HomeMy WebLinkAbout911794.tiff PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
COLUMBINE LANDFILL
ERIE, COLORADO
COD 980951735
PROJECT OFFICER: Austin Buckingham
PREPARED BY: Austin Buckingham
REVIEWED BY:
SUBMITTED TO: Pat Smith, EPA
Glenn Mallory, CDH
DATE SUBMITTED: I . 2_770
21fr619
9117'94
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 2
2.1 PA Objectives 2
2.2 Previous Work 2
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
3.1 Site Location 2
3.2 Site History 3
3.3 Site Characteristics: Geology, Hydrogeology, Hydrology 5
4.0 PRELIMINARY PATHWAY ANALYSIS 8
4.1 Waste Characterization 8
4.2 On-site Pathway 10
4.3 Air Pathway 10
4.4 Ground Water Pathway 11
4.5 Surface Water Pathway 11
4.6 Summary of Overall Release Potential for Site 12
5.0 CONCLUSION 13
6.0 REFERENCES 14
FIGURES
APPENDICES
A. Preliminary Assessment 1984
B. Site Inspection Report 1984
C. Waste Summary from 1983 RCRA Application
SARA Title III Report 1987
D. Weld County Sheriffs 1983 Investigation Reports
E. Well Permits
i
F. EPA Preliminary Assessment Report Form
G. Preliminary Assessment Questionnaire
H. Photographs
Ee'�.pc.y�.
v c)'9 9
ii
•
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
COLUMBINE LANDFILL
ERIE, COLORADO
COD 980951735
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Revised Preliminary Assessment (RPA) of the Columbine Landfill near Erie, Colorado has
been prepared to satisfy the requirements as set forth in a cooperative agreement between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH). Included in this report are the site history,
site characteristics and preliminary pathway analysis. Previous reports include a
Preliminary Assessment (PA) and a Site Investigation (SI) performed in June 1984.
The area had been identified as an area of environmental concern and was placed on CERCLIS in
1984. On August 20, 1990 and September 7, 1990, a site visit was conducted at the Laidlaw
South Landfill (previously known as the Columbine Landfill) and the surrounding property.
This Revised Preliminary Assessment is the result of a records search conducted at the
Colorado Department of Health, the Weld County Department of Planning, the Weld County
Commissioners Office, and the Weld County Health Department. Additional data gathering
efforts included interviews with Rick Hoffman of Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (the current
owners and operators of the CERCLIS site), Kenneth Pratt (property owner of the old Erie
Landfill), John Neuhauser (operator of the old Erie Landfill), Brad Kiernes (previous site
operator with Colorado Landfill, Inc.), Mrs. Roweder (wife of Ralph Roweder who operated the
old Erie Landfill in the late 70's), IBM, Sundstrand Aviation and Browning Ferris, Inc.
cr or°
1
2.0 OBJECTIVE
2.1 The objectives of the PA are to:
* characterize potential ofsite wastes;
* assess potential for contaminant migration; and
* determine potential impacts to the public health and the environment.
2.2 Previous Work
A Preliminary Assessment (found in Appendix A) of the Columbine Landfill was performed by CDH
in June 1984. The PA stated that approximately 1500 drums containing 84,000 gallons of
liquid were disposed on the Pratt property. The waste was generated by IBM between 1965 and
1969. The nature of the liquid wastes were suspected as solvents, unspecified organics,
inorganics, acids and bases. Contamination to the shallow alluvial ground water was listed
as a potential but undocumented environmental impact at the time of the PA.
The Site Investigation report (found in Appendix B) summarized the site history and geology.
Surface water and ground water samples were collected. Organic and inorganic analyses were
performed. The presence of several compounds found in the SI were discounted either because
they were suspected laboratory contaminants or because the compounds were exotic and only
tentatively identified. Two compounds identified as being present in the ground water were
1-butene and oxybismethane. The compounds were found at levels of 130 ug/1 in GW-1 for
1-butene, 310 ug/1 in GW-1 for oxybismethane and 370 ug/1 in GW-8 (aka GW-2 in the SI) for
oxybismethane. The SI report concluded that:
1.) The landfill is producing leachate based on the specific conductivity;
2.) That some mounding may be occurring thus allowing leachate to migrate offsite and
up gradient; and
3.) That further followup work is needed to accurately determine the presence of the
organic constituents.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The landfill site is located approximately 1 1/4 miles southeast of the town of Erie in Weld
County, Colorado. The Columbine Landfill site (now known as Laidlaw South) occupies 160
acres in the E1/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The
Old Erie Landfill site (aka the Pratt property) occupies 35 acres in the NE1/4 NE1/4 of
Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The Laidlaw North site occupies 80 acres in the
S1/2 SW1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The approximate site coordinates
are lattitude 4P 01' 40" and longitude 109' Or 15". To reach the site from I-25, take the
Erie exit, go west to Weld City Road #5 and go south one mile. The entrance to the site is
at the intersection of Weld County Road #5 & #6 (figure 1 & 2).
✓1.0G1.1
2
3.2 Site History
There has been multiple activities and transfer of ownership on the parcels of land in
Section 20 and 29, T1N, R68W. The parcel owned by Pratt has been in the family since 1912.
Due to the topographic relief of the draw running from east to west across the site, it was
unavailable for farming. To correct this problem the Pratts entered into an agreement with
Mr. John F. Neuhauser in 1964 to fill in the drainage in the NE1/4 NE1/4 Section 29, TIN,
R68W so that the area would eventually be level enough to farm. Neuhauser with Mr. Carl
Smith (both employed by Sundstrand Aviation) formed a company called Sanitation Engineering,
Inc. They hauled solid waste from nearby communities. (Record keeping during the late
1960's until the late 1970's was very poor. Much of the following discussion is based on
interviews.) Sanitation Engineering had apparently obtained a contract with I.B.M.-Boulder
and Sundstrand Aviation to dispose of a portion of their waste stream. The landfill, which
may have been known as the Erie Landfill, accepted industrial and chemical wastes in addition
to regular municipal solid wastes. The site was not fenced and was a continual source of
complaints from the landowner.
IBM reported to the EPA an estimate of the amount and type of waste they had disposed of at
the Erie Landfill between 1965 to June 1969. The EPA Notification is shown in figure 3. IBM
estimated that 84,000 gallons of chemical waste contained in 1500 55 gallon drums were
disposed. The chemical waste types were organics, inorganics, solvents, acids and bases. A
summary from a 1983 RCRA application (waste characterization and information) and a 1987 SARA
Title III report is found in Appendix C. The chemicals typical of IBM manufacturing include
No. 1, No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oil, liquid nitrogen, methyl ethyl ketone,
trichlorotluoroethanol, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride,
n-butylamine, ethylene diamine, ammonia and sulfuric acid.
The earliest document on file regarding the Neuhauser site is dated August 9, 1966 (figure
4). A routine Boulder County inspection noted that two pits were dug for the disposition of
some type of chemicals. In a third pit, it appeared that chemicals were being burned. Mr.
Neuhauser reported that Sundstrand brought torpedo propellant to the site in tanker trucks.
The propellant may have been a variation of diethylene glycol dinitrate. The propellant was
pumped from the tanker into a pit lined with a metal container. The propellant filled pit
was then ignited as a method of disposal. On September 29, 1966 an inspection was performed
by a CDH representative. The report noted that chemical wastes were being discharged in
designated areas and cover material was being supplied from an excavation designed to divert
natural drainage around refuse fill rather than through the fill. In addition, Mr. Neuhauser
commented at the time of the inspection, that operational improvements were delayed pending
the outcome of the recent court decision. This court decision that he may be referring to is
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) hearing regarding poor disposal practices at the old
Erie Landfill. It is known, via IBM conversations, that Neuhauser was brought before the PUC
for his disposal operations. A transcript of this hearing seems to be unavailable. IBM does
not have a copy and the PUC purges their documents every two years. The exact date of the
hearing is unknown. However, as a result of the PUC decision, IBM terminated their contract
for disposal with Neuhauser in June 1969.
On July 17, 1968, the Erie Landfill received a Certificate of Designation (CD) issued to John
F. Neuhauser by the Weld Board of County Commissioners (figure 5). An Air Pollution Control
Division memo dated July 31, 1968 stated that an uncontrolled chemical fire occurred on July
26, 1968 at the Neuhauser dump located just inside Weld County in the southwestern corner
(figure 6). Approximately 3000 gallons of waste chemicals had burned. Adjacent to the area,
SIOS1.1
3
where the chemical fire occurred, was an open burning dump face that appeared to have been
burning for quite some time. During conversations at the time of the incident, Mr. Neuhauser
revealed that the waste chemicals were from the IBM plant in Boulder County and the
Sundstrand Manufacturing complex in Adams County. The site inspector recalled that Mr.
Neuhauser had at one time operated a dump site in Boulder County which closed down for
contaminating ground water and operating an uncontrolled dump. On October 30, 1968 the CD
was suspended by Weld County for 33 days but was held in abeyance for a 6 month probation
period (figure 7). Mr. Neuhasuser sold his share of Sanitation Engineering to his partner
Carl Smith in late 1968.
There is no information found regarding activities at the Erie Landfill between 1969 and
1973. By this time Weld County had all of the county landfills contracted out to a single
operator. According to Mrs. Barbara Roweder, Ralph (her husband) worked for BFI as
supervisor starting sometime around 1973/1974. BFI probably operated the Erie Landfill and
perhaps all of the Weld County Landfills prior to Ralph's employment.
During the mid to late 70's, CDH inspected the landfill several times. A CDH inspection
dated 06/02/75 states oil-water waste should be sprayed onto or worked into the existing
landfill face (figure 8). Two CDH inspections in February and April 1976 stated that
approximately 1500 gallons per week of oil and water waste was deposited at the base of the
landfill (figure 9 & 10). In October 1976, Ralph Roweder purchased BFI's contract to operate
the Weld County Landfills. In a memo from the Dacona Fire Department (dated February 7,
1978), the Fire Chief expresses his concern with the frequent fires at the Erie Landfill
requiring 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of water to extinguish (figure 11). There is no other
information on file regarding site operations until January 1979 when Ralph Roweder died.
Mrs. Barbara Roweder prepared to sell the contract to operate the Weld County Landfills.
Lynn Kiernes (owner of Colorado Landfill, Inc.) purchased the contract sometime in 1979.
The Weld County Commissioners revoked the CD by resolution for the Erie Landfill on June 6,
1979 (figure 12). Colorado Landfill, Inc. was not interested in operating the old Erie
Landfill site. Therefore, the abandoned Erie Landfill was never properly closed and sat open
from 1979 until 1983. Mr. Lynn Kiernes decided to purchase the Columbine Mine site adjacent
to the Pratt property and operate it as a sanitary landfill. The Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
owned both the surface and mineral rights of the 160 acres (immediately west of the old Erie
Landfill) within E1/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 Section 29, T1N, R68W. This area was known as the
Columbine Mine No. 1 which operated from 1920-1946. In the subsurface, the mine occupied
nearly all of Section 29 and much of the south half of Section 20. In June 1979, the surface
rights were sold to Colorado Landfill, Inc. while Rocky Mountain Fuel retained the mineral
rights.
Colorado Landfill, Inc. applied for and received a CD in 1979 to operate a sanitary landfill
(accepting municipal solid wastes only) on the Columbine Mine site and which was called the
Columbine Landfill. The Kiernes planned for continued disposal into the draw that ran from
east to west across the site. The new operations plan called for a 6" scarified and
recompacted clay liner and a ground water monitoring plan.
A CDH inspection dated 11/17/81 stated that oil and grease was within the soil at the
northeast end of the site and ponded sludge was found (figure 13). Approximately 500 gallons
per week of car wash and grease trap wastes were disposed of at the site. In a 09/27/82
inspection (figure 14), 6000-9000 gpd of sand and grease trap waste sludges (at 1% solids)
were being spread at the landfill site for 6-8 weeks. In 09/01/82, the Colorado Landfill,
S1 !t-e f^1
4 _ . . ,�_ .
Inc. requested permission to fill and cover the old Erie Landfill. The request was granted
by Weld County on May 4, 1983. On May 24, 1983, a CDH memo stated that an independent
laboratory found the disposed sand trap wastes to be cyanide bearing and containing
potentially EP toxic concentrations of metals (figure 15). Discharge off-site from the
Columbine Landfill was observed from a pond at the west end of the site in a May 25, 1983
inspection (figure 16). The dark to black liquid discharge had a pH of 5.8 and a field
conductivity of 2100 umhos. The old fill area (the Erie Landfill) had exposed trash as
stated in 07/28/83 inspection (figure 17). The Weld County Sheriff's Office conducted an
investigation into the alledged disposal activities at the old Erie Landfill on 09/29/83
(Appendix D). The research turned up several polaroids (dated 12/27/68 and 02/06/69)
depicting black colored 55 gallon drums. Some of the drums had the tops bulging and
burning. Other drums (that were not burning) had bulging tops from apparent internal
pressure. A few of the black drums had the word "PROTEX" stenciled on the sides.
On December 3, 1985, Columbine Landfill was purchased by Western Disposal. A new operations
plan was developed which included closing the old Erie Landfill site. Laidlaw Waste Systems,
Inc. purchased the Columbine Landfill in January 1988 from Western Disposal, Inc. The
property became know as Laidlaw South. Laidlaw developed a closure and post-closure
maintenance plan for the old Erie Landfill. By this time the draw through the landfill site
had been completely filled.
Daniel Horst (of Landfill Systems) developed an operations plan to site a landfill to the
north of Columbine Landfill in S1/2 SW1/4 Section 20, T1N, R68W. The 80 acre Horst site,
accepting only municipal solid waste, was annexed by the town of Erie on November 8, 1984.
The Horst property was sold to a company called GSX on August 18, 1986. In November 1986,
the GSX Corporation was purchased by Laidlaw. This property became known as Laidlaw North.
On the north side of the Laidlaw North property, the soil wells 103A & 103B were drilled to a
depth of 20' in 12/84 and 3788 respectively. Well 103A did not have enough water to sample
until 12/87, when it found high concentrations of volatile organics. Contaminants now found
in both 103A & 103B include 1,1-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and trichlorofluoromethane (figure 18).
3.3 Site Characteristics
Geology
The site is on the northwestern flank of the Denver Basin, a large structural basin that
contains important bedrock ground water resources.
The soils on the site are comprised of calcareous silt, with some clay and very fine sands.
The soil deposits were formed by wind desposition, by stream deposition and by weathering of
the bedrock. Soil color ranges from light brown to brownish-grey and soil thickness ranges
from approximately 2 to 21 feet. Variations in soil thickness are related to irregular
bedrock and land surfaces.
At the soil/bedrock interface, the bedrock is typically highly weathered with iron-stain
mottling, fracturing and occasionally bearing perched water. Bedrock is exposed along the
eastern edge of the Coal Creek drainage west of the site. Within the site boundaries,
bedrock occurs at depths of 2 to 21 feet below the ground surface. The irregular bedrock
surface somewhat parallels the surface topography and is probably produced by differential
w1-0 6:1 9
5
weathering of the bedrock.
The Laramie Formation, which immediately underlies the site, is typically divided into upper
and lower lithologic units. The upper unit is a buff to dark-gray, organic claystone with
interbedded sands. Numerous coal seams in this interval were mined in the early 1900's to
provide heating coal to the cities along the Front Range. The lower unit of the Laramie
Formation consists of thin to massive beds of fine-grained, moderate to well-cemented
sandstone and a buff to dark carbonaceous claystone. This lower unit has been further broken
into the A and B sandstone units. The sandstones units occur at depths of 350 to 400 feet in
the vicinity of the site and comprise the upper part of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
The coals of the Laramie Formation have been extensively mined in the area by the Columbine
Mine No. 1 (figure 19). Overburden thickness above the mine ranges from a minimum of 150' to
a maximum of 400' (figure 20) with the probable extracted coal seam thickness ranging from 0'
to 15' (figure 21). The mine was operated by the room and pillar extraction method. After
the coal seams were exhausted, the pillars were typically removed. Figure 22 shows areas
where pillars were removed and where they remain. Figure 23 shows subsidence hazards. The
area has never been evaluated to determine past or future subsidence potential.
