problem. It is something I can discuss with my superiors. In terms of this Stipulation, we set a particular date Mr. Heidelberger would clean up or we would be going to court against him. In some ways, this is premature. As we are having a more constructive relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Heidelberger and their Attorney. Mr. Heidelberger: If I can get a clean bill of health for Rouse. I don't have any mOney and there is nO way you can make me meet any deadlines. The only deadline is putting me in jail, and I don't care. Mayor Windschitl: The reason I bring the point up about the Legislature is there is one representative here tonight and possibly one or two more coming. If it goes on a few more weeks, there will be no hope for help from this Legislative session, and it would be a year from now for hope of an appropriation. Can't the PCA go back tomorrow and get a formal request for the solution of this problem and get it taken care of and then argue whatever addendums with Mr. Heidelberger and Mr. Rouse. Mr. Heidelberger: All they have to do is give Rouse a clean bill of health, and I w1ll pay 1t and get it all out. I will get it done. Mr. Kanner: We haven't ruled out the possibility of abolishing Mr. Rouse from liability. I am not in a position of what the Legislature will consider. I will pass this on to· those people who are, but I can't promise you anything at this moment. Srecia1 City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 Councilman Ortte1: It appears as though the 400 barrels may be the tip of the ice berg. The area you are talking about is in the low water table. Do you have any idea of the volume in there or if records were kept? Mr. Heidelberger: They didn't keep any records. Councilman Orttel: These could be the biggest dangers. The ones underground can really create some problems, and these may be where we may need the money. Mayor Windschitl: Where did these solvents come from? Mr. Heide1ber~er: Bemis and plastic operations around the cities. All Batson did was salvage t e barrels. The PCA has not looked into one of those barrels. I talked to them about this. Mayor Windschit1: Has this problem been known to the PCA before this? Mr. Kanner: Mr. Heidelberger mentioned this to us. We planned on looking at those. The Agency thinks that Mr. Heidelberger is exaggerating the numbers out there. We feel that 10's of thousands in the area might have been noticed by some people or brought to someone's attention. We plan on phasing in enforcement in this area. We can't attack everyone all at once. We plan to deal with Mr. Heidelberger's situation; then deal with the other. We don't have the resources to deal with them all at once. Councilman Lachinski: I would think the top priority would be to find out the extent of the problem. Mr. Kanner: We are hoping the EPA consultant will help in the problem. They are doing extensiv~groundwater monitoring around Mr. Heidelberger's property. This will also indicate what is going on around the neighborhoods. Councilman Ortte1: Every time we have a meeting it seems we come up with a new hazardous waste site in the City. Are there any others that we are not aware of? Mr. Kanner: In the area of Mr. Heidelberger's, a number of the neighbors don't look llke they have a clean bill of health. The landfill. And I'm sure that there are some along Bunker Lake Boulevard who have a few barrels of waste in their back yards. I don't think you can expect the PCA to be stopping at every resident along the way and control the barrels. Councilman Ortte1: Isn't there any controlling or accounting for these barrels? Mr. Kanner: Not until this June when the waste regulations to into effect. We couldn't have accounting of who is producing waste and where it is going to until the summer of 1980. I'm not sure exactly when we became aware of Heidelberger here. Councilman Ortte1: Up until last year they could store it on their property? Mr. Kanner: Fire regulations were supposed to prevent that. There wasn't an accounting or system available to control the waste at its source. Councilman Orttel: In the past, if the producers of the hazardous waste weren't respons1ble, weren't the people in charge accountable? Mr. Kanner: Not if they didn't have a permit. After that period of time -- yes, there were many disposal sites that were unknown to us. It is a difficult situation. It was extremely difficult to get the owners together. Councilman Ortte1: You can't believe how much we hate surprises like this. Mr. Kanner: When he stopped taking wastes, they would take it to the dump. Rouse thought he was going to get out of the tire business. He is the one that brought it to the attention of the PCA. Rouse said those barrels were all Heidelberger's, full or empty. It is in his contract to include everything including Heidelberger's personal property. PCA is saying that the hazardous waste barrels are not personal property. We did sample some of the barrels. When we get the results, we plan to Special City Council Meeting Jånuary 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 sample wells in the area. We hope that Environmental Protection Agency will come out in the spring to do more extensive sampling. We hope to get a Stipulation to get from Mr. Heidelberger with some kind of abolition of guilt of Mr. Rouse. We plan to address those other sites in the vacinity. I will bring it to the attention of the higher-ups, and perhaps the Agency could look to the Legislature for some funds. Mr. Heidelberger: They're taKing all the time in the world. I am not waiting months. I am mak1ng payments on different things. I don't have any income. That is ink in the barrels. If this isn't reso1vectby the last of the month, the 15th of February, the ink is going to be burned. And I am going to burn it. I've been hassled for 30 years since I've been in the City. I'm tired of hassling with this. The PCA has known about this since 1972. They took tests then and found no ground pollution. Councilman Lachinski: I think I agree with Mr. Heidelberger on one point, in that I th1nk we should expand the investigation process on the potentially more serious problem and think we have to do something in the swamp area; and would have to agree that it could be a more serious problem than what is on the Heidelberger property. Mayor Windschit1: I agree. I can't believe the PCA would wait until this is solved to find out what is on the other properties. Mr. Clark: The well that showed Toluene contamination is a very shallow well, which was not installed per code. It is only 15-20 feet deep. My understanding is that the majority of residential wells, particularly in the new development across Bunker Lake Boulevard, if not all, have been installed according to the well code and are in considerably deeper aquafers. We realize this is a very serious problem, and we do intend to investigate it further. Our problem is lack of manpower. We first go after the problem which is readily apparent. Right now there are several hundred drums which have been improperly disposed of and which we feel need to be removed. Mayor Windschit1: Can't we get an agreement with PCA that they will have Twin City Testing come out to do 3, 4, or 5 soil borings in the area and find out what we have there? Mr. Clark: The work plan of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assistance program is to do tests of soils and groundwater; and it is our understanding that this project is set to get under way in March. It is a national program to look at allocated hazardous waste sites. The Heidelberger site is included. So this is getting top priority from the Federal level. Frankly, we feel Mr. Heidelberger may be prone to exa9geration about the additional barrels in the area. Mr. Kenner: The removal of the barrels should be completed in roughly a couple of months, and would be over by some time this summer or fall. Councilman Orttel: Some time in 1972 the PCA did some soil borings and were aware at that time that there was a potential danger in those chemicals stored out there. We found out about it late in 1979 by accident and through the work of some individual residents in the City. I'm curious as to why, if there was a suspected hazard in the ground, that the City wasn't notified. Is it the PCA's policy to keep something like that quiet until they determine the severity or is this an accident? Mr. Clark: No, it isn't our policy to keep it quiet. It's my understanding that this C1ty was formed about 1974. Councilman Ortte1: We were in existence before that -- different form of government but same peop 1e. Mr. Clark: I have not been involved with the State program for that long myself. I came to PCA in 1977. A portion of the problem may have been that those dealing with the problem in '72 and '73 may not have been aware who to contact. Certainly within the last three-four years, those asking for permits for solid waste control today, there Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 would be a very definite attempt to work with the local entity. In fact, local approval starting with city or township level would be required before PCA would even look at an application for a disposal site. So it was never our intent to keep you in the dark on this. As long as I have been involved in the program, we've had an enforcement program in hazardous waste; we have been working with the City. I be 1 i eve we have kept._Ms. Lindquist appraised of various meetings and correspondence that we have had. Councilman Ortte1: The fear of the unkown is what is really frustrating, and today even we don't know how severe this is. We don't have that chemist report stating that. If we had that, it would be a lot easier for us to respond to the residents that have questions. But all we have is this fear of some unknown chemical out there that's potentially, or may not be hazardous. That's the biggest share of our problem. Mr. Heidelberger: If we can get a clean bill of health for Rouse -- Rouse has nothing to do with 1t -- we can get going and start recycling tires. There hasn't been a thing done since April on the tires. There has to be a thing from PCA, and it should be settled this week, saying that he has a clean bill of health. Because he can operate -- even if the groundwater is polluted, even if those barrels are on my other property. I moved them barrels off his property. We have to have that or the tires just lay there. We have to get this industry going. This should be one of your main efforts. Also, it will bring money into my pocket which I can escrow to Pollution Control's pocket. I'll give them $20,000 that will do a lot of well drilling or remove a lot of stuff. And I'll give them an escrow every month of my payments that come in. They are $3,OOO-a-month payments. And they will get so much a month escrow providing they give that clean bill of health for Rouse so he continues to process those tires. Northern States Power and others are waiting for those tires. I can't do nothing with the PCA. I talked to them. It's up to you fe11as to pressure them. I'm not going to spend one dime on the ink unless I get a clean bill of health for Rouse. Will you put some pressure on them to get a clean bill of health for Rouse so I can get some money? Mayor Windschit1: You can't ask the Council to do something or put pressure on when we don't know the details of your agreement with Rouse or what the PCA's concern. That's an issue between you and them. PCA RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS - LANDFILL Mayor Windschit1: Would like to address the hazardous waste pit first. I find this one absolutely unbelievable. This is one that the PCA knowingly granted a permit for, and it was apparently allowed to operate through sometime in 1973 when it was determined that it was not a feasible operation. It was closed, sealed, and to anyone's knowledge, the City was never