The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About901356.tiff STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH of eo�o\ 1210 East 11th Avenue Tvlenu: Nal S\ Denver, Coloraao 80220-3716 iMr 322-4076 i Maur Building/Denver/ ,•, — x• Phone (7031 720-8333 1031 320.1529 IYrarmigan Yl ae e/Denver ‘s;, �. �•/ !1031 2atl•719tl IGranJ junction Regional Ulfirel 1g�6i/ May 22, 1990 Kw/ Romer• Governor ThomaGene Brantner Execute M Vernon, M.0 arcul,vr Ulrecmr Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Application for Certificate of Designation North Weld County Solid Waste Disposal Facility Site Location SW 1/4 Section 7, T7N, R66W, Weld County Dear Chairman Brantner: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) has completed its technical review o£ the "Engineering Design and Operations Plan for the North Weld County Solid Waste Disposal Facility" proposed by Waste Services Corporation at the above location. This review was authorized under the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1986 as• amended (the Statute) and was based on the criteria contained in the "Regulations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities" promulgated thereunder 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations) . Contained within the Design and Operations Plan of October 20, 1989 prepared by Industrial Compliance Inc. are the following pertinent commitments agreed to by the applicant, Waste Services Corporation: (1) One hundred and nineteen (119) of the one hundred and seventy (170) available acres at the landfill site will be used for refuse filling which will occur in three (3) phases. Each phase will be accomplished by excavating, lining the active area, placing a leachate collection system, filling with refuse and covering. (2) Only household, industrial and commercial solid waste will be accepted. This includes only non-hazardous, non-radioactive refuse. No liquid waste of any nature including semi-solid sludges and septic tank pumpage shall be accepted. (3) Based on an average daily volume of 1312 cubic yards/day (cy/d) this facility will have an estimated useful life of 40 years. (4) Surface water shall be controlled to ensure that run on is not allowed to enter the active disposal area. Also any surface water which falls on the working face will not be allowed to leave the site. Drainage features of the area shall not be significantly changed construction of the facility. ID F1:1 = EXHIB IT 3f � 1 MAY 2 5 1990 - ---- / $ USR 90 1 356 tooth. 71iBa1nu Ainthia.'uu Gene Brantner May 22, 1990 Page 2 (5) A cwo (2) foot thick clay liner with a maximum permeability of 1.0 X 10-7 cm/sec will be installed following excavation to final depth. Once a section of the liner is constructed as per the QA/QC procedure and approved, refuse will be placed over the completed section. • (6) a. The clay liner will be placed in six (6) inch lifts and compacted with a Sheepsfoot Compactor until it reaches a compacted dry density equal to or greater than 95.0 percent of the Standard Proctor Density (ASTM D-698) . The moisture content of the material shall be maintained from 0.0 to 4.0 percent of the optimum moisture content. The material used for the liner shall have a Plasticity Index greater than 10, and have greater than 50 percent of the material passing a Number 200 Sieve. b. Geotechnical testing shall be completed prior to material installation to ensure that liner meets the proper specifications. This will include the collection of a representative sample from each 3,000 cubic yards (cy) of intended liner material and from each 6,000 cy of cap material. Testing will include a Standard Proctor Density Test, a Number 200 Sieve wash and Plasticity Index Test. c. An independent soil and material testing firm will observe and test materials placed for the liner and cap. This testing will include the above listed items and compaction density and moisture content at no less than a one hundred (100) foot spacing for each six (6) inch lift of liner material and three hundred (300) foot spacing for each six (6) inch of cap material. d. The compacted cap material shall pass a minimum of 90 percent Standard Proctor Density. (7) A leachate collection system shall be placed above the clay liner in the bottom of each phase. This shall consist of a six-inch OD Schedule 80, perforated PVC drain pipe installed in the bottom center of a 24" inch keyway. A 12" OD steel riser pipe shall extend from the base of the sump to the surface beyond the filling area. (8) The completed portion of each phase shall be covered with topsoils and revegetated as soon as practically possible. The cover will be a minimum of three (3) feet thick with the bottom two (2) feet consisting of compacted clay, 0.5 foot consisting of unspecified soil and 0.5 foot of topsoil for reclamation. (9) The following operational measures will be employed to control blowing litter at the site: 1. At the end of each day, application of six (6) inches of solid as daily cover, during refuse. placement. Cover will be placed on refuse as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. 3(:et," Gene Brancner May 22, 1990 Page 3 2. Limiting the size of the working face during windy periods . 3. Permanent and movable site fencing. 4. Litter pick up activities. 5. Ceasing operations during periods when high winds are present; "highwinds" as defined in 1.2.31 of the Regulations. (10) Operational inspections of the entire facility will be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the landfill operation. The inspections will be made by an independent contractor experienced with landfill operations. The inspections will be made to ensure that the landfill operation is progressing accordance with all aspects of the approved landfill ,plan. Inspection reports will be prepared and submitted to both Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) . (11) To ensure that adequate material is available for the liner, daily cover and cap, an annual material balance shall be made by a qualified engineer. (12) The site operator shall keep the following records on site to be available for county and state review: (1) Quarterly inspection by independent engineer (2) Litter policing reports (3) Volume and types of incoming refuse (4) Results of wind, methane and water quality monitoring (5) Any special waste accepted at the facility (6) Construction QA/QC Documentation (13) Two ground water monitoring wells presently are being sampled for water quality and are located in the southeastern corner of the facility. (14) A system of wet/dry monitoring wells shall be placed on 500 foot centers around the site and will be installed in a phase manner as development occurs. • These wells will test for the presents of ground water and methane gas. Installation will be as follows: Phase 1----wet/dry wells #15 to 22 Phase 2----wet/dry wells #6 to 14 Phase 3a---wet/dry wells #23 to 24 Phase 3b---wet/dry wells #3 to 5 All wells will be completed a minimum of 10 feet beneath the base of the landfill and with perforated intervals reaching to within 10 feet of the surface of the land. p^� 9c 05 1 Gene Brantner May 22, 1990 Page 4 Construction of the wet/dry wells will consist of 1 inch OD, PVC casing, with glued joints placed in 6 in. diameter borings. The casing will be drilled or slotted. The annular space will be gravel packed to approximately 1 foot above the slotted interval of the casing. The remaining annular space shall be backfilled with dry bentonite. (15) The landfill owner shall notify both the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Health Department within 5 working days if; (1) the leachate system shows the presences of liquids following the placement of the first lift, or (2) if the ground water monitoring results detect a greater than 0.01 variation from the background results, as per 2.2.3 (c) of the Regulations. If necessary, determined by either department, confirmation sampling and testing will be conducted. If an environmental problem is confirmed, the operator will have an additional 30 days to evaluate .the data and present a specific plan of action. (16) The landfill operator shall place recycling bins at the landfill entrance. (17) A working face size of 100 to 150 feet shall be maintained. It is this Division's assessment that if the proposed facility is constructed and operated as summarized above and to confirm with all of the "Engineering Design and Operations Plan" and the construction and operation includes the Division's recommendations listed herein, the facility can comply with the. minimum standards of Solid Wastes Act and with the Division's regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Division's approval is contingent upon the inclusion of the following recommendations in the counties resolution granting the Certificate of Designation, if issued. (1) The applicant shall provide a revised cover plan outlining the design effect of a 25 year 24 hour precipitation event on the crown and large area caused by the 4:1 sideslope. The integrity of the cap shall be addressed. This plan shall be submitted to the Division for approval. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Greeley Field Office shall review the cover plan and submit their recommendations to the Division and County. The requests of the Division of Wildlife shall be taken into consideration. (2) Approval of the use of Phase 2, 3a and 3b shall be obtained from the Weld County Health Department and the Division. (3) The design of the leachate collection and removal system is not clear. The leachate keyway and 6" OD PVC pipe shall be installed to standards which allow the movement of construction equipment over the system. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Division for approval with any necessary added diagrams and explanations. 9C:GS64 Gene Brantner May 22, 1990 Page 5 (4) A methane gas venting system shall be installed in the 12" OD steel cleanout pipe. (5) The ground water monitoring parameters shall be modified to include all parameters in Table 1. The first eight quarters of monitoring or some portion of it may be concurrent with landfilling. (6) The applicant shall comply with Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the regulations in terms of the analytical method and statistical evaluation of ground water monitoring data. (7) Generally, if TOX exceeds 300 ppb in any one sampling event the operator shall include a VOC (volatile organic compounds) analysis for all wells until further notice by the Division. However, this requirement may be modified once background data is collected for the site. (8) Post-closure inspections will include documentation of surface cracking, erosion, slope angles, drainage, and condition of vegetation. One of the inspections each year will be made in late spring, when damage would most likely occur due to thaw and run off. Any damage or other deficiencies will be promptly repaired. The Division cannot specifically require closure and post-closure financial assurances. The inclusion of such assurances as commitments from the owner and operator of the site is recommended as part of Weld County's certification. The Division respectfully requests that Weld County send a copy of the Resolution and the Certificate of Designation with all conditions to the Division if and when it is issued. If you have questions regarding the Divisions recommendations for approval, please contact Poul Poulsen at 303-331-4806. Sincerely, &Egli/44g • Poul E. PoulsenE: arlr Engineer Section Chief Solid Waste and Solid Waste and Incident Management Section . Incident Management Se on Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and • Waste Management Division Waste Management Division PEP/PLH/ht/6844K cc: R. Allison, Weld County Department of Planning W. Potter, Weld County Health Department ` y�� B. Keirnes, Waste Services Corporation . 11 K. Taylor, Industrial Compliance, Inc. TABLE I s INITIAL BACKGROUND MONITORING - (BIGHT OUARTF.RS1 Water Quality Field Perementers pH Specific Conductance Temperature Depth to water from ground surface Elevation of ground water Anions Cations Organic= Other Sulfate Magnesium TOC + Nitrate/Nitrite as N Bicarbonate Calcium TOX * Ammonia as N Carbonate Potassium VOC @i/ Chloride Sodium Cation-Anion balance Metals (dissolved) pesticides/Radionuclides Arsenic Endrin Barium Lindana Cadmium Toxaphene Chromium 2.4,D Iron 2,4,5, TP-Silvex Lead Methoxychlor Manganese Gross Alpha Mercury Gross Beta Selenium Radium (226/228) Silver post BACKGROUND SEMI-ANNUAL DETECTION MONITORING yater Quality 'Field Parameters pH Specific Conductance Temperature Depth to water from ground surface Elevation o£ ground water Anions Cations Organics 9ther Sulfate Magnesium TOC + Nitrate/Nitrite as N Bicarbonate Calcium TOX * Ammonia as N Carbonate. Potassium VOC @it Chloride Sodium Cation-Anion balance POST BACKGROUND_ANXUAL DETECTION MONITORING Water Quality Field Parameters PH Specific Conductance Temperature 'Depth to water from ground surface . Elevation of ground water • ,f_ cab/I abfI LikeC . Anions Cations Detentes 9ther Sulfate Magnesium • TOC + Nitrate/Nitrite as N Bicarbonate Calcium TOX * Ammonia as N Carbonate ' Potassium VOC #@ • Chloride Sodium , Cation-Anion balance Betels (dissolved) Arsenic Iron Mercury • . Barium Lead Selenium • Cadmium Manganese Silver Chrommium • POST BACKGROUND FIVE WAR_DETECTION MONITORINQ Water Ouality Field Parameters • PM Specific Conductance Temperature Depth to Water from ground surface Elevation from ground water ' Anions Cations Organics Other ' Sulfate Magnesium TOC + Nitrate/Nitrite as N Bicarbonate Calcium TOX * Ammonia as N Carbonate Potassium VOC @# Chloride Sodium ' Cation-Anion balance Metals (dissolved) Pesticides/Radionuclides Arsenic Endrin Barium Lindane Cadmium Toxaphane Chromium 2.4,D Iron 2,4,5, TP-Silvex Lead Methoxychlor Manganese Gross Alpha Mercury Gross Beta Selenium Radium (226/228) Silver • + EPA method 9060 * EPA method 9020 (Ground water samples only) @ EPA method 624 (Ground water samples only) • # May be required �O�el MEMORAnDUM Wilk To Weld County Planning January 17, 1990 Date Environmental Protection Services W/f a In COLORADO From A Case Number: USR-895 Name: Waste Services Corporation Subject. Environmental Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The septic system for the proposed office is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 2. Maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statues. 3. The facility will receive for disposal only those materials approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Health Department. 4. A knowledgeable manager shall be on site at all times that the facility is open to receive waste. 5. All waste received at the facility shall be screened by all practical means available to insure that the appropriate wastes are being disposed at the facility. 6. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and groundwater contamination. A groundwater monitoring plan, including leachate detection and groundwater monitoring wells, periodic sampling and monitoring shall be implemented by the facility operator. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Health Department. The plan shall be reviewed at least once every two years by the State and County Health Departments. Changes and updates to the plan shall be facilitated by the operator as required by the reviewing agencies. 7. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be accomplished in a manner that controls blowing debris. Any debris found to be off- site adjacent to the facility will be picked up within 24 hours. All access roads to the waste disposal facility shall be periodically x �-� , patrolled by the facility staff to assure that trash along these routes rto is picked up and kept to a minimum. The manager of the facility will `-' z respond to requests by the County for trash pick-up along these routes within 24 hours of notification by the County Health Department personnel. rtI EXHIBIT o �I t<� I+n b-----/L-CLai LI a Weld County Planning Re: Waste Services Corp. USR-895 January 17, 1990 Page Two 8. The operator of the facility shall insure that all liners placed at the facility have a final permeability of 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec when in place. The construction of liners shall be supervised by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The Engineer shall submit a final evaluation report on liner construction of each liner segment to document that the liner meets the required specifications. This report shall be reviewed for approval by the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado Department of Health. 9. The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odors. Odors detected off-site shall not equal or exceed the level of 31-to-1 dilutions threshold as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 10. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on-site at all times. In the event that fugitive dust from the facility is determined to be a nuisance by the Weld County Health Department, a dust abatement plan shall be submitted within 10 days to the Department for review and approval. Implementation of the approved dust abatement plan shall begin within 24 hours of approval by the County. WP24/dgc F./ f";\O in A tit STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS t . P.O. Box 850 ''- Greeley, Colorado 80832-0850 "f (303) 353-1232 Q8 'w�e os co�cie November 13, 1989 Weld Co. , S.H. 14 Waste Services Corp. D � 111J, Site Specific Development Plan r dOV 5 199 DOH File 45100 Mr. Rod Allison, Planner L 1 — -- - Weld County Planning Department wmd CO. mammw hmmmt,w, 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: We have reviewed the Waste Services Corporation Site Specific Development Plan, and we have the following comments: Projected traffic on State Highway 14 indicates the need for a 150-foot total right of way, 75 feet each side of the highway centerline. Addi- tional width to meet the projected need should be protected by reservation or, preferably, dedication, as permitted by County regulations. An analysis of the projected traffic for this development indicates that a need for a right turn deceleration lane might be generated with the future traffic. Consideration should be given to the construction of these lanes with the initial development. The final topography plan for this development indicates that surface runoff flows toward the highway drainage system. That system is for the protection of the state highway right of way and is not intended to accommodate drainage from abutting properties beyond that which has historically been accepted. Therefore, we ask that on-site detention of surface runoff be provided so that the historical runoff rate will not be exceeded due to this development. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Site Specific Development Plan. Please contact me at 350-2163 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS RAMES DISTRICT ENGINEER EXHIBIT /6 Crridvi?Ylity)C1, Evan A. Hooper, Or. Development/Access Coordinator CA EAH:smw `4.41 cc: L.D. Yost Area Foreman File: Hooper via Crier tsif MEMORAnDum Willie To Rod Allison, Planning Date November 7, 1989 , COLORADO From Donald Carroll, Administrative Manager 0v Subject: Waste Services, USR-895 Item No. 8, Access Route - A Road Improvements and Maintenancq Agreement for Weld County Road 25 (haul route) will have to be worked out with the County Engineer prior to approval. Item No. 14, Storm Water Retention Facilities - Storm water retention facilities shall be provided on site which are designed to retain the storm water runoff from the fully developed site from a 100-year storm. The drainage facilities shall be designed to release the retained water at a quantity and rate not to exceed the quantity and rate of a 5-year storm falling on an undeveloped site with calculation. U (Gti 5'7 ov-ir-� N0V 8 1989 Weld Co. Maa n tamrltiou DC/mw:prwsc xc: Commissioner Lacy r. r, at Planning Referral File - Waste Services, USR-895 N+a.31O12 EXHIBIT 4 ��/P FIELD CHECK Filing Number: USR-895 Date of Inspection: j- /- 76 Applicant's Name: Waste Services Corporation, c/o Brad Keirnes Request: A Site Specific Development Plan, Special Review permit, and a Certificate of Designation for a Sanitary Landfill Legal Description: SW} of Section 7, T7N, R66W of the 6th Y.M., Weld County, Colorado Location: Approximately 4.5 miles [west of the Town of Ault - /i g Land Use: N gc,1 L7 U g C E 4-/ /4/eti kitilCe S )177A /eu / t € w /09-dAieu Aitti c Zoning: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural COMMENTS: viAis fbdp5eCI iQ/ucl --I'L1- S.A i pi9/;:s.uT4y # ciRy1BNd ltJhiC.9-7/ �.c7Ain . -he -'u,eRatree/i.Oi r Ano c-, AAE day/thyd w tiepin /f/A y.974& -79/37775. co,u The wr�/ (1 e/ni 15;c1/e. , --3e fapse4 dime /5 6w th4 C4a/ d-r The `J, 4A a,eN 7D /.98&.9ifrrif' iuId k 5e avAdds • #ivy /V /-6 O A oa E1 lige ciffirv, F�- Signature of oard Member 3 . 0:564 EXHIBIT R4 g UNITED STATES 4302 West Seth Street Road DEPARTMENT OF Soil Conservation Service Greeley, Colorado 80634 AGRICULTURE Greeley Field Office (303) 356-6506 • November- 13, 1'=x_9 M i I ton Baumgartner , Pres . West Greeley Soil Conservation District 4. 02 W . 9th. St . Rd . Greeley , CO 0SC1!_32 Weld County Case Number: USR-895 Dear Mr . Baumgartner : I have reviewed the Weld County Planning referral from Waste Services Corporation , c/o Egad Keirues , for a Site Specific Development Plan , Special Review permit , and a Certificate of Designation for a Sanitary Landfill . The parcel of land is described as part of the SW 1/4 of Section 7, T7N, Fi66W, Weld County, Colorado. I have 3 basic categories for my remarks : Engineering of reclamation , agronomy of reclamation , and anticipated so i I losses and erosion forces . 1 ) Engineering of reclamation : The final plan calls for establishing a 210 ft . mound of fill areas with 4: 1 side slopes . The entire area is to be capped with a Z foot compacted clay and then overlain with le inches of growth media and top so i I . This wi I I create ;=;00-1!%if%0 ' long 25 s I opes . I recommend that this feature be researchers by a qualified soil mechanics engineer to determine the safety factor of slope stab i I i ty based on site so i I s and characteristics . The concern I have is that degree of slope and the inability of moisture penetration into the clay layer , there may be a good degree of lubrication by moisture percolation to cause subsidence or slippage of the surface soil blankets . 2) Agronomy of reclamation : In August , 1909, I was asked to provide a revegetation mix for a sanitary landfill with normal slopes and near natural contours . My recommendation at that time in no way matches the need for the design produced by ICI included with the request . Also , my recommendation was referenced in the documents but was not followed . Reclamation species - GaIleta is not suited to our area or has not been used in our area for reclamation and the two of the ether- three species are bunch grasses giving 60% hunch grass v. s . 40% sod formers . For_ a site with 25% slopes , reclamation seeding should include all soi forming species . EXHIBIT �� ,: Page 3 ) Anticipated soil losses : The discussion in the plan documentation accounted for water- erosion only at the site , when wind erasion is every bit a5 important in our area . Weather- data at Ft . Co I I i ns cited average F miles per hour , wind velocities . We know that wind velocities at this site will be ;greater than at individual times . For erosion calculations , vegetative cover- complex of 50 was ut i l i zed , when in actuality _0-35% based density is more natural . Therefore , erosion losses can be greater than predicted . The north and west facing slope will have a greater- susceptibility to wind erasion because oT slope which will create velocity increases at the apex of the slopes increasing wind erosion potential . Soil losses between plants can be as much as 6 inches per year from wind erasion alone . When we are dea I i ng with an ( 10" ) eighteen inch effective soil prof i I e that much spa i I loss can be quite detrimental . I could recommend that the review to be done to determine if the surface so i I mantle over the cap be increased to ..6 inches . this would provide twice the so i I mass for erosion protection and may even be better for slope stability. Comment number- four : From a esthetic and environmental concern of the site I feel that a f i n i shed mound 210 feet above the natural contour- is somewhat excessive . The mound will be visible from at least twenty to thirty miles . It appears that the site development will take place over 20-50 years . I think more consideration should be given to what the final effect will be to the local communities , counties , and state . Sincerely (:=:::: ) sE'!" ! - Ronald D. Mil ler- District Conservationist Greeley Field Office RDM/gg 91056 sTATE OF COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMrviISSION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUITE 380 LOGAN TOWER BUILDING WILLIAM R. SMITH 1580 LOGAN STREET Director DENVER, COLORADO 80203 DENNIS R. BICKNELL ROY ROMER Deputy Director (303) 894-2100 Governor November 8, 1989 Mr . Rod Allison, Principal Planner Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street, Room 342 Greeley, CO. 80631 RE: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit SW 7-7N-66W, Case # USR-895 Dear Mr. Allison: We have reviewed this application for a sanitary landfill in regards to potential conflict with oil and gas industry operations and Commission Rules and Regulations. There is currently no oil or gas wells in the section as described by the application. We see no current conflict with the proposed development. However, there is a possibility this tract may be drilled by the mineral rights owner/lessee at some time in the future. We do not believe this will affect the current mineral rights owner , but that is an opinion best left to them. We request that Union Pacific Resources Company be contacted in regards to this application for their participation (if this has not already been done) . Thank you for allowing us to participate in the review process. Yours tryllly, i James Kenney _ Sr. Professional Engr. cc: JRS 1 NOV 9 1959 Doc0300J p2 EXHIBIT +held tn. Nato +�tat�°t 1 I STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor REFER TO: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES `ow�oo DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER v, O W Perry D. Olson, Director Northeast Region ,per 6060 Broadway 317 West Prospect 00F`tis,~ Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone:(303)297-1192 Fort Collins, CO 80526 December 1, 1989 Mr. Rod Allison Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: This letter covers your request to me on 12/01/89 during our phone conversation. It is in regards to the plan presented by Waste Services Corporation for a new sanitary- landfill west of Ault, Colorado As I stated in our conversation, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has no conflicts with the operation as long as it meets all health and pollution standards. The reclamation plan is good and addresses all the pertinent points. The reclamation plan calls for seeding different types of grasses, but nothing else. Herein lies a tremendous opportunity! If the reclamation plan was to include shrub and tree plantings the landfill would not only be reclaimed, but would also provide some excellent habitat for the areas' wildlife populations. The area would be better for wildlife after reclamation than it is now. I have talked with Mr. Brad Beirnes of Waste Services Corporation and he was very enthusiastic about the idea, and would be more than willing to use plantings other than grass. The types, numbers and configuration of the plantings would be worked out with aid and consultation of the Soil Conservation Service Sincerely, / G, John L. Wagner/ District Wildlife �� `jyr� JLW/jk/#581 EXHIBIT ' DEC 1 8 1989 ap 9C 561 r Yleld Ca, Plaa,uae ,;,mnrrr.u, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George Van Den Berg, Chairman • Robert L. Freidenberger, Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank Member • Dennis Luttrell, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member 0 C-" G5�� \--Qh I MAY 16 1990 -- / .51 — " 6 e L f Co. Wamiet Commisaioa � -- _s) - -- -- --E-14-9---a-ro—t---- — - Y!J CCU ✓4_-- � —_, C ` - r. -7.14 ftocia, 2:La 6,--74 a--2---K e-c4 tryta-c-P ti el* . / P D -�-) c9-c- _,� -14-<ait0 Cum ,a. EXHIBIT � rth2 :or 0 kiZeZdf- �a�A t�� —�L=�P j2 p 1 D � ''i L I (2 i n ere 1 a-1)-e_ G./ns° --1'Yl-C-ed erg Xis---ez-s.,,L,Q J -. --e-j fiat 9(. 056 4 � J J _ l � )4 a _c re-cleiwol r 900564 ( 7 LA _T—Le_- v t a211 ( / J Cr4n laA•ti OL C564 r 5. , fi — ' (990Fi Y 15 111 Est- 25 , � /,1 ) 9- d ._ f .c Gca 1, CY-r-(/�/ 1 tart � • acc, U.--0,44/ >72,4,Le% Oil p(1.01,,Ljz_el....ti --;---I/Clad 1A)--ei O 6-t,017 14-A �-cf ..�..� , co--4-4.7` It- cite--- ;2/ frri V"--t "ii - o&t.A4 ..�� e...4,„_e_.(.14„..1 cr_. en,.....,...2 ......rm-,4_ .s9,,o_,_ear . ,fler.A.c.-644,-4.44.4kwido 0-j. oetitA-O ..t.001 v si- n I Ale, -Owe s ..„.."‘„,„," . • 4 -zh.e�.., -Wt.< d o at< f zoe 0.9'r „ix tv, i„...._ 4-4-t, oilet_fiLa-s-e_...4„;...frt.zi .i recloi, • . anes_teke...c....„...4cret„ cco:,...cetek ft, it i#4.42,..t4 4..._ e etC, 1 e EXHIBIT 9(0564 �3 1 f• - fr_€4.47- es , rest ate_ a-� �n��lAl'A ` -" ." a�,�,, Ita. Lea-Le, nom-_ Here 67 ritigis 'ere' rno , 2% 0561 t i I May 9, 1990 To the Weld County Health Department Weld County Planning Commision Weld County Commissioners RE: Landfill West of Ault, Weld County, Colorado The Landfill (Dump) that is proposed west of Ault I feel is a very poor location. In the future it will be a problem with paper, trash, etc blowing onto Highway 14, along with the odor that will be in the air. Tourists and regular communters traveling between Fort Collins and Ault will be welcomed with this scene. That is not what we want to promote for our County and State. We have been promised that will not happen. Iri checking around the country -- why do all the other Landfills (Dumps) have this problem. There is a possibility I might be in favor if the owner would want to build and live in a home south of the Landfill (Dump) . Water Supply and Storage Ditch Company have a lateral going through the south side of the section. I believe the Ditch would also be a recipient of the blowing paper and trash. I am sure our State and County Health Departments, Weld County Planning Commission and our County Commissioners would not OK the permit if they realize how it would hurt this area. I ask you to strongly conside NOT to approve this permit for the Landfill (Dump) in this area. Thank You: Ray Danielson i Di v')C1(y) 3 9 509 WCR st MAY 1 1 199030 64 EXHIBIT 4 litId co. maw% ellUNlli�'�p� May 8, 1990 Weld County Planning Commission 975 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: North Weld County Sanitary Landfill Dear Sirs: As a property owner and resident of 40505 WCR 1127, we are addressing the above referenced issue that is currently in the final stages of approval. The location that has been chosen, SW } of SEC 7, TWN 7 N, AGE 66 W, presents unaddressed problems for the surrounding landowners and residents, the community, and tourists/travelers that frequent Colorado HWY 14. The proposed ,location is situated on the top of a hill which constitutes a high wind area, thus dispersing unsafe & unsightly waste to all the landowners' & resident's property, as well as dispersing waste into all the many surrounding irrigation ditches and in the "MOST VISUAL RESPECT" to Colorado HWY 14. Significant environmental problems consist of rodent & insect infestation which will produce disease carriers to the many farming residences in the area, affecting live- stock and other means of survival for these residences. Although, this landfill is not designed for hazardous waste, the evidence of any concealed hazaradous waste will most definitely affect the many nearby irrigation ditches that provide essential water supply. Furthermore, the rodent & waste odor will create an environmentally unsafe atmosphere to the community including tourists & travelers that frequent Colorado HWY 14. Upon receipt of a letter in October 1989 from the applicant, Brad Keirnes, we were informed that this facility will be so suitable that the appearance will not be recognized as a landfill. However, since the proposed location is already situated at the peak of a hill and the landfill protruding 175' to 200' at a 4 to 1 side slope (even in the early stages of use and with extensive landscaping) , it is highly unlikely this location will ever provide an "unseen & unrecognizable" landfill. This unsightly mountain-like protrusion of waste cannot be contained or properly managed by the six to ten foot fence that will surround the location. The land currently provides a beautiful and picturesque location of rolling hills in a farming community and is equipped with a beautiful crop of wheat. It seems so unnecessary to place a landfill on such a picturesque location, simply for the "convenience sake" of a proprietor or a corporation. There are other locations of land available that would provide the applicant with a sufficient, convenient landfill away from a major highway, and most importantly not destroy the magnificent beauty of the Rockies to the surrounding residents and tourists traveling Colorado HWY 14. Please consider all the above points given when processing the application of this location for approval of this business proposition. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, VDo g as & Joyce Fred li EXHIBIT ` 40505 WCR #27; Ault, C 80610 � ;'�QY � � �9yQ 25 „ :. .,t # Id eh. ?Wait* ,.edlllu cllP Rt 2 Box 124 Eaton, CO. 80615 May 1, 1990 Weld County Planning Dept. 915 10th Street Greeley, CO. 80631 To Whom It May Concern: I would Like to protest the proposed landfill that is to be located at a site four miles west of Ault, Colorado. In the first place, why would anyone okay a landfill so near to a public highway? The location is in a very windy area and I can't see how it would be possible to prevent papers and debris from blowing onto the highway. Fences will not stop the bZowing debris when the wind reaches 30- 40 mph as it often does. I live southeast of the proposed site and I'm sure if it is approved we will be subject to flying debris from the landfill. This is a nice country setting and would certainly be ruined by an unsightly landfill in the area. Highway 14 is a well traveled highway, used by a lot of tourists and local people as well. In my opinion, the landfill should be located miles away from a main highway in an area that is not going to cause a safety and health hazard. Why not locate the Landfill farther north or east of Ault? There are plenty of locations that would not situate the landfill along a main highway in a populated area. ' fAlso the sanitary side of this is to be considered. The landfill will attract flies and rats which spread disease. This is in an area where almost everyone owns cattle, horses, and household pets that would be subject to a health threat. Not to mention the human population. Please do not approve a landfill in this location. The landfill would be detrimental to the community. The health and safety of the citizens in our community certainly outweighs the need for a landfill in this location. !hank you for your consideration. }/-14474.1a)of Gloria Lister Concerned Citizen 0 �gi'Dti.9•47r7r:717,J,T 1 MAY 2 N90 9(.0561 cl rPelu Ch. 'i,,., . ., '_ EXHIBIT E May 18, 1990 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Proposed Land Fill Dump Site Dear Sirs: We were extremely upset when the news of a land fill might be located within three miles of our property. There certainly was no ,notice of re-zoning from farming circulated throughout the community prior to the fact that this dump was up for approval by your office. This proposed site is prime farm land and borders directly on Highway 14, a major thoroughfare in northern Colorado. Can you imagine the trash that will be blowing across the highway in this very windy part of the country. There isn't a "natural gulley" or sort of terrain that would be conducive to a dump on the property. We are property owners, tax payers, and residents at 10501 Weld Co. Road 84. Road 84 also would border the dump site and therefore, the traffic and litter caused by vehicles going to the dump would be outrageous! People do not cover their trash and it certainly would be piling up on our property as they pass by. This dump would lower our property value greatly and we hereby exert our wishes that the proposed dump site be turned down. We will be watching this closely and will certainly not support anyone who supports this disaster. Sincerely, George and Phyllis Legino Steven and Kathleen Legino O�e-2 e4 1.0,5-5-FMT D (1)4 � MAY 2 11990 U�p�� welA Co. �1°1 °� `�az�i.Pe�,._ . Ol 3 _� 64 George Legino 1O5u1 Weld Co. Rd. 84 7. EXHIBIT Ault, CU 80610 c27 e. � May 12, 1990 Einar SirS, As land owners and residents of Weld County, we are writing this letter in protest of the proposed land fill which will be located three miles west of our property near Highway 14 and County Road 25. East We feel that this is a totally inadequate site and will cause great harm to our property and its value. It will be an eye sore and nuisance to our neighborhood. We feel it will generate a great amount of traffic, noise, odor, and pollution. Surely there are more appropriate sites to locate this land fill! We chose to live in the country to be away frcm urban pollution and _ trash. It is unfair that one man with a profit motive should be allowed co ruin land values and the quality of country living. We could not in good conscience support any public official who would allow this land fill to be located here. We suggest that the County Commissioners who support this disaster locate it close to their homes and then tell us how they like it forty years from now! ! Sincerely, Isabelle and Herbert Schmidt Jon and Marsha Schmidt Herbert Schmidt, Jr. ioola- 7D.c ..Pzit a cO -, ce go 6 /o .� 11 p1[;,iGi '7Cwty I 1 \: (d AY 2 1 1950 EXHIBIT I �O litle CD. 41Du..:nk Ilud. „ Rt. 2 Box 96 Eaton, CO 80615 May 1, 1990 Aloe lt 7-9��0T- Colora tate He h Dept. • 4210 E llth Ave. Denver, 80220 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in protest of the proposed site for a land fill 4 miles west of Ault, CO. on Highway 14. My home, where I raise my own and foster children and animals, is due southeast of this pro— posed site. Now this distresses me so because the wind blows fiercely out her, and more than not it is out of the northwest. I feel like I am in threat of being violated by flying trash, stench, and germs. I have patronized other landfills enough times to know how it is when the wind blows, how unsightly the whole thing is, and the smell sometimes in the summer is horrendous; to say the least about those ugly little varments called RATS, of which I have seen plenty at another landfill. Would you like to have this within a few miles of your homes? OF COURSE NOT! How far away from your home is the nearest dump? Do you have to worry about your animals being infected by desieased rats or prairie dogs who feed on the waste at the landfill? Do you have to worry about the flies and mosquitoes that wander in from that place and bite you or you kids (what could these flies and mosquitoes carry)? And what of the unsightliness from the highway? I have traveled from Maine to California quite a few times and NEVER have I seen a landfill i from even the smallest roads I have traveled, much less from a state highway. People come in to Colorado and say how beautiful it is, then there's the landfill (PPPUUU) on Highway 14. The trashtrucks lose bits of trash on their way to the dump (I know this because my Dad is a "garboon") , this blows over the highway and in the barrow ditches. And then there's the traffic problems caused by the trashtrucks themselves. Nothing would pieve me more than to be going 55 miles an hour down Highway 14 on my way to a meeting in Ft. Collins and have to be slowed by a trash- truck losing stuff on my windshield! Why can't this landfill be located way east of Ault or north farther where there is little population and not much good farmland? In my opinion, the safety, health and welfare of the population (human and animal) in this area much more than outweighs the proposed landfill. Thank you. rTh— __ Cheryl athrop I+IAY 2 1990 U i view CO. maim," '_' EXHIBIT a a �q?'