The Fox Hills Sandstone is beneath the Laramie Formation. The upper unit, the Milliken
Sandstone is composed of fine to medium-grained, parallel, thick bedded sandstone, thin
siltstone and shale interbeds. The unit ranges in thickness from 40 to 90 feet. The
Milliken Sandstone and the overlying A and B sands of the Laramie Formation comprise the
Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, an important source of water through out the Denver Basin. The
over-lying aquifers of the Dawson Arkose, Denver and Arapahoe have been eroded away in the
vicinity of the site. The Pierre Shale beneath the Fox Hills Sandstone, consists of a 7000
to 8000 foot thick sequence of gray to brown, clayey marine shales.
The site lies in a structurally complex area. The bedrock has been highly distorted through
both folding and faulting, with faults that generally align in a northeasterly direction
(figure 24). There is no surface expression of these faults and there is no evidence of
recent movement on any faults during the Holocene in the area. Regionally the bedrock dips
one degree to the southeast. However, local structural deformations may cause appreciable
variation.
Hydrogeology
Data published indicate that the direction of ground water flow in the Laramie-Fox Hills
aquifer is to the east-southeast. Ground water is generally produced from the sandstone
units at depths of 350 to 400 feet. The potentiometric surface is approximately 200 to 270
feet below land surface, indicating that the aquifer is under confined conditions. Wells
tapping the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer are shown in figure 25 and well permits are found in
Appendix E.
The exploratory drilling programs have identified two shallow ground water systems at the
site. The shallowest (or alluvial) ground water system is associated with the alluvial and
colluvial soil materials in the topographic drainages. In a typical system, the alluvial
ground water would move down the west sloping drainage, with a velocity related to the
gradient, permeability and storativity of the materials. Recharge to the alluvial ground
water system occurs by direct infiltration of snowmelt and rainfall in topographically
elevated areas. The saturated thickness of the shallow system is generally less than 5 feet
ti 1.x.519
6
and is perched at approximately 10'-20' below the ground surface and above the bedrock.
Because the old Erie Landfill remained open essentially from 1965 to 1983, shallow ground
water mounding is a possibility. If this is the case, the water table elevation could rise
within the landfill therefore reversing a component of flow from west to east.
The deeper ground water system found at the site is in a saturated bedrock unit consisting of
siltstone, sandstone and coal units. The depth to saturated bedrock ranges from 21 to
greater than 82 feet. Bedrock immediately above and below the saturated unit is dry. The
lateral extent of the system is unknown but possibly occurs under much of the site. The
perched ground water flow is to the northwest at a gradient of approximately 0.05 ft/ft. The
recharge area for the shallow bedrock ground water system probably does not occur at the site
as indicated by the presence of dry bedrock above this zone.
Because of the large difference in the potentiometric elevation between the shallow bedrock
ground water systems and the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, the low hydraulic conductivity of the
upper Laramie claystones, and the unsaturated bedrock beneath the perched bedrock system, it
is concluded that the perched and regional ground-water systems are not hydraulically
connected.
Hydrology
The site is on a topographically west-facing slope with total relief across the site at
approximately 155 feet. Flat areas, located between the draws, are farmed. Two well
developed drainages, with an east-west trend, cross Section 29. The drainage that bisects
the landfill area is referred to here as the middle draw, the drainage to the south of the
landfill is referred to as the south draw and the drainage to the north (Section 20) of the
Columbine Landfill is referred to as the north draw (since these drainages are currently
unnamed, see figure 2).
The middle and south draw are well developed and are incised 5 feet on the east end of
Section 29 to as much as 20 feet farther west. Due to the depth of the drainage channel,
farming was never possible across these draws. The north draw is far less developed and from
old aerial photographs, farming was possible across some portions of the drainage.
The middle and south draw join just west of Section 29 in Section 30. At that confluence,
the draws are bermed and water ponds behind it. Downgradient of the berm, the draw bed is
dry and there is no discharge to Coal Creek. The south draw, as it runs west through Section
29, is bermed in four places (photos 1 - 4). Behind each berm, water is ponded and wetlands
type vegetation grows there. A seep is shown on the topographic map in the south draw. It
is unknown if the middle draw was ever bermed. However, interviews with those knowledgeable
of the site indicate that there were some berms with ponding behind them. The north draw is
not bermed and it is generally dry except during storm events.
Coal Creek is the only perennial stream within two miles of the site. It is located
approximately 1000 feet from the western site boundary and is 50 to 120 feet below the ground
elevation of the site. Surface water conditions in Coal Creek have been monitored upstream
and downstream routinely by Laidlaw Wastes Systems. Coal Creek flow rates which have been
visually estimated, range from 5 cfs to 25 cfs. Generally, the highest flows appear to occur
in September and the lowest flows in January. This is somewhat inconsistent with the
behavior of Front Range streams which generally have peak flows during snowmelt (April
through June). This difference may be due to diversions upstream.
�_� �139
7 L
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in Coal Creek have ranged from about 300 to 800 milligrams per
liter (mg/1). Copper, iron, manganese, and zinc concentrations are routinely at or below
their detection limits of 0.01 and 0.05 mg/1. Strontium concentrations are somewhat higher
at about OS mg/1. Laidlaw reports that this appears to be a natural condition and does not
reflect an impact from the landfill operation. Nitrate/nitrite in samples from Coal Creek
have varied from about 2 to about 6.5 mg/1. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations have
consistently been in the range of 7 to 10 mg/1. Samples were collected from Coal Creek in
June 1987 for analysis of the EPA priority pollutant list. The EPA priority pollutants were
not found in any of the samples.
On average, water quality is equivalent at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations.
There is no indication of degraded surface water quality in Coal Creek from the landfill
operation to date.
4.0 PRELIMINARY PATHWAY ANALYSIS
4.1 Waste Characterization
The old Erie Landfill received industrial and chemical waste. Mr. Neuhauser mentions in the
July 31, 1968 memo (figure 5) that waste chemicals from the IBM plant in Boulder County and
the Sundstrand manufacturing complex in Adams County were disposed at the site. Aside from
the estimated IBM waste of 1500 55 gallon drums disposed of at the 'site, it is unknown how
much of each waste type was actually placed at the landfill between 1965 and 1979. Since the
landfill was a small, and basically local landfill serving the nearby communities (such as
Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Dacona, Lafayette, Louisville and farm operations in the area),
it can be assumed that total municipal solid waste volume was relatively small.
In 1982, Colorado Landfill, Inc. requested to fill in and place final cover on the Erie
Landfill site. The volume of waste on the Pratt property after it had been finally closed is
approximately 400,000 cubic yards (cy). The final elevation of the property was plammed at
approximately 25 feet above the undisturbed topography. As of January 1990, Laidlaw South
(including the old Erie Landfill) has 2,900,000 cy of solid waste in place and Laidlaw North
has 5,800,000 cy of solid waste in place. The estimated total waste volume that will be
disposed by the time of final closure will be 14,200,000 cy for Laidlaw South at a final
elevation of 5240' and 7,300,000 cy for Laidlaw North at a fmal elevation of 5280'.
Mr. Neuhauser worked at the Sundstrand Aviation Corporation at 2480 West 70th Street from
approximately 1960 until 1969 as an industrial engineer and a property coordinator. Mr. Carl
Smith (also of Sundstrand and manager of contractor activities) with Neuhauser operated a
company called Sanitation Engineering, Inc. in the 1960's. They were able to obtain
contracts with IBM and Sundstrand to dispose of industrial and chemical wastes. Sanitation
Engineering kept containers at the IBM-Boulder plant to collect their solid and industrial
wastes. In addition, Sanitation Engineering was responsible for transporting the IBM waste
to the landfill site. Neuhauser recalls that the IBM chemical waste disposed at the landfill
site was primarily barrels of waste methyl ethyl ketone.
The wastes disposed by IBM were generally listed in the EPA notification form. Assuming that
processes and wastes were similar to those stated in more recent documents. The possible
process wastes that could have been disposed at the Erie Landfill by IBM (found in a 1983
Generator Report) are:
e fs G1 9
8
1) Waste magnetic coating solution used to make magnetic tape products;
2) Waste corrosives, acids and caustics used in plating and cleaning processes;
3) Waste halogenated cleaning solutions, freons, chloroethane, methylchloroform;
4) Waste ethylene diamine;
5) Waste potassium cyanide;
6) Waste zinc cyanide; and
7) Waste flammable liquids from manufacture of magnetic products containing toluene,
methy ethyl ketone, plasticizers, iron oxide and tetrahydrofuran.
Wastes listed in a 1987 SARA TITLE III Tier Two report lists IBM stored chemicals as:
1) Fuel oils No. 1, No. 2 and No. 6;
2) Liquid nitrogen;
3) Methyl ethyl ketone;
4) Trichlorofluoroethane:
5) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane;
6) Toluene;
7) Tetrahydrofuran;
8) Methylene chloride;
9) n-Butylamine;
10) Ethylene diamine;
11) Ammonia; and
12) Sulfuric Acid.
Appendix C contains the documents regarding IBM process waste and stored chemicals.
The waste from Sundstrand was transported to the old Erie Landfill in tanker trucks. The
waste, which Mr. Neuhauser referred to as "autofuel" (a secret propellant for the mark 48
torpedo) was pumped from the tanker into a 6' by 8' metal container placed within an earthen
pit. The waste was then burned. The quantity of Sundstrand waste transported to the site is
unknown.
The Erie Landfill was apparently operated by segregating the chemical wastes from the
municipal solid wastes. At least some of the industrial wastes were received in drums (based
on 1968 photos found at the Weld County Commissioners office). A 1966 document states that
the two pits were dug for the deposition of the chemicals and in a third pit chemicals were
being burned.
Burning waste along with co-disposal of industrial and municipal solid waste was a common
practice at many landfills during the 1960's and 1970's. Generally the waste was uncovered,
the site was unfenced and unattended. Burning of the waste was a continual complaint and
problem at the site. Several memos document this. The most significant incident is the
chemical fire of July 26, 1968 in which 3,000 gallons of waste chemicals were ablaze. On
February 7, 1978, the Dacono Fire Department wrote of serious and uncontrolled burning of
wastes at the landfill. On several occassions, the fires required fire department response
and the pumping of 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of water onto the landfill. The landfill
routinely accepted liquid waste. How long this disposal practice continued or the total
volume of liquid waste disposed is unknown. The landfill was operated by the slope and cover
method. Wastes were dumped into the middle draw from a higher elevation. Additional wastes
were dumped at the top of the fill area and pushed over the face. Eventually the face became
too steep to be covered effectively.
e
9
Sometime in the later 70's a berm was placed across the middle draw separating the Pratt
property from the Columbine Mine property. Liquids (surface water, leachate and possibly
alluvial ground water) routinely ponded upgradient of this berm. The 1984 SI documents that
GW-6 had T of saturated trash on the day of sample collection. This well is believed to be
downgradient of the berm.
The Erie Landfill was operated in a manner that maximized it's contaminant release to the
environment. Leachate production, surface water and ground water contamination are common
problems associated with landfills that were poorly operated and poorly sited as was the old
Erie Landfill. The siting and operational problems included the following.
1) Wastes were placed into a the middle draw which contained permeable alluvial
materials;
2) A lack of run-on and run-off surface water control structures contibuted to surface
water infiltration through the landfill;
3) The unsecured, unfenced and unattended facility allowed the opportunity for
unauthorized disposal;
4) Chemical and industrial liquid wastes that are both flammable and hazardous were
routinely accepted;
5) Liquid sand trap and oily wastes were routinely accepted at the landfill;
6) Burning of wastes in an uncontrolled manner which required thousands of gallons of
water had to be pumped onto the landfill to control the fare; and
7) A lack of daily and fmal cover over the landfill during its years of operation
(1965 to 1978) and abandondment (from 1979 to 1983) allowed precipitation to pond on
the surface and infiltrate.
The Columbine Landfill did not accept hazardous wastes. However, it did accept sandtrap
wastes and sludges with percent solids as low as 1% in addition to regular municipal solid
wastes. The Laidlaw South Landfill is approved to accept wastes typical of present day solid
waste disposal facilities as is Laidlaw North.
4.2 On-site Pathway
The potential for exposure of human populations to on-site contamination is low. Access to
the property is currently restricted by an 8' fence about the entire perimeter. The site is
attended with signs posted. The entire landfill property has received either daily,
intermediate or final cover. Exposure to on-site workers would be typical of other landfills.
4.3 Air Pathway
The site does not pose a significant threat to human populations or the environment based on
potential migration of contaminants via the air pathway. Onsite waste sources available to
the air route are limited to landfill gas migration through the daily, intermediate and final
cover. The landfill gases may contain volatile halogenated organics, methane, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide. There are six residences, one business and approximately 43
+619
10
individuals located within a one mile radius of the site.
4.4 Ground Water Pathway
The aquifer units which exist beneath the site are:
1) The alluvial aquifer;
2) The shallow Laramie bedrock aquifer; and
3) The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
Approximately four hundred wells within a four mile radius of the site utilize these aquifers
(figure 25).
The town of Erie obtains its drinking water from Erie Lake and Prince Lake No. 2 located in
E1/2 Section 27, T1N, R69W, approximately 2 miles to the southwest of town. By town
ordinance the Erie residences may not use ground water for drinking purposes. However, they
may use ground water for watering their yard and gardens, etc. A review of well logs for the
town reveals that nearly all local wells are less than 50 feet deep and tap the alluvial
aquifer. There are approaximately 110 alluvial aquifer users with a four mile radius of the
site.
The alluvial aquifer is found within the over-burden soil material that ranges from 10' to
21' feet deep. The saturated interval (generally 5' thick) is found in or close to natural
topographic drainages at the site. At the Laidlaw North site ground water monitoring wells
103A and 103 B currently exhibit contamination in the fomr of methylene chloride,
1,1-dichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and
trichlorotluoromethane. Since these draws normally do not flow, contaminated alluvial ground
water may reach Coal Creek via the subsurface. However, it is undocumented at this time.
The perched shallow bedrock aquifer has not shown halogenated organic contamination at the
site as has the allluvial aquifer. However, it does appear that some degradation of water
quality has occured in the form of elevated chloride, sulfate, nitrate and TDS (figure 26).
The occurence of the shallow bedrock aquifer is not well understood. It may be recharged
locally by infiltration of precipitation and surface water through fractures and faults.
Regionally, it is probably recharged at the Laramie outcrops located at the basin's edge.
The saturated zones are within sandstone units that may have large areal extent and exist
under semi-confined conditions. The shallow bedrock aquifer is utilized within a four mile
radius of the site. Occassionally these upper Laramie sandstone units may be mistaken for
the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is utilized by residences not within the town of Erie. The
aquifer averages 350 to 400 feet deep in the vicinity of the site and is under confined
conditions. Infiltration into the Laramie-Fox Hills from upper saturated zones is possible
through fractures and faults. However the primary source of recharge to the aquifer is at
the basin's edge where the units are exposed. Therefore it appears that the threat to this
aquifer from the landfill is be minimal. There are approaximately 230 Laramie-Fox Hills
aquifer wells within a four mile radius of the site.
4.5 Surface Water Pathway
The north, middle and south draws form a dendritic drainage pattern prior to entering Coal
(TtricS1.9
11
Creek the west of the site. The north draw is generally dry and shallow enough to allow
farming across it. The middle draw is incised 5 to 10 feet. It is believed that the draw
may have been bermed in several locations allowing surface water pond behind it. Together,
the Columbine Landfill and the old Erie Landfill disposed of both hazardous and non-hazardous
liquids and solid wastes into the middle draw. The middle draw (prior to any topographic
alterations) drained a 254 acre area. Eventually 3/4 of the length of the middle draw was
landfilled. A walk along the middle draw on 09/07/90 revealed that flowing or standing
surface water did not exist until the confluence of the middle and the south draw (off-site
in Section 30).
The south draw appears to have been the site of a variety of waste disposal activities over
the years. The time of disposal is unknown and the draw has never been a designated
landfill. Wastes deposited along the south draw include regular solid wastes, photo
conductor film (probably from IBM) and occasionally rusted empty drums. The draw is
basically dry but bermed in four areas with surface water ponded behind them (photos 1 - 4).