informed or asked its permission of its existence or the fact that it was sealed or its contents. This has sat for seven years, and by estimates there is 100,000 gallons of an unknown-type sustance; and I hope by this evening someone has made a determination as to what we have there and what the problem is to get rid of it. Mr. Clark: About the middle of December we were approached by the Anoka County Health Department requesting that PCA look at the groundwater information that was available around the Waste Disposal Engineering disposal site which does have a PCA solid waste permit, SW28. Beginning shortly after that request, we did begin that examination and completed it about a week ago. (in response to that request, Mr. Clark read the text of the letter by the Director outlining the results of their findings; letter was directed to Bob Hutchinson of Anoka County Health Department dated January 25, 1980) I think the County has done some investigation of the manhole (of the hazardous waste pit), although I believe no buildup of liquid was noted. I'd expect if barrels were deteriorating, there would be a problem. The limited sampling that has been done on the creek indicates at this point that there is no contribution from the landfill or . Snecia1 City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 hazardous waste pit or any other source that we are aware of. I won't read the appendix to this letter. It's a rather long and complex summary about 8-years' worth of water monitoring data, which is available to you. And we would be willing to discuss it. MaÕor Windschit1: If I understood the letter correctly, you are saying they put 10 ,000 gallons of toxic waste in the ground into a pit in a high water area, and that is its final resting place? You are just going to sit and let these containers rust away and hope that something stops it from getting into the water table? This is incredible. Mr. Clark: The site was designed as an ultimate disposal facility. It was designed 1n accordance with the best available technology known at that time. The idea of ultimate disposal is not one to be afraid of. In fact, it is necessary. Quite frankly, if this facility were to come in for a permit today, I believe that the Agency would place a much greater emphasis On attempted recycling of some of these materials. The fact that it was designed as an ultimate waste disposal facility doesn't detract from the overall situation. It was designed in accordance with sound engineering principles that were in effect at that time. Mayor Windschitl; It is absolutely astounding. You have a water table that is four feet, 12 feet, or 15 feet in some places in the City, and maybe a little deeper. The barrels are eventually going to rust out, and whatever happens it will get into the water system some place. There's no way that the pit is going to handle that. And it's the Agency's position at this time that no corrective measures need to be done to get these things out of there and haul them to some place that can safely handle them? Mr. Clark: We would not make that recommendation without additional information. We are aware of the shallow water table situation; however, it is also a fair statement that the shallow groundwater in that area is really not a usable source of drinking water. The aquafer which is being tapped by the majority of the domestic residents is a much deeper aquafer which is protected by a clay .aquatard. Mayor Windschit1: That's basically speculation as to what happens. No one knows how groundwater reacts or where it breaks through and gets into the aquafer that's theoretically below this clay there. If one used that argument, theoretically you could put waste any place and it won't go down because everybody is supposed to have deep wells. That doesn't hold up at all. Mr. Clark: I believe an assessment has to be made of the use of the water resource. The statement of shallow groundwater in the area does not necessarily imply that that water is usable. Mayor Windschitl: It surely shouldn't be contaminated if you can help it. It's your own group that 1S going around looking for the hazardous waste pits, has got that criteria that require, I believe, 100 feet without groundwater, or something in that range. Mr. Clark: The current solid waste regulations require a minimum separation distance of five feet. Mayor Windschitl; The people looking for hazardous waste pits required substantially more than that because I believe there are only one or two counties that comply with that -- Wright and one other county. Anoka County was eliminated because of their high water table. Mr. Clark: I'm not familiar with the criteria used for the study you are referring to. I do know what our existing regulations say, and that is five feet. Councilman Orttel; That's for a landfill, isn't it? You don't have a hazardous waste disposal site in Minnesota, do you? Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 Mr. Clark: Not a permitted one. Councilman Orttel: So you don't even allow a hazardous waste pit in Minnesota, but they were look1ng for one in the Twin City area; and that is what the Mayor was referring to. I think you are referring to the general landfill regulations. Mr. Clark: That's true. A couple of things have happened between 1973 and the present situations. One is the adoption of the hazardous waste regulations. If a facility were to come in today for ultimate disposal of hazardous waste, it would have to apply under the hazardous waste regulations. At the time that this pit was per- mitted, the solid waste regulations were all that was available and those were the regulations that were followed. Councilman Orttel: Would that pit, if it were constructed today, qualify as an ultimate disposal with the water table the way it is? I'm assuming that because they said Anoka County wouldn't qualify, and I would tend to agree with them, that it would not. What you are saying is your regulations allowed what occurred at that time. But are those chemicals any less dangereous because they were put in the ground back then under the old rules than if they were put in the ground under the new rules? I don't think so. To us there's more of a hazard because they were put in under the old rules. That's our concern. From what I understood at a previous meeting, if you look at the makeup of the chemicals in the pit, there's three or four different types and some of those that are the type that would eat through asphalt; and I believe the limestone is in there for some other type of chemicals supposedly to absorb that. The way it sounded, you get down quite quickly to just the clay barrier, which I don't believe is that impermeable. If the asphalt is eaten by any chemicals, and there is solvents in there, the solvents are going to deteriorate the asphalt, and that takes care of your seal box of clay regardless of what the other chemicals are. They'll just go through. Mr. Clark: I agree. I think the materials that are in the pit should be looked at 1n llght of their affect on the asphalt, on the limestone, and on the clay. I confess some ignorance in that I was not involved in it at that time. As far as the data we have looked at, the groundwater base of information for this site is lengthy. It goes back to 1971. We feel we have a pretty good handle on the groundwater history. Now the wells that were put in around the hazardous waste pit are immediately adjacent to the refuse. They are outside the pit but inside the garbage. And when you see levels of contamination in a well like that, it doesn't tell you much. It tells you that the leachate has migrated maybe one or two feet into the well from the garbage. This is the main point trying to get across in the letter, that to further define this we are going to have to go out a further distance from the landfill. Merely detecting contamination 200 feet from the landfill in sand is not altogether unexpected. If you put a liner under the entire landfill and designed and engineered it to collect the 1eachage, then you saw a problem 200 feet down, that would be cause for a great deal of concern. We have taken a number of positive steps at that facility to see that the amount of infiltration that gets into that site is going to be kept to an absolute minimum. One of them is the use of the lime sludge. This has been tried on a number of sites in the metro area with a great deal of success. This is something the County has worked on trying to negotiate to get the sludge on top of some of these sandy sites. We feel that the infiltration factor of this site in the future is going to be about the minimum that it would be. About the only way it would be better perhaps is if you'd actually pave the surface of the site. We realize, however, that there may be additional ground- wster studies needed to determine just how the pollution may migrate. Mayor Windschit1: You're addressing the landfill, and I'm trying to zero in on the hazardous waste pit. The Agency allowed it to exist. The thing obviously doesn't comply with anything defined as a hazardous wast~·pit~today. I think PCA has an obligation to get this out of there or make a determination that part of it has no toxic value or chemical value that would permeate the groundwater. You're the people Special City Council Meeting . January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 that allowed this to happen. We can't go to Mr. Roth because he went to you and got the proper permits, and you allowed it to happen. I think you have a requirement now to get the thing solved. We can study this thing to death. But someone has to make a determination exactly what is there and what has to come out of that pit. I don't want to see this dragging on forever. Had you not given permission, Mr. Roth wouldn't have it out there. Mr. Clark: I don't think that PCA can necessarily take all the responsibility. It was done in conjunction with the County. There were a multiplicity of governmental units involved in the review of this thing. Secondly, you mentioned you are only concerned with the hazardous waste pit. You must be concerned with the landfill too because they affect one geologic system. You're not going to do a hydrogeologic study of this site and isolate solely the hazardous waste pit. There is no way that you can separate from that the affects of the un1imed landfill. The two have to be looked at together. Mayor Wi ndschit 1: Don't mi sunderstand me. I di dn' t mean to imp 1y that. What I am trY1ng to do is address the item on the agenda, which is the hazardous waste pit. You're right; there is an item on the agenda relative to the test wells results. Mr. Clark: What developed was when we got into the ground water data we were looking specifically for the effect on the hazardous waste pits. At that time we found that the two were linked together. Mayor Windschit1: There are two sets of monitoring wells, and it is my understanding that your agency does two different sets of tests on the different wells. Mr. Clark: That's true. The list of parameters that are kept from the wells around the hazardous waste pit is a more extensive list. Councilman Orttel: It's my understanding that none of the chemicals that are stored 1n the pit have gotten in any of the wells yet or none that you can determine. Mr. Clark: Right. Councilman Ortte1: There's where there is a problem in communications. We fee 1 that 1f there were any, that's the problem. Right now we have a chance to stop it so there is nO chance of it ever getting in there. We feel that once it is in the water, it's too late. And we would like to get it cleared up and remove the possibility of that ever happening before it sinks into the groundwater area. There's a difference in our thinking. What you're saying is when you determine that there is a danger in the ground, we've got a problem. We do too, but we think that's much too late. It could be removed now and it would be a lot less expensive and a lot less headaches for us if it would be removed now as opposed to when its in the water table. Mr. Clark: Are you equally concerned about the landfill? Councilman Ortte1: Yes we are. It's my understanding that the chemicals in the hazardous waste pit are just that, that they are a lot more toxic and hazardous, other- wise they wouldn't be in the pit. Mr. Clark: I don't think that is necessarily true. If you look at an analysis of concentrated landfill leachate, you'll find that it is at least on a par with what you might get from some of these barrels. I think it's also a matter of record that back when this site was an open dump in the late '60's, there was all kinds of materials that went into it. I'll get back to my point that you are dealing with an entire system. And focusing on the hazardous waste pit and trying to excavate it for whatever reason is only a small part of a larger problem. Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 12 Mayor Windschit1: Councilman Ortte1 is saying if it isn't in the water yet, let's get r1d of 1t before it gets there. If the landfill is contaminating the water; that's another issue that has to be addressed. Let's not group the two together so that it gets carried on forever and nothing g~ts done on it. Mr. Clark: I'm saying if you're talking about excavation, you should be talking about excavation of the entire landfill. Councilman Lachinski: He's saying that the pit doesn't represent any bigger threat than the entire landfill does. Mayor Windschit1: That may be, but if I put the two together, I have a worse problem than I have today. If I take away the hazardous waste pit, at least I've eliminated that problem. Mr. Clark: I think it would be arguable the extent to which you would eliminate it. I can't talk percentages, and that is something that a hydrogeologic study would get at. Mayor Windschitl: Then you're either speculating on something, or you know more than the rest of us here. Councilman Lachinski: I think what we're being told is that the problem is much bigger than we ever thought it would be. Mayor Windschitl: Do you have some imperial data that tells us this or is it speculation? Mr. Clark: The imperial data that we have we've summarized in our report and it gets to the overall problem of migration of 1eachates from a landfill in a sandy environment. It's the same in Anoka County as it is in many other parts of Minnesota. It gets right to the basis of how you define a landfill. And this site was a dump conversion. It started as a dump and was converted to a landfill. As a result, you have no protective seal. Councilman Ortte1: Is there any information available on what happens on the growth of a slte anywhere in the United States? Has anyone documented what happens in the years to come? We're interested in knowing because we are the ones that will have to address it. Mr. Clark: There are a number of studies on what happens to the groundwater around a d1sposal facility -- research-type studies where they look at different chemical parameters and how they peak and falloff with time. Eventually the site will wash out, given no other outside influences, they will attenuate themselves. And the leachate will be attenuated in the subsurface. The attenuation occurs at different rates for different chemical parameters. That's one thing we try to look at in our monitoring programs. Re~resentative John Weaver: I thought I might bring you up to date on my awareness in th1S matter and get 1t on the record at this point. Councilman Orttel, you've indicated surprises the nature of this area has posed to you. I just call to your attention, because I have lived in this area all my life, that this area was, as you are well aware, the dumping ground for all of Minneapolis for many, many years. And there may very well be such creatures of those dumps that we know nothing about that will appear, as there is an overall analysis by a proper consultant made of the problems that exist to the environment in Andover and the other communities in this area. I ta 1 ked with three of the officials in the EPA today in Chicago. I think you should be aware that the EPA has identified this area as one of four R~~gr!ððr~~~~~ in the State of Minnesota. They have a rather limited amount of money; they full financial resources for the current fiscal year to the site in Duluth. I have been assured that this is next on the list and that there will be forthcoming some financial attention to this site. Apparently the funds available from present sources do not permit them to do what needs to be done in order to accelerate attention to this site. I talked to Mary Helen · Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 13 Lynch, who is a Congressional Affairs Director; and she indicated that there is discussion going on in Congress now on several bills. One, HR 5790, which is a bill in House Congress, which covers dump sites such as you're talking about here. That will deal with abandoned hazardous waste sites. She indicated that if there is an immediate emergency, that there are funds available to take care of such things as temporary water supply in case of contaminated wells which cannot be used. She also indicated that if needed, attention to this general consultant's analysis of the area could be accelerated. That would come from pressure that could be originated by you through me or through a local congressional delegation. And that's her job. So I am prepared to contact her tomorrow by phone or whatever means necessary to focus attention on this to the ~tOPle who can bring the financial resources to the problem, which is obviously what! going to take to make the corrective masures. I'd like to call attention to where we are in Minnesota. There is nO hazardous waste collector site in the State of Minnesota. Senator Merriam, who is here, and I were spectators in a legislative seminar On the laws that are being proposed that must be enacted in this Session of the Legislature relating to solid and hazardous waste disposal. Bear in mind that just 10 years ago in 1970, the laws were passed that prohibited open landfills, open dumps, from being used. We have landfills which for the most part have operated quite satisfactorily. But in many cases they are not. If you think you are the only council in the metropolitan or the State that has problems like these, I want to call your attention to the fact that this is a common occurence that's becomming much more common. And there are sites in the metropolitan area, St. Louis Park to be specific, that has specific dangers that in fact have caused health problems that are severe and getting more severe. So this is a very important focus of our attention, but it is not unlike many others in the State of Minnesota. We do not have a law on the books, and that is the focus of our attention in this Session to have a law drawn that would do several things. The first would establish sites where industry and other sources of waste that are categorized as hazardous can be safely dumped. (Representative Weaver then read two clauses from a summary of the law and left a copy with the Council that show the potential problems the City is going to be faced with as they enact this) Nobody wants a hazardous waste site. You've got problems here because nobody wanted those problems and at that time there was no regulation to stop them from coming. This area was undeveloped, uninhabitied; and it seemed to be at that time a place where nobody would ever find them nor attention would ever be focused on them. Now we're saying that there are going to be hazardous waste sites developed properly engineered so they will be safe for X number of years. But they will be located and probably contrary to the ordinances that you have that would restrict the location of those in your's or any other municipality in any community in the State of Minnesota. It seems to me that we have to all put our shoulders together and do something about it as fast as we can in a way that doesn't permit what has happened here in years past where they were buried and thought they'd never reoccur. I mentioned these things because we're On top of these things, and I'm amazed as a newcomer to the Legislature to find that suddenly public attention probably has caused the focusing of attention that just now is causing a law to be written in the State of Minnesota. And it may be three years before those hazardous sites are located. But if I can be of assistance to put pressure on whomever should be pressured to get immediate attention to this, I'd be glad to do it. Ronald Roth: I'm from Waste Disposal Engineer, operators of the landfill. I believe the slte operated as an open dump -- the exact starting date is a little unknown, some time during the 1950s extended into the late 1960s, approximately 1969 when my company became involved. At that time there were no regulations as far as material that could be dumped in landfill sites. And there was a simple agreement in most company agreements throughout the State and the County with local governments to allow a dump to exist. An open dump is a place where there is no effective plan in operation and many times there was open burning. At the time of Waste Disposal Engineer's involvement up until early 1970, at that time the Pollution Control Agency was established; and it was mandated Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 14 that all landfills become involved with operating with a plan and have a certified engineer's study report, and have that study sent to the Pollution Control Agency, which will then be analyzed for adoption of a Pollution Control Agency permit. Waste Disposal Engineering landfill was the second landfill in the metro area to be certified. At that time of certification, it was mandatory that all landfill sites have in operation, or at least included in their plan of development, a toxic and hazardous waste pit. There was essentially one to be on every landfill site as the ultimate disposal, as Mr. Clark stated. The landfill did call for a waste pit to be developed there. The pit was installed and operated for a relatively short period of time. During the period it operated it was quite difficult because of the tremendous costs involved of developing the pit, so it was difficult to pass those costs on to industrial and other users of that service because there was a tremendous amount of continued open dumping going on throughout the metropolitan area. So it wasn"t feasible. If you look at the generation of toxic and hazardous waste coming out of the metropolitan area, si~gly you have o~~ commercial producer in the metropolitan area that produces 7,500 barrels per month, but/ e tremendous number of barrels that were produced at that time, the amount that we have stored in the pit is only a small amount. It was not economically feasible. At the time of closure, there was a certain type of closure and method of closure and the pit was closed far beyond the capacity of the pit. It was closed because of regulation changes in the Pollution Control Agency's specific outline. The safeguards that were put in to determine the monitoring of the facility and throughout the landfill site in the stipulation agreement involved the establishment of additional wells to be placed in the landfill and specifically around the toxic pit. Some of those wells are directly in the waste and are expected to show high levels of leachate. But without the wells in that position, you cannot get the necessary specific measures needed. There are other deep wells to show the migration of the underlying water table. There are quarterly water monitoring done by a registered laboratory and there are additional tests being conducted On the specific wells regarding the toxic hazardous waste pit. The pit was sealed; a layer of soil put over