(, i I I am Wr. ing th8 letter In order- /o hires* lhie bad orc aci i� No rfh c� /quit fw and `ila,- e--/- ACV- Acute J L /i uecl iri 1173 Qr ec( oil osfr hfa and Z do not warn' I i emg children Went it a /and i l -1-- drive_ � Aiuf area euer I Sow, Eenol -1 15-noW what a h% h tv -L of C" rra (/f ics, lve are going %o Hoye frail? Mace/ry // over the i?eghborhacid, 4// a nCee die// do �S (t/ke /f" and 1hC exce4.s toff/ fast 6/ow on etier: ( land ill octn be, /Se tfo�1`�r— _ where ft would no- be next" to a /2-29fa- higqhteat/, skuld be pelt inhere fhere Guth Y •d/7w homes to/Ain SeUcra / /9-i; 1es, Then if I 3crna-n e d ee t d es to hut- 1,1 a /?carte, If 15 M EM choice 710 //VC 7/ere or nO e 7oerk who a reac/ Acetic 4927es rh finis area have no eAc e ct 1 ci�Y �%�1' an body° ct)Q073 to /cot- out /t�e,i Ge),i7doco eU� �ornir! tend �ee1 a ,le o-� f/r s/7 ir7Shca� r�'� the iheicer727%r7±. I r o/o hit . /y � Sa o EXHIBIT c 33 ill, CO Both% ,1/44-y ,f /if° eb.ec • Grp.-ems J A, 6dr-4c t �1w �t�2`��t :at �' /e..e.-&- 4i#4a-7, %gre.tdie_ec.,4, ..,(21T2Coe , d-ye Cntic p ac P�i�/i .z i/ .may ct er- l�i�fsz Ic� v G-ere-te , � ----car-L 42- � G M �1 �(�r c.0?- 1,p v �c� "()r ply Nwy 3y E c Sr C561 0 prac171q MAY 1 1 1990 = EXHIBIT 31 weld co. o1awuia May 29 , 1990 Weld County Planning Commission 975 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Proposed Landfill Site (Highway 14) Between Ault and Fort Collins We are located in a quite farming and ranching area that has a major east/west highway running by it (Hwy14) and we are opposed to the location of the landfill off this highway because of the amount of large oversized truck traffic that already exists. We feel that the added traffic caused by this landfill would create a dangerous situation for us and our surrounding neighbors . We have been told that there would be 50 additional trash trucks going to this land- fill and that percentage wise, would not greatly increase traffic on this road. We disagree with this comment and feel that the 50 additional trash trucks coming and going (100 trash trucks) accompanied by many small traffic cars and trucks coming in and out of the landfill areas would increase the traffic flow many times this number. This is supported by the fact that the Larimer County landfill located southwest of Fort Collins has three times the amount of small car and truck traffic as it has large trash trucks . We are also concerned with the wrecks and fatilities that already have occurred on this portion of Highway 14 and that additional traffic caused by the proposed . location of the landfill is not needed and would increase significantly the amount of accidents and deaths on this major highway. Your consideration of this problem would be appreciated. ly, .2' ' G"`l�n & mar cots 10545 Highway 14 Ault, Colorado 80610 Copy to: State Highway Dept, - Greeley Attn: George Hall Se()S64 a �r��s��i� EXHIBIT r ri 1 5S i' MAY 3 +0 1990 tit ti, ?!.1:O4! innnissiy. Iti9 VOSItge 30, 1 9 PO VIA I. 1090 TCEa-s E) �Lt 4s £ i CPLEAsc C ,t TM � c Cd eo��17 of 11 /74-Tit CLL., Kc.. ( w wirl` r crrK P Oa, � � K "' " /J c � G c t cry it b A / I 7� /6a ? C (0 id idC �Y I £y' c�. '% ° EXHIBIT JUN 1990 39 14e1d Co. 4., .. Ault, Colorado June 1, 1990 Weld County Planning Commission 975 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 7n2 . jpeAda I am writing to urge you to deny the permit for Waste Services Cor- poratinn's proposed landfill west of Ault. The main access roads will be H.B. Highway 85 and State Highway 14. As ,you om see on the attached map, both the highways nre main streets in Ault. 85 serves businesses and residences and with 14 provided the access to the two railroad crossings `or the east side of Ault. Highway 14 serves the main business district, an active senior center, the library, the park, some residences and is the only access for the schools. The Highland District (PE 9) schools in Ault are the Middle, Jr. Hieh and Sr. High levels as well as a busy day card center in the Middle school. Children from Carr, Nunn, Pierce and Ault are bused to and from these schools. Mr. Brad Keirnes of Waste ,Services Corporation has told us he expects as many as 50 trucks a day to be using the landfill when it opens and that he expects the number to increase. That amnunts to 100 trash hauling ve- hicles counting the return trips. Another concern I have is the placement o£ a landfill on the highway and in the front range area which has been traditionally dedicated to growth. Highway. l4 is a gateway to the mountains and the Poudre Canyon. Please consider the negative impact of this landfill on our Anviron- ment: the increased large vehicle traffic through Ault; the increased large vehicle traffic by time schools of Highland RE .; the curtailment of growth in a front range area; a site which will not enhance the beauty of Coloradoln mountains. S ncerel��y� ra Thompson 127 B Street Ault, Colorado G� e\Vr1�' rr l,` JUN 41990 EXHIBIT WEIR C0 June 4, 1990 T0: Rod Allison 'field County Plarnin2; Staff Weld Co :nty Manning Commission RE: Proposed landfill by '.Taste Services Corporation, Brad 3eirnes, President,located four miles west of Ault, Colo. , at the inter- section o£ 'JCR 25 and State Hwy 14. I would like to voice my oppisition to the proposed landfill for the following reasons: 1 ) No adequate wind study has been made on this site, in fact there is no comparable data available according to Jim Wirshborn, State Meteoroligst; local residents are aware of the extremely windy site conditions as illustrated by the accompaning photos taken during a May, 1990 site tour with Brad Reirnes, regulation 24.3.1 .3 2) Increasing truck traffic on an already dangerous blind corner where fatal accidents have already occured. regulation 24.3.1 .7 3) regulation 24.3.1.6 states that the applicant demonstrate a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land; the location is prime agricultural land; other methods of waste disposal are available which use 750 to 800 less land. I urge limiting landfill proposals to a maximum of 40 acres. 4) regulation 24.3.7 provides for adequate provision for health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and county; I urge ground water test holes be made during the irrigation season when the ajoining Pierce Lateral is running since ground water levels rise at this time, current data shows water at the 36 and 41 foot levels. further; the highly pitched slope would cause surface erosion problems from blowing dirt, and during rainstorms such as the 2 experienced in the last two weeks. 5) Proposed landscaping plans call for 3 rows of trees and a fence on the north side of hwy. 14 potentially causing a significant increase in blowing and drifting snow during ground blizzard conidtions. We personally have experienced hazardous and life threatening travel conditions on this location in ground blizzard conditions 3 years ago. 6) Decreased property values and loss of potential residental growth in a promising area. I personally have talked with 5 families who are currently considering buying and/or building in the immediate area and will not do so if the landfill is approved, regulation 24.3.1 .3 7) Residents prefer an alternate plan calling for a much smaller landfill in a location at least 1 mile off any highway which would co-operate with a recycling plant which would offer 3 times the job o portunities for area residents. regulation 24.3.1 .1 thru 6. Recyclin� effectively deal with toxic municipal waste always present. ncerely, 1� __��_ S/i , o 114 EXHIBIT _ lipr-JUN �<<� 14;Walt nift Cindy Sidwe 1 277 1 ,ACP 66., Oil'_, CO t 4413 $L, fu, rev M Town of �D � )�aC\v/ -` \ �' '= JUN , 'k' f AU LT r 1990 v -`, 201 First Street • P.O. Box 98 • Ault, Colorado 80610 • (30��,33�4-28444. MUOIF4 &MisSloa June 4, 1990 Weld County Planning Commission Greeley, CO 80631 Gentlemen: The Town of Ault would like to go on record as opposing the proposed North Weld Sanitary landfill located on Highway 14, west of Ault, for the following reasons: 1. It would greatly increase the already congested traffic on Highway 14 which is the main street of Ault. Having excess garbage and trash trucks travel by the school would be devastating! 2. Increased traffic on Highway 14 would interfere with commuter traffic to Ft. Collins. 3. As of now there are no passing lanes from Ault to the proposed site. 4. It would almost certainly be a detriment to future development along Highway 14 between Ault and Ft. Collins. 5. The area is a high wind area which would cause 40 years of uncontrollable blowing trash. 6. The area does not need that kind of geological phenomenon. It would always be a misfit aesthetically. 7. There would be no assurance that the site would be limited to residents of Northern Colorado. . 8. All people who have contacted us are opposed to the proposed North Weld landfill. 9. It makes more sense to consider recycling than to continue to build trash hills over the country side. Very truly yours, TOWN OF AULT actaaki . .Edgar leek, ayor i EXHIBIT Roger H ve1, Trustee � i3 Duane Rau, Trustee 3 Phyllis Vigil, Trustee e Gary White, Trustee 0 41L--,,-, b � m A Unique I Little Town ARAPAHOE ENERGY CONSULTANTS Mailing Address: Telephone (303) 794-7910 Office Address: Post Office Box 3967 Telecopier (303) 770-0578 5299 DTC Blvd., Suite 500 Littleton, Colorado 80161 Telex 450189 Southgate Engl Englewood, Colorado 80111 June 4 , 1990 Mr. C. Bradley Keirnes President --- - Waste Services Corporation 6037 77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Dear Mr. Keirnes: This letter confirms our telephone conversation in which you agreed to retain me for assistance in reaching a reasonable agreement with Union Pacific Resources with respect to their interest in the coal , gravel and other minerals (excluding oil and gas) in the SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 7 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. I am advised that you have made application to Weld County for a Use by Special Review and Certificate of Designation to operate a non-hazardous solid waste disposal site on the subject property. In conjunction with that application, you desire to reach an amicable arrangement with Union Pacific with respect to their rights to any mineral deposits that may be in existence. I will be reviewing available data and information on the geology of the site and will provide you with that information as soon as possible. Information about my credentials is delivered herewith. Very truly yours, Edwin A. Kuhn JUN 5 1990 i j EXHIBIT EAK/gb *id �R 91,„un= .„;Ir: y�J encs. C o py 9rese 1 EDWIN A. KUHN Arapahoe Energy Consultants Post Office Box 3967 Littleton, Colorado 80161 (303) 794-7910 NATURE OF CONSULTING WORK: Asset Sales Bankruptcy Coal Supply Contract Evaluations Utility Fuel Supply Evaluations --- - • Coal Marketing Studies Coal Lease Determinations Coal Royalty Determinations Coal Mine Evaluations Coal Reserve and Mining Arbitrations Expert Testimony • EXPERIENCE: 1. Arapahoe Energy Consultants June 1983 to Present. 2. John T. Boyd Company, Consulting Mining and Geological Engineers, Suite 1028, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295. November 1978 to May 1983. Coal Markets and Transportation Specialist. 3. Consolidation Coal Company, Exploration Division, Denver, Colorado. March 1974 to November 1978. Senior Geologist. 4. ARCO Coal Company, Exploration Division, Denver, Colorado. June 1973 to November 1973. Field Geologist. 5. Exxon Corporation, Minerals Division, Denver, Colorado. January 1970 to June 1973. Geological Assistant. EDUCATION: Graduate Geologist - University of Colorado, 1973 Degree: B.A., Geology Schools Attended: Seminar on Coal Transportation and Distribution - held by the National Coal Association and The Journal of Commerce, Denver, Colorado. Negotiating and Administering Coal Supply Agreements - held by McGraw-Hill, Programs for Professional Development, Atlanta, Georgia. 9('C561 Schools Attended: (cont'd) Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods - held at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Institute on Royalty Valuation and Management - held by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, Denver, Colorado. MEMBERSHIP: 1. American Arbitration Association - Panel of Arbitrators 2. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers 3. Colorado Mining Association 4. Denver Coal Club - President 1990 5. Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute - Patron Member 6. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation 9C e564-11 REFERENCES: 1. Mr. Walter "Bud" S. Duryea 5. Mr. John C. Wisch General Sales Manager Land, Timber and Reclamation Manager Consolidation Coal Company WIDCO Consol Plaza Washington Irrigation and Development Co. 1800 Washington Road 1015 Big Hanaford Road Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241 Centralia, Washington 98531 2. Mr. James M. Griffin, P.E. 6. Gerald J. Schissler, Esq. Managing Director General Counsel The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Meridian Minerals Company Mining and Metals Group 5613 DTC Parkway 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza Suite 1100 New York, New York 10081 Englewood, Colorado 80111 3. Mr. Raymond M. McCormick 7. Mr. Thomas L. Meacham Vice President Executive Vice President Mellon Bank Fairmont Supply Company Coal and Mining Projects Section Chairman, Official Unsecured Creditors' One Mellon Bank Center Committee of Kaiser Coal Corporation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15258 Executive Offices Millcraft Center Washington, Pennsylvania 15301 4. Harold G. Morris, Jr., Esq. 8. Mr. Walter L. Wright Natural Resource Attorney President and Chief Operating Officer Sherman and Howard The Valley Camp Coal Company 2900 First Interstate Tower North Scofield Route 633 Seventeenth Street Helper, Utah 84526 Denver, Colorado 80202 ( GS6 EDWIN A. KUHN I have extensive experience in the technical aspects of coal and other mineral resource development, utility fuel supply, transportation, and coal supply contract requirements. My background includes business development, technical audits of coal supply contracts for various mining costs, coal reserve and mining arbitrations, coal marketing studies, royalty determinations, and expert testimony on mineral values, and mining potential of certain properties. I have worked on projects in the States of ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IOWA, ILLINOIS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, MONTANA, TEXAS, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA, WYOMING, the PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN CANADA, BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY and the NETHERLANDS. SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE SYSTEM FUELS, INC. - New Orleans, Louisiana Conducted a technical audit of post-mining reclamation costs incurred at the KERR-MCGEE JACOBS RANCH MINE in southern Campbell County, Wyoming. This project involved pass-through cost verification of reclamation procedures at the coal mine in relation to the coal supply contract provision. UTILITY FUELS, INC. (Houston Lighting and Power) - IIouston, Texas Comparison of costs and escalation provisions of several coal supply contracts in the Powder River Basin in preparation for submission to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas in relation to the reasonableness of Spring Creek coal price to UFI in 1978 and the reasonableness of Kerr-McGee coal price to UFI in 1980. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY - Englewood, Colorado Marketing presentations to Utah Power and Light and the Intermountain Power Project for the EMERY, UTAH underground and surface mineable property. These presentations included land status, royalty rates, reserves, coal quality, mining conditions, and transportation plans. SHERIDAN WYOMING COAL COMPANY (Pittston) - Sheridan, Wyoming Responsible for tracking F.O.B. mine prices, rail rates, and delivered quantities to various utilities on a quarterly basis from the BIGHORN and DECKER MINES operated by PETER KIEWIT SONS, INC. NEVADA POWER COMPANY - Las Vegas, Nevada Project Manager for evaluation of seventeen potential fuel suppliers from western Colorado, southwestern Wyoming, Powder River Basin, and central Utah for the Reid Gardner No. 4 Generating Station at Moapa, Nevada. Detailed analysis included reserves, coal quality, mining conditions, transportation, contract requirements, and financial stability of the potential fuel suppliers. 64 EDWIN A. KUHN Page 2 UNION OIL COMPANY - Los Angeles, California Responsible for reviewing potential coal supplies for use as a feedstock for the retorting process at Rifle, Colorado. This work included reviewing coal quality, mining costs, and transportation of several coal mining operations in western Colorado. AMERICAN ELEC:IRIC POWER CORPORATION - Price, Utah As Project Manager, responsibilities included being the fuel supply contract arbitrator and negotiator for reserves and mineability of the Castlegate, Utah property between American Electric Power (AEP) and McCullough Oil Corporation (BRAZTAH). This project involved defining contract terminology and resolution of mining parameters. NORTHERN BORDER PIPELINE COMPANY - Omaha, Nebraska Mineral investigations, coal and lignite investigations, coal and mineral values and potential for mining of certain properties in IOWA, ILLINOIS, MONTANA, and NORTH DAKOTA were conducted. EXPERT TESTIMONY in Federal Court on minerals and coal deposits, their value and potential markets in seven counties consisting of approximately 276 miles of the 42 inch diameter ALASKA NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM in NORTH DAKOTA was performed. FMC CORPORATION - Denver, Colorado Competition analysis of six selected companies that operate eight coal mines in southern Wyoming, northwest Colorado, and central Utah in comparison to FMC'S SKULL POINT MINE located near KEMMERER, WYOMING. A review of the property control, reserves, coal quality, mining operations and costs, transportation, and market commitments were conducted. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Watsonville, California Coal marketing study for properties in LAPLATA and MONTEZUMA counties, Colorado. Comparison and analysis of markets in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah with respect to transporation, export potential, and possible On-Site Mine-Mouth Electric Generating Stations. UNITED STATES FUEL COMPANY - Hiawatha, Utah Reserve certification; Pillar resource recovery estimates; Roof and floor investigations; coal quality projections. SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION - Regina, Saskatchewan Reviewed lignite resource and reserve properties along with Na2O content of the lignite for specification for boiler design in relation to selecting the best property to develop an On-Site Mine-Mouth Electric Generating Station. 