Of the four ponds, the three eastern most ponds exhibit healthy wetlands vegetation and algae
growth in clear water. The fourth pond (which is also the location of a spring depicted on
the topographic map) does not have wetlands vegetation or grass growing up to the waters
edge. The pond water and the shore is muddy. Several unmarked rusted drums are half buried
and piles of photo conductor material is found at the pond edge and within the pond (photo
4). Access to the south draw is unrestricted.
The large pond located in Section 30 is the result of surface water from the middle and south
draw retained behind a berm (photo 5). Downgradient of the bermed confluence, the creek bed
is dry and there is no surface water discharge to Coal Creek. Coal Creek flows NW for
approximately 4 miles and then enters Boulder Creek in the E1/2 Section 1, T1N, R69W.
Boulder Creek flows toward the northeast and enters St. Vrain Creek in Section 9, T2N, R68W.
There are no recreational improvements along Coal Creek between the landfill and Boulder
Creek as shown on the Erie, Colorado topographic map (USGS 1979). However, it is probable
that many unimproved areas of access are present within 15 downstream miles of the site along
Boulder and St. Vrain Creeks. Several local irrigation ditches depicted on the topographic
map are diverted from Boulder and St. Vrain Creek. Based on conversations with the Fish &
Wildlife Assistance possible federal and state endangered species include:
1) Bald eagles which feed on fish and winter in the area;
2) Peregrine falcons which feed on water fowl and migrate through the area; and
3) Black footed ferets which prey on prairie dogs.
There appear to be no sensitive plant life in the area aside from fresh water wetlands that
are present along Coal Creek, Boulder Creek and St. Vrain Creek. There are no fisheries
within 15 downstream miles of the site.
4.6 Summary of Overall Release Potential
Releases to the air pathway and on-site pathway are typical of most landfill sites. Releases
to the surface water pathway also appears to be minimal due to the lack of off-site surface
water flow accept during storm events. However, the spring and pond within the south draw
exhibit stressed vegetation and may be contaminated.
The potential for release of contaminants to the ground water from the site to the alluvial
12 ✓ - f3_.
and shallow bedrock perched aquifers is high. The potential for release of contaminants from
the site to the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is low. The closest alluvial aquifer users are 1
1/4 mile down gradient of the site in the town of Erie. The closest Laramie-Fox Hills
aquifer use is approximately 1/4 mile to the northeast of the site.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The old Erie Landfill located on the Pratt property has documented disposal of halogenated
organics and torpedo propellant in addition to other liquid and solid wastes between 1965 and
1979. Between 1979 and 1983, the site sat open and allowed precipitation to infiltrate the
landfill creating the potential of leaching and ground water contamination. The Columbine
Landfill which opened in 1979 accepted municipal solid wastes, sand and oil/grease trap
wastes. The Laidlaw North Landfill which opened in 1985 accepted municipal solid waste only.
Alluvial ground water contamination is documented in wells 103A & 103B at Laidlaw North. The
shallow bedrock wells appear to show degradation of ground water quality. The south draw
shows stressed vegetation around a pond and spring which indicates possible contamination to
either the pond or the spring which feeds it.
The major pathway of concern is the ground water pathway with contamination to the alluvial
aquifer, the shallow bedrock aquifer and a nearby spring.
13
6.0 REFERENCES
Amuedo & Ivey, CGS: Environmental Geology 9
Colorado Department of Health (site files)
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado State Engineers
Erie, Town of
Fish and Wildlife Assistance
Interview:
Armstrong, Gary; Rock Mountain Fuel Company, Owner of Columbine Mine
Hoffman, Richard; manager of Laidlaw Regional Landfill
Horst, Daniel; original operator of Laidlaw North
IBM
Kiernes, Brad; Colorado Landfill, Inc.
Neuhauser, John F.; Co-owner of Sanitation Engineering, Inc.
Pratt, Kenneth; owner of Pratt property
Roweder, Barbara; wife of Ralph Roweder
Sundstrand Aviation
Site Inspection to the Laidlaw North and South on 08/20/90 and 09/07/90
Weld County Assesors Office (site files)
Weld County Commissioners Office (site files)
Weld County Health Department (site files)
Weld County Planning Department (site files)
U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps
1 Ar-S R
14
PA Questionnaire
Page 12
36. SURFACE VATER FEATURES
Provide a simplified sketch of surface runoff and surface vater flow system
for 15 dovnstream miles. Include all pertinent features, e.g. , intakes,
recreation areas, fisheries, gauging stations, etc.
36 '� `. 31 (UNION RESERVOIR.) 32 I E 'r ',\ ( (�i3'
1 \
r r ` 3 . ,�
.... , ZN i
`` * ._
\, �' I s.
e • �, __ _. '
' • • ORE F '• WE5IE R0 '� f%1 / d ' 1 O 4 %
,,0„.6 e
\ IeJ 11 _ i
Jam?, se
9- i % _.
/°}i �`' >
Vi T ^4 -
--` _ — -
\ _ , `' N l c
___
.. ` xwm'x 8 Sr Vgal K'.1.... 9
a i
a
<!
�Y_� %.� r
-- - -- Fg , ‘ j
4
��.... Jetsam' : Man
nx •eR .16r;en ieVi 2 M ..., -
ow
I.
�i.�rsi 9
F08->
, - _
r
c f
•
•e>aNi
� •
Ili ) /.
24I I .19 ip J •�l-r
\ \ I.s, 24 ; ; .\19 �I Il .JJ �r Z _ 1---"I-
' ion"vu
'I I f Lem
m ftraft
mt., ', �4'1 ' r ..:;� Idaho C Crook J t.a
¢ ¢
__ .. ``
I �I
�—
..• Mutae Vier Ridge \ (p: j — �� _ —� /
4'4 ^ - /ift GQ' doh"..'
it, a •.V �/4 C' rv, ,`r
•
---0,;-.. c
I vi
' ) V (( 1..IL y
/ —0 f,Q' I p — i —t;
"._i ,.� V� II ego _
/ a n
W' r �
`rr JJ
Ar iF
� , g�. ' F
I
i _....i ii )
7� / AI 3 3
/ /',
�/
li ,14.- �m /
__��� _ �L _ , _ :plumb' . =_
/ °
-- , iN
„cl .i :"
B 5 �, 4x d� I. .
__.4 /y .. o d / .
I .
- { \ `
it E
' I - C, o� /
w.
- m.e.. /: grro,....
E —_il
¢ss
-akM u'.Vow l2 ` `''— \- 7 \ 8 e. i
.,\ a P.m�.c ��
°4
.. •I. 11 ° /`''
S o p.
• II \ • e
•
i .F ,2
�'F. reid ‘•,i _ �
, �.
�I E ; iIL , ,i; ��;�„
_ — -
n
�-_ . •I • ' I
I ' )
t
r
0 r
sr
I
/ .-7 .:•-.
....
47':'
:. m _
y -
a'-
rma.mais view 12 C
��H � _
4akee . I «P ,,,c -
O a o
-Al: •'�� \_� x
\I.
.I \
.
p°
•
\V I ir.e -
/�/ 'Cl R COI — — .. /"31
__an J o� �.I .\,. J i .
I,_.,---#.9,4.E1:1677 � -, �� '
I .1 ;10 .1 11 '.,
!49 • 1 : -.-F"'" Cem I
_ _ _ . .-19 .,� NSr��y, I\ Ill8 7n _ -5
b Ii�
1e `\
... v �
�V� �'1� 1. 0 I
'run
aT`y -\ 1_ �Z
aly� ,�
. _
4
I \ rvos _ .«die ti
�.� 7 A
�. Z,,
�_ , i \
€I ti —
za 19 c
mil, — �� ~� � -
r
Uw^�_ — i i aI i GIIDLAW Al
---
- —1 7,----„__. . : E•) 10
R„
- ` a - _
r
: � r. -
i ,
_c
�, �. , ,� �y - --/ - -
_(� �l �d: rRlkounn ✓/- . ._
1 AIRPORT / z_______
a _ �i9m•n
A II5 I. �.
�`
•
ii i• • • / I
_.G. .� �l l ,__..4, �Iil�_ i32 �, �.,
r
i .*
F08->
el r r--..11
Name Austin Buckingham Location S 1/2 Sec 20 and Sec 29
T1N, R68W
Site Name Colianbine Landfill Date October 15, 1990
PA OUESTIONNAIRE
PA Questionnaire
Page 2
(A) DOES ANY QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION EXIST THAT MAY INDICATE AN
OBSERVED RELEASE TO AIR, GROUND WATER, SOIL OR SURFACE WATER? Yes
Describe: Shallow around wa r contaminat;rn ; eo on r_�_, __ ___ gnnsat
by IBM and Sundstrand into NE NE Section 24
(B) IF THE ANSWER TO #1 IS YES, IS THERE EVIDENCE OF DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY CONTAMINATION OR ANY OTHER TARGET CONTAMINATION (i.e. food chain, recreation areas,
or sensitive environments)? Yes wetlands and spring in the Smith draw show PvidPnrP of stressed
vegetation The pond contains rusted half hurled drums and shredded photo rondurtor material .
(C) ARE THESE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN A 4-MILE RADIUS OR IS DOWNSTREAM MILES
OF THE SITE? YPS IF YES, DESCRIBE IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
-Multiple sensitive environments?
-Federally designated sensitive environment(s)?
-Sensitive environment(s) downstream on a small or slow flowing surface waer body?
The wetlands area(s) are l mated in a_draw that is south of the site and nuns
parallel to the site
(D) IS THE SITE LOCATED IN AN AREA OFKARST TERRAIN? No
Describe:
(E) DOES THE WASTE SOURCE LIE FULLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN A WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AS
DESIGNATED ACCORDING TO SECTION 1428 OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT? No
Describe:
(F) DOES ANY QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION EXIST THAT PEOPLE LIVE OR ATTEND
SCHOOL ON ONSITE CONTAMINATED PROPERTY? No
Describe:
PA Questionnaire
Page 3
SITE INFORMATION
1. SITE NAME: Columbine Landfi J 1
ADDRESS: 1441 Weld County Road 61 P.O. Box 320
CITY: Erie COUNTY Weld STATE CO ZIP 80516
EPA ID: COD 980951735
LATITUDE 105°1'40" LONGITUDE: 40°1'15'
2. DIRECTIONS TO SITE (From nearest public road):
I 25; take Erie Exit: cto west 2 miles to Weld County Road #5: go south one mile; site
occupies the NENE: W 1/2 NE, E 1/2 NW Section 29yand S 1/2 SW 1/4 Section 20, TIN, R68W;
at intersection WCR 5 & 6
3. SITE OWNERSHIP HISTORY (Use additional sheets, if necessary):
A. Name of current owner: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
Address: 1441 Weld County Road 6 . P.O. Box 320
City Erie County: Weld State CO Zip: 80516
Dates: From 1/88 To present Phone: (303) 673-9431
B. Name of previous owner: Western Disposal, Inc.
Address: 5880 Butte Mill Road
City: Boulder County:Boulder State: Co zip 80301
Dates: From 12/85 To 1/88 Phone (303) 444-2037
Source of ownership data: CDH file
4. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP (Check all that apply):
X Private _State _Municipal
_Federal County _Other (describe):
31.0$31 9
PA Questionnaire
Page 4
5. NAME OF SITE
OPERATOR: Laidlaw Waste Systems
ADDRESS 1441 Weld County Road 6, P.O. Box 320
CITY: Erie COUNTY: Weld STATE: CO ZIP 80516
PHONE: (303)673-9431
BACKGROUND/OPERATING HISTORY
6. DESCRIBE OPERATING HISTORY OF SITE: 1965-1969: Neuhauser operated MSW and industrial
chemical disposal on Pratt property; BFI and Roweder operated MSW county landfill on Pratt
property 1970-1979; 1979-1985: Colorado Landfill, Inc. , operated Columbine Landfill;
1985-1988: Western Disposal operated Columbine; 1988-present: Laidlaw operated Columbine &
renamed it to Laidlaw South.
Source of information: CDH file and interviews.
7. DESCRIBE SITE AND NATURE OF SITE OPERATIONS (property size, manufacturing, waste disposal,
storage,etc): The Pratt property (35AC. ) received drumed chemical waste from IBM, torpedo
propellant from Sundstrand Aviation (which was brought to the site in tankers & burned in
on-site pits) and municipal solid waste. The site was unlined and rarely covered. The
Columbine site (160AC)(aka. Laidlaw South) had a scarified & recompacted liner where clay
was absent. MSW and sand & grease trap wastes were accepted. Laidlaw North (80AC) accepted
MSW only. The site has a scarified and recompacted clay liner.
Source of information: CDH file and interviews
8. DESCRIBE ANY EMERGENCY OR REMEDIAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT THE SITE:
July 1968 a chemical fire occured on the Pratt property. Throughout the operation of the
site, open burning was a continual problem requiring fire dept. response.
Source of information: CDH file.
9. ARE THERE RECORDS OR KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENTS OR SPIT T S INVOLVING SITE
WASTES? Yes
Describe: In drainage to the south of the site, liquid and solid waste disposal has occurred
Source of information: i ntPrvi awG and si tP yi G i t t 08/70/90)
w 1.9,S; 41
PA Questionnaire
Page 5
10. DISCUSS EXISTING SAMPLING DATA AND BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE DATA QUALITY (e.g., sample objective,
age/comparability, analytical methods, detections limits and QA/QC• Current monitoring consists of
around water and surface water (Coal CreekL Coal Creek does not show any obvious
contatgtation. The on-site monitoring wells are screened to the shallow alluvial ground__
water syste and a bedro k ca ira d mi Th predcxn;natety b;r rhn r �arock around
water shows effects of some water Quality degradation in the form of elevated chloride
sulphate, nitratesi sodium. Well 103 A&B show halogenated organic contamination. All
analytical methods and detection limits are EPA methods appropriate for the constituent.
Source of information: CDH file-monitoring reports
WASTE CONTAINMENT/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION
11. FOR EACH SOURCE AT THE SITE, SUMMARIZE ON TABLE 1 (page 12): 1)Methods of hazardous tL
substance disposal, storage or handling; 2) size/volume/area of all features/structures that might contain Rol- L
Inzardous waste; 3) condition/integrity of each storage disposal feature or structure; and 4) types of hazardous eV0CACA
substances handled.
Fmk
12. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW WASTE QUANTITY WAS ESTIMATED (e.g., historical records or manifests, permit ,in
applications, photo measurements, etc.):
1) IBM: 1500 55 gallon drums of chemical waste disposed on Pratt property 2) Sundstrand:
unknown quantity of torpedo_propellant disposed in container lined pits then burned 3) un-
known guanity of unknown chemical waste disposed in pits 4) 8,700,000 cy solid waste
—
A z•3). 4). '7
Source of information: EPA Notification, interview with Neuhauser, CDH r c-A I ) c� _
-910
�� t3 J
13. DESCRIBE ANY REST ONS OR BARRIERS ON ACCESSIBILITY TO ONSITI .{.1_
\ � r
(AKA Pratt pro � \ et -;-
The old Erie Lan fill had unrestricted access and was not attendede,4,�,9p •g- / 77.
1979 the Columbine Landfill adjacent to the Pratt property was fenc,..eQie v P.
road existed with entrance to site since 1965. Both l,aidlaw North & South is fenced and
attended.
Source of information: Interviews. aerial photo 1972 & 1974
cr1 rt CI 1
PA Questionnaire
Page 6
GROUND WATER CHARACTERISTICS
14. ANY POSITIVE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A RELEASE TO GROUND WATER? Yes
Describe: GW6 (Now decorrmissioned) showed small levels of V0C contamination, 103 A&103B show
alluvial contamination with halogenated organics.
Source of information: monitoring reports in CDH file (1, 13
toC
15. ON TABLE 2 (page 13), GIVE NAMES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF �tYr
GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS UNDERLYING THE SITE.
"Irk-t1`
16. NET PRECIPITATION: 15 inches/year
SURFACE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
17. ARE THERE SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN 2 MP FS OF THE SITE? Yes
X Ditches Lakes X Pond
X Creeks Rivers X Other dry drainages which flow during storm events.