it to assure that the water migrates off the site. The biggest threat to the site right now would be water migrating through the pit. That has been taken care of by vegetation and by the sloping of the top soil over the pit. We feel that the pit right now is in an inert state, built and constructed as designed. And to my knowledge there has not been any indication that there has been any leakage or any threat to the water table. Mayor Windschit1: As long as we have you up there, can we find out what position you are in w1th the addendum? Mr. Roth: The addendum which we discussed some time ago, we have had discussions on and off with the County regarding it. The addendum in concept was accepted by me as a representative of my company, and I feel that we have lived up to that addendum as far as not proceeding into any of the sensitive areas that were discussed at the time. However, the landfill operation since the time of the adoption of that agreement has proceeded in areas that had been permitted to bring the site up to certain levels because of the progression of the landfill areas. We have not proceeded in those areas that are sensitive. As far as the elevation, we have tended to slope and develop our slope on the sides and topping to a level, and we will not progress into the sensitive areas as outlined in the addendum. Mayor Windschit1: We all had agreement of what the addendum was going to contain. We passed a mot1on. We don't have anything in writing which states you have agreed to it. My point is when will we get a resolution or letter? Mr. Roth: We've had discussions with the County at the time of the last licensing to develop plans to invoke this addendum into operation. We feel that we're entering a period as of June of 1980 where we would be needing the operation to go into the height limitations in the addendum. It is nOW progressing. As far as in writing, at the last Council meeting where it was passed, we agreed to do it in writing. There was some Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 15 discussion who would do it in writing. I suggested that your Attorney draw a simple agreement per the discussion; I'd be happy to sign it. You will see that the discussions with the County are basically taken care of through their check sheet. Mayor Windschit1: It's my understanding, from the City standpoint, we have no authority to agree to slgn or prepare anything. It's between yourselves and the County as far as the boundary. The County asked us for our consideration. They are aware that that was done in 1978. I think now it's between yourselves and the County to formally sign the addendum. Mr. Roth: For the record, if we outlined a simple letter of statement on it, I think it would be in order. The County is aware of your acceptance of the plan as developed. We have not gone to the County for formal application for the addendum. We thought we would be doing that at approximately this time, and we would not be going into these areas until June, 1980; so these discussions will begin to take shape. We have not gone into those areas as we agreed upon and would expect to adhere to the agreements we had with the Council. Mayor Windschit1: For those of you in the audience, the addendum is an attempt to restrict the landfill from progressing toward Crosstown Boulevard. The boundary is the tree line to be used for screening so it doesn't come toward Crosstown. Jerry Sunde, landfill engineering consultant: I didn't work for Mr. Roth at the time the pit, was permitted. Mr. McKee designed the hazardous waste pit and got the original permit for him as his engineer. But I worked on several other sites at that time and it was a requirement of the Agency that every site have a hazardous waste pit. Now some of the sites got around it by putting in portable trailers that they loaded drums in and hauled down to pollution control in Savage. I think that's one of the four sites on the EPA's list of sites. There may be 100,000 barrels stacked down there. There was supposedly an incinerator at that time. Every site was mandated to have facilities for handling hazardous wastes. And it was very hard at that time not to put in a pit. Councilman Lachinski: Do you know when that requirement was no longer required? Mr. Sunde: Most of them did almost anything they could to get out of putting one in and went to this trailer-type system. And the waste wasn't showing up anywhere. I think it was 1973 when they said no more hazardous waste pits. I think they are the only ones that put one in. It's obvious that their number, SW28, is a very early number on the list. Recess at 9:22; reconvene at 9:38 p.m. ANOKA COUNTY RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS (Ralph McGinley, County Administrator. Also present was Commissioner Ed Fields, Vice Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners, and Mr. Bob Hutchinson, Director of the Environmental Services Department in the County Comprehensive Health and Social Services Department.) Mr. McGinley: The best way the County can be of help to you would be to respond to spec1fic questions; making a couple of general comments relating to the Musket Ranch, the landfill, and the addendum, and then perhaps respond to any general questions from the Councilor audience. As it relates to the Musket Ranch, Anoka County is absolutely concerned about the problems that have been identified. We are working very closely with the Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. And as Mr. Kanner indicated, the principal concern for Anoka County on this particular issue, while we are concerned about the chemical wastes that have been identified as stored on the property, the principal concern is for the possibility of any groundwater contamination that may exist as a result of dumping in the particular Special City Council Meeting , January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 16 site identified or other sites around that have been identified this evening. We'll be working very closely with the Environmental Protection Agency as they begin their groundwater monitoring program, providing them any data that we currently have had and any resources that we have at the County to assist them. The County Board of Commissioners went on record at the most recent meeting to solicit an independent engineering study of all of the hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities in Anoka County to determine two things: 1) Are the testing procedures that are currently being used by the Environmental Services section adequate in that those specific procedures have come under public criticism plus criticism by various city councils over the past years. Are they adequate to determine an on-going immediate basis, talking in terms of monthly or quarterly, that there is a health hazard as a result of the disposal facilities in Anoka County, and 2) is to determine more specifically if there is a specific health hazard or immediate health hazard at any of the landfills in Anoka County. We agree with the Pollution Control Agency and various positions represented by the Council this evening that the real problem at the Musket Ranch right now is the possibility of groundwater contamination as a result of non-conforming disposal of chemical wastes over the past few years. Regarding the addendum itself, we have advised Mr. Roth that the extension of six-months which we granted him as a condition of his license last summer has expired as of January 1, 1980. He has been advised by the Environmental Services section of the Health Department that that time period has expired. The matter will be going to the Environmental Services Committee as a matter of procedure on the 15th of February, 1980; and then ultimately to the Comprehensive Health Board, I believe on the 21st of February, 1980. If prior to that time the addendum requirements have not been satisfied to the County's satisfaction, then the County will move through the County Attorney's office to revoke the license for Mr. Roth. We hope it doesn't come to that, but that is the course of action the County takes in situations like this. We are moving ahead with our requirements for having that addendum satisfied. Regarding the landfill itself, more specifically the hazardous waste disposal pit, as has been pointed out by a number of people testifying, the landfill was receiving waste as a dump as early as the early 1950s. Our records go back in Anoka County to 1966, at which time a Special Use Permit was granted for the disposal of waste in that particular site by the Township of Grow. In 1970 the County gained jurisdiction over solid wastes as a result of legislative action, at which time the County assumed the responsibility for the regulation of all solid waste disposal sites in Anoka as did all other counties in Minnesota. In 1971 the County was in receipt of plans for the hazardous waste pit. As has been pointed out, the Pollution Control Agency at that point in time in accord~ce with State Law did require the plans of each solid waste disposal facility /~o~ ~~dous waste disposal site. The plans that we received in 1971 for the landfill did include the hazardous waste pit, and the Township of Grow was notified of those plans at that point in time. In 1973 the County was put in the position of prosecuting the operator of the landfill on two separate accounts for failure to cover and failure to seal the hazardous waste pit. Both of those were satisfied through the courts process. In late 1973, early 1974, the pit no longer received hazardous wastes. In 1977 the County was again put in the position to prosecute On eight separate counts of daily cover at the landfill. A 11 of those counts were satisfied again through the courts process. Again, in 1977, the City of Andover granted a minimg permit to the operator which effective1~ served to extend the life of the landfill to its planned life as originally p1anned/] 71 in order to provide daily cover for the landfill. As of the summer of 1977, our records indicate that there was a substantial change in the manner of operation of the landfill. As a regulator of some four landfills in the County, today from a County perspective the operation of the landfill is as good as anyone can find in the State of Minnesota. We view it as an excellently operated landfill, given the type of situation that the landfill operator is dealing with and the limitations and regulations both from the Pollution Control Agency and Anoka County. Again, it's the County's principal concern at this point in I Special City Council Meeting . January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 17 time, not of the condition of the landfill, the operation of the landfill, the addendum or for that matter the plan of the operator of the landfill, but rather the non- conforming use that took place at that site prior to 1970. We have 'no way of knowing what went into the landfill, what was disposed there, in what quantities, in what form, and over what length of time prior to the County taking over jurisdiction. One of the last things I want to do is attempt to pass the buck or point a finger. That's not going to give you any satisfaction nor live up to the responsibilities Anoka County has in that particular area. But I think it's important to note, as Pollution Control Agency pointed out, the problems, the eminent health hazards that may stem from a landfill like the one located in the City of Andover principally comes from non- conforming use prior to regulation. I think this can be proven over and over and over again from studies of the Environmental Protection Agency across the country in simi1iar kinds of situations as it relates specifically to the hazardous waste pit. I'm assuming the Council is familiar with what the pit looks like and how it is constructed. Mayor Windschitl: We've had some speculation as to how it was constructed, and