07/03/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! in weS1 #~ Southeast of the landfill. When we compare the groun~iwa~er quality in this well with the well to the Northwest, that h~si~ot and cannot be affected by the landfill, we see significant increases in substances indicative of leachate or water~ that has moved through municipal refuse. We see a much lower' COncentration in Well #7 and #iA. The main area of affect seems1 to be around Well #8. When we look at more extensive sampl~mg ~one over the last couple of years, we also see solvent concentrations present that are above the levels considered safe for lOmg term consumption of ground water in Well #8. Lower concentrations of solvent are present in Well #7 and #2A. This indicatesithat leachate is migrating to the Southeast and we don't! knoM how far. Bart Engineering recommended to the County, and th~ C~unty approved, the placement of an additional monitoring well. ~iIfithat well does not show leachate, it will be adequate as a m~ni~oring program; if that well does show leachate, then additi~na~ wells will be required to the Southeast. The County staff ~s ~hecking on depths of various wells in the area and it is. Mr.I Gebhardt's understanding that most of the wells are not into ~hallow aquifer that has been affected. Over the next 3 mo~th$,! one additional monitoring well will be placed, more testing ~ill be carried out and further monitoring wells may be found necessary even without the expansion that is being discussed tonight, i If expansion occurs to the North or to the South, addition~ monitoring wells will be required to monitor that expa~s!o~ area. Bart Engineering has also used wells at various depth$i' at~ the landfill to try and assess the potential for downward movement ~f contmmination; there is a possibility, but we don't consfder iit to be a significant threat at this stage. The County staff ~s !collecting samples from various private wells in the area to ~e sure there isn't any affect on those private wells; we dOn!.'t ~elieve there is. Larry Morgan - 15135 Garnet Street - Why didn't slides presented by Was~te.~anagement show the homes on the Northwest side of the landfill,~ Garnet Street? Why didn't the artist's version of the ~mp~eted development show the homes on Garnet Street? Mr. Cook.i- Stated it was an oversight when he took the picture and if~ the artist did not pick up the homes on his rendering, it's~because the photo did not show the homes. This can be corrected, it was an oversight and it was not deliberate. Larry Morgan - Would like to remind all present here tonight of all d~fferent stories we have heard regarding when the dump will.be ~losed and once again we have another story. You already have.a pdllution problem when you put this landfill 5' above a natural water table and now you want to expand it over a natural pond. 'This pond is a natural breeding place for duck, geese, pheaSant~ and deer and Waste Management wants to destroy it. Now We~ will have to warn our children of the rats instead of poin=ing!out the beautiful wildlife. A few years ago we were having a~problem with rats and we were told that rats do not travel, a~ far as 700', which is the distance from the base of the d~Ump ito our house. How did those rats get to our back yards? Wast$~,Management denies that the rats came from the landfill, so whY ShoUldn't they deny that they pollute our wells. Three of Council/P & Z r Public Hearing ~i~i Pa~e 9 of 23