18. DISCUSS THE PROBABLE SURFACE RUNOFF PATTERNS FROM THE SITE TO SURFACE WATERS:
surface runoff on natural topography occurs by sheet runoff into trellis patterned
drainages until it reaches Coal Creek 1/2 mile to the west of the site.
19. PROVIDE A SIMPLIFIED SKETCH OF SURFACE RUNOFF AND SURFACE WATER FLOW
SYSTEM FOR 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES (see item #36).
20. ANY POSITIVE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION? Yes
Describe: Coal Creek has been sampled at three sample points for 5 years and is uncontaminated.
The drainage to south of site shows stressed vegetation in the western most pond.
Source of information: Laidlaw monitoring and site visit (08/20/90)
2L ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF THE UPGRADIENT DRAINAGE AREA FROM THE SITE:135acres w/o road
Source of information: topography map.
el r`S11
PA Questionnaire
Page 7
22. DETERMINE THE AVERAGE ANNUAL STREAM FLOW OF DOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATERS
Water body: Coal Creek Flow: 5-25 cfs
Water body Boulder Creek Flow: 20-100 cfs
Water bodygt. Vrain Creek Flow: 50-150 cfs
Source of information: Laidlaw North Operations Report. District #6 water cammissioner
23. IS THE SITE OR PORTIONS THEREOF LOCATED IN SURFACE WATER? no
24. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN A FLOODPLAIN (indicate flood frequency)?no
S. IDENTIFY AND LOCATE (see item #36) ANY SURFACE WATER RECREATION AREA
WITHIN 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE: None identified
Source of information: topographic map.
26. TWO YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL: 2.1 inches.
TARGETS
27. DISCUSS GROUND WATER USAGE WITHIN FOUR MILES OF THE SITE:
Alluvial: irrigation, stock, lawn watering
Shallow bedrock; irrigation, stock, lawn watering, some domestic
Taramie-Fox Hills: primarily domestic.
Source of information: State Engineers Office
25. SUMMARIZE THE POPULATION SERVED BY GROUND WATER ON THE TABLE BELOW:
Distance Population
(miles)
0 - 1/4 1 residence Laramie-Fox Hills
1/4 - 1/2 1 residence Laramie-Fox Hills
1/2 - 1 4 residences alluvial
PA Questionnaire
Page 8
1 - 2 120 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Larimie-Fox Hills
2 - 3 150 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Laramie-Fox Hills
3 - 4 150 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Laramie-Fox Hills
Source of
information: State Engineers Office
29. IDENTIFY AND LOCATE (see item #36) POPULATION SERVED BY SURFACE WATER
INTAKES WITHIN 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE: unknown population
No diversions down stream of site on Coal Creek. Boulder Creek has the following diversions:
Gooding. Daily & Plumb Ditch, Rural Ditch, Idaho Creek Carrier, Carr & Tylor, Houch #2,
Gooding/Highland South, Smith & Emmons._ and Tom Delehant. These are used for stock and
irrigation.
Source of information: District #6 Water Commissioner
30. DESCRIBE AND LOCATE FISHERIES WITHIN 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE
(i.e., provide standing crop of production and aaeage, etc.):
There are no fisheries within 15 downstream miles of the site.
Source of information: Co. Division of Wildlife, topographic map.
31. DETERMINE THE DISTANCE FROM THE SITE TO THE NEAREST OF EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING LAND USES
Description Distance
(miles)
Commercial/Industrial
Institutional 1 mile
Single Family Residential 1/4 mi le
Multi-Family Residential 1 mile
Park
Agricultural ac'uacent to site el irtprz11
Source of information: topographic' map.
4.1
PA Questionnaire 151-
Page 9
32. SUMMARIZE THE POPULATION WITHIN A FOUR-M LE RADIUS OF THE SITE:
Distance Population
onsite 22
0 - 1/4 2
1/4 - 1/2 3
1/2 - 1 16
1 - 2 1500
2 - 3 600
3 - 4 600
Source of information: Town of Erie, Estimated at 4 persons/household
OTHER REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT
33. DISCUSS ANY PERMITS:
County. Certificate of Designation Old Erie Landfill 1968; Laidlaw South 1979
State: APCD permit - Laidlaw South 1979 and 1987
Federal: None
Other: Laidlaw North Annexed by town of Erie in 1985.
Source of information: CDH files
grEttrolfi
PA Questionnaire
Page 11
35. SKETCH OF SITE
Include all pertinent features, e.g., wells, storage areas, underground
storage tanks, waste areas, buildings, access roads, areas of ponded water,
etc. Attach additional sheets with sketches of enlarged areas, if necessary.cnod ‘.4,7]. t. -6 : i 0(\ .._.,, \---_,\,. , _
a_J71. p I I /4H \_ _I
,� 33
•\t .,.l : iI� ',h. J( 41 , � 1 ) ��� �U V '- / p
ry—�/�i _ �n
p, ,� . (-,III TIN FZ691,� TIN IZ68v3 s,
y V
S
-� bi �.� �i � a \ I/III ' - r _�-
a± \ /—, i —� � .' 0. f I.II - I , (1, ---- 230
1 / _ ...,-- �/,-
_ u
j �� \ I \
/ ! _ `..4 \
19 ', , ' / I �/ �'t, — i' ',Ai 21. ,
; I � �- ,_\ fir.:/, - o
z� I • 1 � 5 �I .e,•. - _ •
J 1300e-i �.. A. 1 ( �, / //
FFF \-_ � ,Y -
1 V i\A lTv /
, , 1 -
v J
\o I - u} 'y` °' • _� - v� �� 1131
_a - ; -
n1 I / k 1. /) �r �fRIZZIA(l�l�l •
Q� • • -
�C
3' I kg)/ /' //// ��
o� / .� /� '� y
21 r1Z i O/ / / \� 1.'lurnbine Mmeb �/ V I
��a/ l I ���� ���r�'�--�.y� I /li. -� � / -,7
�i .��i r �! -� �A�� A��V(�✓./�b�� NIB a �!/ V ..,� "\ \
J n \ / '1 A A ?s?coA A\ �---,G--� i k
r ' A��a o,
\v \ _ aco A \p° lam' � _ A \ • a, '� \ 1\ l -5, —.2��� \.- ' /�y0
��) �/ �- - 1�B9gkpgo -- / ww I --r< �� �, - ' - II --7. �I Av x,91. I l 1 v�
( —i ) ? I a '
o / /
�: , k ( / ) K A - 6 �I �I� / / � I A ,
o// �. TRH OUNTY - � -- �'" '' - �� uyga
\ i/ �, _
4, � � � I I -
�
/ --'•/-
) ' /
1 Ca.l Cra2k5r�occ4 P• J��r� /I \\-\—�•
_(- ,
/ _ I LolwTva ��...� I�c No oPUW21( --'•/-/V /{i I 1/f - - • calgoici.\ micl.toAi ize-t( *ma r°44 1 - ..,(7e 3 / ) ,
i
, --\ \ .* _sm.' ) ‘, i "Ir÷ timai‘lo .i oe- / c-J3' .,' ( se-\t 71 •s•
N.
!t \• rte" ...,,j c.�_:
• — 3 .cP�li_.
/
._ / / � 2W/ �i r.r� —.
, r
f J -
, ' ,
"� TM .,
�. n•
`
,
tI , , o / .
1 • j� /I► aI
I i - - • ,�:
+,
l ,
J a.
aJ
4.1
r
�. Y v
WI >
• .� _
� J
•
J , j. . ,.. 7j ( � , W
I-• Ili -- -'--'
d,
"Jrr till i ; - _ ' _
i. .{� ��M \ ,. 0, i • 7.•;. ,
.\h �1��(/� C .I
a , ' r
/'_ , O n 1 sir �
s,..�.
�w
ilj ..
y iC. 1. !• /
\`/.{._ 111 t ` •t ` /21 ‘1i _
rcue(4n,J-. ." C.
e► x • h
} C?
I tiuhl s •- I N
,. P I
eA, ' l _
'.f. -_ _ . � _ -
7",. v lrl` 1.
\�iE POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT O1STATE02 SITE N
PART 1.SITE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT (Y) IUMBER
D980951735
11.SITE NAME AND LOCATION
01 SITE NAME MAPS cono ,rForoans.•r Mt 02 STREET.ROUTE NO.,OR SPECIFIC LOCATION WENTIFIER
Col •
00 CTY
DA STATE 03 DP COOS Oa COUNTY OTCOO Oa CO
Erie Co 80516 Wy]d CODE SST
123
Oa COORDINATES LRUOE LONGITUDE
AT
4-nP �LT_15r._ I I Laidlaw North
1.0.52 LOLL 401 — 5.2 SW Section 20, TIN, R68W;80AC
I O aRECTIONa TO STE:Ka.N As....r Pre i.r.
I 25; take Erie Exit; go west to Weld Cty Rd #5; go south one mile; site occupies the
NENE, WINE, E1NW Section 29 & S1SW Section 20, TIN, R68W; at intersection of WCR 5&6
III.RESPONSIBLE PARTIES LAIDLAW NORTH
01 Ow1[ER IAAw, 02 STREET( ad.mess SC.r..m
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc 1441 Weld County Road #6
03 Orr IA STATE as ZIP cox oa TELEPHONE NUMaER
Erie CO 80516 1303 673-9431 �r 440-9601
0)OPERATOR IFY...w ww is.awn oa STREET Imo[,ml..a N....r
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc 1441 Weld County Road #6
Geary
tostuE II ZIP CODE 12 TELEPHONE NUMBER
Erie CO 80516 (6031673-9431 0- 440-9601
13 TYPE OF OWNERSHIP Form mo.
g. A.PRIVATE Z B.FEDERAL: LC G STATE �.O.COUNTY‘.E.4.m.4s C E.MUNICIPAL
C F.OTHER: C G UNKNOWN
SASE..(
I A OY.NERIOPERATOR NOTIFICATION ON FEE IG.E.rs4 a,
r. A.RCRA 3001 OATE RECEIVED: C E.UNCONTROLLED WASTE SITEIcsAc:.,23 CI DATE RECEIVED:.04114 y. .EAR C.NONE
IV.CNARACTERRATION OF POTENTIAL MAZARO 1101104 0.r .EM
0 t ON STE INSPECTIDN 84:Clem rlw.al
3(YES DATE 08 120, 90 C A.EPA C S.EPA CONTRACTOR )E C.STATE ❑ D.OTHER CONTRACTOR
NO 1400014 w. SEAM C E.LOCAL HEALTHOFFICIAL C F.OTHER:
09/07/90 CONTRACTOR NAMEISI: 1e ra
02 SITE STA TUS IONr..os 103 YEARS OF OPERATION
_A.ACTIVE C B.INACTIVE ❑C.UNKNOWN 1984 I present C UNKNOWN
41604.0.413'PEAR ENgM.E.[P
0.moray OF SUBSTANCES POSSIBLY PRESENT.KNOWN.OR ALLEGED
Municipal Solid Wastes
OS DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD TO ENVIRONMENT ANOIOR POPULATION
ground water contamination to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone .
surface water contamination to the unnamed drainage and Coal Creek, •
V.PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
01 PRIORITY FOR POPECTION Caen as.F;yaw.ew•r.[..r arse.M r•Wail vans*s*w M a.OI.n4....r.MUEr[Cannem u..nem4•.,
A.HIGH 6 B.MEDium C C.LOw C O.NONE
:''.1""........"..''.1""........"..''.1""........"..11""*" AP .w.11 Illmvsanima Orl INs Nr.Pr I[M r.wa[I.[A.rY4[.n4...yYe M..
VI.INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM
01 CONTACT 02 OF r.E.4E044..44..
03 TELEPHONE NUMBER
Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc 13031673-9431
OA PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSMENT SOS AGENCY OB ORGAIRLATIOy
07 TELEPHONE NUMBER COs DATE
3031331-4830 10 A15 '9n
EPA FORM 2070.12 V.S 11 s.assnl 0.. .c.R
Austin N. Buckingham CDH HMWNID
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IOENnPICAnoN
>\I= f E PRELIMINARY AtG> S$M�T o1 at. AfR1
PART 1•sem INFORMATION AH0 Antiulcer CO ig9TE NVN D980951715
11.SITE NAYR ANO LOCATION
(Han N*..A raver................,•••••••••• I OI STREET.ROUTE NO..OA SPECIFIC LOCATION CENTRES
03 OTT ICA STATE I 05 DP COCA Ia GOUT.r
IO1Cp111(ryioA CONS
OS COCOON*TES LAnnlOE LONOTTUpE
_ _ _ I ___ __ __ _ WINE_ Laidlaw South
_ __
E1/2NW & WINE Section 29, TIN, R6AWT 160*(
I OPEC: TO SITEILw7.—meN/t.am wee
IIL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES LAIDLBW SOUTH
01 OMNEII NA.... 03 STREET N...a 1........,
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
0TCTY 1441 Weld Cnunt Rnar1 &6
CO0*STATE OS ZIP CO oA TELEAMC II MAY
Erie IE CO 805L6 13031 673-9431 (1r. 440-9601
07°mama,u.....r........ I OA STREET r<r�• sh Nan,
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld County Road #6
OA CrY I O STATE I I WOE 13 TELEPHONE MANIA
Erie I Tp TELEPHONECO 80516 3031673-9431 or 440-9601
la TYPE OF CE NENSNP IO..n as
Z A.PRIVATE C E.FEDERAL CI C.STATE CD.COUNiY C E MUNIGPAL,
,.....r.
I
C F OTHER
a. C D UNKNOWNW4......,I I.ONNENCRERATOR NOTY�ICAT10N ON Fu:Cmcs r AN�..
C A.RCRA}001 OATS RECEIVED: " S.UNCONTROLLED WASTE SITErcEPCLI,] o Tan. GaY •<M DATE RECEIVED: CI G NONE
IV.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL HAZARO N°"r'. O . .w
01 ON SITE INSPECTION EY rams ea rrN
-KYES OATE 08 .20 , 90 C A EPA C IL EPA CONTRACTOR JC C.STATE C D.OTHER CONTRACTOR
C NO "°"'^' °*• .w it ELOCAI HEALTH OFFICAL CF.OTHER:
09/07/90 CONTRACTORNAMEISI: ""^
02 SITE STATwran"... CIS YEAS 0P OPERATION
CU.ACTIVE Ca.INACTIVE CC.LIAPCNOWN 1979 I nresent z ut4ANoWN
fEO/wYRM .NPnO•EM
OA OESCRINION OP SUCTANCES POSSIBLY N M RNOIY t Cal µAO,®L .
municipal solid wastes, asbestos, oily sludges, sand and grease trap wastes
os OESCAIPTICN OF POTENT'µ?ALAMO TO EM PCNMENT ANOICIA POPUTA nom
ground water contamination to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone;
Surface water contamination to the unnamed drainage and Coal Creek.
V.PRIORITY ASSErIllENT
o PRCgTT FON INSPECTION ICA.v.r ergo r•r.PNa.w.N P..x•Tn.e sane w Ave a•Naas*.mos.Cass ma.Tw.