Representat1ve Weaver gave us an outline as to how construction of the pit was made. The thing we dOn't know is what is in there. Mr. McGinley: When the pit was constructed, it was constructed in accordance with State Law. It could be construed that it was constructed at the mandate of State regulations. PCA did require hazardous waste disposal sites at all solid waste sites at that point in time. The engineering plans for the pit were received and approved by the County in accordance with the regulations and state of the art at that pOint in time. It was the best possible design for the ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes. Given the state of the art and technology of disposal today, I'm advised that at best we would consider it a long-term solution. That is not to mean that the waste can stay there forever. We don't know that. We do know that the state of the art in disposal has changed radically since 1971-72. Specifically on the pit, we have an inventory from the operator we can make available to you this evening for your records, which indicates the quantities and the source and in most cases the type of chemical waste that is disposed of in that pit. A physical inspection of the pit is impossible without an excavation. The barrels were placed into the pit itself, sand was put On top of the barrels. It's a very tight fit. There is an inspection column that runs through the center of the pit. It's essentially a manhole that runs from the top of the pit and we can from that column get within a foot of the actual floor of the pit. Mr. Hutchinson and his staff did that as recently as Thursday of last week. They found the bottom of the pit to be dry. They were able to take a small amount of loose asphalt off the bottom of the pit by numerous scrapings of the device they had with them. They have those samples into our laboratory for examination at this point in time. But they were very pleased to find out that the bottom of the pit was dry. It does not appear from that examination to be any major problem of leakage of chemical waste covering up the entire bottom of the pit. Furthermore, the pit is bordered On all four corners by test wells. Some of those wells are actually located in the landfill. So interpretation of those samples is a job of ferreting out what of the samples is leachate and is there then a direct seepage from the chemical waste pit itself that's getting into the wells. Those wells are monitored quarterly as the condition of our license with the operator. They are analyzed by our private laboratory that we utilize in the Comprehensive Health Department, an to date they have revealed absolutely no eminent health hazard to the water table. No one knows the long-term future. No one has ever done this before. No one can guarantee you that there will not be a problem as a result of the pit. We can guarantee you, and what Anoka County is guaranteeing you on a regular basis, is that we are monitoring those wells and are staying on top of the monitoring, analyzing that data, and to date have found nó health hazard. I Sp~cia1 City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 18 Mayor Windschit1: Assuming that there hasn't been any leakage from the hazardous waste pit, it would seem to me now is the time to get rid of them and not leave it there until the wells get contaminated. Does this report show what chemicals we have and how many barrels are out there? Mr. ~utchinson: The pit includes the equivalent of 6556 55-gallon barrels, which is a composit f1gure of reports from the operator and our survey of industries that were surved by it. It represents approximately 361,000 gallons in the pit, which is estimated to be the total. The next page of the report lists several generators that we obtained information from. They gave us some idea of the types of materials. The bulk of the material is probably solvents, degreaser-type of material. The second largest probably is oils and greases. There are some paint sludges in there, and there may be some plating sludges. The material from Econ Labs may not have been hazardous wastes, as they have a lot of cleaning compounds they use in product deve 10pment. Mayor Windschit1: In your professional opinion, how toxic are some of these wastes? Mr. Hutchinson: I don't feel confident in making that analysis. Councilman Jacobson: After the landfill is closed, what is the bond good for? Mr. Hutchinson: The current bond is an annual bond tied to the term of the license. I would anticipate at the time of closure we would be looking at a site termination bond which would cover a specified period of time after termination. We've never done that yet and don't know how long a period that bond would cover. Councilman Jacobson: Assuming it is closed, and 10 years later, do you continue to monitor it every three months, for how long? Mr. Hutchinson: Currently it would be our suggestion that the wells be left On the slte and ava1lable for monitoring for any period of time you might find desirable. Mr. McGinley mentioned that there is not good data available as to the long-term affects. I would expect the period of time for monitoring to be five years minimum; ten would be more desirable. Councilman Jacobson: I have a concern that assuming in 10 years you continue to monitor the wells and something starts to show up which would require the installation of centralized water system to take care of the problem in the City. The City has basically no authority in the matter right now of telling people what to do. If we had to go to a central water system to solve the problem caused by a landfill, who is going to pay for that? The City and the residents. I would certainly like to see something in writing from the County that would at a minimum say if something like this happens and we can show that it is caused from the landfill operation, that the City is not saddled with that financial responsibility by itself. I think that would be a reasonable request from the City. Mr. MCGin1e{: I think your position would certainly be a popular position with every C1ty counci in the State of Minnesota that has a landfill. I think the concept of your position would be popular with the Anoka County Board of Commissioners were it brought in front of that policy body as a motion. I think you would find this County Board extremely receptive to that kind of responsibility and liability. The problem with this landfill, and I'm sure for others from a legal perspective, goes beyond the County and goes to the point of no responsible authority in pinpointing jurisdiction prior to 1970 in the State. I feel that the County should assist you in pursuing that concept. It seems that the responsible authorities should be the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. I know they do have a major water quality program and major funding in their budget years for improvement of water quality in situations very similiar to this. I Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 19 Councilman Jacobson: I hate to go too far with working with the Federal Government -- you never get anything done. If we start close to home -- you guys took some of the responsibility, if the State also could accept part of the responsibility -- that would go a long way to at least helping us. There's no way that this City can afford putting in central water systems in that large an area. Mr. McGinley: I want to make it clear that the County assessment of the groundwater qua11ty in the City of Andover at the current time based upon our monitoring of that landfill indicates that there is no problem. It's not to say that you won't have in the long-term future. We feel our system of testing is credible, and we will be testing that crecibi1ity soon with an independent engineering study. We do want to work with you, however, for a long-term solution. The problem is perhaps not the hazardous waste pit but the landfill itself as a result of the non-conforming use for some 20 years prior to regulation of what went into the landfill. Councilman Jacobson: It would seem to me more logical that while you have an active operation that you might consider making the removal of that material in some manner a condition of continuing the operation of the landfill. Because in a couple years it is going to be full and somebody is going to be saddled with removing that material sooner or later. Both you and the PCA have admitted that the hazardous waste pit is only temporary. Wouldn't it be better and even cheaper to begin doing that job earlier instead of later? Mr. McGinley: In 1971, 1972, when that pit was designed and placed in the landfill, it was 1n conformance with State law and was consider to be the cutting edge of the state of the art for technology for chemical waste disposal. I'm not in any position to advise Mr. Roth on how he might deal legally with an issue that comes before him to ask him to remove those barrels. When I said that it was considered at that point in time to be an ultimate disposal site and now would be considered an interim determent, long-term interment of chemical wastes, what I am referencing is the current state of the art. The law in 1973 was changed. That site which was approved by every responsible authority at that point in time would not be considered to be an ultimate disposal facil ity today. I'm not suggesting that that is a perfect way of disposing of chemical wastes. Commissioner Jacobson: Your own comments that that is not the way we would do it today is what I am saying. If we wouldn't allow it today, there must be something wrong with the way it was done before, even if it was done legally. And I understand that. If we realized that's not the way we should do it, shouldn't we take care of it before ten years when it gets to be a real problem? Commissioner Fields: The contents in the landfill and the hazardous waste pits, and 1f what Cec1l sa1d is true, I get surprises every time I come over here. I'm real shocked to hear what Cecil was saying. I can't help but make myself believe none of the chemicals were generated in Anoka County. It was all generated outside of Anoka County. Why should Anoka County bear the full responsibility and obligation to protect it. John (Weaver) and Gene (Merriam) and Pollution Control people, you have an obligation to these peole out here to help us out of the mess we're in. If the County's made mistakes, we'll bear our responsibility. But there's a problem here that is bigger than what we are right here. Councilman Lachinski: (addressing Mr. McGinley) Are you saying that it is not legally possible to 1ncrease the bond requirement on the operator to help with potential future problems? Is that what you are implying? Mr. McGinley: I did not mean to imply that at all. No. Councilman Lachinski: If that is possible, why wouldn't we pursue that? Why wait until closure? It seems to me if you wait that long, you're not going to get it. I Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 20 Mr. McGinley: I understand that we're four years away from the closing plan. Mr. Roth: For the record, we have an agreement to close that in 1984. We feel that closure date could come as early as two years and as late as four years depending on the amount coming in. Mr. McGinley: We have never closed a landfill in Anoka County. We have never gone through that experience; so, yes, I think the County would be more than receptive to sitting with the City Council of the City of Andover or the staff in talking about what we are going to do when that landfill closes in the anticipation of it happening. Councilman Lachinski: It would be my opinion as a Counci 1 to try to convince the County that that be done immediately. I don't see what impetus would be for the operator to provide a larger bond at the time of termination. Councilman Peach: Most of the complaints from our residents are things that are