CSFM
Meeting Notes

March 3, 2004

In Attendance: David May, Liz Yeomans, Dennis Spackman, Kevin Okleberry, Rick Battison, David Colby, Tom Hopkins

Tom commented on the Draft Ground Water monitoring Report. All but three of the existing wells are scheduled to be abandoned during the spring and summer of 2004 These wells need to be abandoned before surface remediation begins as the wells act as a conduit to the groundwater unless they are properly abandoned. Tom stated that there are a couple of standard ways to remove the wells and plug them, so it shouldn't be a problem. Once they get moving CDM will hire a contractor to pull the wells. After the wells are pulled there will be no monitoring of the wells until after the surface mediation is done in Fall of 2006. At the present time a contractor has not been selected which will be the next step in the process.

David M. said he hasn't heard anything about the letter written. He hasn't gotten a chance to speak to Lee King to see if he knows anything. David said the last time he sent a letter, the congressional aids were very responsive to see if he had received a response. This time he hasn't been contacted by anyone. Liz stated they have clamped down on the information coming out. A proposal should be coming from Denver regional EPA, but she doesn't know when yet. Liz said they have chosen a new spokesman - Mike Reisner.

Liz discussed the latest state inspection report. The site is pretty saturated. There has been a report on the Jordan River. There is pollution and a hydrocarbon problem. Liz visited the Sharon Steel site. It was very wet, so they didn't go on top of the cap. It is greening up on the southern side. They noticed 3 tears on the outer fence. The new owners are responsible for the outer fence. Liz stated that it is not our responsibility to talk to the new owners about the fence. The superfund charter does not require the fence to be there. The state said they would be responsible to maintain the inner fence around the cap until development takes place. The city cannot enforce that repairs are done on the outer fence, but it is probably in the new owner's best interest that they maintain the fence, as they need to make sure the cap is taken care of.

They are waiting on the new property owner for the final site modification plan. The next step is the geotechnical investigation. They will drill holes through the cap and bring up samples. 8 holes will be drilled in the cap and 4 on the outside of the cap. Then a follow-up will be done on the repairs, and then a report on the settlement.

Tom and Liz are curious if they will encounter any sand and water lenses under then surface during the drilling.
Dennis stated that depending on how wet it is when the holes are made, water might go through.
David M. said it would be easy to see if the caps were working or not, depending on what they encounter when drilling.

Liz commented on Sharon Steel's Draft Explanation of differences. This document is necessary because the new owners intended use is different from EPA's proposed usage. This document could go out within the month, but that is not a strict timeframe. They are engaged in monthly teleconference calls that include the new owners, Jordan Bluffs Inc. They are working on site and development closely with the city.

David asked how close they were to site deletion. Liz replied that ESD has done the first and institutional controls. It is possible they will be finished in the next 6 months. David commented that this might have been a tad more complicated than they had originally thought. He also stated that to have an agreement that makes it possible to penetrate a cap and install things to make the property useable again is a major accomplishment. Five years ago this could not have been done. Even if they fail to go through with their plan, this work will draw future investors.

Tom asked if EPA has agreed that it is possible to penetrate and reseal a cap. He asked if any tests have been done on this. Liz responded that a test has not been done, but at the time the wells were made there was a provision given for a leaky cap. They plan to follow those specs for this procedure. This includes overlapping the tear and welding it or sewing it into place. This will allow it to stretch, as they don't want it to slip and slide. The site management plan also states that modern approaches can also be used. David Wilson of ERM has background in land field closures, so they don't foresee a problem.

Tom commented that is seems it would be difficult to seal around the piling to keep water from coming down. Liz stated that she liked the idea of using a zipper approach instead of welding so it is easier to get back in. They will put a utility shelf in and a cap underneath so the utilities will be accessible. The plan says they will bring in 5-10 feet of clean fill to put on top. This will cut down the number of penetrations in the cap.

Rick brought up the fact that it is possible to drill in seawater without having water leak in, and asked if this situation was the same. Tom replied that the seawater situation is not applicable, because in that situation there is pressure in the pipe. In this situation, if you penetrate the liner there is no way to keep the water out unless you seal it. If you don't seal it, the water goes in the annular space.

David commented that putting in the infrastructure is not too bad. The linear walls will be difficult. Tom commented that it needs to last a lot of years, and there is a lot of potential for problems. It is going to be expensive.

David stated that they will need to grade the trenches so they drain on the west side. Liz replied that they are doing this so it will collect toward the Jordan River. Tom suggested they could also put pumps in. David said that back east they often reclaim land fields, and this same technology could be used in this situation. The hardest part would be getting authorization from EPA to use these methods.

Dennis expressed concern about a multi-level building being built on the site. The footings or piers would need to be buried deep enough through the cap and made strong enough to withstand an earthquake. Liz replied that the city is in charge of the geo-report and they determine what structures can be built on the land. David mentioned a raft-footing system that would allow a building to float on top of the soil. This type of system has been used on airplane landing structures in the desert. It disperses the weight, prevents elongation, and eliminates differential settling. David C. stated that elastic merits have a lot of elasticity.

Liz stated that they will continue to be present for the 5 year reviews even after the property is developed. Rick commented that it would be to the new owner's advantage to have a stable environment. Tom said it will be interesting to see what condition the current liner is now, after years of being under ground. David M. said there are two options sealing: heat welding or solvent welding. The quality of a heat weld would depend on the technician. It could be a good option. You can't x-ray it like you can with steel to see if the weld is good. It would be easy to tell if the cup was failing though. It might be possible to use satellite technology to tell if the soil was dry or wet, by looking at the soil temperatures. Tom asked if GRP (ground penetrating radar) would work. David M. replied that it could tell the difference in density, but there would be no way to tell if the density differed because of moisture or a difference in soil density.

Liz stated there is a Riparian Zone Stake Holders Meeting on the 18th at 9:00.

The next CSFM meeting will be April 7