A.HIGH Z B.MEDIUM C C.LOW
:asT...r.T�.. +rv..... r�..r CO.NONE
Neer
IN.,....sr.l.ra tsTY.a...w.r.r.i1
VL INFORMATION AYAMASLE FROM
01 CCNTKT 02 OF'sr...om..r
W TELEPHONE NUMAER
Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. 303 )673-9431
0.PERSON RESPONUEE FOR ASSESSMENT SOS AGENCY IOA CROANNATIOM
01 TELEPHONE NUMBER 0E OAT!
Austin N. Buckingham CDH HMWMD 1303 331-4830 10 / 05, 90
Oa Oa •Ia
EP*PORN 3Cra.I T trail
° tSi n
C-I
40 C
POTENTIAL HAZAADOOS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATIONUL
��L PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTNT 01 STATE 02SIrENEEII
PART 1.SITE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT CO 0980951735
M SITE MALE AND LOCATION
0l 9TE Name n.'.s..s.s..a.raye 102 STREET.ROUTE NO..OA S►ECEC LOCATION IOENrwER
OS arr tOa STATE OS LRCM*{ OE COWry OICO{MHW CONIC
COON °tST
MEc*M1mEH.rEa uTTruDEI'°"crTv°E Old Erie Landfill
— --- _
NE NE Section 29, TIN, R68W; 35AC.
i 0 OElECT101AS TO ST V am a.Nam Nap Nam Nees
IIL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES OLD ERIE LANDFILL
01 OWNER Yam 02 STREET(Ira oat osomm'm
Kenneth Pratt 1960 Industrial Circle
03 Ore OA STATE 01 ZIP COCK OE TELEPHONE MAW Z
Longmont CO 80502 13031776-4496 (
07 CREAM-CA,.a..�m.arM...as..M. OE STREET rBomm..s..Forr
John F. Neuhauser P.O. Box 454
OE OTT lO STATE 11 23P COON 12 TELEPHONE NURSER
Saraland AL 365'71 12051675-9366
13 TYPE OF OWNEIISNr Kara
$ A.PBVATE C B.FEDERAL :r C.STATE CO.COUNTY C E MUNICSIAL
.A.......sr
II C F (MIER: C G UNKNOWN
1 a OWNENCPERATOR NO runesnoN CN FEE.*ara rre�
C A.RCRA.3001 DATE RECENED: C 8.UNCONTROLLED WASTE SR c:Ercri .122a DATE RECEIVED: Lb c.NONE
IV.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD
wood SITE INSPECTION aY IQM.raemem
Z YES GATE 08 , 20, 90 C A EPA C 8.EPA CONTRACTOR .2C.STATE C 0.OTHER CONTRACTOR
C NO NGNn. 0A• .w C E OFFICIAL LOCAL HEALTH OFFIC CF.OTHER:
09/07/90 CONTRACTOR HALMS: r_r
*2 SKI STArwraHMa.e o3 YEARS HvoPeRA 91 finally closed 1983
A.ACTIVE Zat SUCTNE ❑C. 65 urewoWM 1979 UNKNOWN
aEGN.Y•em 0.0..p.,y
OA 0ESOMITI0N OF SUBSTANCES POMMY FMSEST.XNMWN.OA ALLEGED
torpedo propellant from Sundstrand Aviation; MEK and other unspecified organics,
inorganics, solvents, acids and bases from IBM (see -part 2, IV for possible substances)
OS OESCANITION CP A0TENTUI NA2ARM TO ENVIRONMENT AN*1*R POPULATION
ground water contamination to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone;
surface water contamination to the unnamed drainage and Coal Creek.
V.PRIORITY ASIEFSMENT
0l P1ler FOR EEPECT10N Ta.a s.•me.Nara.Ma..awes'Iw2.oramesnap Peri.O...r....a,..si.Criss se
C A.HIGH S B.MEDIUM C C.LOW C O.NONE
..........~..... IIPSWIIIII We ISIS RIMS IIINI/weft.an nest CanalenWSW~WS NI.0
VL INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM
01 CCN TACT 02 OF rA....Oe.van.. 03 TELEPHONE NUMBER
John F. Neuhauser & Kenneth Pratt 3 1675-9366
03 776-4496
Oa PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSMENT OS AGE OT TELEPHONE NUMBER OE G
AGENCY OE ORGANZA MN A ATE
Ill Austin N. Buckingham CDH �py(�D 10,05.90
303 331-4830 .bN.H IIA• 'colEPA VAPORY 2070..217.111
C-1 01 rot:I 9
= EPA POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE I.IDENTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 01 STATE 02 SITE NUMBER
PART 2•WASTE INFORMATION CO D98 9517'1 II.WASTE STATES.QUANTITIES,AND CHARACTERISTICS
O I PHYSICAL STATES ,cn«•misses,, 02 WASTE QUANTITY AT SITE
•m«•m..m..N.wsv... OO WASTE CHARACTERISTICS iCn«.min.es„
%A SOUO : E.SLURRY N••...trons
B.POWOEA.FINES X,F UOUIo • 100, a x A.TOXIC _ E.SOLUBLE JCI A C.SLUOGE K B CORROSIVE _ F INFECTIOUSX''NLY VOUTILE
CUBIC YARDS B 600 000 K O.RADIOA RADIOACTIVE
-H cLAmm s X.I.EXPLOSIVE
O.OTHER LE .. X.REACTIVE '
•NO.OP DRUMS 1500 1 i gi I I d - L.'NcoMR"HALE
_M NOT APR
ae.enl UCABLE
111.WASTE TYPE
CATEGORY SUBSTANCE NAME
01 GROSS AMOUNT •2 UNIT OF MEASURE OJ COMMENTS
suu sLuoGE 65 000 .allons
OLW OILY WASTE 30,000 sand t waste
SOL gallons oil & grease
* SOLVENTS
PSO PSO PESTCIOES
OCC * OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS
IOC INORGANIC CHEMICALS *84,000 gallons + unknown
AcO * Aa0.5 �- quantity o torpe•o prope ant
SAS BASES
MES HEAVY METALS
IV.HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 1S......•..,.,,,,.m„•,,,,,,,,,cnos Asp I
01 CATEGORY 025UBSTANCE NAME
03 CAS NUMBER O.ST0RAGEOISRCSAL METHOD OS CONC EN TPA OOH &'NacENIxf,
Meth le h 1 K •E- ;-.
toluene 108-88-3 E • S unknown
meth lene chloride 75-09-2
chloro67-66-3 -
form
tetrah etrah drofuran 109-99-9 -
- sulfuric acid 7664-93-9
M zinc cyanide 557-21-1
I ••tassium anide 151-50-8
2 - lethylene diamine 107-15-3
(I. freon unknown
- n-but lamine unknown ■
■ diethylene glycol dinitrate unknown pumped to pit & burner,
' unknown �
- I
V.FEEDSTOCKS is•..0...,,n,Casm..own -
CATEGORY 01 FEEDSTOCK NAME
02 CAS NUMBER CATEGORY JI FEEOST0C% AME N
FOS
02 CAS NUMBER
FOS FOS
FOS FOS
FOS FOS
FOS
VI.SOURCES OF INF
ORMATION ice.sac,c,.s.•e.......+,m.,•...,.,,.,.«,,,,..,«.•u
CDH files
Weld County Files
interviews with: IBM, Sundstrand, John F. Neuhauser
EPA FORM 2070.12 ITS',
2 ..
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345. 0-01
A
Y-
( ��,c� POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATION
L• PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 01 STATE 02 SITE TAAABER
PART 3•DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS E' I '
IL HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS
01 '$A.GROUNDWATER CONTAIYINATION _ nnjo;)(,�(�f
03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: nn11P 02 N•OBSERVED IDATE. on 1 ! I,�,.-���
/09
Shallow alluvial OA NARRATIVE OESCAIPTION 3CPOTENTIAL j(ALLEGED v0'IG/q
in wells 103Aalluvial
& $ground water contamination exist in the form of halogenated organic
Chloride„Sulfate & Sodi. Other um.
(such as GW1, GW8 & 203) shot elevated Nitrate,
indicating degraded water ��
01 BB,SURFACE WATER C0NTAMNATION quality due to the facility
03 POI U FACEPOTENTIALLYONTAND ATION 02g OBSERVED(DATE:_0$420 1.„9.0.)
04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION —) POTENTIAL CARD
Potential surface water contamination was observed in' the drainage to the south of 1 l
site. A small pond had half buried drums on its shore. Vegetation was either stres-
sed or dead. The water was murky with no algae growth-
01 C C. CONTAMINATION OF AIR
03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 02_,Og�D ; POTENTIAL
Oa NARRATIVE —I - AL
- ALLEGED
Contamination of air was not reported or observed
at R D FIREExPLDSNE CONDITIONS
03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: none 04 NARRATIVE OBSERVED IOATE. . 11 JFi
�-� 02OBSER DESORPTION
COATE — JI 968 $POENTIAL acAUEGEO
A chemical fire was observed on July 26, 1968 at the_Pratt Pro
_ how the fire was initiated.
Aerty• It is unknown
a+ = E. DIRECT CONTACT on site 03 POPULATION PONT CT AFFECTED: 02 C OBSERVED;DAE,
a+NANRATNE DESCRIPTION __I 7.. POTENTIAL _ A`OEO
Direct contact has not been reported or observed.
01 E F CONTAMINATION OF SOIL
03 AREA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 325 d0. 02C OBSERVED IOATE_�
__.---.-J-..' -- Oa NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION 1 .g POTENTIAL .Z ALLEGED
Contamination of soil is a potential due to leaking chemical drums and chemical west
pits.
E
03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: QI
02 C OBSERVED IOATE. _ U14) .
�� Oa NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION 1 C. POTENAL = Al I Y n ViaDrinking water contamination not reported or observed.
Vi
C/010O1 Z H. WORKER EXPOSURE/INJURY
03 WORKERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 02 C'OWED SCRIP
�-� 02 NARRATIVE pESCRm7IO�-1 a POENTIAL IC ALLEGED
Worker exposure or injury was not reported or observed. However, Q
due to excavation activities on-site. No i
the potential exist:
01 CI POPULATION E%POSUREIWURY
03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED' 02 C OBSERVED
02 NARRAT MATE���1
C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED
Population exposure or injury was not reported or observed.
EPA FORM 2070.121 T-ON l
/EPA POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IOENnFlCAnoN
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT o+ srA2E 02 s rE NUMBER
PART 3-DESCRIPTION OF HAZAADOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS CO D980951735
IL HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS acs......,
01 p J.DAMAGE TO FLORA 02 C OBSEED(DATE:RV
04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION 1 C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED
Damage to flora has not been reported or observed.
01 p K.DAMAGE TO FAUNA 02 C OBSERVED(DATE:04 NARRATIVE OESCRIPTION Ps a.a.mxxwe+s I G POTENTIAL C ALLEGED
Damage to fauna has not been reported or observed.
01 p L CONTAMINATION OF FOOD CHAIN 02 C OBSERVED(DATE;
04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION I G POTENTIAL G ALLEGED
Contamination of the food chain has not been reported or observed.
01 LXM.U sTA^BLE CONTAINMENTOF�w��w' WASTE$ 02 C OESERVEp(DATE1 pCPOTENTUL
ALLEGED
iSsowwire03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Oa NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
The chemical waste drums are potentially rusted and leaching waste into the shallow
aquifer systems.
0+ CXN. DAMAGE TO OFFSITE PROPERTY 02 C OBSERVED MATE:
04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION 1 C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED
Shallow alluvial contamination from wells 103A&B is migrating off-site. Disposal &
possibly a contaminated pond exists off-site to the south of the Columbine Site.
01 CO.CONTAMINATION OF SEWERS.STORM ORAINS. WWTPs 02 C OBSERVED MATE:04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION I POTENTIAL ALLEGED
Contamination of sewers, storm drains or WWTPIs have not been reported or observed.
01 X P. ILLEGAUUNAUTHORIZEDOUMPING 02 C OBSERVED IRATE: OR 9(1 q(1 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION I 1 POTENTIAL C ALLEGED
Illegal or unauthorized dumping has occurred in the drainage to the south of the
Columbine Site.
05 DESCRIPTION OF ANY OTHER KNOWN,POTENTIAL OR ALLEGED HAZARDS
Some portions of the landfill are potential saturated(due to infiltration of precipita-
tion and surface water or contact with shallow ground water) . Therefore significent
methane generation is probable.
ILL TOTAL POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: estimated at 1410 for town of Erie
N. COMMENTS
None.
V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ICee eg.e.e rgx.derxe..ix...sludge.testae swam,.gees
CDH Files
Weld County Health Department Planning Department & Commissioners office
Interviews with Laidlaw; Colorado Landfill Incl; K. Pratt; J. Neuhauser, IBM & Sundstrand
EPA FORM 2070. 2I7.41I
C-4
21f 47iS 9
LEI
S S )
§ § .
o t o .
\ } �En ` ( � d ` d
{S { 2 { a
} / u 3a 3a 88
)� c
( 2]{
w2 j
w ( //� c /
) \ \ / §f \ \
\
y
® \ � \ § § co
5 3 u4 w \ 2 \ 2 \ as
/ / � ( jvi\ } \ 4-I C)
}/ }/ * * \
/ E § f \ \ j \ j \ /
vi
}
\ vl
) ) ) L.
) a
,....O ^:' r
( � , ( /_
§ in 7
\ a }
CI
\ •§ \ j ] )
MI \ \
7 � ) k ) \ • ) 'o ±
/ \ \ 3k ) = \ \ it.
c 1 � l
E4 at') ) } « ) / -4 w
| 9 | \ \ � f 1"..,.
/ / / | ; w
SAMPLING PLAN
COLUMBINE LANDFILL
COD980951735
ERIE, WELD COUNTY
COLORADO
SUBMITTED TO: PAT SMITH
EPA PROGRAM MANAGER
SUBMITTED BY: AUSTIN BUCKINGHAM
CDH PROJECT OFFICER
REVIEWED BY:
October 31, 1990
Revised December 7, 1990
21.W1.`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 2
2.1 SI Objectives 2
2.2 Previous Work 2
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3
3.1 Site Location and Description 3
3.2 Site History 3
4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
4.1 Geology 6
4.2 Hydrogeology 7
4.3 Hydrology 7
4.4 Meteorology g
5.0 PRELIMINARY PATHWAY ANALYSIS 9
5.1 Waste Characterization 10
5.2 On-site Pathway 11
5.2.1 Pathway 11
5.2.2 Targets 11
5.3 Air Pathway 11
5.3 1 Pathway 11
5.3.2 Targets 12
5.4 Ground Water Pathway 12
5.4.1 Pathway 12
5.4.2 Targets 13
5.5 Surface Water Pathway 13
5.5.1 Pathway 13
5.5.2 Targets 14
t C^ 41-0 511
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
6.0 FIELD OPERATIONS/DATA COLLECTION 14
6.1 Concept of Operations, Logistics 14
6.1.1 Schedule 14
6.1.2 Key Personnel 14
6.13 Site Access and Logistics 14
6.1.4 Site Safety 15
6.2 Well Installation and Sample Collection 15
6.3 Decontamination Procedures 18
7.0 OUALITY CONTROL OUALITY/ASSURANCE 18
7.1 Control of Contaminated Materials 18
7.2 Analytical Parameters 19
7.3 Field Quality Control/Quality Assurance 19
7.4 Chain of Custody 20
8.0 REPORTING 20
9.0 REFERENCES 20
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
SAMPLING PLAN
COLUMBINE LANDFILL
COD 908951735
ERIE, WELD COUNTY
COLORADO
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) of the Colorado Department of
Health (CDH) has assumed responsibility to conduct a site investigation for the Columbine
Landfill and its nearby properties located in the Wl/2 NE1/4, E1/2 NWl/4, NE1/4 NE1/4 of
Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West and the Sl/2 SW1/4 of Section 20, Township 1
North, Range 68 West in the southwest corner of Weld County. This sampling plan has been
prepared to satisfy in part the evaluation of environmental and health impacts that
designated sites present to the people and commerce of the State of Colorado, and
continuation of the Division's cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region VIII in Pre-remedial actions.
The scope of this project involves the collection of soil, water, and opportunity samples
during the site investigation. This sampling plan has been prepared to produce the
objectives necessary for a site investigation in a safe, cost effective, and timely manner.
1 O1 ,ilfAr.' en
2.0 OBJECTIVES
2.1 SI Objectives
The Screening Site Investigation is intended to fulfill the following objectives:
1. Determine the potential lateral ground water contamination from characterized
hazardous substances disposed of at the solid waste landfill site.
2. Determine impact to the nearest domestic Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer users.
3. Determine impact to the nearest surface water body and wetlands.
4. Determine background ground water quality for the site.
Information was gathered during the Preliminary Assessment (PA) to initially address the � 1 Vi
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) pathway requirements. Results of the PA suggested the 57 .,
possibility of a significant HRS score. Therefore the HMWMD recommends conducting a site 4)'
investigation at the Columbine Landfill for the purpose of gathering information applicable T5`dt�
to a Screening Site Investigation (SSI).
The following allegations support the hypothesis that the site may warrant further
investigation:
1. The old Erie Landfill (opened in 1965) has been the site of industrial, chemical
and solid waste disposal. The site has been unsecured, unfenced and unattended
during much of its operating life.