happening today. There was an agreement to bring lime sludge onto the Ron Roth property previous to this going up Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Roth: I'm an officer of the corporation. Waste Disposal Engineering is the operator. Concerning the lime sludge, there has been several movements. It is a desirable product to put on the landfill because it comes in a wet form. You have to apply that; and by drying, it forms a hard impermeable cust that keeps the moisture from going through the landfill site and restricts the movement of leachate through the fi 11 . The lime is the same as agricultural lime thatafarmerwould put on his property. When it has been moved, it was moved in the winter and the movement was through the deadend of Hanson Boulevard, progressed up the power1ines and into the 1 andfi 11 area. The Mi nneapo 1 is Water Department re leases materi a 1 duri ng the summer and because of the type of truck they used, they used Anoka County 18 coming in that side of the landfill; and truck traffic developed to the point that because of complaints, the contractor, Park Construction, an independent contractor, that entrance has been discontinued and they are going up Hanson Boulevard where it deadends along the power1ine to the back of the site. I have had the engineer draw up a proposal to accept lime sludge material on additional property outside the landfill on a temporary basis for drying and moved onto the landfill site within a 9-month period of time. The problem with using the back route is that they have already had people coming in the back way and dumping, so they are in the process of putting some barricades there. There will be no more sludge coming into the landfill from the front. Councilman Peach: You agreed to that awhile back, isn't that true? Mr. Roth: The amount coming in developed, they weren't hauling that much; and then they started coming in and there was a problem, so they swung it around the back. They are trying to work out an overall plan to keep it off County Road 18 going north through the City. Mayor Windschit1: There has been some issues raised about the sludge itself. Is there a real h1gh mineral content in the sludge such that it could be harmful on a run-off basis of various asundery minerals that could accumulate in the sludge? Mr. Hutchinson: The material is the result of the (?) treatment of the Minneapolis Waterworks. It's almost entirely calcium carbonate, limestone in a semi-solid form. In terms of being harmful, our experience in its application at landfills have not shown that it is moving off the site. We put it on the landfill slope, you will find some outwash at the base of the hill, but its usually only a matter of a few feet. It doesn't get carried very far. The natural vegetation on the slopes seems to be sufficient to stop the movement of it. Ma~or Windschit1: The question here is the Coon Creek flowing through the rest of An over and into Coon Rapids; if there is any potential for pollution control permit. The other question is the question of any PCBs or any of these types of family of elements that could exist in the sludge that go through the treatment site. I Special City Council Meeting .January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 21 Mr. Hutchinson: The worst thing we would expect to happen if it would enter the water directly would be to raise the hardness of the water. All Minneapolis does is take the calcium carbonate, the hardness in the water, takes it out and consolidates it into sludge. They also take out any silt, suspended soil particles, in the water. It would be tough to get it to the creek. It's a pretty good setback and natural vegetation would stop the movement. Mayor Windschit1: They take.itout of the Mississippi in a contaminated form, go through a process that removes the contamination, whatever is removed is brought to Andover and put on our landfill, which has the potential of being brought back into the creek. Mr. Hutchinson: It is essentially the same material that you would agriculturally apply. In fact, it has been agriculturally applied in the County. Mayor Windschit1: Not in the quantities that is going on the landfill. This whole issue needs someone's professional evaluation. Mr. Hutchinson: We've observed the applications on landfills. The first application was done in '75. We have not seen it carried very far from the base of a slope, only a matter of a few feet. The furthest we have seen it move was less than 25 feet, and it was easily cleaned up and brought back to the site. It comes from the Minneapolis Water Treatment plant where they remove the hardness and silt from the water. Mr. Roth: Would you feel more comfortable with further chemical analysis of that sludge? Mayor Windschit1: Yes. Mr. Hutchinson: We have already done that and found that they do not have any of the heavy mi nera 1 s that are cons i dered hazardous. I would be happy to give you a copy of that lab report. Mayor Windschitl: On the test well results, there's apparently any amount of inter- pretation that you can place on those results. As I understand it, there are any number of different ways that wells can be tested. From either PCA or Anoka County, is there anything that you're aware of in these test well reports that are a problem. Mr. Clark; you alluded to the fact that you appeared to want to put more pollution into the landfill than the rest of us here are aware of. Are you starting to find something in your tests that are showing up a major problem? Mr. Clark: To re-emphasize what I said before, nothing that you would not expect from a landfill in this kind of geologic situation. The question of whether its a problem or not is really a relative one. You have to look at the upgradient ground water quality versus downgradient. It appears that increases over background levels are occuring at very shallow monitoring wells of 200-300 feet from the fill. That's no indication that the aquafer that the residents are drawing from are being contaminated. It's merely an indication that the groundwater in the order of five to 10 feet deep 300 feet from the fill has some increased levels of constituents on it. Mayor Windschit1: Is there something that anyone knows of that is a problem that exists now of any significant proportions? Mr. Clark: Not of significant proportions. Mayor Windschjt1: Because along Andover Boulevard I would venture to guess that a good portion of the houses have shallow wells right above the landfill. If we have a problem, we want to know about it. I'm trying to pin down what we have for a problem. Mr. Clark: I don't think in any way we're implying that there's a major problem. . - I , Special City Council Meeting ~anuary 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 22 Councilman Lachinski: Your earlier statements tend to indicate there would be no problem w1th deep wells. There are a lot of shallow wells in the area being used by residents. Is there a potential hazard to the shallow wells within 1/4 to 1/3 mile radius; because if there is, I think we should be asking the Health Department to start finding these wells and doing some testing. Mr. Clark: That would probably be desirable regardless. Shallow wells can be affected from septic tans, chlorides applied to Crosstown Boulevard during the winter, a multiplicity of sources that could be involved. From our point of view, I think any and all shallow wells should be looked at periodically. Mayor Windschitl: This problem gets to be quite large. As I understand it, you have a potential contamination area of four mile radius. We're trying to find out if we have a problem; and if we do, then we can address how to correct it. Mr. Hutchinson: The same data that Tom (Clark) is referencing is the same data that we have. Mr. Roth has arrangements with Serco Labs, which is, in my opinion, one of the best labs around. Serco collects the samples; they have the total responsibility for the collection, transporting, and anaJysis. When the analysis is completed, a copy of the report is mailed to us and a copy is mailed to PCA and, I assume, Mr. Roth receives one as well. They get the same data we do. Mayor Windschit1: In your professional judgment, have you seen anything that you feel 1S a problem with the well data you have seen so far? Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. McGinley summed it up. The wells show some change in the down- grad1ent wells but certainly not a health hazard. Representative Gene Merriam: Both specific situations being addressed this evening are both new to me. I'm interested in working with you and helping to see solutions. In general, the subject of solid and hazardous wastes, it's a topic I've become involved in extensively the last couple years in the legislature. I serve on the Joint Committee on Solid and Hazardous Waste and have been working on the legislation John (Weaver) made reference to earlier. Many many complex issues facing the State were behind in addressing the problem. None of the solutions are going to corne over night, so we are hopeful in making some major strides forward in this legislative session. Not much for your immediate problems, but hopefully for those problems in the future; and I would be interested in working On your specific problems addressed this evening. GENERAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Terry Reuther (Andover resident): Was down at the PCA today. I am entering copies of the chronology of events leading to, in order to show cause for Waste Disposal Engineering. I find that the document handed out tonight dated 1/25/80 has significant differences in it. PCA says November 24, 1972, letter from permitee regardi ng spi 11 age of materi a 1 on floor of pit, cracks in asphalt. Notice that cracks were due to trucks being driven through there. I think that's a significant omission. The pit was not cracking, it was being driven over. This is a PCA document. As to the question of what is in the pit, I think it's also important to notice the PCA was concerned that the amounts going in were not the same as the reports from the generators. I would also like to hand you this copy of a letter which deals with the thing that should be looked at in the test we 11 s. This is as close as what you'll get as to what's in there. There are also certain tests that are suggested to be done there. I'd also like to point out that it wasn't until 1976 that those wells were put in around the waste pit and that was done at the specific request of the PCA. And, therefore, there is no back- ground data upon which to judge changes. You'll also note that within 18 months after the pit opened, it was in trouble, according to the chronology that is in the PCA, which was not fully reported to you. Mr. Kanner: There are two chronologies. One was put together a number of years ago as a background for a Stipulation Agreement that we eventually entered into with Mr. I _ Special City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 23 Roth. The second one was requested by Representative Weaver of Terry Hoffman of our Agency who wanted to have some kind of background of generally what was going on at the site. Instead of giving a list of correspondence two miles long, we excerpted a few parts of our correspondence, and it states that very clearly in the first paragraph. The most recent chronology wasn't meant to be complete; it wasn't meant to be exactly what you saw in the first correspondence. Mayor Windschitl: If somebody has a document and neglects to put in this document that tells me that the floor of the pit has cracks in it, it doesn't give me much comfort with it. Mr. Kanner: Both documents say there are cracks in the pit. It may not say exactly how 1t got there, but they both do mention cracks. Mr. McGinley: I did not go into detail when I spoke to you about the '72 prosecution that Anoka County effectively identified