9C 05€ 4 RECENT PROJECTS Aearth Coal Company - Little Rock, Arkansas Research of coal prices, markets, and opportunities over a several- year period in preparation for a deposition on August 1, 1989 in regard to a multimillion dollar lender liability case. Mellon Bank, N.A. - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Valuation and due diligence of a silver mine in Mexico in regard to debt equity financing. Kaiser Coal Corporation - Colorado Springs, Colorado Coal Valuation, asset sales, coal supply contract and property negotiations for the creditors ' committee and the debtor. Meridian Minerals Company - Englewood, Colorado Coal lease and royalty determinations and report submitted in preparation for a lease negotiation. WIDCO - Centralia, Washington Coal lease and royalty determinations and reports prepared in regard to lease renegotiations. Victor American Fuel Company - New York, New York Coal Valuation of private coal lands for potential acquisition by another coal company. Windsor Gas Corporation - Houston, Texas Investigation of methane content in coal deposits in Europe. Market analysis of natural gas consumption, supply, pricing and ___ _ impact of the Russian natural gas transmission line in Europe. These examples identify some projects that Arapahoe Energy Consultants have worked on. ar eS64 SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTI,., (Landfills) County le/l'iD DATE #0/90 Located in Facility Gfi G�!{za-y —//7/itiA-ane s SC Swpr, Incor e Location °/nrl/ev pe fec�>� p rated Area Currant Operator Lpg57/2 Sl boebS _rive Mailing Address of Operator G03 7.4 Q�f„i� � �w� �y ��rA " Current Owner (If different) 9„rdni¢ 8'G�D Mailing Address of Owner (All items checked must be explaind in supplemental report) I. Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards A. Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards B. Evidence of Potential for (Serious) Surface Water Pollution C. Evidence of Potential for (Serious) Groundwater Pollution D. Surface Diversion/Containment Facilities Inadequate or not Maintained E. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns F. Sludge or Septic Pumping° Disposal on Site (Unauthorized) G. Operating Records not Maintained on Site H. Non—Compliance with Approved Design and Operation I. Other ;II. Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 a EXHIBIT In ' A. Odors and/or Vectors Present `$ B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover ' a*_ C. Inadequate Fencing (to control access and windblown Jeir'I \ t D. Burning apparent �_ E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned III. Remarks • / //044 L."s�i� orMv1lioN Aefio,ll Al cr{� Aftt7A1 (rent( o.4il/y pemeR f t4 el t ,40K ',PPP pole" fraratbleilra son Area ,(4i) 4Atta( eAD04 • • A G/IKK MOrY jiGil411/ Afro Jv aJ k. • (Name) PRESENT AT INSPECTION Uvl �j (Representing) ..fie "' v�Sii A, ' , Si7 Inspection Engineer/GeotUgtat G 91(1534 (WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOW COPY OPERATOR) (PINK COPY-COUNTY) I , SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION (Surface Impoundments) County `./LEL) DATE OAK/ F6 Located in Facility __L. -,7-%�q , c F Vbr i C /AIC Incorporated Area Locatione, t? -7 77 gik- ef-PF C «Y 9O G, 3 Current Operator /2,41/i k /,Aogr c . Mailing Address or Operator .` 4.Ths, , Current Owner (If different) • Mailing Address of Owner (All items checked must be explaind in supplemental report) I. _ A. Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards _ B. Evidence of Potential for (Serious) Surface Water Pollution C. Evidence of Potential for (Serious) Groundwater Pollution D. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthorized) E. Safety Hazards F. Non—Compliance with Approved Design and Operation _ G. Structural Integrity of Dikes Questionable _ H. Records _ I. Other * REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED II. Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 A. Odors and/or Vectors Present —7 B. Inadequate Fencing (to control access) C. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned D. Monitoring Wells (Maintenance, Intregrity, or Locking Cap not Present) _ E. Evidence of Minor Spills Around Disposal Area _ F. Water/Liquid Surface Covered with oil(s) or scum _ G. Depth Gauges not Present and or Readible _ H. Pond Freeboard Level Exceeded. I. Recommendations for Site Improvement J. Other III. Remarks xi A. /D-l� R-r.• ` re 4,41-L. 1�lQ-f1,{G .A7.r.`x �h ' •Ctl_i j 1.�. -.�L. / '=.tit-N O��L/ (Name) PRESENT AT INSPECTION (Representing) esaftlAK e';�-f 1i, - ' - L•1/41re7ee Cti?PIC.44 " Inspection Engineer/Geologistt_ �� '/ ...' n (WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOW COPY OPERATOR) (PINK COPY-COUNTY) ' „k �.� ) SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION r Compliance W'¢�>,:, a ,Nf Non-compliant ••t` a Pp i. ) //// -f�/ Open Dnee,r` . 3 x b , CO F4` L.UPV� Date /1/2 A? Located in{ ;„` ' ' Fa% .. `,r 1AS"Tr ? /-7 (.ir r FCC 0 V . Incorpora-.::'.'4.::„.: i:/, id Area /_/ r,r u, CiY rator ' ON0).1 �, Ma dress of Operator .. Cu# her (If different) , ,,,., •Ma dress of Owner � Q',A , v-7 ,. lvp, to '. ;Checked must be explained in supplemental report) i. y.. T ' I.'?,,, blic Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement, hgaln, ,"'v34olatlCn!) , A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal P 411:4,, 4 ,.. 4ty j0.44,,./,! : ' .fi B. Evidence of Potential for Serious Surface or Ground Wdt'et PA1 . +ion. ,,, , ro C. Surface Diversion/Containment' Facilities Inadequate or not p1s4ntained' . !- D. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthor.ized) F. Safety Hazards G. Non-Compliance with'P Approved Design and Operation , + H. Other ! s t r 1? * REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED 1 II . um standards, CRS 30, 20-1'10 (Locally enforced standards) + +'a'''Nv ;,�r w , A. Odors and/or Vectors Present ,,,s t I ,. B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover ' ,'�i; C. Inadequate Fencing. (to control access and windblown debris) '�}za: ti V `" ,$ ku.... D. Burning a ' apparent r M �� a c�. II nrF E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned y xt ,vc r n INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT . ,�.;' Y, 9,: M1 1 �;vit iJ1. IIl Ommp;aints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken .a , 4 r Fs r, 4,ik: �..• • IV, O M:.. ,µ me) J, PRESENT AT INSPECTION "(AaD�eRt117TM•.. l r' -cam `. r` a psp}cling Engineer L , • 1944 '• 0=199, '• ..(WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOW COPY-OPERATOR)" (PINK COPY-COUNTY) (GOLD COPY-D.E.) . SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION Compliance k' Non-compliance ((�� JJ Open Dump Count W i((il / County Date J�1fI Located in Location N ,' ;� , Incorporated Area /_/ (yD3 1.1 1 pr v r , ; Current Operator )3174 NtAtIN A , Mailing Address of Operator ‘7,931‘7,931 l '.1;, j/ t n ,p c !). > e X ,i! Current Owner (If different) d Mailing Address of Owner (All items checked must be explained in supplemental report) I. Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement .against violations) A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal B. Evidence of Potential for Serious Surface or- Ground Water Pollution C. Surface Diversion/Containment Facilities Inadequate or not Maintained D. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthorized) F. Safety Hazards - G. Non-Compliance with Approved Design and Operation H. Other • REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED II. Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-1'10 (Locally enforced standards) A. Odors and/or Vectors Present B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover C. Inadequate Fencing (to control access and windblown debris) D. Burning apparent E. Not Designated and/or Improperly zoned INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT III. ,Complaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken IV. _ Remma/rks L 1 yL__ - ))) (Name)l s,l, AT INSPECTION (Rep �.. /os,,/ 117 a-/j1 / (Representing) Inspecting Engineer )14 ,1 (0 t yk.k.,,e), /; ',�ta 9\ 0.564 19-4170-199 (WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOW COPY-OPERATOR) (PINK COPY-COUNTY) (GOLD COPY-D.E.) a. :• , ti . . SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION Compliance ! Non-compliance Open Dump i . CoG ;11:.101/1:1-j) Date el/a/107 Located fn; ' Pia ! . .ty.1,4/AST r(` r J) C..�S/ /A!C Incorporated Area 4',.../ I Loa qn 4%1e^ <j� 1/7.l •/ /41 ,'. Cur t Operator „a' .4- _:.4., 'Teak, A? Nm y ar i tr vE Mail � Address of Operator Curr nt Q�Wner (If different) krr1n �,"`S:riA7�. Mail Address of Owner ' (AllIitemS checked must be explained in supplemental report) I. "`Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement against violations) A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal B. Evidence of Potential for Serious Surface. or Ground Water Pollution C. Surface Diversion/Containment Facilities Inadequate or not .Maintained D. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns 1.? ; E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthorlaed) F. Safety Hazards P : ¢ G. Non-Compliance with Approved Design and Operation H. Other r. r' * REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED .I.,-,!... II, inmum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 (Locally enforced standards) r A. Odors and/or Vectors Present " B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover ty#7.777iii C. Inadequate Fencing (to control access and windblown debris) . . D. Burning apparent LF' E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned k' ;.!! i- ,'Il 1.! !:' P . INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT rk .3 r - !;!„‘q.,-(,). ;', III Complaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken 0 IV,, ' eginarks �Y.G�'''. i-li-en..c�-vtH/J� %..,419 dill.-.n A--t 'r7 n .< �. J r co- ty, t n,......,-,fi.4RiH.+.� at' Gllt�'.Q� ..7.i'.� (1-, r tw 44 .' � `� L .�a�. 'Y?' U ?' (Name) PRESENT AT INSPECTION `' r k F—A"f,- .c r,f' / t ",, . • .,. r- i .0 <'r ,112.41_7271 P r-' , �i lnet a p.JcnAt 0 I. ,. ... ,. Inspecting Engineer; ) ® , � - "a ....<14----817 19-4170-199 yy ///� (WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOs* COPY—OPERATOR) (PINK COPY—COUNTY) (GOLD COPY—D.E.) ., A._,... _. ;o. SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION Compliance �- Non-compliance Open'Dump G' yr�g'' y a ity solre � ,4,c.,�,ar ye,.,.. , Dat ,3�/!` orated in �� ion j�p3 rr r+r IncorpOrated`Area .01 C nt' 0 ,_fix.. &e.40/4— , - , .4 ,k 14 ng,.Address of Operator C nt owner (If different) • Ma ng:Address of Owner (A hems checked must be explained in supplemental report) sswa k, •• I, • Public Health and/or Environmental Hazards (Department enforcement against violations) A. Evidence of Industrial Waste Disposal B. Evidence of Potential for Serious Surface or Ground Water Pollution C. Surface Diversion/Containment Facilities Inadequate or not5laintsined r `,; v'' D. Landfill Gas Migration Concerns a E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Disposal on Site (Unauthorized) F. Safety Hazards h T— Non-Compliance with Approved Design and Operation H. i a ' t * REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED w, _ $ - Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 (Locally enforced standards) v :-0 s 44, A. Odors and/or Vectors Present B. Inadequate and/or Irregular Cover r;,• ,..., . C. Inadequate Fencing (to control.'access"and windblown"tebei ri r D. Burning apparent "'" ... E. Not Designated and/or Improperly Zoned " aPxr "•4' c INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT { raz h •'�nx;.. i' l .1i1, I; Cofiplaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken 41CCI ), " .**° vx , I; ' IV" k REmarks _YY ^ ' (Name) ' y PRESENT AT INSPECTION :.. (11, a,,P4 9)., .4 -P r ^ ° a„ 2 ( Inspecting Engineer ! y 63:12�y I o f �y� Y x '� (WHITE COPY-FILE) (YELLOW COPY-OPERATOR) (PINK COPY-COUNTY) (GOLD COPY-D.E.) . ;.» �. , . _ C i s SOLID WASTE FACILITY INSPECTION �( 7. ',:alert ,e ",). Compliance °/ ,� lt".` - Non-compliance ` r_1 Open Dump %/'"; � �u y� a"� D t� .r. /0" qf 7 Located in Incorporated Area �3 Loc t7 gn °'` me,:-.,,e• `r u c,3 2g 9` ,t�iYr 4 ,7 7.1— 41.;,, Curr perator 1444,,:. //��An..,.-ee 1 t' , .? I. Ma ])9ng dress of Operator ivCurr " er (If different) Aleyisi .dress Of Owner 3 7 Z (A ter'checked must be explained in supple ;ntal report) 4 kx I ' u �lic Health and/or Environmental Hazar (Department enforcement"'agaidst'Violations) d, _ e, A. Evidence of Industrial Waste D,�sposal , ,:.i , B. Evidence of Potential for Serus Surface or Ground Water Pollution w C. Surface Diversion/Containmentlacilities Inadequate or .not. Maintained" f , . 1 D. , Landfill Gas Migration Concern, . r, " ' , AP E. Sludge or Septic Pumpings Dispgsal on Site (Unauthorized) , :fly - F. Safety Hazards ° ( i` A, G. Non-Compliance with Approved gpsign and Operation a,. 2:a, H. Other 4f kN REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED k. a aII.= 'Minimum Standards, CRS 30, 20-110 (Locally enforced standards) �4N' A. Odors and/or Vectors Present }` V'41 " .' . /r "..,, ' ,, '' `"fff B. Inadequate and/ar. l:regular Coyer ,,. \ L..,C..�Inadequ o.ate Fert4ngs-(Y .ccrntr aCeSryid= winEA9 � y i " 13i—OrBuraing ap`IJ`arant" *c j +•q� xnon�"'i+su:•a4tt .era -_. " ,, E. Not Designated and'/or Improperly Zoned „ a a. ' " ' ' .e '� i. ,° INSPECTING ENGINEERS RECOMMEND4TIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT "cri' t y V44: _ 'woe 40.- �o,'J , vs, jo,II$w Omplaints Received (Attach copies) Action Taken , .. : `h N.) IV.VRemarks .'/� �/,6_/,�1 Sofdee, .a.4.n/.r .',' .� ° 7 (Name) PRESENT(AT INSPECTION (Representing),- • �. all C" f3 f`Yy /y,� �j— t(, nripe ting ₹.n`girreer , '��G . y`' (C?.1?�Ya lF,�-*-� C' . .r VIA f (WHITE COPY-Fi LL) (YELLOW COPY-OPERATOR) (PINK eOPY-COUNTY) (GOLD COPY-D.E.) wAffiliated Farmers National Bank 119 First Street Post Office Box 188 Ault,Colorado 80610 303/834-2806 May 31, 1990 Mr. Bud Clemons 21330 W.C.R. 1155 Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Pro��p[[o/o,/� dd��site near Ault for Landfill Dear Mr-"1"4o�. As of the business leaders in Ault, I must ask for your con- sideration in denying the application for a landfill site west of Ault. The reason for writing this letter to you is to encourage a personal visit to the site prior to the June 5th hearing. Let me describe for you in a brief narrative what you will see. The site is located on the highest point in the area. From its' elevated position you can see for several miles in any direction. Because the proposed landfill stacks waste on top of the ground, a mountain of refuse would be created that could be seen for miles. In fact, from U.S. 85 either north or south of Ault looking to the west, the high ridge is clearly visible five miles away. Driving west of Ault on Colorado highway #14, one passes through acre after acre of some of the country's most productive farm land. The farmsteads and trees form a picturesque screen to the west. About 4 miles west of Ault, the road rises and crosses the Farmers Supply and Storage irrigation ditch leaving behind the cultivated fields. In full view are the magnificent Rocky Mountains stretching across the horizon for as far as one can see. The road makes a jog to the south before it continues west. It is at this jog in the road that the landfill site is proposed. Picture if you will, this massive mountain of trash located straight ahead on the horizon blocking out the beautiful view of the Rockies. Highway 14 is a major artery of traffic from Sterling, the state of Nebraska, and other neighboring states to Fort Collins, Colorado State University and the vacation areas of the Poudre River and North Park. � ittlis ;n• 3 o r V p F,'"n ,,t � cJ 4. °L;41_4 $<.1 - 10 Li etom ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY I OR LANDFILLF OPERATIONS IN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO FOR COLORADO LANDFILL, INC. August 1979 Project No. 9012 I Prepared b : P Y NELSON ENGINEERS Greeley National Plaza Greeley, Colorado _. '6.40 y'- ':. .>.� 4. g�F x \?�FP• L' NELSON ENGINEERS %it :;• a. 'r - GREELEY NATIONAL PLAZA 822 7TH STREET GREECE Y, COLORADO 8063: 1303) 356-6362 August 30, 1979 Colorado Landfill, Inc. 6037-77th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Gentlemen: Submitted herewith is our report regarding the development of a sanitary landfill program for Weld County, Colorado. This report results from extensive studies of conditions within the area of study and should afford you and other interested parties with a comprehensive picture of existing and proposed developments. A large amount of supporting data from many sources, including the financial and legal consultants, has been accLmulated. Much of that data has not been included herein, but rather we have reported upon the pertinent results thereof. We appreciate the opportunity to present the results of our studies to you. The cooperation by you and all parties involved in the project has provided untold assistance in the accomplishment of our work. If there are any questions in regard to this report, please contact us for explanations or further information. Respectfully submitted, p 0 V","w e C. N �'e NELSON BENGINEERS 0(4e 0.G�STERED CSw' 1.4 Ls a ,- o m H 2683 t '1 LaVern C. Nelson, Pea4. o y a 9 1,� �b *4 LCN/jb Syr F'9/neereV' ;20- Enclosure •A.op CpL�6® e..da> SECTION I GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE REPORT. The purpose of this report is to provide engineering feasibility information regarding landfill operations to be managed and operated by Colorado Landfill, Inc. for the benefit of the citizens of Weld County, Colorado. The study includes an analysis of solid wastes generation in and around Weld County, with consideration given to local population, and the relative waste generation trends. The report provides for development of a plan and feasible program for solid wastes disposal on a county—wide basis. The report information is the result of a review of existing conditions, existing ordinances, regulations, and certifications, with all data projected logically to provide a practical program for development. LOCATION OF STUDIES. This study comprises a solid waste analysis of all of Weld County, Colorado, and the affect of landfill operations with respect to Weld County and the surrounding areas that might be influenced. The heavily populated areas of Weld County and adjacent areas of dense population are of concern in this study because of the amount of trash generated and that must be disposed of. Additionally, this same area of Northern Colorado is an ideal place to live, resulting in a high growth potential with its attendant increase in waste generation and problems of solid disposal. It was determined early in the study that the sparsely populated areas of Weld County would receive little or no trash removal service, since so little trash is generated in an exceptionally large area. As a result, there is little or no change proposed in these areas from the existing conditions. COMPLIANCE INFORMATION. The development of solid waste disposal systems is affected by state and federal laws as well as local ordinances. The Weld County system is no different. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580, as enacted by the 94th Congress, establishes the national policy for safe disposal of dis- carded material, regulates the management of hazardous wastes, and provides technical, financial, and management assistance for recovery procedures of energy and other resources from discarded materials. The State of Colorado, through its Department of Health, has established regu- lations and standards for the designation, operation, maintenance, and design of solid waste disposal sites and facilities. These regulations were adopted February 16, 1972, by the Colorado State Board of Health pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, 1963, Section 3-16-2 as amended, and Chapter 36, Article 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1963 as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws, 1971. The County of Weld has adopted resolutions to confirm its intent to gain compliance with the federal laws and State of Colorado regulations. The county plan includes regulations assigning Colorado Landfill, Inc . as the exclusive operator of landfills and dump sites in Weld County, and establishing landfill fees to be collected by the private vendor so that no subsidy of tax dollars is required from the citizens of Weld County. In addition, a five percent (5%) 9C C554 surcharge has been enacted to provide funds to the County for administrative matters and to assist in any other costs, such as roadway maintenance, that might be incurred by the County in behalf of the landfill operation. The laws and regulations require that every community must have access to a sanitary landfill for environmentally safe disposal of its solid waste. The plan provided herein is developed to comply with the pertinent regulations of all the controlling agencies. SANITARY LANDFILLING. Sanitary landfilling is an engineered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner that minimizes environmental hazards and nuisances. Disposal is allowed at a site or sites that have been certified through the required hearing processes by authorized agencies, and at sites that have been carefully selected, designed, prepared, and operated in compliance with all regulations. At the landfill site, the solid wastes are spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and at the end of each operating day, covered with earth, which is also compacted. The site and the disposed material must be protected from surface and ground water to control water contamination. Other protective actions are required to avoid any nuisances to the surrounding area. LANDFILL SITES AND EQUIPMENT. In June, 1979, Colorado Landfill, Inc. obtained approval of the Board of Commissioners of Weld County giving it rights as the exclusive operator of landfills in Weld County. The assets required to fulfill these rights and commitments include land at the Fort Lupton site, land and water rights at the Greeley-Milliken site, lease interests at other sites, equipment for operating the landfills, and other incidental items. A list of assets required by Colorado Landfill, Inc. to operate these landfill projects is included in Section V. -2- preC6 SECTION II DESIGN CRITERIA SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS. Wastes come from residences, commercial estab- lishments, institutions, municipal operations, industries, and farms. Obviously, some of these wastes may require special methods of handling and burial. Residential, commercial, and industrial plant wastes are usually highly com- pactible. They contain a heterogeneous mixture of such materials as paper, cans, bottles, cardboard and wooden boxes, plastics, lumber, metals, yard clippings, food waste, rocks, and soils . Bulky wastes include car bodies, demolition and construction debris, large appliances, tree stumps and timbers. Significant volume reduction of construction rubble and stumps cannot be achieved, but car bodies, furniture and appliances can significantly be reduced in volume. Ordinarily, most bulky items do not degrade in a manner comparable to waste mentioned earlier. Solid wastes from schools, rest homes, and hospitals are usually highly compactible and are handled in the same manner as residential and commercial wastes. Solid wastes may also include such items as dead birds , cats, dogs, horses, and cows. Normally, these wastes require immediate burial. Other wastes delivered to landfill sites may be the waste from industrial pro- cesses in liquid, semi-liquid, powders, shavings, or many other shapes or forms. Solid wastes also include the following items: volatile and flammable wastes, , water and wastewater treatment plants sludges, incinerator fly ash, pesticide containers, and animal manure. Normally, landfills do not accept radioactive waste since these types of wastes are disposed of under the auspices of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The wastes to be handled at Weld County landfill sites will originate from a combination of urban and rural population. Records indicate that these wastes consist of any and all of the above-described materials and the need for dis- posal of such wastes locally is expected to continue. SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES. The information available regarding the amount of solid waste is limited in Weld County; however, by comparison to national and regional estimates, an amount of waste believed reasonable can be established so that a sound design will result. The generation of solid waste in Weld County is estimated to be comparable to the Denver Metropolitan Area for which fairly good records are available through the Denver Regional Council of Governments. According to the 1968 National Solid Wastes Survey, only six percent (6%) of the land disposal operation and twenty-five percent (25%) of incinerator facilities were considered adequate. It is a fact that solid wastes analysis is relatively new, but it is rapidly becoming a more exacting activity with the enforcement of enacted legislation and resulting regulations as discussed in an earlier section. Estimates indicate a collection of only about 2.75 pounds per capita in urban areas in the United States in the year 1920. In 1970, the figure stood at over 5 pounds per capita and estimates indicate that the waste loads could be as high as 8 pounds per capita by 1980. Detailed studies for the Denver Regional Council of Governments show that waste generated in the metro area was 4.38 pounds per capita per day on the basis of the seven day per week average in 1975. Based upon that study, the projections show the most probable waste generation for 1980 to be 4. 74 pounds per capita per day; for 1990 to be 5.3 pounds per capita per day; and for 2000 to be at least 5.5 pounds per capita per day. -3- C A comparison of these generations rates with the limited information available in Weld County, indicates that the local figures are nearly equal to the Denver Metropolitan area. Therefore, a design quantity for waste in and around Weld County has been established as follows for the purposes of this study: Year Solid Waste 1980 4.7 lbs./capita/day 1985 4.9 lbs./capita/day 1990 5.1 lbs./capita/day SERVICE AREAS. Weld County is very large--encompassing about 4,032 square miles. Much of the area is very sparsely populated while other areas are quite heavily populated. The County census figures and maps have been studied to determine the areas that might contribute significant quantities of solid wastes and to determine the extent of service required to adequately provide landfill services. Additionally, adjacent contributing areas to Weld County were studied along with areas receiving service that would not currently use the landfills provided through Colorado Landfill, Inc. Unfortunately, current legislation and its resulting regulations and the attendant economics have resulted in the required closure of small landfill operations, and that only large regional sites can effectively and efficiently be used. These facts were related to the existing landfills within the Weld County area. It was determined early in the analysis that regional sites would be required while utilizing the existing site between Greeley and Milliken as the center for a major area in Weld County. The study then resulted in the development of specific service areas as shown on Exhibit No. 1. Those areas are designated in relation to the area served; i.e. , the North Area, the Central Area, the Southwest Area, and the Southeast Area. These areas, along with a proposed landfill site location, are shown along with existing landfills on the accompanying Exhibit No. 1. The North Area will serve the areas generally north of Colorado High- way 392, which passes through Windsor and Lucerne. The Central Area will serve the area between Colorado Highway 392 and a line slightly south of Colorado State Highway 66 in the Platteville area. The Southwest Area will serve all areas south of State Highway 66 and those areas along and west of U.S. High- way 85 to Fort Lupton. The Southeast Area will serve the areas east of U.S. Highway No. 85 and generally along Interstate 76. The Southwest Area will serve, additionally, extensive areas in Adams and Boulder Counties including several heavily populated areas as described under "Population." A more extensive dis- cussion of the service areas is provided in Section IV. The existing Longmont site serves a part of the Central and Southwest Areas as designated herein. It is expected that such service will not continue for more than a few years, thus resulting in most wastes in the area being received at the Central and Southwest sites as defined herein. This matter will be discussed in more detail later under the heading of "Existing Landfill Sites." POPULATION. The total area of Weld County is about 4,032 square miles with approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the County, or about 2,600 to 2,650 square miles, very sparsely populated, while approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the County, or about 1,375 to 1,425 square miles, is much more heavily populated. All population analysis in Weld County is based upon the current population estimates as derived by the Weld County Planning Office. -4- 3( Cy64 Exhibit No. 1 shows areas of influence of each designated service area. For each area of influence, a population that is served in each has been determined by adding the 1980 estimated population of the included incorporated munici- palities and an estimated rural population based on the area of influence of each service area multiplied by a density of thirteen (13) persons per square mile. That population determination in each service area is shown in the following tabluations and is used for development of population projections herein: North Service Area 1980 Population Ault 1,800 Eaton 2 500 r7( Nunn 325 Pierce 1,200 ,z y Severance 80 c- yri Windsor 4,000 Population in incorporated municipalities: 9,905 Area of influence of North Area in Weld County is 339 square miles, then population not in municipality is 339 x 13 persons per square mile: 4,408 TOTAL 1980 POPULATION IN NORTH AREA IN WELD COUNTY ONLY: 14,313 Central Service Area 1980 Population Evans 5,000 Garden City 250 Gilcrest 500 Greeley 66,000 Johnstown 1,600 Kersey 1,700 LaSalle 2,575 Milliken 1,500 Platteville 2,100 Rosedale 75 Population in incorporated municipalities: 81,300 Area of influence of Central Area in Weld County is 530 square miles, then population not in municipality if 530 x 13 persons per square mile: 6,888 TOTAL 1980 POPULATION IN CENTRAL AREA, WELD COUNTY ONLY: 88,188 -6- 9r..ivy 3'3 Southwest Service Area 1980 Population Dacono 2,500 Erie (in Weld County) 1,600 Firestone 1,000 Fort Lupton 5,000 Frederick 1,800 Mead 215 Population in incorporated municipalities : 12,115 Area of influence of Southwest Area in Weld County is 113 square miles, then the population not in municipality is 113 x 13 persons per square mile: 1,470 TOTAL 1980 POPULATION IN SOUTHWEST AREA IN WELD COUNTY ONLY: 13,585 Southeast Service Area 1980 Population Hudson 1,000 Keenesburg 550 Lochbuie 1,050 Population in incorporated municipalities: 2,600, Area of influence of Southeast Area in Weld County is 398 square miles, then the population not in municipality is 398 x 13 persons per square mile: 5,174 TOTAL 1980 POPULATION IN SOUTHEAST AREA IN WELD COUNTY ONLY: 7,774 Population Recap (Weld County Only) 1980 Population North Area 14,313 Central Area 88,188 Southwest Area 13,585 Southeast Area 7,774 123,860 The foregoing tabulations show that a total population of 123,860 will be served within Weld County in 1980. With the estimated population of Weld County in 1980 at 130,000, then 130,000-123,860 or 6,140 people will not be -7- c Ai served with solid wastes disposal facilities. However, this population is widely dispersed over some 2,650 square miles and includes only three municipalities of population as follows: Grover 175 Keota 10 New Raymer 70 TOTAL 225 The population density of the remaining area is 6,140-225 divided by 2,650 square miles or about 2.2 persons per square mile. It is expected that future facilities will include collection points at strategic locations; however, no provision has been made for such in this study due to the small amount of wastes and the great distances involved in the collection and handling thereof. Each of the three excluded municipalities now dispose of their wastes in a local disposal site. The Southwest site will serve a large area outside of Weld County in both Adams and Boulder Counties. In fact, an analysis of wastes deposited at the now closed Erie landfill site which is adjacent to the proposed new site that will be serving the Southwest Area, shows that prior to closing, it served a popu- lation of between 25,000 and 30,000 people. The landfill was operated outside of regulations and its use was discouraged. However, with the opening of a new site in 1979 in the same vicinity and operated within regulations, its use will encourage disposal by many outside of Weld County, Colorado. Exhibit No. 1 shows the proximity of many major municipalities in otherwise densely populated areas. The following tabulation shows the population of these municipalities and the expected contribution of wastes to the Southwest site: Percent 1980 Contributing Population Municipality Population* to Southwest Served Erie (Outside Weld County) 400 90.0 360 Lafayette 5,600 50.0 2,800 Broomfield 18,000 20.0 3,600 Louisville 4,000 30.0 1,200 Northglenn 42,400 12.5 5,300 Thornton 29,600 12.5 3,700 Boulder 94,300 5.0 4,500 21,440 Immediate surrounding rural area: 3,540 TOTAL 25,000 *From Colorado Municipal League Guide In a later section, the existing landfill sites are discussed as well as site closures that will occur as a result of economics, county control, or other- wise. These closures result in an additional load from the Brighton-Henderson area in Adams County, that is now and has been historically served at the Brighton-Fort Lupton site, a site that has reached capacity and must be closed. The population of this area is estimated to be about 17,300. It is estimated that approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the waste load from that population of 17,300, that is 13,000, will transfer their wastes to the Southwest site. Therefore, the total anticipated waste load to the Southwest site in 1980 will be: Weld County Only 13,585 people Adjacent Municipalities 25,000 people Brighton-Henderson Area 13,000 people TOTAL TO SOUTHWEST 51,585 people Some solid wastes from Weld County will undoubtedly be delivered to the Longmont site, and even to other locations outside Weld County. In addition, some wastes, generated by the existing and projected population, will not reach the landfill sites. To adjust for these logical factors, the waste generating population used to determine the amount of solids has been reduced by a factor of ten percent (10%) in Table No. 1. Such a reduction reduces the amount of projected generated wastes accordingly. A recap of the design population for 1980 is as follows: North 14,313 Central 88,188 Southwest (Weld County) 13,585 Southeast 7,774 Southwest (Outside Weld County) 38,000 TOTAL 1980 DESIGN POPULATION 161,860 POPULATION PROJECTIONS. An indepth independent population forecast was not made for this study. Instead those estimates and projections for Weld County made by the Colorado Division of Planning and the local planning agencies have been used as the guidelines for the projections herein. These are believed to be highly reliable. In addition anticipated growth rates were compared to the projections made by the Denver Regional Council of Governments for the Denver Metropolitan Area. Exhibit No. 2 shows the projections graphically for Weld County as published by the Colorado Division of Planning and the local agencies . The actual population projection used herein is also shove on Exhibit No. 2. The Weld County projection as used in this study follows a curve represented by a three and one-half percent (3 1/2%) annual population increase. That same compounded rate of growth can be readily compared to published data by the Denver Regional Council of Governments for the comparable areas of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. -9- 9C 0564 WELD COUNTY - PROJECTED POPULATION FOR COLORADO LANDFILL, INC. JULY , 1979 IO I 22 I I ■■ I ! ! ■ , ■■■■ ll II1 1 II , III ■■■ ■■ I . II ■■■■■ I II ■ I III ■■■ I , 201 ■ i1, I ; I iii , I I 1I ! ttt� • I I I I I I 11 , 1 , - I il IIi 17 '■■l1I11!i4J11ii , .1�111■l. a1\i11■b'I. IVA �il �, I s' , :: A I I ,I I I I ii ii cr cil �i , • „ ��i „• �Ii �® • �i , , �i I • ■ I , • . 11 III � i I v®_ _J_a 111dRR'Ili1L' Cl\PLht�lnL■ .i' i I I ! 1, I �N■I I I ..�� • ..,a1�.ar.G1111�+1y�prr. I z15� 1 ' I , I .s I , I ! , I �. I I I 'y\IfiTfil'iT_ ' -31r-% YILTI°IIIIId111!I■/!,II�t11P\ O 1_ i z ir I , I , ii , ! ■ I , ■ 1 , 1 I , . I II . O I „ ii . I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I , I I I II I iiiii , , , I I , I ! ii ii , G �� ! i I I I I I I I I J I , i I I , : ! . I ■■ = 12' IP d .r ■ I I „ I I 1 : I I , : I ttt! I I � � I i I t ! 10 I I II, 1, : I I I ■ I I I III I �I I I I I ! I �I i I I I ■� ■ I ■� ■■■■■■ ■■ ! III ■■ III I ' III ■ II , ■■■■■■■■■■ Ii 1 ■■■■ ! I I I I 'I I I l ! III ■ , I I I 7 i I I , , I I . , i , I , I I , , ' , 5 , 1975 1980 1985 19901 1995 2000 YEAR 9C ti`�bt NELSON ENGINEERS GREELEY NATIONAL BANK PLAZA EXHIBIT N0. 2 GREELEY,COLORADO Thus, the population projection for Weld County only is as follows: 1980 - 130,000 1985 - 154,400 1990 - 183,380 The population projections for those areas outside Weld County that will undoubtedly contribute wastes to the Weld County landfill sites are determined on the same three and one-half percent (3 1/2%) annual increase basis as used for the Weld County projections. That projection for users living out- side Weld County is as follows: 1980 - 38,000 1985 - 45,220 1990 - 53,580 SANITARY LANDFILL DESIGN. The designing of a sanitary landfill calls for developing plans that outline the steps to be taken to provide for the safe, efficient disposal of the quantities and types of solid wastes that are expected to be received. Each site must be evaluated with respect to volume requirements, site improvements, and day-to-day operations including equipment requirements. Water pollution, dust control, and decomposition gas must be controlled within tolerable limits. Capital costs and projected operating expenditures must be determined for the estimated life of each landfill site. The complete plan usually recommends a specific use for a site after the land- fill is completed. The purpose of this study is to analyze all of the above subjects from the standpoint of Weld County as a whole rather than to provide detailed engineering studies for each site. As existing sites are expanded, filled, and/or closed, the operations and design considerations will include each of these subjects. As new sites are developed, all facets of the design process will follow the accepted procedures as outlined herein. Volume Requirements. The volume requirements have been determined based upon the projected population, per capita waste quantities and the compacted waste in the landfill. The waste is estimated to weigh 500 lbs./cu. yd. average as it is delivered to the site. Upon deposit in the landfill and after compacting, the waste is anticipated to weigh up to 1,500 lbs./cu. yd. Initially, the operations will result in gaining a density of only about 1,000 lbs./cu. yd. because of compaction equipment limitations. However, as the operations are refined and as heavy compaction equipment can be purchased, the density is pro- jected to reach 1,500 lbs ./cu. yd. This criteria has been used in Table No. 1 to estimate the waste volume requirements for each service area as well as for all wastes delivered to the Weld County landfills. Site Improvements. Site improvements include roadway accessibility, grades, dust and drainage control measures, buildings, fencing, and utilities. Each site will be evaluated in detail regarding these matters. In general, paved roadways to each site are preferred, although the cost of such paving may be unjustified when fewer than fifty (50) units visit an individual site each day. Roadways in the general vicinity of each of the proposed sites and the existing sites for all of Weld County appear to be adequate, however, as time passes, upgrading to all paved surfaces will be analyzed and recommended -11- .