2. The old Erie Landfill has been the site of frequent chemical fires and open burning.
3. The landfill, once operated by the trench and fill method, may have allowed burial
of wastes at or below the alluvial ground water table.
4. Ground water contamination emanating from the Laidlaw North landfill was reported
in 1987.
5. The alluvial and shallow bedrock aquifers are utilized for irrigation and stock
watering within a four mile radius of the site.
Based on the statements above, a potential exists for off-site migration of the hazardous
contaminants that may have been disposed of at the site and have been detected in on-site
monitoring wells.
2.2 Previous Work
A Preliminary Assessment of the Columbine Landfill was performed by CDH in June 1984. The PA
stated that approximately 1500 drums containing 84,000 gallons of liquid were disposed on the
Pratt property (aka the old Erie Landfill). The waste was generated by IBM between 1965 and
1969. The nature of the liquid wastes were suspected as solvents, unspecified organics,
inorganics, acids and bases. Contamination to the shallow alluvial ground water was listed
as a potential but undocumented environmental impact at the time of the 1984 PA.
O1 for 7 �[]
V.. .'J 4T..r•:.7
2
The Site Investigation report summarized the site history and geology. Surface water and
ground water samples were collected. Organic and inorganic analyses were performed. The
presence of several compounds found in the SI were discounted either because they were
suspected laboratory contaminants or because the compounds were exotic and only tentatively
identified. Two compounds identified as being present in the ground water were 1-butene and
oxybismethane. The compounds were found at levels of 130 ug/I in GW-1 for 1-butene and 310
ug/1 in GW-1 for oxybismethane and 370 ug/1 in GW-8 (aka GW-2 in the SI) for oxybismethane.
The SI report concluded:
1.) That the landfill is producing leachate based on the specific conductivity;
2.) That some mounding may be occurring thus allowing leachate to migrate offsite and
up gradient; and
3.) That further followup work is needed to accurately determine the presence of the
organic constituents.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The landfill site is located approximately 1 1/4 miles southeast of the town of Erie in Weld
County, Colorado. The Columbine Landfill site (now known as Laidlaw South) occupies 160
acres in the E1/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The
Old Erie Landfill site (aka the Pratt property) occupies 35 acres in the NE1/4 NE1/4 of
Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The Laidlaw North site occupies 80 acres in the
S1/2 SW1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The approximate site coordinates
are lattitude 40' 01' 40" and longitude 105' 01' 15". To reach the site from I-25, take the
Erie exit, go west to Weld City Road #5 and go south one mile. The entrance to the site is
at the intersection of Weld County Road #5 & #6 (figure 1 and 2).
3.2 Site History
There have been multiple activities and transfer of ownership on the parcels of land in
Section 20 and 29, T1N, R68W. The parcel owned by Pratt has been in the family since 1912.
Due to the topographic relief of the draw running from east to west across site, it was
unavailable for farming. To correct this problem the Pratts entered into an agreement with
Mr. John F. Neuhauser in 1964 to fill in the drainage in the NE1/4 NE1/4 Section 29, T1N,
R68W so that the area would eventually be level enough to farm. Neuhauser with Mr. Carl
Smith (both employed by Sundstrand Aviation) formed a company called Sanitation Engineering,
Inc. They hauled solid waste from nearby communities. (Record keeping during the late
1960's until the late 1970's was very poor. Much of the following discussion is based on
interviews.) Sanitation Engineering had apparently obtained a contract with I.B.M.-Boulder
and Sundstrand Aviation to dispose of a portion of their waste stream. The landfill, which
may have been known as the Erie Landfill, accepted industrial and chemical wastes in addition
to regular municipal solid wastes. The site was not fenced and was a continual source of
complaints from the landowner.
C� ri w-+ 9
3 . 1.i3�
IBM reported to the EPA an estimate of the amount and type of waste they had disposed of at
the Erie Landfill between 1965 to June 1969. The IBM EPA Notification estimated that 84,000
gallons of chemical waste contained in 1500 55 gallon drums were disposed. The chemical
waste types were organics, inorganics, solvents, acids and bases. The chemicals typical of
IBM manufacturing include No. 1, No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oil, liquid nitrogen, methyl ethyl
ketone, trichlorofluoroethanol, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, tetrahydrofuran, methylene
chloride, n-butylamine, ethylene diamine, ammonia and sulfuric acid.
The earliest document on file regarding the Neuhauser site is dated August 9, 1966. A
routine Boulder County inspection noted that two pits were dug for the disposition of
chemicals. In a third pit, it appeared that chemicals were being burned. Mr. Neuhauser
reported that Sundstrand brought torpedo propellant to the site in tanker trucks. The
propellant may have been a variation of diethylene glycol dinitrate. The propellant was
pumped from the tanker into a pit lined with a metal container. The propellant filled pit
was then ignited as a method of disposal. On September 29, 1966 an inspection was performed
by a CDH representative. The report noted that chemical wastes were being discharged in
designated areas and cover material was being supplied from an excavation designed to divert
natural drainage around refuse fill rather than through the fill. In addition, Mr. Neuhauser
commented at the time of the inspection, that operational improvements were delayed pending
the outcome of the recent court decision. This court decision that he may be referring to is
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) hearing regarding poor disposal practices at the old
Erie Landfill. It is known, via IBM conversations, that Neuhauser was brought before the PUC
for his disposal operations. A transcript of this hearing seems to be unavailable. IBM does
not have a copy and the PUC purges their documents every two years. The exact date of the
hearing is unknown. However, as a result of the PUC decision, IBM terminated their contract
for disposal with Neuhauser in June 1969.
On July 17, 1968, the Erie Landfill received a Certificate of Designation (CD) issued to John
F. Neuhauser by the Weld Board of County Commissioners. An Air Pollution Control Division
memo dated July 31, 1968 stated that an uncontrolled chemical fire occurred on July 26, 1968
at the Neuhauser dump located just inside Weld County in the southwestern corner.
Approximately 3000 gallons of waste chemicals had burned. Adjacent to the area, where the
chemical fire occurred, was an open burning dump face that appeared to have been burning for
quite some time. During conversations at the time of the incident, Mr. Neuhauser revealed
that the waste chemicals were from the IBM plant in Boulder County and the Sundstrand
Manufacturing complex in Adams County. The site inspector recalled that Mr. Neuhauser had at
one time operated a dump site in Boulder County which closed down for operating an
uncontrolled dump and contaminating ground water. On October 30, 1968 the CD was suspended
by Weld County for 33 days but was held in abeyance for a 6 month probation period. Mr.
Neuhasuser sold his share of Sanitation Engineering to his partner Carl Smith in late 1968.
There is no information found regarding activities at the Erie Landfill between 1969 and
1973. By the early 1970's Weld County had all of the county landfills contracted out to a
single operator. According to Mrs. Barbara Roweder, Ralph (her husband) worked for BFI as
supervisor starting sometime around 1973/1974. BFI probably operated the Erie Landfill and
perhaps all of the Weld County Landfills prior to Ralph's employment.
During the mid to late 70's, CDH inspected the landfill several times. A CDH inspection
dated 06/02/75 states oil-water waste should be sprayed onto or worked into the existing
landfill face. Two CDH inspections in February and April 1976 stated that approximately 1500
gallons per week of oil and water waste was deposited at the base of the landfill. In
October 1976, Ralph Roweder purchased BFI's contract to operate the Weld County Landfills.
In a memo from the Dacona Fire Department (dated February 7, 1978), the Fire Chief expresses
his concern with the frequent fires at the Erie Landfill requiring 10,000 to 100,000 gallons
of water to extinguish. There is no other information on file regarding site operations
until January 1979 when Ralph Roweder died. Mrs. Barbara Roweder prepared to sell the
contract to operate the Weld County Landfills. Lynn Kiernes (owner of Colorado Landfill,
Inc.) purchased the contract sometime in 1979.
The Weld County Commissioners revoked the CD by resolution for the Erie Landfill on June 6,
1979. Colorado Landfill, Inc. was not interested in operating the old Erie Landfill site,
therefore the abandoned Erie Landfill was never properly closed and sat open from 1979 until
1983. Mr. Lynn Kiernes decided to purchase the Columbine Mine site adjacent to the Pratt
property and operate it as a sanitary landfill. The Rocky Mountain Fuel Company owned both
the surface and mineral rights of the 160 acres (immediately west of the old Erie Landfill))
within E1/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 Section 29, T1N, R68W. This area was known as the Columbine
Mine No. 1 which operated from 1920-1946. In the subsurface, the mine occupied nearly all of
Section 29 and much of the south half of Section 20. In June 1979, the surface rights were
sold to Colorado Landfill, Inc. while Rocky Mountain Fuel retained the mineral rights.
Colorado Landfill, Inc. applied for and received a CD in 1979 to operate a sanitary landfill
(accepting municipal solid wastes only) on the Columbine Mine site. The landfill facility
was called the Columbine Landfill. The Kiernes planned for continued disposal into the draw
that ran from east to west across the site. The new operations plan called for a 6'
scarified and recompacted clay liner and a ground water monitoring plan.
A CDH inspection dated 11/17/81 stated that oil and grease was within the soil at the
northeast end of the site and ponded sludge was found. Approximately 500 gallons per week of
car wash and grease trap wastes were disposed of at the site. In a 09/27/82 inspection,
6000-9000 gpd of sand and grease trap waste sludges (at 1% solids) were being spread at the
landfill site for 6-8 weeks. In 09/01/82, the Colorado Landfill, Inc. requested permission
to fill and cover the old Erie Landfill. The request was granted by Weld County on May 4,
1983. On May 24, 1983, a CDH memo stated that an independent laboratory found the disposed
sand trap wastes to be cyanide bearing and containing potentially EP toxic concentrations of
metals. The old fill area (the Erie Landfill) had exposed trash as stated in 07/28/83
inspection. The Weld County Sheriffs Office conducted an investigation into the alleged
disposal activities at the old Erie Landfill on 09/29/83. The research turned up several
polaroids (dated 12/27/68 and 02/06/69) depicting black colored 55 gallon drums. Some of the
drums had the tops bulging and burning. Other drums (that were not burning) had bulging tops
from apparent internal pressure. A few of the black drums had the word "PROTEX" stenciled on
the sides. Discharge off-site from the Columbine Landfill was observed from a pond at the
west end of the site in a May 25, 1985 inspection. The dark to black liquid discharge had a
pH of 5.8 and a field conductivity of 2100 umhos.
On December 3, 1985, Columbine Landfill was purchased by Western Disposal. A new operations
plan was developed which included closing the old Erie Landfill site. Laidlaw Waste Systems,
Inc. purchased the Columbine Landfill in January 1988 from Western Disposal, Inc. The
property became know as Laidlaw South. Laidlaw developed a closure and post-closure
maintenance plan for the old Erie Landfill. By this time the draw through the landfill site
had been completely filled.
Daniel Horst (of Landfill Systems) developed an operations plan to site a landfill to the
north of Columbine Landfill in S1/2 SW1/4 Section 20, T1N, R68W. The 80 acre Horst site,
accepting only municipal solid waste, was annexed by the town of Erie on November 8, 1984.
el Fr"'
t-
5 _ '3
The Horst property was sold to a company called GSX on August 18, 1986. In November 1986,
the GSX Corporation was purchased by Laidlaw. This property became known as Laidlaw North.
On the north side of the Laidlaw North property, the alluvial wells 103A & 1038 were drilled
to a depth of 20' in 12/84 and 3/88 respectively, Well 103A did not have enough water to
sample until December 1987, when it found high concentrations (see Table 1) of volatile
organics. Contaminants now found in both 103A & 1038 include: 1,1-dichloroethane, methylene
chloride, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and
trichlorofluoromethane.
4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Geology
The site is on the northwestern flank of the Denver Basin, a large structural basin that
contains important bedrock ground water resources.
The soils on the site are comprised of calcareous silt, with some clay and very fine sands.
The soil deposits were formed by wind desposition, by stream deposition and by weathering of
the bedrock. Soil color ranges from light brown to brownish-grey and soil thickness ranges
from approximately 2 to 21 feet. Variations in soil thickness are related to irregular
bedrock and land surfaces.
At the soil/bedrock interface, the bedrock is typically highly weathered with iron-stain
mottling, fracturing and occasionally bearing perched water. Bedrock is exposed along the
eastern edge of the Coal Creek drainage west of the site. Within the site boundaries,
bedrock occurs at depths of 2 to 21 feet below the ground surface. The irregular bedrock
surface somewhat parallels the surface topography and is probably produced by differential
weathering of the bedrock.
The Laramie Formation, which immediately underlies the site, is typically divided into upper
and lower lithologic units. The upper unit is a buff to dark-gray, organic claystone with
interbedded sands. Numerous coal seams in this interval were mined in the early 1900's to
provide heating coal to the cities along the Front Range. The lower unit of the Laramie
Formation consists of thin to massive beds of fine-grained, moderate to well-cemented
sandstone and a buff to dark carbonaceous claystone. This lower unit has been further broken
into the A and B sandstone units. The sandstone units occur at depths of 350 to 400 feet in
the vicinity of the site and comprise the upper part of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
The coals of the Laramie Formation have been extensively mined in the area by the Columbine
Mine No. 1. Overburden thickness above the mine ranges from a minimum of 150' to a maximum
of 400' with the probable extracted coal seam thickness ranging from 0' to 15'. The mine was
operated by the room and pillar extraction method. After the coal seams were exhausted, the
pillars were typically removed. The area has never been evaluated to determine past or
future subsidence potential.
The Fox Hills Sandstone is beneath the Laramie Formation. The upper unit, the Milliken
Sandstone is composed of fine to medium-grained, parallel, thick bedded sandstone, thin
siltstone and shale interbeds. The unit ranges in thickness from 40 to 90 feet. The
Milliken Sandstone and the overlying A and B sands of the Laramie Formation comprise the
Cl 19'ry eel
Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, an important source of water through out the Denver Basin. The
over-lying aquifers of the Dawson Arkose, Denver and Arapahoe have been eroded away in the
vicinity of the site. The Pierre Shale beneath the Fox Hills Sandstone, consists of a 7000
to 8000 foot thick sequence of gray to brown, clayey marine shales.
The site lies in a structurally complex area. The bedrock has been highly distorted through
both folding and faulting, with faults that generally align in a northeasterly direction.
There is no surface expression of these faults and there is no evidence of recent movement on
any faults during the Holocene in the area. Regionally the bedrock dips one degree to the
southeast. However, local structural deformations may cause appreciable variation.
4.2 Hydrogeology
Data published indicate that the direction of local ground water flow in the Laramie-Fox
Hills aquifer is to the east-southeast. Ground water is generally produced from the
sandstone units at depths of 350 to 400 feet. The potentiometric surface is approximately
200 to 270 feet below land surface, indicating that the aquifer is under confined
conditions. The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer map is shown in figure 3.
The exploratory drilling programs have identified two shallow ground water systems at the
site. The shallowest (or alluvial) ground water system is associated with the alluvial and
colluvial soil materials in the topographic drainages. In a typical system, the alluvial
ground water would move down the west sloping drainage, with a velocity related to the
gradient, permeability and storativity of the materials. Recharge to the alluvial ground
water system occurs by direct infiltration of snowmelt and rainfall in topographically
elevated areas. The saturated thickness of the shallow system is generally less than 5 feet
and is perched at approximately 10'-20' below the ground surface and above the bedrock.
Because the old Erie Landfill remained uncovered essentially from 1965 to 1983, shallow
ground water mounding is a possibility. If this is the case, the water table elevation could
rise within the landfill therefore reversing a component of flow from west to east.
The deeper ground water system found at the site is in a saturated bedrock unit consisting of
siltstone, sandstone and coal units. The depth to saturated bedrock ranges from 21 to
greater than 82 feet. The lateral extent of the system is unknown but possibly occurs under
much of the site. The perched ground water appears to flow toward the northwest at a
gradient of approximately 0.05 ft/ft. The mechanism of recharge to the shallow bedrock units
is unknown. The existing shallow bedrock wells have not been constructed as double cased
wells. Therfore, the possiblity of leakage from the alluvium into the shallow bedrock units
remains a possibility. Due to the limited site data and the lack of adequate background
wells for both the alluvium and the shallow bedrock, it can not be determined if the tow
saturated zones are hydraulically connected.