the cracks and the tire marks in the bottom of the pit and brought it to Mr. Roth's attention. And through the court's process were able to totally satisfy, in our judgement, that those tire tracks in the bottom of the pit have been repaired up to original design specification and standards. Mr. Reuther: I'm doing this to get both dates into the record. I'm not making indictments. I'd like to know what the County is going to do to protect me from excessive noise pollution on a routine basis. Secondly, according to the letters I saw at PCA, Mr. Roth's well tèsts have not come in for the last quarter; the October tests are not in. I should think that Mr. Roth consider hiring another firm to do this, because this is not the first time this has happened. Mr. Hutchinson: They have been taken and I think I even have the January's results already. Mr. Roth: Let me explain how it was built. The pit was built by hauling in clay trucked in for about 15 miles by contractor and laid down. Asphalt was laid down. It was open-end~type bunker because there was no other way to load the barrels in. So the barrels were taken in and loaded very carefully in the beginning end of the pit two layers high. During the summer, the asphalt softened. At some time during the loading procedure some of the trucks coming in the base were traveling partly over the asphalt and part over the limestone. On ,the far end of the pit there were some depressions made by tires. At no time were the barrels unloaded and put over areas of asphalt that were cracked or exposed. The concern of the County at the time was that as the filling progressed that those cracks would become a problem. As it turned out, the pit was probably less than half way filled before it was terminated. Those areas that were cracked and sealed were not a factor because they were further out than the sealing process ended up. The only thing we had in there at the ttme of the sealing was a small amount of standing water which wassftp5~åt98ge. Otherwise, clean sand was placed over the barrels as they came. In the ou'll notice some reference to closing procedure. At the time that the specifications were changed to prohibit the barrels from being dumped, it was covered with clean sand; however, the end was not terminated until a later date when a Stipulation Agreement was signed and the asphalt was applied. There was no dumping after the changes in the State Stipulations. The water was pumped off before the thing was sealed; clean sand hauled in and dumped; the inspection pipe was placed; and it was covered over with clean material. Then there had to be vegetation on top, at least two feet of black dirt graded so that any water would run off the site. At the end of the time there was negotiation as far as the well, the depth they should be, and they were placed in. The wells were put in 1~ years or so after it was completed. The starting date of the wells produced no problems as far as the water is cOncerned. One of the wells placed in the south end of the pit was placed right in the landfill, so we expected leachate there; but we wanted analysis of that leachate to determine if there was anything going to the south. Jerry Sunde, I Spe=ia1 City Council Meeting january 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 24 in his water hydrologic sð~g~n~~at was performed at the time the Stipulation was put in, showed how the water rom the south to the north to the creek away from the homes. There is no well within the pit itself. (Mr. Roth located the wells on the a map for the Council) Councilman Jacobson: Is all the material in the hazardous pit in sealed containers? The letter from PCA, August 3, 1973, letter from Ford Motor Company, Solid Waste Division, indicating that Waste Control is hauling 58,000 gallons per year of paint sludge in 500-gal10n tankers. Councilman Lachinski: Other records show you have approximately 1/4 of the waste in the pit com1ng from the Ford Motor Company in 500-gal10n tankers. Councilman Jacobson: This says you're getting it in tanker trucks. Mr. Roth: Not true in this landfill, no. Mr. Cl ark: Ford Motor Company may have sent a letter to PCA, but it doesn't necessarily mean it came to Waste Disposal Engineering located in Andover. Mayor Windschitl: Can we get PCA to clarify that. They must have the letter on file as to what Ford Motor was addressing. Councilman Lachinski: There's Attachment B which states 1973 containerized, which is survey. At the bottom says container total, 360,000 gallons. Below that it says survey bulk, some 92,000 gallons. Mr. Hutchinson: In 1972 the pit was placed into construction. Our observations, made by myself and people in my office, felt there was some discrepancies of what we were seeing and what we were being told was not the case. In looking at it and evaluating it, we felt that not everything being hauled was going in there -- that was an assumption we made. We knew some companies that were being serviced by Waste COntrol; we interviewed those companies. Ford Motor Company was one of them, Onan, Univac. We asked some questions -- who was hauling their chemical wastes, the quantity, and the type. We came up with quantities that were different that what were being reported. This is one of the issues between our office and PCA with the landfill operation at the time. That item, plus the change in the regulations, basically was what was behind the termination of its use in early 1974. '73 was selected as a survey year because it was a full year of operation in terms of reports they had received and we could relate it to data from generators. All I can say is the containerized stuff, we think that is about the quantity that went into it. We did make an estimation, counted the barrels, and estimated how many barrels could go into a lineal foot of that trench and there is some difference between the quantity of barrels indicated in the summary, 6,500 or so barrels, and what you could have gotten into that length of the trench that had been used. Whether that is all the waste that was dumped, I don't know. Those were the ones we were able to identify. I have no idea where the bulk wastes are or where they went. We looked at the pit every time we looked at the landfill. We stopped at the landfill specifically to look at the pit during the '72-'73 period. We never at any time identified or seen any evidence of bulk wastes being placed in the pit. The quantities that were mentioned, it is a popper-type thing with 500-ga110n capacity with lids on it. If somebody was dumping that quantity in one load into the pit, they'd be hard-pressed to hide it. As far as I'm concerned, I don't feel that that went into the pit. Mayor Windschit1: Where did it go? Mr. Roth: The quantities reported are accurate. The fact that there is a hauling company servicing a particular industry is significant only in the fact that they received the material and hauled it. Not necessarily all the hauling material that the hauling company received goes to the landfill in Andover. As a matter of fact, as I S~eçial City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 25 far as percentages, because there is another sister company as far as hauling, approximately 1/2 of the total generation or total amount picked up actually went into Andover. Specifically, material referred to are not in the landfill in Andover. The type of description of the truck does not necessarily mean it correctly describes the material because many times they'll take containers that were set up for one type of commodity and intermix them with many types of solid wastes also. Lyle Bradley (Andover resident): It has been a very informative evening, and I thank the Counc1l for getting this going, along with John Weaver and Terry Reuther. One thought I have on this is before we start pointing figures of guilt, I think we're all a little guilty. When I first came to this area, I couldn't believe what I saw in Bunker Prairie Park where people had dumped for years and years. Some of us from Anoka Senior High took students out there for four successive years and cleaned it up. But the philosophy of dumping wherever you want to whenever you want to is deeply involved in all of us. I think individuals in this room and community, Anoka County, the State, all should share a little guilt in the whole operation. I felt a little empathy for Cecil Heidelberger here tonight because I think, I really feel, we have a problem on our hands. We don't know the seriousness of this problem until we really come to grips on it. I have been very disappointed from what I heard from PCA tonight as far as coming to grips with this. We're really not tearing into this. I heard one group say there's nothing there that we wouldn't expect. I wonder if we've really done some good testing for phenols, PCBs, benzene, tou1enes, that really are part of landfills. I talked with some members of PCA, the Minnesota Biological Institute, and with Minnesota Health Department; and they say that these things are part of many landfills. I wonder just how far we have gone with this testing program. It's very easy to glance over some of these things, and then we start reaping the benefits 5-10-15-20 years down the road. Look at the history. Look at St. Louis Park with their creosote plant. Many years it took to have this come out in the open. Lake Superior with the asbestos program is another example. We don't think in very long terms. I think the elected, official, the primary criteria is how far down the road they think. If they think in only one-year terms, then I don't think that's good. It has to be 20-30-40-50-year terms. I went to this landfill several years ago, and I wanted to take a picture of the pit being constructed. I.got my camer out and a guy stopped me saying "Hey, you can't take a picture of thaL" I was curious what it was. I took a couple pictures any way. This aroused my suspicion. We've been hit between the eyes repeatedly in this country; let's not let it happen right here in our midst. The long-range bond, the County says can we pick up this responsibility. On one hand I hear yes, we're ready to move on it, but really we can't take that responsibility. Somebody has to take the responsibility of this thing, and I would like to propose that somebody come to grips with that now so that Andover does not get tabbed with this a few years down the road. Carol Bradley (Andover resident): Has any testing been done on a regular basis of Coon Creek downstream from the Musket Ranch and the landfill, probably in the vacinity of Coon Rapids? Mayor Windschit1: I believe there was some done in 1964-66 when they were pumping in from Crooked Lake; and at that point in time there was contamination on the creek. Mr. Hutchinson: The quality of Coon Creek was not as good as the quality of Crooked Lake was the 1ssue at the time. But it wasn't related to the landfill. We have, over the years back as far as 1971, obtained samples on Coon Creek in a number of locations. One of the locations is where Crosstown crosses the creek. We sampled as recently as January of this year, where we made the same ana:lysis thaU:were done in the wells around the pit. In some respects, the quality of water downstream was better than the quality of water upstream from the landfill. As far as we could tell, there is nothing in the samples we collected as late as January of this year that indicates any impact on the creek by the landfill. We collected a sample east of the powerline just about straight north of the office, which is downstream from wells which have some changes in groundwater quality. I ,Special City Council Meeting J'anuary 29, 1980 - Mi nutes Page 26 Commissioner Fields: When the County was checking for cesspools and septic tanks in that area and got them corrected, that improved the water quality a lot. Mr. Hutchinson: A number of years ago the County Board had authorized