Pueblo health officials say CDPHE variance expected this week for cleanup at 1310 East Tenth

The Pueblo Department of Public Health and Environment told the Pueblo City Council on Monday that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is expected to approve an open‑air demolition variance this week for the burned, illegally dumped property at 1310 East Tenth Street, and that a licensed abatement contractor must submit a work plan and receive CDPHE approval before demolition and cleanup can begin.

Randy Evitz, director of the Pueblo Department of Public Health and Environment, told the council the department visited the property after Councilor Gomez raised concerns and that PDPHE staff found evidence of asbestos risk and “a heavy amount of illegal dumping” including used syringes. Evitz said the city submitted a variance request in April 2025 and that CDPHE requested revisions; those revisions were under review and the variance was expected to be approved this week.

The variance is required because the site will require open‑air demolition rather than enclosed asbestos removal. Evitz said, “The undisturbed dirt and ruins do not pose a high risk to the community, but once the pile is disturbed, it will pose a high risk.” He added that beginning cleanup before CDPHE approval could result in fines of up to $25,000.

Why this matters: the property sits within an EPA Superfund boundary and may contain lead and arsenic in soil. Disturbing contaminated soils during demolition can create airborne dust and other exposure pathways for neighbors and customers at nearby businesses, according to PDPHE staff.

What happens next: Evitz said that once the variance is approved, the city’s general abatement contractor must be licensed for this kind of cleanup and must submit a detailed work plan to CDPHE that aligns with the variance conditions. CDPHE will verify licensure and the work plan; Evitz said the work‑plan approval process is expected to take about 10 to 14 working days, and that demolition would follow after that approval. Council members were told the procedure could mean roughly a month to six weeks before work begins, depending on bid award timing and contractor mobilization.

Chad Walgrom, director of environmental health at PDPHE, described the department’s role as complaint response, inspection reporting and stop‑work authority. He said PDPHE recommended and the city installed a temporary fence and that staff had deployed an illegal‑dumping camera in the alley; the camera issues a verbal warning when motion activated. Walgrom said PDPHE can issue stop‑work orders if work is performed without permits.

Councilors asked about mitigation during demolition and steps to limit airborne contamination. Walgrom said open‑air demolition requires continuous wetting to suppress dust and the use of covered roll‑offs sealed before removal. He said crews typically wet the site, load debris into covered roll‑offs and seal them before transport to contain contamination.

Property ownership and cost recovery: Council members asked who would own or pay for the cleanup. PDPHE and city staff said the property’s owner of record appears to be deceased (a council member said the owner is likely William C. Martinez) and that the city expects to pay to abate the site and then place a lien on the property to recover costs. Evitz said the city had been working on the project since April and that repeated fires had required amendments to the variance application as burning removed additional structure and likely changed contamination risks.

Councilor questions and context: Councilors asked whether the EPA would fund or perform abatement because the site lies within the Superfund boundary; PDPHE staff said EPA involvement depends on sampling results and access and that the city would contact EPA as needed. Staff said EPA would conduct core sampling to measure lead and arsenic levels and that abatement depends on sampling thresholds and depths.

Public‑safety steps already taken: PDPHE recommended and the city installed temporary fencing, and staff said they will monitor the site with cameras and issue stop‑work orders where necessary. Evitz reiterated that PDPHE’s authority is to respond to asbestos complaints and that permitting and abatement approvals are issued by CDPHE.

Outlook and timeline: Evitz and Walgrom told council the sequence is: CDPHE variance approval; selection/verification of a licensed general abatement contractor; contractor submittal of a work plan; CDPHE approval of the work plan (10–14 business days expected); then demolition and soil handling under controlled wetting and covered roll‑offs. Evitz estimated a conservative start window of about a month to six weeks after the variance is approved and after the city awards the abatement contract. He cautioned that final completion timelines depend on contractor scheduling and the scope of required soil removal.

Authorities and sources: PDPHE repeatedly directed technical and permitting questions to CDPHE and noted the site’s location inside an EPA Superfund boundary. City staff and PDPHE emphasized that starting cleanup before the state approves the variance could incur state civil penalties up to $25,000.

The council did not take a formal vote on cleanup steps during the work session; staff reported the status and next steps and said they would continue to coordinate with CDPHE, the city’s purchasing and public‑works teams and, if necessary, EPA representatives.