Because of the large difference in the potentiometric elevation between the shallow bedrock
ground water systems and the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, the low hydraulic conductivity of the
upper Laramie claystones, and the unsaturated bedrock beneath the perched bedrock system, it
is concluded that the perched and regional ground water systems are not hydraulically
connected.
7 OaQ
4.3 Hydrology
The site is on a topographically west-facing slope with total relief across the site at
approximately 155 feet. Flat areas, located between the draws, are farmed. Two well
developed drainages, with an east-west trend, cross Section 29. The drainage that bisects
the landfill area is referred to here as the middle draw, the drainage to the south of the
landfill is referred to as the south draw and the drainage to the north (Section 20) of the
Columbine Landfill is referred to as the north draw (since these drainages are currently
unnamed).
The middle and south draw are well developed and are incised 5 feet on the east end of
Section 29 to as much as 20 feet farther west. Due to the depth of the drainage channel,
farming was never possible across these draws. The north draw is far less developed and from
old aerial photographs, farming was possible across some portions of the drainage.
The middle and south draw join just west of Section 29 in Section 30. At that confluence,
the draws are bermed and water ponds behind it. Downgradient of the berm, the draw bed is
dry and there is no discharge to Coal Creek. The south draw, as it runs west through Section
29, is bermed in four places. Behind each berm, water is ponded and wetlands type vegetation
grows there. A seep is shown on the topographic map in the south draw (figure 2). It is
unknown if the middle draw was ever bermed. However, interviews with those knowledgeable of
the site indicate that there were some berms with ponding behind them. The north draw is not
bermed and it is generally dry except during storm events.
Coal Creek is the only perennial stream within two miles of the site. It is located
approximately 1000 feet from the western site boundary and is 50 to 120 feet below the ground
elevation of the site. Surface water conditions in Coal Creek have been monitored upstream
and downstream routinely by Laidlaw Wastes Systems. Coal Creek flow rates which have been
visually estimated, range from 5 cfs to 25 cfs. Generally, the highest flows appear to occur
in September and the lowest flows in January. This is somewhat inconsistent with the
behavior of Front Range streams which generally have peak flows during snowmelt (April
through June). This difference may be due to diversions upstream.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in Coal Creek have ranged from about 300 to 800 milligrams per
liter (mg/1). Copper, iron, manganese, and zinc concentrations are routinely at or below
their detection limits of 0.01 and 0.05 mg/1. Strontium concentrations are somewhat higher
at about 0.5 mg/1. Laidlaw reports that this appears to be a natural condition and does not
reflect an impact from the landfill operation. Nitrate/nitrite in samples from Coal Creek
have varied from about 2 to about 6.5 mg/1. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations have
consistently been in the range of 7 to 10 mg/1. Samples were collected from Coal Creek in
June 1987 for analysis of the EPA priority pollutant list. The EPA priority pollutants were
not found in any of the samples.
On average, water quality is equivalent at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations.
There is no indication of degraded surface water quality in Coal Creek from the landfill
operation to date.
4.4 Meteorology
Based on U.S. Weather Bureau data, the climatic regime of the site and surrounding area would
be classified as semi-arid. Mean annual precipitation in the area ranges from approximately
8 2,q1.s A
j FO 9
14 inches to 16 inches per year. Over 75 percent of the precipitation occurs during the
period of April through September. Based on published information from the Colorado State
Engineer's Office, the 100 year 24 hour precipitation event is approximately 4.5 inches and
the 10 year 24 hour precipitation event is 3 inches. Normal annual Class A pan evaporation
for this area is approximately 65 inches to 70 inches per year with the majority occurring
during the May through October period. The general prevailing wind direction pattern is from
the north and northeast.
5.0 PRELIMINARY PATHWAY ANALYSIS
5.1 Waste Characterization
The old Erie Landfill received industrial and chemical waste. Mr. Neuhauser mentions in a
July 31, 1968 memo that waste chemicals from the IBM plant in Boulder County and the
Sundstrand manufacturing complex in Adams County were disposed at the site. Aside from the
estimated IBM waste of 1500 55 gallon drums disposed of at the site, it is unknown how much
of each waste type was actually placed at the landfill between 1965 and 1979. Since the
landfill was a small, and basically local landfill serving the nearby communities (such as
Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Dacona, Lafayette, Louisville and farm operations in the area),
it can be assumed that total municipal solid waste volume was relatively small.
In 1982, Colorado Landfill, Inc. requested to fill in and place final cover on the Erie
Landfill site. The volume of waste on the Pratt property after it had been finally closed is
approximately 400,000 cubic yards (cy). The fmal elevation of the property was planned at
approximately 25 feet above the undisturbed topography. As of January 1990, Laidlaw South
(including the Erie Landfill) has 2,900,000 cy of solid waste in place and Laidlaw North has
5,800,000 cy of solid waste in place. The estimated total waste volume that will be disposed
by the time of final closure will be 14,200,000 cy for Laidlaw South at a final elevation of
5240' and 7,300,000 cy for Laidlaw North at a final elevation of 5280'.
Mr. Neuhauser worked at the Sundstrand Aviation Corporation at 2480 West 70th Street from
approximately 1960 until 1969 as an industrial engineer and a property coordinator. Mr. Carl
Smith (also of Sundstrand and manager of contractor activities) with Neuhauser operated a
company called Sanitation Engineering, Inc. in the 1960's. They were able to obtain
contracts with IBM and Sundstrand to dispose of industrial and chemical wastes. Sanitation
Engineering kept containers at the IBM-Boulder plant to collect their solid and industrial
wastes. In addition, Sanitation Engineering was responsible for transporting the IBM waste
to the landfill site. Neuhauser recalls that the IBM chemical waste disposed at the landfill
site was primarily barrels of waste methyl ethyl ketone.
The wastes disposed by IBM were generally listed in the EPA notification form. Assuming that
proceses and wastes were similar to those stated in more recent documents. The possible
process wastes that could have been disposed at the Erie Landfill by IBM (found in a 1983
Generator Report) are:
1) Waste magnetic coating solution used to make magnetic tape products;
2) Waste corrosives, acids and caustics used in plating and cleaning processes;
3) Waste halogenated cleaning solutions, freons, chloroethane, methylchloroform;
4) Waste ethylene diamine;
9
S1.'1.1-519
5) Waste potassium cyanide;
6) Waste zinc cyanide; and
7) Waste flammable liquids from manufacture of magnetic products containing toluene,
methy ethyl ketone, plasticizers, iron oidde and tetrahydrofuran.
Wastes listed in a 1987 SARA TITLE III Tier Two report lists IBM stored chemicals as:
1) Fuel oils No. 1, No. 2 and No. 6;
2) Liquid nitrogen;
3) Methyl ethyl ketone;
4) Trichlorofluoroethane:
5) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane;
6) Toluene;
7) Tetrahydrofuran;
8) Methylene chloride;
9) n-Butylamine;
10) Ethylene diamine;
11) Ammonia; and
12) Sulfuric Acid.
The waste from Sundstrand was transported to the old Erie Landfill in tanker trucks. The
waste, which Mr. Neuhauser referred to as "autofuel" (a secret propellant for the mark 48
torpedo) was pumped from the tanker into a 6' by 8' metal container placed within an earthen
pit. The waste was then burned. The quantity of Sundstrand waste transported to the site is
unknown.
The Erie Landfill was apparently operated by segregating the chemical wastes from the
municipal solid wastes. At least some of the industrial wastes were received in drums (based
on 1968 photos found at the Weld County Commissioners office). A 1966 document states that
the two pits were dug for the deposition of the chemicals and in a third pit chemicals were
being burned.
Burning waste along with co-disposal of industrial and municipal solid waste was a common
practice at many landfills during the 1960's and 1970's. Generally the waste was uncovered,
the site was unfenced and unattended. Burning of the waste was a continual complaint and
problem at the site. Several memos document this. The most significant incident is the
chemical fire of July 26, 1968 in which 3,000 gallons of waste chemicals were ablaze. On
February 7, 1978, the Dacono Fire Department wrote of serious and uncontrolled burning of
wastes at the landfill. On several occassions, the fires required fire department response
and the pumping of 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of water onto the landfill. The landfill
routinely accepted liquid waste. How long this disposal practice continued or the total
volume is unknown. The landfill was operated by the slope and cover method. However
inspections documented an infrequent use of daily, intermediate and fmal cover. Wastes were
dumped into the middle draw from a higher elevation. Additional wastes were dumped at the
top of the fill area and pushed over the face. Eventually the face became too steep to be
covered effectively.
Sometime in the later 70's a berm was placed across the middle draw separating the Pratt
property from the Columbine Mine property. Liquids (surface water, leachate and possibly
alluvial ground water) routinely ponded upgradient of this berm. The 1984 SI documents that
GW-6 had 7' of saturated trash on the day of sample collection. This well is believed to be
downgradient of the berm.
01 R rci
The Erie Landfill was apparently operated in a manner that maximized contaminant releases to
the environment. Leachate production, surface water and ground water contamination are
common problems associated with landfills that were as poorly operated and poorly sited as
was the old Erie Landfill. The siting and operational problems included:
1) Waste were placed into the middle draw which contained permeable alluvial materials;
2) A lack of run-on and run-off surface water control structures contibuted to surface
water infiltration through the landfill;
3) The unsecured, unfenced and unattended facility allowed the opportunity for
unauthorized disposal;
4) Chemical and industrial liquid wastes that are both flammable and hazardous were
routinely accepted;
5) Liquid sand trap and oily wastes were routinely accepted at the landfill;
6) Wastes were burned in an uncontrolled manner which required thousands of gallons of
water had to be pumped onto the landfill in an effort to control the fire; and
7) A lack of daily and final cover over the landfill during its years of operation
(1965-1978) and abandonment (from 1979 to 1983) allowed precipitation to pond on the
surface and infiltrate.
The Columbine Landfill did not accept hazardous wastes. However, it did accept sandtrap
wastes and sludges with percent solids as low as 1% in addition to regular municipal solid
wastes. The Laidlaw South Landfill is approved to accept wastes typical of present day solid
waste disposal facilities as is Laidlaw North.
5.2 On-site Pathway
5.2.1 Pathway
The potential for exposure of human populations to on-site contamination is low. Access to
the property is currently restricted by an 8' fence about the entire perimeter. The site is
attended with signs posted. The entire landfill property has received either daily,
intermediate or final cover.
5.2.2 Targets
Exposure to twenty-two on-site workers would be typical of other landfills.
5.3 Air Pathway
5.3.1 Pathway
The site does not pose a significant threat to human populations or the environment based on
potential migration of contaminants via the air pathway. Onsite waste sources available to
the air route are limited to landfill gas migration through the daily, intermediate and final
�1.fki6
11 ..•• 'S....
cover. The landfill gases may contain volatile halogenated organics, methane, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide.
5.3.2 Targets
There are six residences, one business, and approximately 43 individuals located within a one
mile radius of the site.
5.4 Ground Water Pathway
5.4.1 Pathway
The aquifer units which exist beneath the site are:
1) The alluvial aquifer;
2) The shallow Laramie bedrock aquifer; and
3) The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
Approximately four hundred wells within a four mile radius of the site utilize these aquifers.
The town of Erie obtains its drinking water from Erie Lake and Prince Lake No. 2 located in
E1/2 Section 27, T1N, R69W, approximately 2 miles to the southwest of town. By town
ordinance the Erie residences may not use ground water for drinking purposes. However, they
may use ground water for watering their yard and gardens, etc.
The alluvial aquifer is found within the over-burden soil material that ranges from 10' to
21' feet deep. The saturated interval (generally 5' thick) is found in or close to natural
topographic drainages at the site. At the Laidlaw North site ground water monitoring wells
103A and 103B currently exhibit contamination in the form of methylene chloride,
1,1-dicliloroethane, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and
trichlorotluoromethane. Since these draws normally do not flow, contaminated alluvial ground
water may be reaching Coal Creek via the subsurface. However, a subsurface connection it is
undocumented at this time.
The perched shallow bedrock aquifer has not shown halogenated organic contamination at the
site as has the alluvial aquifer. However, it does appear that some degradation of water
quality has occured in the form of elevated chloride, sulfate, nitrate and TDS (Table 3).
The occurence of the shallow bedrock aquifer is not well understood. It may be recharged
locally by filtration of precipitation and surface water through fractures and faults or it
may be recharged at the Laramie subcrops located at the basin's edge. The shallow bedrock
units may subcrop in the vicinity of Coal Creek to the west of the landfill site. The
saturated zones are within sandstone and siltstone units that may have large areal extent and
exist under semi-confined conditions. The shallow bedrock aquifer is utilized within a four
mile radius of the site. Occassionally these upper Laramie sandstone units may be mistaken
for the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.
The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is utilized by residences not within the town of Erie. The
aquifer averages 350 to 400 feet deep in the vicinity of the site and is under confined
conditions. Infiltration into the Laramie-Fox Hills from upper saturated zones is possible
12
21.1j61
through fractures and faults. However, the aquifer is confuted and the primary source of
recharge to the aquifer is at the basin's edge where the units are exposed. Therefore it
appears that the threat to this aquifer from the landfill is be minimal.
5.4.2 Targets
A review of well logs for the town of Erie reveals that nearly all local wells are less than
50 feet deep and tap the alluvial aquifer. There are approximately 110 alluvial aquifer
users with a four mile radius of the site. Approximately 230 wells withdraw from the
Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer for domestic use within a four mile radius of the site.
5.5 Surface Water Pathway
5.5.1 Pathway
The north, middle and south draws form a dendritic drainage pattern prior to entering Coal
Creek west of the site. The north draw is generally dry and shallow enough to allow farming
across it. The middle draw is incised 5 to 10 feet. It is believed that the draw may have
been bermed in several locations which allows surface water to pond behind it. Together, the
Columbine Landfill and the old Erie Landfill disposed of both hazardous and non-hazardous
liquids and solid wastes into the middle draw. The middle draw (prior to any topographic
alterations) drained a 254 acre area. Eventually 3/4 of the length of the middle draw was
landfilled. A walk along the middle draw on 09/07/90 revealed that flowing or standing
surface water did not exist until the confluence of the middle and the south draw (off-site
in Section 30).
The south draw appears to have been the site of a variety of waste disposal activities over
the years. The time of disposal is unknown and the draw has never been a designated
landfill. Wastes deposited along the south draw include municipal solid wastes, photo
conductor film (probably from IBM) and occasionally rusted empty drums. The draw is
basically dry but bermed in four areas with surface water currently ponded behind them. Of
the four ponds (Appendix D), the three eastern-most ponds exhibit healthy wetlands vegetation
and algae growth in clear water. The fourth pond (Pond #4), which is also the location of a
spring depicted on the topographic map does not have wetlands vegetation or grass growing up
to the waters edge. The water within the pond and the shore is muddy. Several unmarked
rusted drums are half buried and piles of photo conductor material is found at the pond edge
and within the pond. Access to the south draw is unrestricted.
The large pond (Pond #5) located off-site in Section 30 is the result of surface water from
the middle and south draw retained behind a berm. Downgradient of the bermed confluence, the
creek bed is dry and there is no surface water discharge to Coal Creek. Coal Creek flows NW
for approximately 4 miles and then enters Boulder Creek in the E1/2 Section 1, T1N, R69W.
Boulder Creek flows toward the northeast and enters St. Vrain Creek in Section 9, T2N, R68W.
There are no recreational improvements along Coal Creek between the landfill and Boulder
Creek as shown on the Erie, Colorado topographic map (USGS 1979). However, it is probable
that many unimproved areas of access are present within 15 downstream miles of the site along
Boulder and St. Vrain Creeks. Several local irrigation ditches depicted on the topographic
map are diverted from Boulder and St. Vrain Creek. Based on conversations with the Fish &
Wildlife Assistance possible federal and state endangered species include:
13 g"
1) Bald eagles which feed on fish and winter in the area;
2) Peregrine falcons which prey on water fowl and migrate through the area; and
3) Black-footed ferrets which pray on prairie dogs.
There appear to be no sensitive plant life in the area aside from fresh water wetlands that
are present along Coal Creek, Boulder Creek and St. Vrain Creek. There are no fisheries
within 15 downstream miles of the site.