us to provide sampl1ng serV1ce to residents in the County whereby the County will do a sanitary analysis, sample the water submitted by a resident of the County that is served by their own we 11. We are still doing it. We have offered this service to another community with some concerns of the effect of the landfill on individual wells, and we offer the same service now. We'd like to make the sanitary analysis kits available to your staff. All they have to do is collect the sample. We will do the sanitary analysis. If they would like some other determinations, they are available at cost of the laboratory charges. Ms. Bradley: Is it true that the people in the County are unable to test for all things? Aren't you limited in the type of water test you can do? Mr. Hutchinson: We don't have our own laboratory. The only thing we can do ourselves 1S test for bacteria. We use the services of a commercial laboratory. Other determinations are available, but at a cost. Ms. Bradley: So something that would show up from the leachate of a landfill, some of those things would not necessarily show up in your tests. r~r. Hutchinson: No. Mr. Bradley: How much money is allocated by the County specifically for monitoring the landfi 11. Does PCA have specific allocation for landfills? Mr. Clark: PCA has $5,000 a year for the entire State. r appreciate what you're saying with regard to analyzing some of the organic compounds. The latest price quote from the Health Department for one PCB analysis was $36.95. The monitoring program is a self-monitoring program. The operators collect the samples themselves. We do periodic check samples if there is a problem or we have some questions. But admittedly, $5,000 doesn't get you very far. Mr. Hutchinson: I don't know that the County has any specific amount. The budget for our D1V1S10n is $150-165 thousand. We do not do any of our laboratory work. We also use self-monitoring built in the costs of the operator. We have some say over who, how, when, and what; but he pays the cost On the mOnitoring. We require that the sampling be collected by the lab and require that the lab be approved by us. Mr. Reuther: I have been down to the PCA office quite a bit and reviewed their records. You can't do that without keeping one name in your mind, Mr. Hutchinson. He is doing a tremendously good job. He is a very persistent 1etterwriter and a very strong 1etterwriter. I have been told by the PCA that they have no money to clean anything up, and I think that is a significant issue. Councilman Peach: The garbage trucks coming up Crosstown -- there are apparently documented evidence that they are making too much noise. There has been some comment that they look like they are overweight. They definitely speed; I know people who have clocked them. We've asked the Sheriff to monitor, and I assume he has; but I've never heard anything back on what he has found. But whatever has been done, it's not stopping them from speeding. A lot of people have a different opinion on what the hours of the landfill are and what they see at various hours of the day and night. \'¡hat can \~e do about it to cOntrol some of these things? Mr. Reuther: The sludge trucks didn't start coming in heavily until after the survey I had done for noise pollution. The monitor PCA gave me simply records the number of second that the noise level exceeds the pre-set standard. It was not at all unusual for the Waste Disposal trucks to have seven seconds of pollution; whereas a private automobile would not even register. . - I Sþecia1 City Council Meeting January 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 27 Maror Windschitl: Can PCA do their own testing of it or does the County have the ab1l1ty to take care of this? Mr. McGinley: Based upon what Mr. Reuther has brought to our attention from his 1nd1V1dual testing of the noise in that particular area, we have made a request of the Pollution Control Agency to do their oWn specific testing of the decible levels. There are a number of solutions to the noise pollution, including the type of vehicle, the speed on the road. On the matter of speed, we have again brought this to the attention of the County Sheriff. Mr. Roth: There is a wide variety of trucks coming in there, and I know from our own records that the Sheriff has monitored speed. I can't speak for the noise because I don't know what specifics; and overweights also. Mr. Hutchinson: The Solid Waste Ordinance provides for hours of operation. No landfill can open for operation any earlier than 6 a.m., either opening for equipment operation or the receipt of solid waste. No landfill can receive solid waste after 8 p.m., and no landfill can operate equipment after 10 p.m. The ordinance also requires that the operator post on the sign at the entrance gate the hours of operation. Through our inspection procedures, it is essential that the hours he has posted are the hours he is in fact operating. Our inspections are pre-operational, which means we get there prior to the time it is posted for opening. There have been a number of occasions where there has been a difference of opinion as to the hours of operation between ourselves and Mr. Roth. Since last fall we have not found him in a pre-operational insepction. His quality of daily cover has been fine. They have not seen any uncovered waste from pre-operational inspections. If it is happening, we'd appreciate the help in finding out. Mr. Reuther: It seems strange that a person has to take it upon himself to try to find out how noisey it is on that road. I think it's also unfortunate in this instance because since the data has not been collected previous to this time and now that there are enforcements efforts apparently going on, it's quite likely that there is nO noise problem. The point is there are certain kinds of data that I would have routinely collected on approaches to any landfill. I would have had a monitor going regularly. And that was not done and apparently is not done. I would never have had to have some private citizen do it themselves. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION Mayor Windschit1: I have three proposals. The first¡ one dealing ~Iith the issue that Lecil (Heidelberger) raised, the Batson/Shernel1 property. I would propose that we do two or three on-site borings as soon as possib1 to make a determination of what we have there. Because apparently the PCA is si ply not going to give us any help at this time. We can get authority to go on the property if it is a health issue. And direct the Clerk to have a report back on Tuesday on a firm that has the capacity of doing it. Also, as the test boring is going down, take a water sample at that point to see what is in the groundwater there. The second roposa1 is that we undertake, in conjunction with the University of Minnesota or some ther lab, to take water samples on Andover Boulevard, on Bunker Lake out of the junky rd area, and that back section of Red Oaks where it abuts the landfill. The third roposa1 would be to take our own samples out of all of the wells in the landfill and h ve them analyzed for their toxic or hazardous content and have a report of the chemica s and its relative hazard to health. I am told you can analyze water any number o¡ ways. I believe Serco Labs does two different analyses On the landfill itself. Commissioner Fields: Why don't you wait with the 1as proposal until the County gets through w1th the1r private testing. We're about to embark On that very sOon on all the landfills in Anoka County. . - I , S~ecia1 City Council Meeting üanuary 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 28 Mayor Windschitl: Mechanically, to get it around to four cities for approval could take a fair amount of time. You're also going to have to go through a selection process. Councilman Peach: As long as we have some input into that process, I think we can accomplish what we want to accomplish with their money. Councilman Lachinski: I don't see any problem with the County's proposal. Councilman Ortte1: It's been over 10 years and we've been assured here tonight there's nothing dangereous at this time that they are aware of, and a month isn't going to make that difference. Councilman Lachinski: I think the most important thing is to get the residential wells tested. Councilman Peach: And also this area around Cecil's (Heidelberger). The borings should be taken. Councilman Jacobson: Anoka County mentioned we could get some test kits. If we brought the water samples to you, would you run the appropriate tests to tell us if there is a problem? Mr. Hutchinson: That is a cost matter. That I can't say yes to immediately. Mayor Windschit1: I think we could get the University of Minnesota to do it for nothing or a very small fee. They have done it before for us. (Council discussion was on the other two proposals made by the Mayor, a9reeing to proceed with those two proposals.) Councilman Ortte1: If we have a landfill that operates according to all the regulations set forth by the Pollution Control Agency and the State of Minnesota and the County, whoever has control, and sometime down the line it is found that those regulations were inadequate or improper and the worst you can imagine happens, which would be a massive groundwater pollution-type thing, is the operator of the landfill that operated under the rules and laws in effect in the State -- what liability does he have?gottèRink maybe the County has staff that could research that and figure that out. We've some opinions from our Attorney on a simi1iar matter having to do if it happens. That would probably answer the question about the termination security that we are interested in. If you would be willing to ask some of your people about that, it would be nice to get an answer back. Mr. McGinley: I will pose both ends of the spectrum in terms of the possible catastrophes to the County Attorney in exactly that hypothetical situation. ¡~OTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to direct the City Clerk to contract with the SOlls exploration firm for the taking of two to three soil borings in the area of the junkyards along Bunker Lake Boulevard where it is suspected that hazardous wastes were dumped in the past; and that the City collect water samples in the area of Andover Boulevard near the landfill, an area in the back of Red Oaks near the landfill, and in the Bunker Lake Road area amongst the junkyards, and have them submitted to the University of Minnesota for the proper tests for pollutants and for written chemical analysis of the water, the water samples at a maximum of $1,000. DISCUSSION: Agreed that Dave Almgren would coordinate the effort. Motion carried unanimously. ~ ,',s . 1 C't C '1 I .' reCla 1 y ounC1 MeetIng J~~Jary 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 29 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution to be sent to the Anoka County Board of Commissioners and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency asking for the retrieval of the hazardous wastes contained in the hazardous waste pit in Waste Disposal Engineering landfill located in the City of Andover, and ask that such wastes be removed prior to the termination of the landfill's operation, and that those hazardous wastes be permanently disposed of; and that we also ask the County Commissioners, County of Anoka, to consider increasing the bond to an adequate amount to insure that we get the proper termination of the landfill, and to also provide insurances against any future environmental problems. (See Resolution R7-80) Motion carried unanimously. (Mr. Roth requested the water samples be put in a report and would appreciate a copy.) (Councilman Peach requested both the County and PCA to let the city know what they are doing with things in the City of Andover.) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' ~.~~~.~~ Marce A. Peach Recording Secretary . -