�f C5 1. as justified. Excessive grades, those in excess of about eight percent (8%) , do not exist at any of the sites. Dust control measures will be handled by sprinkling in the early stages and until permanent paved surfaces can be provided. On-site roadways will be graded, compacted, drained, and maintained to provide convenient access to the fill areas. Buildings are planned and included to provide office space as required at each site. Buildings will be all-weather, but may be of temporary type and movable. Equipment storage and maintenance buildings will be provided, as required, but principally at the Central and Southwest sites . Each site will include necessary sanitary facilities . Utilities must be provided on an as-needed basis. Water may be trucked in for potable purposes depending upon need at each site. Electrical will be pro- vided from a public utility or by an independent electrical generator. Sanitary facilities will consist of septic tanks or portable chemical toilets . Telephone or radio communications will be included, as needed, to assist in the service at each site. Fencing in general must be provided on site in such a manner to control the scattering of windblown debris and to confine within the site all solid wastes discharged at a site. Normally, a five (5) foot high mesh fence will provide the necessary control, however, for specific areas, portable debris fences will be available on an as-needed basis. In addition to fencing to control debris, peripheral and security fencing must be constructed to prevent unwarranted trespass. Such fencing may consist of barbed wire depending upon location and needs for flexibility of location. Surface Water. Each site will consist of adequate diversion facilities to eliminate surface runoff from reaching the actual landfill area. Such control requires evaluation of storm conditions for at least a fifty (50) year storm, flood plains, soil conditions, and ground slopes. The final top cover material on finished fill areas will be graded to allow runoff of rainfall. Groundwater. Soil characteristics are highly variable throughout Weld County. The soils at each site are now being analyzed, or will be in the near future, to establish potential for leachate entering the groundwater. Necessary pre- cautions to avoid leachate entering groundwater, if present, will include scarifying and compacting natural clays at the bottom of the fill, avoiding sand and gravel subsurface materials, and simply keeping groundwater and solid wastes separated a sufficient distance, depending upon soil materials, to pre- clude injurious intermixing. Each site will require separate study to establish the most practical method of protecting groundwater. Gas Movement Control. In general, because each landfill site proposed herein is somewhat isolated, the design will incorporate plans to disperse any landfill gas to the atmosphere. The design at each site will include venting of gases through the cover material by placing natural granular soils at strategic locations in the daily cover operations. Filling Methods. The method of construction in the landfills will consist of either the trench or area methods or a combination of both. Each site design will include a recommended filling method depending upon soil conditions, -12- .-'1. w.. 4.2-6 groundwater, and other topographic features. The fill will be constructed using cell heights of about eight (8) feet, with sloping faces of from 20° to 30° with widths of open faces not exceeding 150 to 200 feet. Each day's operation will be covered with a thin continuous layer of soil, while the finished fill will be covered by at least two (2) feet of soil to preclude the entrance of burrowing animals and other nuisance that can result from landfilling. Generally the design will require about a 4:1 waste-to-cover ratio. Each site will include an evaluation of soil cover availability so that the recommended design and operation will accomodate the most efficient use of the on-site materials. Other Considerations. All designs will include recommendations that consider wind conditions, neighboring buildings and residents, fire protection facilities, landscaping, sequence of filling, and final stage of operations. PERIOD OF DESIGN. The landfill program for Weld County is being established on the basis of a twenty (20) year bond program. As a result, landfill sites must be provided to accommodate such a plan, and will be evaluated accordingly. Using sound projections based upon reasonably good data will insure long term use of each site. Such data will also provide necessary lead time should a site be found unacceptable or inadequate in the future. 9105 3 -13- SECTION III EXISTING CONDITIONS GENERAL. There are five (5) active landfills in Weld County that are the responsibility of Colorado Landfill, Inc. They are located in Eaton, Windsor, Greeley-Milliken, Fort Lupton-Brighton, and Keenesburg. A site existed until recently near Erie and the City of Longmont operates a site in Weld County. Each existing location is shown on Exhibit No. 1. The Eaton, Windsor, and Keenesburg sites are uneconomic units primarily because of size. The County, through its contractural arrangements, has attempted to meet the disposal needs of its citizens but it recognizes the shortcomings of meeting the stringent operating criteria in numerous small landfills . Even though the existing sites, for the most part, are conveniently located, they are not necessarily strategically located, nor are they, as stated above, economically feasible. Daily cover requirements and supervision costs far exceed the revenue obtained from the delivered wastes in the smaller landfills. LANDFILL SITES. Eaton Site. The Eaton Site is conveniently located but it is in an old gravel pit. Continued use will result in future groundwater contamination problems and adequate cohesive soils are not available for cover purposes. For these reasons plus the relatively small size of the operation, continued use of the site is not warranted. Upon development of a more strategically located site that can serve a larger area, the Eaton site will be closed. The Eaton area will be included in the North Service Area. Bringing the Eaton site into com- pliance with existing regulations is not justifiable. Windsor Site. The Windsor site is smaller than the Eaton operation, thereby less feasible, however, adequate area and cover material is available. The Windsor site must be closed and incorporated in the North Service Area along with Eaton and the other North Weld County communities. Economics, plus other requirements for regulation compliance, dictate that this site should be closed. Keenesburg Site. The Keenesburg Site, the same as the Southeast site herein, will continue in operation under contract with the Town of Keenesburg. This site, too, is an uneconomic unit, however, with the current contractural arrangements including the Town's assistance, it will be kept open to serve a relatively large area of Weld County that is an inconvenient distance from other landfill sites. The site and its operation by the Town is -being up- graded to reach compliance with regulations. Fort Lupton-Brighton Site. The Fort Lupton-Brighton Site has reached its capacity and there is no land available in the area to expand the facility. Soils in the area are very gravelly so that control of leachate and ground water is difficult. The site requires closure which will include covering adequately those areas not now covered. It is intended that the area served by this site will be served by the new site in the Southwest of Weld County. Greeley-Milliken Site. The Greeley-Milliken Site, known in this report as the Central Area Site, is adequate for several more years of operation. Adequate -14- DC 6564 capacity is available, soils are conducive to goundwater control and are adequate for cover. The surface drainage from adjacent areas is being con- trolled, and can be controlled as the landfill grows, to keep it away from the fill area. This site not only is strategically located, but it is economically feasible. The operation provides good control over blowing debris and both ground and surface water. This site can serve the need for the Central Area with continued sound operational procedures for many more years. Erie Site. The Erie Site no longer exists. It was closed early in 1979 because of extremely poor operation and the total lack of cover material. This site must be replaced to assure service to inhabitants of the general area. Later in this report, the new Southwest Site, replacing the old Erie Site, will be discussed. Longmont Site. The Longmont Site is owned and operated by the City of Longmont for the primary benefit of its residents. The operation is outside the control of Colorado Landfill, Inc. Reportedly, the certified site is nearly full and the amount of additional wastes to be received is limited to maybe two (2) to three (3) years. Future plans of the City of Longmont are not known. Currently some wastes from Weld County are disposed of at this site, however, when the site can no longer be used, those wastes plus probably some others will find their way to the then-active Weld County site. EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS. The operating landfills are currently equipped for limited activity. The existing heavy equipment, including bulldozers, earthmovers, and graders is all used and quite old. Some of the equipment is obsolete or so badly worn that it should be sold. An inventory of all equip- ment has been made and the operator has identified that equipment which is to be repaired and used in the operation, that which is to be sold outright, and that which will be traded for better and more efficient machines. The pro- posed plan and landfill operation provides for a definite upgrading of equipment to accomplish a better job with less down time on the landfills. The existing buildings are mostly inadequate except for the maintenance building at the Central site. The plan provides for necessary office space at each new site, a maintenance building at the Southwest site, and limited living quarters on site where justified to enhance operations. O -15- ea�d D SECTION IV PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL. A careful analysis of all aspects of the design criteria for land- fills and the total problem of providing disposal for solid wastes from the citizens of a very large dispersed area, led to the development of the service area concept in Weld County. Such a plan provides the greatest overall benefit to the largest number of citizens by controlling costs in larger operations and providing strategic locations for landfills throughout the County. Because each landfill site now requires the use of expensive heavy machinery for compaction, grading, and earthmoving, the landfill operation must be large enough to justify the expense of that equipment. Therefore, it is no longer possible to have several small scattered landfill sites and satisfy all the regulations for control of filling operations at a landfill site. Additionally, each site requires office personnel to handle collections and assist in control of wastes delivery methods. Such criteria opposes the convenience factor of a multitude of sites. A complete analysis shows that the cost of maintaining many small sites is higher than the cost of hauling wastes reasonable distances to large centralized fill areas where the cost of equipment and personnel can be absorbed by the large amount of solid wastes. Studies show that a haul distance should not exceed about twelve (12) to fifteen (15) miles to be considered reasonable, otherwise other facilities such as transfer stations should be provided. Transfer stations consist of a central collection point for an area whereby the waste is delivered to the location by the citizen or trash hauler. At the station, the waste is transferred into a large transport unit, and when full, is hauled to a permanent disposal site. Such stations are convenient, but are costly to operate and maintain in a sanitary manner. Although use of transfer stations may be justified under certain circumstances, their use is discouraged except in very unusual conditions. SERVICE AREA CONCEPT. The cost of providing disposal facilities of solid wastes in a sanitary manner must be paid by the generators of the waste and users of the facility; that is the citizens. This cost should be spread uniformly to all those generating wastes and using the disposal facilities. It, therefore, is necessary to analyze the various alternates and to develop a plan which is most economical for the greatest number of citizens. After analyzing the various alternates of many small sites, transfer stations and a single disposal area, and the service area concept, it was readily apparent that the service area concept met the criteria for landfilling in Weld County better than any other alternate. The service area concept provides (1) the most uniform convenience to the most citizens, (2) landfill operations which are large enough to justify expenditures needed for equipment and personnel, (3) operational procedures to meet all of the enacted landfill regulations, (4) the least cost per unit of disposed waste, (5) the best fit of disposal sites to the total large service area with the minimum overall travel distances, and (6) the potential for selecting the best site from an operations standpoint in areas separated sufficiently from inten- sively populated areas. -16- 9( C551 The service areas as proposed herein are shown on Exhibit No. 1. Distances from the landfill sites at the center of each area is shown. A review of those distances show a reasonably good balance throughout the heavily popu- lated areas of the County. As shown earlier, the contributing population, both urban and rural, in each service area has been determined. From that population and the determination of per capita wastes, an amount of waste and cost of providing the disposal service can be determined. These revenues and costs are included in a later section. Each service area has been studied to determine facilities required, waste volume, costs of operation, and period of use. A description of each proposed service area is included in the following sections. The landfill area at each site will be provided with adequate equipment to handle the wastes and personnel to administer to the site so that a minimum of nuisance exists. Thus, compliance with the sanitary regulations can be assured. Utilization of this plan within the service areas provides for greatest utility from the expensive equipment, since the machines can be moved from site to site on an as-needed basis. Thus greater use from each piece of equipment is assured again helping to reduce the unit cost of machine operation. NORTH SERVICE AREA. A site for landfill meeting the design criteria outlined herein must be established in the North Service area. The site must be adequate to meet the needs of at least 14,000 people with a ten (10) year projection to 20,000 people in the year 1990. A compounded growth of three and one-half percent (3 1/2%) per year results in a predicted population in the year 2000 of 28,500. Although this population is small to be provided with a separate disposal unit, the other alternates as described earlier do not provide a better solution, either economically or conveniently. Distance and population dispersion are simply too great to warrant any other practical solution. For these reasons, closures of the Eaton and Windsor sites and opening of a site more nearly located as shown on Exhibit No. 1 is the most practical solution. The cost estimates shown later are based upon this plan utilizing a leased site. The north site should logically be at least twenty (20) acres in size with con- ditions to meet the earlier described criteria. The site will be fenced and furnished with a minimum of equipment, at least initially, to provide com- paction of the wastes and placement of cover. A small mobile home type trailer could be used as necessary office facilities. The large area served dictates that the landfill be open at least five (5) days per week to provide the required convenience to the public. The overall plan includes some mobility of equipment within the service areas so that as additional cover is needed at the fill site or if service roadways need attention, other heavy equipment can be moved to the site for use as needed. The costs of providing service in the north service area are shown in a later section. CENTRAL SERVICE AREA. The central service area is presently being adequately served by what is called the Greeley-Milliken site. It consists of about 110 acres with good conditions as described under "Existing Conditions. " An analysis of capacity at this site shows that it will be adequate for at least ten (10) more years and probably more depending upon an operation that takes advantage of all cover material on site. Approximately one-half (1/2) of the site capacity has been used, however , more efficient use of the remainder of the site is planned. The 1980 population to be served was shown earlier to be 88,188 while the 1990 population is projected to be 124,345. Extending that projection to the year 2000 at a three and one-half percent (3 1/2%) increase per year results in an estimated population of 175,400. The continued use of the present site in the Central Service Area provides a convenient and economic disposal facility. The size of this operation justifies providing adequate office space and equipment maintenance facilities. Since this landfill has been in operation for some time, it has some of the needed facilities including maintenance. The site should be used as a central operating facility from which equipment can be moved to the other smaller sites as needed for specific work. It also can readily serve as an office for administration of all landfill operations in Weld County. As a result, a more permanent office facility should be provided. The large population served dictates that the landfill be open at least six (6) days per week to provide the maximum convenience to the public. Improved operations in the future can include increased waste compaction, utilization of all available cover material close to the active fill area, filling with solid wastes the areas from which all cover is removed, providing water sprinkling, and constructing some surface water diversions as required. The cost estimates as shown in a later section include the equipment, personnel, and the operational procedures as outlined herein. SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA. The