5.5.2 Targets
There is no identifiable direct surface water discharge from the site. Either the spring or
the pond located in the south draw may be contaminated.
6.0 FIELD OPERATIONS/DATA COLLECTION
6.1 Concept of Operations and Logistics
6.1.1 Schedule
Two background ground water monitoring wells will be drilled to assess the background water
quality at the site. Ths resultant chemical analysis will be used to determine the probility
of hydraulic intercommunication between the alluvium and the shallow bedrock staturated
zones. The location of the proposed wells(shown on figure 7) are scheduled for drilling and
development by a independent contractor during the month of December 1990. Approximately
three to four weeks later, a HMWMD sampling team will collect water samples from two drilled
wells (an alluvial and a shallow bedrock ground water monitoring well), from three existing
monitoring wells on the site, and from two domestic private property Laramie-Fox Hills
aquifer wells located northeast and southeast of the site. Sediment and surface water
samples will be collected from the eastern-most pond and the western-most pond in the south
draw (see figure 7). The exact date of sampling is subject to weather conditions.
6.1.2 Key Personnel
This site investigation will be conducted by:
Project Officer: Austin Buckingham
Site Safety Officer: Steve Gunderson
Drilling Supervisor: Austin Buckingham
Samplers: Austin Buckingham, Glenn Mallory, Steve Gunderson
6.1.3 Site Access and Logistics
Access to the site, coordination of driller procurement and other related tasks will be
coordinated by the project officer. Consent for access to property will have been received
prior to site entry. Borehole descriptions will be conducted by the drilling supervisor.
14 21."3611.9
6.1.4 Site Safety
The sampling team will use the HNu with the 11.8 EV probe to screen all samples for the
presence of organic vapors. Table 3 lists all planned samples for this investigation.
Additional samples may be submitted for analysis depending upon the sampling teams
reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas.
A hot line and personnel decontamination station (PDS) will be established. The extent and
location of the PDS will be determined in the field based on site conditions and
meteorological observations. There is a low probability that level C protection may be
required during drilling. The Site Safety Plan is found in Appendix A.
6.2 Well Installation and Sample Collection
SSI Well Construction and Completion Procedures
A hollow-stem auger will be used to drill the proposed ground water monitoring wells for the
site investigation. All down hole drilling equipment will be decontaminated prior to and
following drilling with a steam cleaner. During drilling, the cuttings and borehole
off-gases will be monitored with HNu and explosimeter instruments. The breathing zone will
be continuously monitored during the drilling activity. A continuous coring (using a dry
core barrel) and lithologic logging is proposed for the shallow bedrock well (CL-SI-MW-2:
type log figure 4). The dry core will be screened upon opening and a headspace sample from
each interval will be screened with the HNu for the presence of VOA's. Borehole
sample/cuttings will be described and a borehole lithologic log will be prepared (figure 5).
Data that will be gathered for each drilled well will include: lithologic description and
remarks, color, moisture, consistency, soil type, depth, method of sample collection and
identification number, penetration resistence, ground water depth, perched water zones,
borehole elevation, borehole diameter, date drilled, drill rig number, project
identification, project location, drilling contractor, well identification, and well
completion data. All measurements and activities will be documented in the field logbook.
Figure 6A shows details typical of standard well contruction and figure 6B shows the
materials log for each constructed well. Well casings will be constructed of two-inch
schedule 40 ASTM-approved polyvinylchloride (PVC) or schedule 5 stainless steel (or
equivalent). Final determination will be made by the EPA prior to drilling. Pipe sections
will be flush threaded to prevent the introduction of contaminants such as glue or solvents
into the well. Well casing and screens will be steam cleaned prior to emplacement to ensure
that all oils, greases, and waxes have been removed. It is anticipated that the alluvial
well will require a 10 foot screen interval. Genrally the screened interval will extend from
at least two feet above the top of the water table and five feet into the weathered bedrock.
The shallow bedrock well will be double cased and will be screened across the entire
saturated interval encountered.
It is likely that the shallower portions of the bolehole may not stand open as the auger is
retracted prior to the construction of the monitoring well. Therefore, the monitoring well
will be constructed through the hollow axis of the auger column. When the auger column is
used as a temporary casing during well construction, the hollow axis facilitates the
installation of the monitoring well casing, intake, filter pack, and annular seal. The well
construction procedures are set forth in "Appendix B" entitled "Drilling and Constructing
Monitoring Wells with Hollow-Stem Augers, Part 2: Monitoring Well Installation" (Winter 1988,
Ground Water Monitoring Review).
O� ftr'i.9
15 y� - �.Y(x.J..
In summary the following procedures will be adhered to:
a) The filter pack will extend from the bottom of the well screen to not less than two
feet above the well screen.
b) The annular seal will be constructed by placing a minimum of two feet of a stable,
low permeability material (bentonite chips) in the annular space between the well
casing the borehole wall. The annular seal will extend from the top of the filter
pack to the bottom of the surface seal. Contaminant free water will be added to the
bentonite when the seal is located above the water table.
1-b) A two foot interval above the filter pack will be sealed with
untreated sodium bentonite pellets or chips.
2-b) A bentonite(5%)-cement mixture will be used from the top of the
bentonite pellet zone to the cement surface seal.
c) Cement will be used for the remaining annular space to provide for security, an
adequate surface seal, a well apron and a protective casing anchor. The location
of the interface between the cement and the bentonite-cement mixture will be below
the frost line. A weep hole will be drilled in the well casing immediately above
the cement inside the protective casing.
d) Upon completion of the well, a threaded cap and lock will be installed to prevent
tampering and the entrance of foreign material.
Well Development
Following the construction of the monitoring wells, natural hydraulic conductivity of the
formation will be restored and all foreign sediment will be removed to ensure turbid-free
ground water samples. Well development will not begin until the grout has properly set (at
least 24 hours). All well developing equipment will be decontaminated prior to use with
liquinox and a dionized water triple rinse.
Before initiating the well surging, the well will be bailed to insure negative pressure
within the well, therefore allowing the fines and formation water to flow freely into the
well bore. A mechanical method of development, a surge block, will be used to force water to
flow into and out of the screen (Appendix C). Development will begin above the screen and
move progressively downward to prevent the tool from becoming sand locked. Surging and
cleaning will be continued until little or no sediment can be pulled into the well. As a
minimum of at least 5 casing volumes will be purged in an effort to clean up the well. The
well will be purged until (following the 5 casing volumes) pH, specfic conductivity and
temperature have stablized to within 10% for threee successive casing volumes. Water clarity
will be used as the primary factor in determining if the well has been sufficiently
developed. If the well goes dry prior to a full purge, a site determination will be made in
order to determine how much the well is capable of recharging.
Sample Collection Methods
All samples will be collected in accordance with HMWMD SOP protocol for sampling of Hazardous
Wastes Sites. One core will be collected concurrently with the drilling operation for the
purpose of lithologic description only. The core will not be analyzed for any chemical
parameters. Thirteen water samples and two sediment samples will be collected during
® CV:A1..:
16
sampling. In addition, the sampling team will provide quality assurance samples consisting
of a trip blanks, a rinsate blank, a duplicate sample and one triplicate sample. All samples
will be analyzed to provide chemical characterization of contaminants present at the site.
Table 3 describes the sampling locations and the rationale for each sample. Figure 7
illustrates the proposed sampling locations.
Ground water samples will not be collected for at least 24 hours following well development.
Prior to sample collection, a PID will be used to measure well vapors and the values will be
recorded. The water level will be measured and recorded to the nearest +/- 0.01 foot.
Ground water samples will be collected with a stainless steel bailer. The major ground water
contaminants at the site include:
Volatile Organic Compounds Soecifiic Gravity
• Chloroethane 0.9214 @ CPC
' Chloroform 1.49 @ 20'C
• 1,1-Dichloroethane 1.175 @ 203C
` Methylene chloride 1.322 @ 2tPC
• Tetrachloroethene 1.6227 @ 20'C
• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.338 @ 20'C
' Trichlorofluoromethene 1.494 @ 2tPC
The suspected contaminated wells will be sampled for light and dense phase compounds (the
CL-LF-GW series). The light phase sample will be collected by lowering the bailer and
withdrawing water from the top two feet of the water column. Then the bailer will be lowered
to withdraw the water from the bottom two feet of the water column. Following the collection
of the light and dense phase samples the well will be purged for collecting the remaining
samples. The transmissivity of the aquifer will be estimated in an effort to estimate the
time required to remove enough water to obtain a reliable sample. The saturated annulus
volume will be added to the casing volume when calulating the purge volume. The wells will
be purged until conductivity, pH and temperature have stabilized indicating formation water.
It is estimated that at least 3 to 5 well bore volumes will be removed prior to taking a
representative formation sample (figure 8). Purge rates will be fast enough to adequately
flush the well and slow enough so that water will not cascade into the well.
Negative bias (loss of constituent) is of significant concern in sampling for volatile
compounds. Therefore great care will be taken in sample collection to minimize degassing by
limiting purge rates to <= 100 ml/min. Water samples be collected when solution chemistry of
the ground water purged has stabilized within 10 % over 2 successive well volumes removed.
Samples for volatile constituents and those samples which require field filtration or field
determination will be collected first. Then large volume samples for extractable organic
compounds and metals will be collected. Water samples for dissolved inorganic chemical
constituents will be filtered in the field with a barrel 0.45 um size filter.
Wells will be sampled in an order that descends from the suspected least contaminated well to
the suspected most contaminated well to minimize the potential for cross contamination.
Decontamination procedures will be adhered to between each sampling event. The well sample
order will be as follows:
1. CL-PP-GW-1
2. CL-PP-GW-2
3. CL-SI-MW-1
17 ...
fA1->.� C3 t13
-..9
4. CL-SI-MW-2
5. CL-SI-MW-3
6. CL-SI-MW-4
7. CL-LF-GW-3
8. CL-SI-MW-5
9. CL-LF-GW-4
10. CL-LF-GW-5
11. CL-SI-MW-6
12. CL-SI-SW-1
13. CL-SI-SO-1
14. CL-SI-SW-2
15. CL-SI-SO-2
Blanks, duplicates and triplicates will be utlizied for field QA/QC performance. Rinsate
blanks will consist of metals-free and organics-free water and will be collected for each day
of sample collection. Trip blanks will be prepared at an off-site locations (probably at the
CDH) prior to site entry. All blanks will be subjected to the conditions to the collected
samples are exposed.
Ground water samples will be protected from undue exposure to light during handling, storage,
and transport (figure 9, 10 & 11). Samples will be stored to prevent temperature extremes
and transported to the CLP laboratory. The samples will be chilled and analyzed within the
recommended storage periods. Documentation of actual sample storage and treament will be
handled as part of the chain of custody procedures. The sampling staff member who initiated
the chain of custody will require that a copy of the form be returned with the analytical
report.
Surface water samples (at pond #1 and pond #4) will be taken by completely immersing sample
containers into the body of water with the mouth of the container upstream and away from the
sampler's hand. Solids and sediments (from pond #1 and pond #4) will be composited in a
decontaminated stainless steel pan prior to placing the sample materials into a sample jar.
Surface water VOA samples will not be composited.
6.4 Decontamination Procedures
All drilling and sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to and between all boreholes
and sampling events in accordance with procedures specific to organic contaminants. Since
organics are the constituents of concern, the equipment will be washed with a nonphosphate
detergent and triple rinsed with organic free deionized water and followed by a triple
methanol rinse. The sampling equipment will be throughly dried before use to ensure that the
residual cleaning agents are not carried over to the sample.
7.0 QUALITY CONTROL/OUALITY ASSURANCE
7.1 Control of Contaminated Materials
The sampling team will dispose of any wastes produced during the investigation in accordance
with Federal and State regulations. Disposable sampling equipment, rubber gloves, and
protective outerwear will be cleaned, bagged, removed from the site and disposed of as a
21.Ct X11
18
non-hazardous material. Decontamination fluids will be temporarily stored on site in a
temporary container and then later collected to be disposed of offsite.
7.2 Analytical Parameters
Sample plan check lists are exhibited in figure 12. All water samples will be analyzed for
the Target Compound List which include heavy metals, extractable organics
(base/neutral/acids), volatile organics, and pesticides (figure 13). All collected samples
(classified as environmental samples) will be transported to the designated EPA Contract
Laboratory as medium hazard and analyzed accordingly. EPA analytical methods for each
parameter group will be as follows:
temperature HACH temperature meter
pH HACH pH meter
spec conductivity HACH conductivity meter
VOA purge/trap : GC/MS
B/N/A extractables extraction : GC/MS
pesticides extraction : GC/ECD
metals ICP/GFAA
7.3 Field Quality Control/Quality Assurance
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) which has been submitted to EPA will be adhered to.
Sample bottles will be purchased commercially, will meet EPA specifications, and will be part
of the quality control program. Sample bottle types for various constituents are shown in
figure 14. All samples will be handled and preserved as described in the HMWMD SOP
document. Calibration and operation of all monitoring equipment will follow the instrument
manufacturer's instructions. Non-dedicated sampling equipment will be decontaminated
following each sample collection using methods described in the SOP document.
All samples will be placed in coolers (with ice) and shipped with appropriate chain-of
custody seals to the assigned contract laboratory. Soil samples will be collected collected
continuosly during the drilling operations via a dry core barrel. Opportunity samples may be
taken at the project officer's discretion.
The following types of samples will be provided for quality assurance:
1. Blanks
Two rinsate sample will be collected during the site investigation on each day of sample
collection to check field decontamination procedures. The blank will be prepared by
pouring "metals-free and organics-free" water through decontaminated sampling equipment
following the collection of possible contaminated samples.
A VOA trip blank will be prepared for each day of sample collection. The VOA blank will
be prepared off-site (probably at the CDH) prior to site entry and will be subjected to
the same conditions as the collected samples. A VOA sample blank will be included in
each cooler shipped to the CLP shipment.
2. Duplicates
One duplicate sample will be collected to compare laboratory analysis procedures as well
a sample collection procedure. A triple BNA water sample is required for CLP organic QC
analysis.
•
3. Background
Background samples will be obtained for water and soil. Wells CL-SI-MW-1 (alluvial),
CL-SI-MW-2 (shallow bedrock), CL-SI-SW-1 (surface water) and CL-SI-SS-1 (soil) will
serve as the background sample points for the site.
4. Splits
Splits will be provided to the land owners if requested.
7.4 Chain of Custody
All samples will be handled in strict accordance with chain of custody protocol prescribed by
the NEIC Procedures Manual for the Contract Evidence Audit and Litigation Support for EPA
Enforcement Case Development, February 1989 (EPA-300/9-89 002) after collection and
identification (figure 15).
8.0 SAMPLING REPORT AND FOLLOW-UP REVIEW
A report of sampling activities will be prepared after sampling completion and following
receipt of the analytical data. The report will provide a summary of the analytical data, an
interpretation as to its significance, and will address the data elements of the HRS. These
data will be submitted to the EPA Region VIII Program Manager.
9.0 REFERENCES
Colorado Department of Health: Columbine Landfill files
Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Manual
Preliminary Assessment: Columbine Landfill 1984
Revised Preliminary Assessment: Columbine Landfill 1990
Site Investigation: Columbine Landfill 1984
20 421 43-0
DA \\ \ \\ \\\\\ \ \ }
. , = E ; ; ; OE , . .
0 0
=ii; � } BO CD Co a. co
— 2 y _ G
CD . \ . \ \\ E $ k §\ ) \ \ \ \ &
En Fo. \ \
\ n CD Cl W z » \
\ ) & / \ • g § _
f \ ,-7 / , _ NJ = � � = UIaLalAa � } E
CD { w _ \
CD � �Ct. CD ka = � aa so
� � (
} \ � aa = aCO` Co
LA� 5 G \ e
® $ $ }
CD
/ § � a � � � � = a Wa � a \ «
\ \ \
\ 7 \
\ } \ 2af ? 5 ) LAG \ w\ G 8 r
( \ G \
41 O
,„,-.•
En `cet a = la = « E § LAaa%\ � \ �
f ®LA = � « ef \ & & \ = » � \ \
� = v) � w7 / 2^ @ Lit^\% \ � . 2 )0f9
Hello