southwest area shown on Exhibit No. 1 is not now being adequately served. A new site meeting the design criteria must be obtained that will serve needs in that area for at least fifteen (15) years. The population to be served from within Weld County is estimated to be 13,585 in 1980 while the 1990 and 2000 populations are estimated to be 19,154 and 27,000 respectively. Because of the location of the proposed southwest site, it will serve a population outside of Weld County as discussed under "Population. " A projection of the 1980 estimated population of 38,000, to the years 1990 and 2000 is 53,580 and 75,580 respectively. The combination of population inside and outside Weld County is as follows: Inside Outside Year Weld County Weld County Total 1980 13,585 38,000 51,585 1990 19,154 53,580 72,734 2000 27,000 75,580 102,580 This large population to be served dictates that the landfill be open at least six (6) days per week to provide the maximum convenience to the public. At this writing, approval for site designation of a new landfill area has been applied for through the County Commissioners of Weld County. The site being considered is located in an area that can serve a large population conveniently, and yet is somewhat apart from any residences. The location is as shown on Exhibit No. 1. The site has been evaluated from the standpoint of the design criteria given earlier. In general, it meets those requirements very well. -18- 3C0564g In addition, the site is primarily unused at the present time and, in fact, is to a large extent, wasteland. Filling the site to some uniform grades with properly compacted material and controlled cover will enhance the area and provide the potential for future beneficial use. Adequate cover material is available in an area of relatively impermeable soils with no surface or subsurface water problems readily apparent. The proposed site is above a mined-out area with coal seams of from five (5) feet to fifteen (15) feet thick. Separate detailed studies of the effects of subsidence as a result of the mining operations, surface and subsurface water, and other pertinent design considerations are being conducted in conjunction with the application for site designation as a landfill. The engineering features , location, and economics suggest that landfilling would be a good use for the selected site. Operations at the new site should be of a somewhat permanent nature with sufficient equipment, personnel and maintenance facilities to be self- sufficient. The size of the operation should result in an economically feasible program that will serve many citizens conveniently. The cost estimates which follow show the needed equipment, facilities, and personnel to properly meet the needs of the population to be served. The existing Fort Lupton-Brighton site that is a part of the southwest service area will be closed. Wastes that formerly were delivered to the Fort Lupton site will be delivered to the new southwest site. SOUTHEAST SERVICE AREA. Because of the contractural arrangements regarding the Southeast site as discussed earlier, no plan or cost estimate is required for this report. Currently that area is adequately served by other than Colorado Landfill, Inc. Therefore, further analysis of that area is not being considered as part of this analysis at this time. As the area grows, and should the existing contractural arrangement become inadequate, the landfill operations for this area will be upgraded to keep pace. OPERATIONS. At the time all landfill sites in Weld County have been designated and 'are declared ready for use, an operational plan showing detailed features should be prepared and enacted for each site. Each plan should be developed utilizing all the appropriate design criteria, regulations, and the specific features that may be unique to each site. In general, some operational procedures are included with this study to provide for better understanding of sanitary landfill activities. The landfill activities in Weld County should follow these procedures. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation at each landfill site should be established to accommodate the major need of the specific area. Once establihed, they should be posted prominently along with the fees to be charged and wastes that are not accpted. The sanitary landfill should be open only when appropriate personnel are on duty. Measurement of Delivered Waste. A uniform method of measuring the delivered waste and charging therefor must be adopted. In case of Weld County, rates for 1979 have been established on the basis of the schedule shown in a later section. Such rates are believed adequate for current commitments. -19- 056441 Traffic Flow. Each site must include roadways that will provide for smooth flow of traffic to and from the dumping area. Directional signs should be provided as required. In the two larger landfills, separate unloading areas should be provided for compactors , and private autos or pickups. Signage should designate these locations. Waste Handling. In general, the waste should be spread in layers less than two (2) feet deep against the working face of the 20° and 30° slope. Dumping will usually be accommodated at the base of the slope. A tracked bulldozer is used to even out the material and compact it by passing over the material from three (3) to five (5) times. Normally, this method will result to a compaction to a density of about 1000 lbs. /cu. yd. A compactor, designed especially for such use in a landfill, can obtain more than 1500 lbs. /cu. yd. It is recommended that as soon as economics permit, that a compactor be pro- vided at each of the two (2) large landfill sites to increase the life of the landfill site. The fills should be accomplished in cells consisting, in general, of one (1) day's operation covered by a thin, continuous (six inches ±) layer of soil also compacted. A series of adjoining cells of equal height create a "lift". Each lift may be of eight (8) or more feet high and covered with soil. Additional cells may be placed on top of a finished lift if site topographic conditions permitand if adequate soil is available for cover. Landfill methods, such as trench, area, or a combination must be adopted for each site depending upon the conditions therein. In most cases, the actual fill area should be prepared by scarifying the bottom and compacting the soil prior to filling. Such activity when used with compactible impervious soils precludes percolation of leachates into areas below the fill. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published details of handling various kinds of wastes in its Report SW-65T5 "Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation. " This publication should be available to all operating personnel at each site. Cover Material. The waste material should be covered daily with about six (6) inches of dirt that is compacted. Intermediate cover, between lifts, should be compacted to about a one (1) foot thickness. Final cover should be placed about two (2) feet thick and graded to a final configuration so there is no place where water can pond. Grades should not exceed those allowable to avoid erosion, generally two percent (2%) to four percent (4%) . The final cover need not be compacted, if seeding is to take place. Maintenance. The maintenance of the landfill includes such items as control of wind-blown litter, control of unsightly weed growth, adequate roadways for inclement weather operations, and fires. All operators and personnel must be aware of these problems and be available to provide on-site maintenance as required. Litter fences to minimize scattered debris in high wind periods and water to prevent fires should be available at all times. Procedures for these and other maintenance items should be included in the detailed plan for each site. FUTURE USES. All landfill sites should be compacted adequately and finished to a drainable slope to preclude ponding of water on the completed fill. Plans SI %'564 -20- for each site should include a future use such as open space, recreational such as golf courses and playgrounds, agriculturally productive, or some other beneficial use. Through such a program, the land over the fill can become valuable and of substantial benefit to the public in the future. -21- SCC e6 . It v w r �+ -1.0777usRVert Waste :or i4er1lip t_ S O F.rh�t t0 '1::::42s\ � r�/v, VNsll SvIsan l x+° ..44 ate alga • •sa1V4n - ' • • Z '! J :•ft le i JzcrLIU t• } $ � (�• a • 'Q I, +t lei W V o • i 0U _ ›— U w ,r / co) ,/ �y a a to i Ale . 1 F.°. ' s I ,...."11. — - - - -- - - • z Z Ct W o : ' 0 J ' W t f (1) - - ---- • Q•• F / ' r • J - r'• 2 • 1 .. Q i• •V•A 4 � _ 1 J br • , .• \ %. 1.8.- Ny: * tji... ..__..ai . I 4 • \ , Jai ill \ • i 1-a....H. :\ Y/ � r .%•, t -. - T W ^.- la j • op \\ ''• `1/4.11N. ‘t. c--k . ,_ 2 a N• I t • ' S„ A -... •" -••• ),..„3 - •-•••_. • • . 1 - l : : l• \\C-- 'Ilk \ ' \ ‘‘': .;' ' ' kker r..4 .c g 1 . .4.... ! • • _., .`. ,, ,, ` . \ + ; y - j -. •• . •rrL'S 1 f -1 1 ,l.• ' L,r 3 ` ., , I. _ A" • (i..j( .go tive . : 3 . . . .. _ •. • •.. a II-`-. Iiit4). 114 440 C fri I a; i �� Y" ♦- a .... ell I"-- A •-• at tit air -Ir.•. - ( • . i�, ♦'T .y�� • •` �t. -' '- _ s•rte• • , _ - —• 7 t / t...ar. . �r �, ' ._,,, - �,. •- . ... t� _ Z - • _ _ r_�1 • t • - 1ICe trt.114 • arripz • ., - F. ' n.) 3 • , ..- I c sr 44, - risere 4;".i, .? .; t . , . • •_ //� t ;• '- I I ,• • �' .�• ' • �/! - ♦ ,� ~. t' a - •.a� A {_ _ -./� • .Y'• . - \ V; �z. ' �' • - , - SDK'" 1 - - L '1/41: - x . _ - D , • --.. ..• - /` -., a \, - ,� 1,% '. . '+_. •- : t., • ' Iila� r _ _ w •_- !+♦, 1,. _a, 1 ,4 . tom' r r •d I , .40 • • . ., • Iligilleti LA A 1 .., e b S. _ r _ -11.-.....-1 � . . rte er r - '♦ . iC i 2 �.� t ►t �� +_ Ills( , 1 ' ,�• t n _ H • - •'1 J '�' `` '` - O 'fit •, �. - .�• --) • f'��• - i : f 1 71 ist * 1 lal a 7) 1 , 1 I • ••t f. J l twin. s • ; • �( _t ; i sme ft (1 11 1 • ,, .c i . .% i. : Ill : , ,i. 4/ . .4 . ,,•• 41 f VI. ? / g _ .. f T p L ? !. y - r • ' S ... 5 IPL IA '-• �1� , C .. • . ' tt� � _ _ p i ,, y O -Cr : _ s i ter"-\.,� N i i< it :. ; _ y�; >?} lilt' # r . 1 r\r y, nL `1 • 1,et f • .;el l r Lam/ 1{•.e. r w J fi 1 t 1 r M .,O N T ! •. . Si- -� :C • 4,••••••.,•Q '+'t.� ��{ , „�t�/•• ti ` • - x. - ,\ 1 J I ill ..J t; A 0 - •4, M '' rR - ` sl•1 i 3 l B�taN : 7� _r' 1i1 ,d a. j •Pali •6}�n t + � N .. r art ( 7...- '.. ` \' l1 S �. .,•'✓/ •= • { .11 I i /• ! L N J . 'r i ••• AO,�0 r • �, Y rt • S _ ; 4. • 'i 11 t J ■■■ � sil jititiThIP- • li. 14;140 I it US r - ,— .....t.. r .............1.� .- ..PP j 4a +Kodak EXHIBIT' 3 � , AP March 19, 1990 Board of Weld County Commissioners 915 10th St. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: For the past ten years, the solid waste disposal needs of the Kodak Colorado Division have been handled by Waste Services Corporation . The facility they have utilized to handle our waste disposal is the Central Weld Sanitary Landfill , located approximately eleven miles southeast of Windsor. It is our understanding that this facility has an estimated remaining life of fifteen years. While the Kodak Colorado Division is currently working on a number of programs to either minimize or recycle much of our waste, such as aluminum, computer/corrugated papers, and plastics , we see a need for an additional landfill to replace the Central facility when it closes. Therefore, we support the proposal submitted to the Weld County Commissioners for the North Weld Sanitary Landfill to be located ten miles northeast of our plant on Colorado Highway 14. I would also like to mention that Waste Services Corporation has agreed to work with the Kodak Colorado Division to find ways to minimize the amount of waste being sent to the landfill by recycling . In addition , we are committed to continue our research in identifying ways to reduce the waste we. generate. Sincerely, Nick Y bba General Manager NY:mf A 9ce5to, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY • WINDSOR,COLORADO 80551 - ..-.w W...4Te . LA r.. IMill � r m r I. ro x c ti. W 0J Q. • ,- !, j r sal44e3 • lit i r AP lailla ..- I t ilia iPt •••... LLD . lk O• a; C a - 4Q •wf. w 1t gig \ 'A ` r. 4l.44 . no It/ 41 O ` it pi, Q I fi • g - • L. bop >writ bibI • b SEEA , r . ; CC OM • lic alit Y ►�4. ili AV al 'r ft . �.. lat • kill tlili j` ., k ;— + •... - l (r n .' Z (11) )III. 4 ill 1114 kJ CI ill) ill illi la let � 1� ! .: Y •co ...„„ . Adze C:t O ; ' a ' ui - - j Ci fin 1O 0f 111,, - v 144 to ..i 4 , AILtz:z. LU V ti3 iwhi3 • � Q �l � � If , f ni i11IIIIIi 11 it 1 .• 4, ) 11 • .y • �'j1` -.. _ 4 S �' 4 1 'v ` IIIII% �* �i - Ct I _. . i, �draNnae `r` ..... 7dO�+d f IC) . • "Sr j CJ Z . .r i CC N ` OI _ Z L., IV G o� :tie ti % + LC�V � - - _ : A , z_ ♦1 . '�� Itap v Illa 1-• • - ` • I a• 1 • S i.4 . y ' A li}y t \V _ `\J C:3 CO (c) Ni _ 4 in tinin n in if) in iii' June 4, 1990 %nitVi et, liS t‘e) Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado 53 ©/ . Dear Commissioners: I am writing to comment on my neighbors, the owners and operators of the Milliken Landfill. I live just a 1/4 mile due southeast of the landfill and farm 785 acres of irrigated and non-irrigated ground immediately surrounding the landfill on the east, south and west. I have known the Keirnes for the last 11 years of their ownership and operation of the landfill. They have been good and trustworthy neighbors who have always done what they said they were going to. They have contributed more than their share to the improvements of the area which have included upgrades in irrigation systems and roads. I have seen a continual improvement in their operations. The general appearance of the landfill has been kept good and is well-maintained. The existence and operation of the landfill has not had an adverse impact on the economic productivity of my adjacent farming operations. There aren't any rats, odors or flies from the landfill. My cows and calves that pasture on the other side of the fence from the landfill have never contracted any diseases from the trash delivered to the landfill. In the past there were instances when trash blew outside the landfill. But within a day they had it completely picked up. This past year since they put up additional fence and wind screens at the landfill this problem has been improved. Traffic on the county road that is the primary access to the site has been the only real problem. The county road just isn't equipped to handle it and if northern Weld County doesn't get its own landfill this problem will only get worse. All in all, I would have to say that in spite of being a landfill they have been a very good neighbor. Sincerely vieSeir ' Art Garcia Milliken 9Cnr^ to,„4s Weld County School District Re-9 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITED 209 W. First Street Ault, Colorado 80610 303-834-1345 Superintendent Kenneth Frisbie, Edda Board of Education John Cordova President David Barnes Vice-President Darryl Woods Irma Whitman Richard Batman HIGHLAND WELD RE-9 SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 22. 1990 RESOLUTION TO PROPOSAL. FOR A WASTE DUMP SITE WHEREAS the Waste Service Corporation proposal to locate their landfill on HWY 14 and WC.R 25 would create a serious traffic problem and hazard to students of the Weld RE-9 school district. THEBEFOBE he it resolved that the Board of Education of Weld RE-9 opposes the completion of this project . 458 - Motion by Barnes. second by Woods: To accept the resolution proposed by the Weld RE-9 Board of Education. Barnes. aye: Batman, aye. Cordova. aye: Whitman, aye: Woods. aye. Motion adopted unanimously. /r �xM►•/r, tsar_ 30564 Weld County School District Ree9 NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITED 209 W. First Street Ault, Colorado 806W 303-8341345 Superintendent Kenneth Frisbie, Ed.D. Board of Education John Cordova President David Barnes Vice-President dune 1. 1990 Darryl Woods Irma Whitman Mr. Thomas E. Hellerich Richard Batman Greeley National Bank. Plaza Suite 630 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Hellerich: It is the understanding of the Weld RE-9 School District that you have agreed to legally represent the opposition to the proposal for a waste dump site on Highway 14 and Weld County Road 25. Our district would like for you to be aware of our resolution to that proposal. (see attached) If we can be of further assistance in this matter please feel free to contact me at 834-1345. Thank you. f-� Dr. Kenneth Frisbie Superintendent of Schools 141101 got,Ai 9c 0564 6' ••_._4,—, .:m N 1 L• •e • m /nom[ / �� • ,, /' $ . < Y .,. y - r � J �~ k % 2 / IN k m / — _ _ - r 1 .l • /et- / ; ii / .' i — _ it : 0 q Q / / q � _ -- �• \ / I j y ' / , , /� r.s•._. a /. L ?Y :nf. Yom-\ _ �l W. I -__ r ,b o. /•/ /.. �� / e. ,� ! "' / / z r t Y• I A_c- _-._, . r i /\ -I I i' a —`1— -- 1-' . o"a0 . - - - .+ ." ' 1 � 1 � , , /m a''t� m/' _ / 1 / --' . 1 / Q / f �,y _T _ �; it ( / �i r / )e«[ t / ,- I �' [ _ / -- ; ' � f 1 J i //I _ y� i , �..., / / _� p - / " / r I-- ii 1/ cp S•— / / ,....— _ l / w 21i s _ 4jVL r E �l / -li/} O --- � ❑❑ ✓ 1 / e % C J:�t L--_/ , / i �. 5 alt �. ��1i. - � ,`i !—'nba�i — ,� 7,4 r �j -i p i' . l L� i 7 k.- y i 1 `L \ �r ~ �� 0 r tC 'emu • o iji _ i� o ;y n � \ I �. r6 ' �a, K � , , a4, 5 / r - / ,.r,ccf c%... �� I Y • /�. F � Y < 1-----1/2:-.) ::*N1p c / / WaSte SerViCeS CORPORATION June 4, 1990 Mr. Evan A. Hooper, Jr. Development/Access Coordinator State of Colorado, Division of Highways P. O. Box 850 Greeley, CO 80632 -- 13 kW fiC.Wil RE: WELD CO. , S.H. 14 JUN mo SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN YOUR FILE DOH 45100 Weil et PIaww* r+aitill* Dear Mr. Hooper: We have been in discussions with you in regard to our proposed development of a solid waste disposal site at the intersection of State Highway 14 and Weld County Road 25. Specifically, we have discussed your comment in a letter dated November 13, 1989 , to Rod Allison of the Weld County Planning Department regarding a potential future need for a right turn deceleration lane on the north side of the highway at Weld County Road 25. We want to confirm your acknowledgement that a deceleration lane probably will not be needed initially based upon our projections that during the early years at the disposal , only about fifty vehicles per day will enter the site and, of those, approximately half will come from the east and half from the west . Furthermore, we anticipate that only about fifteen of those vehicles will be compacted trash trucks with the rest being private cars and pickups. I£ we have correctly interpreted your opinion that a deceleration lane will not be needed at the outset of the project, please sign and return the extra copy of this letter. We wish to assure you that the other concerns expressed in your letter to Mr. Allison have been addressed in our application to Weld County. This letter will serve as our commitment to the Division of Highways that at such time as traffic counts and conditions at the subject intersection warrant a right turn 900564 r EXHIBIT 6037 SEVENTY-SEVEN111 AVENUE • CREELE1, COLORADO 80634 • (303) 3 1 deceleration lane, Waste Services Corporation will cooperate with the Division in the design and construction of the right turn deceleration lane including contribution toward the cost. Very truly yours, C. Bradley Keirnes CBK/tb Understanding Confirmed <,+/! ;W) Evan o er, r. ___ _ casorado Department of Health Siting Information Summary For Discussion April 6, 1990 Meeting Task Group on Access Governor's Integrated Solid Waste Task Force CDH ROLE The Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division, Solid Waste & Incident Management Section is the unit responsible for the regulation and oversight of solid waste sites and facilities (including municipal solid waste landfills) in Colorado. The statutory authority for this function is found in 30-20-101, et seq. , CRS 1973, as amended. The roles assigned by statute include: - The development and promulgation, before the Colorado Board of Health, of minimum criteria concerning the location, design, construction and operation of solid waste disposal sites and facilities. - Technical review of applications for certificates of designation to assure compliance with minimal criteria; - Monitoring and enforcement of sites and facilities during their operational life and closure/post closure care periods; and - Assistance to local governments concerning solid waste disposal activities. NOTE: There is. at this time, no requirement ihst planning for solid waste _ management rxiat_ at any level of government within the state. is, Zikewise, no specific provision that ereany level of government assure continuous £nr aaii.d_waste disposal. This leaves governmental, entities in r‘^cy prose of *be States in pacnivc role; there is no effort or activity concernine &sting of solid waste facilities unless privately Sim; or unless%until the existing facility(ies) do not meet local needs USUAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - The application is received from the local government (city or county) with the request for review. - The application and associated documentation is maintained available at CDH for public review throughout the application reivew and comment periods. - Solid Waste Program staff reviews the content of the application for completeness. - Solid Waste Program staff reviews the content of the application for compliance with minimum criteria. - One or more on-site review of the proposed location is made to confirm details represented in the application. 9C C564 r t Why this shift? Five reasons: (1) the growing number of horror stories that have come to public attention over the past 5 years, starting with Love Canal and on through the 850 dumps now on Superfund. (2) The growing research by such experts as Dr. Peter Montague, Princeton University, Drs. Kirk Brown and Dave Anderson, Texas A & M University and others showing failures of liners and landfills. Montague studied four state-of-the-art double-lined landfills and found all leaked within the first year of study (Montague, 1982) . Brown and Anderson found that some organic chemicals change the nature of clay and make it more "permeable," that is, less able to hold liquids and thus less useful as a liner (Anderson, 1982). This research led to EPA's decision not to require clay as a liner in landfills. Brown and Anderson also showed that synthetic liners will fail over time (Brown, 1986) . (3) Similar research from different government agencies, including EPA. In 1983, OTA concluded that "landfills inhibit releases through containment but [they] eventually (and usually, gradually) leak and may contaminate groundwater (OTA, 1983)." When it proposed landfill regulations in 1981, EPA noted that "90% of the hazardous wastes annually generated in the U.S. can be disposed of safely without landfilling" (USEPA, 1981). (4) A major study in 1983 by the National Academy of Sciences, the country's most prestigeous and conservative scientific organization, concluded: "Landfilling must be considered as the last alternative AIIIR all waste treatment technologies including detoxification, volume reduction, resource recovery have been explored (emphasis added) .. . In addition, the true costs of long-term secure landfilling, including monitoring and perpetual care insurance must be used in cost-effective comparisons... The short-term costs of this technology may be low, but the true costs to be incurred for perpetual care and monitoring for the period that, realistically, may exceed 500 years is signficantly greater and this cost should, be used in comparison with other disposal options". (NA983) (5) Lastly is the recent track record of the "Cadillac of Landfills," the Waste Management site in Sumpter County near Emelle, Alabama. When first 9( taftel -9- constructed in 1979, this site was touted as the perfect site, located in la. over 100 feet of "impermeable" clays and was guaranteed by Waste Management of not to leak for at least 10,000 years. Given what scientists and engineers l knew about the science of building and designing a landfill, these statements g at first seemed reasonable. Unfortunately, they now appear unfounded, as an EPA staff memorandum indicates that Emelle is "in assessment" for groundwater contamination, meaning that the site is leaking (USEPA, 1985b). If the "Cadillac of Landfills" leaks, what hope is there for the Chevy and Fords? Other State—of—the—Art secure landfills that OTA reports to be leaking, . include the CECOS International Sites in Niagara Falls, NY and Williamsburg, OH, the BR£ Site in West Covina, California, the Rollins Environmental Services Site in Baton Rouge, LA, the Wayne Landfill in Belleville, MI and the ESL Landfill in Joliet, IL (OTA, 1984). When considering the 4 major landfill sites in the U.S. , only the SCA Services, Inc. landfill in Model City, NY is not known to be leaking. SCA refused to submit information requested under the Freedom of Inforamtion Act, stating the information was "confidential". Bill Sanjour at OTA (on temporary assignment from EPA) , who filed the FOI request, comments "I cannot think of any reason why a facility would make such a claim if it were not in assessment" (ie leaking) (OTA, 1984) . Despite the evidence, there are still some people, including very well—meaning people, who believe you can build a "secure" landfill, isolate waste from groundwater and reduce, if not eliminate, threats to groundwater in nearby communities. Landfills, municipal or hazardous, no matter how well engineered, are destined to fail. At best, engineering can only delay, but not stop, chemicals from leaking. It's not surprising, though, that some of the people who claim that "secure" landfills can be built and won't ever leak are, in fact, landfill operators. It's like an airplane builder whose planes are noted for crashing telling you, "Hey, I've got a new design, guaranteed to work." Would you fly in these planes? These factors plus strong citizen opposition are making land disposal and landfills, in particular, extinct. The following case histories illustrate the reasons why residents have consistently doubted and resisted -10- �, I ; ^ 0 �� Nse t i slime. The site has an estimated 10,000 buried drums, 5 buried tanks containing 30,000 gallons of C-56 liquids (pesticide waste) and 4 lagoons with about 11,000 cubic yards of contaminated sludges. Traces of C-56, C-58, zinc, lead and cyanide were detected in ground water heading for nearby Swartz Creek, which flows into the Flint River and then into the Great Lakes. Ground penetrating radar shows illegally dumped barrels of hydrochloric acid may be at the bottom of the remaining lagoon. If these wastes mix with cyanide in the lagoon, a cloud of deadly hydrogen cyanide could form to endanger nearby resid— ents who would have just minutes to evacuate. • Lowry Landfil _ l Arapohoe County, C0: Covers 250 acres, 15 miles west of Denver. From 1967 to 1980, the landfill, owned and operated by the City and County, accepted both municipal and industrial waste, includ— ing an estimated 100 million gallons of liquid chemical waste like chlorinated solvents and oily wastes. These wastes were put in unlined trenches dug into the surface. Monitoring wells found volatile organic moved from the trenches into bedrock and shallow groundwater up to 1 mile from the site. 4 SOLID WASTE SITES • Port Washington Landfill, Nassau County, NY: Also known as the Town of North Hempstead L-4 Landfill, has been in operation since March, 1974. Before becoming a landfill, the site was a sand mine and is bor- dered by sand pits. In early 1981, Nassau County officials found methane gas migrating off-site and explosions occured in several nearby homes. Benzene, toluene, xylene and vinyl chloride were found in migrating gas. • Onalaska Municipal Landfill, Onalaska, WI: Within 500 feet of Black River, near the junction of the Mississippi, the landfill accepted residential, commercial, and industrial wastes. An estimated 2500 drums of solvent wastes were dumped there. The soil under this unlined site -13- SC C'S Lip .. ii 7..—.. �C,Z ii: prey,- t_EACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL DUMPS entirely ` rely because someone bringing in a HAS SAME TOXICITY A. .EACHATE truckload of v tes may hide a few gallons, FROM HAZARDOUS WAS) .L DUMPS or a few barrels, of hazardous chemicals in In a new study, , s the middle of the truckload. The higher the• price of legal disposal, the more A&M University have compared leachate incentive people have to dump illegally. from municipal landfills with leachate from However, the most likely source of.most of hazardous waste landfills and they report, the ' Is in munici al landfills is . .T ere is amply _evidhat__ the �— -- ence_t _ legally-disposed househo pro uc s I e municipal waste landfill leaEhates contain patnt-sotvents om ounds, Wide ch m Gals in sufficient concentration e reasmgcompounds. andoesticides. n to tpotent a Iy as__harmfnt ,s_leachete addition, the final depository of most of from industrial waste landfills." Specifi- the products of Sur modern industrial tally, the Texas researchers compared society is the municipal waste land leachate from several municipal landfills where the paints, plastissY_and phartna- with leachate from the notorious Love ceuticals dissol a and deal—Adaain_the acidic Canal landfill (and other hazardous waste ana 'c_[oxygen-free} environment,- landfills, such as Kin-Buc in Edison, NJ) thereby, nleasing_.degradation__produ_cts_ and they found the leachates similar in which may-be even_more._toxiy_than the_ their cancer-causing potential. products from which_the.y_originated," say leachate is the liquid that is produced Brown an- Donnelly. when rain falls on a Landfill, sinks into the The findings of Brown and Donnelly wastes, and picks up chemicals as it seeps - - - —- -- -- •ownwar• Industries creating hazardous will come as no surprise to many 2e- wastes" (as legally defined under federal searchers who hav for ears that law) may not send those wastes to munici- municipa leachate is as toxic as the pal landfills, but must instead send them to lean-nate f n Mills. For special hazardous waste landfills. example, in an article entitled, "Application )plhen a new municipal landfill is of Hydrogeology to the Selection of Refuse proposed, adYates .of_the.project. always Disposal Sites, ' Ronald A. Landon reported emphasize that "no_hazardous_ wastes will in 1969 in the journal Ground Water Vol. 7 / enter this landfill. " TheTexasstudyshows (Nov. -Dec. , 1969), pgs. 9-13, that"Leach- , that even thoualinunicioal landfills may ate at its source, that is within the landfill, not legal) r — has concentrations and characteristics of feat ate they produce-is as_dangerous_as_ many industrial wastes; and in many in- fFileachatefromhazardous_wastelandfills_ stances would be better treated as such a Dr. Kirk Brown and nr. K C Donnelly waste. " (pg. 12) at Texas A&M authors of the new study, / What Brown and Donnelly have contrib examined data on the composition of uted is a quantitative analysis of the 1 leachate from 58 landfills. The data they toxicity and the carcinogenic potential of reviewed showed 113 different toxic leachates from the two types of landfills chemicals in leachate from municipal Brown and Donnelly conclude, "The landfills and 72 toxic chemicals in leachate risk calculations based on suspect car- from hazardous waste landfills. The abun- cinogens. . . indicate that the estimated dance of toxics in municipal landfills prob- carcinogenic potency for the leachate from ably occurs because the entire spectrum of some municipal landfills may be similar to consumer products ends up in municipal the carcinogenic potency of the leachate landfills, whereas hazardous waste landfills from the Love Canal landfill." \ Serve a limited number of industries within In industrial landfill leachate, 32 ,..„,a region. chemicals cause cancer; 10 cause birth The actual source of the toxic them- defects, and 21 cause genetic damage; in - - municipal landfill leachate, 32 chemicals icals in municipal landfills is not known cause cancer,T3 cause birth defects, andjt precisely. Under federal law (RCRA cause genetic amage. Subtitle C) each "small quantity generator" The new study, "An Estimation of the can send up_to_.2640-pounds per_ yearof Risk Associated with the Organic Con- legaily-hazardous_ chemicals_tomunicipal stituents of Hazardous and Municipal Waste lan iTTs. In 1980, the_EPA_iLL.S __Eaviron Landfill Leachates," appears in thejournal, mental. Protection_ Agency} estimated that Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 600,000 tons per_year of legally-hazardous Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pgs. 1-30. wastes were.going_to municipal_dumps_from Request a free reprint from Dr. Kirk 695,000 "small quantity generators. " Brown, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, —_---" Texas A&M University, Colle_geStkitio,n4 TX 7843. Phone (409) 845-520CUZ-Jbe_s r- - r ... it ^ tt H . pc o v M'".v. 1.r1 e " V V' `Zr Q Lo ' -2Cra T r0" ccr;-' L-- ?nan !i i T `1 P- V J. rn i IG,•rGwr:I0dls rtl*" (iv,:m: it• tilt UrWSU- . (P ;••. o 1: i r:,:-!:.-;;;• , f wc,t .we.. to miry t leni lanC 111 s natural clay hour I r R.r 1 T .yrc '. o n U .du a nl - . � .. u Ie d ' o �� > I't•�,nnent rrs'�. Ire: nu can:a.,,,nan,pr:n r t nt u':,tr.is t c .'.. ) tint.�u v i says � ' . In, b „ es. ml s, anese craves Incorpo barrier. H xr uweve: hnson says. if e tr cu'Le- is'A hi,landfills buiit nelory _ rated a bathtub-snaped liner of com- clays thickness had been more typical of EPAs Robert Landreth says agency ul pacted clay to keep water— and buried hazardous-waste landfills — perhaps 3 vials don'; know how many US haz. toxic wastes—from escaping. While ci?k feet— his data suggest the more mobile ardous-waste landfills rely on clay bar- ao,s limit water leaks fair well. new contaminants might have broken through riers. but a good guess might be "more e d resear h Shaw's ilij& to block the in just five years. and slower ones, like than. 10 and less than 50-Johnson say's a motor route by whi nv xic ahem'• benzene.in 70 years. more like'}' estimate is -at least hun- suc as pe. So closely do these field data mirror dreds" e researc ers say this in in r- theory.Johnson says,"that if I know what The new findings are relevant also to ries grave implications not only for the a contaminant's solubility is, and the current containment efforts. says Walter safety of hazardous-waste landfills begun (barrier's) organic carbon content. I can Weber.a colleague of Gray's at the Unrver- pnor to 198c:.but also for the adequacy of now predict how fast a chemical will slty of Michigan. Today engineers con- current techniques of containing landfill [diffuse through)" monly cordon off chemical spills in soil leaks andioxic chemicals spilled on land. Comments Donald H.Gray.a civil engi- and leaking landfills by digging a thick Water provides the two primary means neer at the University of Michigan in Ann trench around them.preferably down too by which pollutants move from landfills. Arbor.''There are important implications natural clay deposit.and filling the trench Through a`vehacuiar-pathway water can here for the design and construction of wi;r a slurry of clay and soil. Once .t carry dissolved wastes as it flows from containment envelopes around hag- hardens. the slurry wall becomes reta- areas o! high pressure. such as puuis ardous-wastelandtills"The new findings hve:y impermeable to water. However, collected on the inside of a landfill, to show that once water permeability is well this barrier - often the only one sur- . regions of low' pressure. such as drier controlled. diffusion becomes the domi- rounding the toxic chemicals - oilers soiis underneath.A second pathway uses nant exit route for interred wastes. lithe protection from diffusion. \leper water quite differently-as a potentially Since :9Sa. EPA has banned landfilling notes. So ne and Gray are studying ways fixed "conduit- through whin dissolved of solvents-like benzene-and required to to^ease its carboncontent-currently contaminants "diffuse" from regions tnat new hazardous-waste iandfills use by acorporat:ng fiy ash - to slow the where their concentrations are higher to multiple barriers of clay and synthetic dihuslon of trapped organics. -J kmoN areas where they are lower. Today. notes Richard Jonnson. an en- vironmental scientist at the Oregon Solar Max snaps a big, brilliant flare • Graduate Center in Beaverton,engineers work at controliinetnevenicular pathway ..,,c;_ .: -• t - -city" Y. only. Until recently, the standard ap i, b- ._,y.-w t.�-g e t. - �" ' "'�"� ''[ r proach wai to line landfills with "i��` iV r • @4a.�"riain L hie -ones designed to �='- _ p . •' a c+ ix a . leak n0 more d \ canons 0f water Der - t .- y, � A� w~ 'Y dC]E ddlly aCCOrC t0 tnylrOnme'llcl ti" ��e\ " it i �' •� cot?,, ;,.; tl -7 Tr; ygency :EPA) engineer ken- . �4 t .� r +-a• �"w _ � ,� neth Skan.n o \\asaincmn. D.C. Diffusion - t ' control o: all but ignored. de that says y3 • � "� y. }'-• ' � 'Pr .y. • because o:a prevailing attitude that dlt 'yr.• _y„• .�/5 }f ri5»a al?. r /' • •�_; ; r fusion really will never be much of a .p- .:� : • ,M , : ' + factor- in landfill leaks. Unfortunately. -. • aw �'�_., � ��'�� -�� r y '.1.1 .'-'-'''',..-•!-- om • n -zi iF17t' e- 'CtS..�:. fti - _ Jonnson says. this attitude fostered a - false sense of security -- •s' r ; 5 r •_ - .. _ •,.‘..! , ,J= Johnson's research. reported in the _ ,_ _ March ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECH- - - NOt.ogy,shows significant toxic-chemical On March 6.a giant solar flare. one of the largest of the last decade,erupted from diffusi he-.bt Tier of a five-year- the suns eastern edge.An X-ray detector on NASAS Solar Maximum Mission satellite o d. clav-lined hazardous-waste an f managed to capture images of the flare at its peak The computer-processed image in Sarnia.Ontano.Asexpected,therewas . (left) shows the intensity of X-rays at a wavelength of 1.85 angstroms. which wide variability in contaminant mobility. represents radiation emitted by iron atoms stripped of all but two electrons. Such Al with the most water-soluble pollutants rays are detectable only when a solar flare erupts The temperature within the Bares moving fastest. Chloride ions. for exam- hot plasma exceeded 10 million kelvins.contrastmg with the balmier 3-mil/wn-kelvin ple, had penetrated about 28 inches into temperatures typically observed in the suns corona. The jagged white lines mark the the clay floor.Less water-soluble organic sun's edge. chemicals spent more of their time pref- The flare erupted from a large cluster of sunspots.which remained visible for about erentially clinging to carbon in the clay two weeks as the sun rotated on its axis. The sunspot Image(right)from the Solar Acetone and ketones, among the more Optical Observing Network station in HOlioman..AI M..shows the cluster on March g. water soluble of these organics.traveied when it was farther from the suns edge. By the rime the cluster directly faced Earth only about 5 inches —three to 20 times researchers had observed seven large.or"•\'."Lary and many smaller ones.Huu'el-e- , farther than would be expected for far none°,these later pares matched me intensify o'rne first one.rated near the top of the less soluble solvents. like benzene and scale at X15 toluene. SUI_NC-9EWSrk/AelLI�i o 16< MAKCtt IC. 1 `t `�') s� ` tx':- W s T WASTE SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES,INC. LANDFILL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER One of the most critical and decreasing.In addition,costs lily minrmizingdie volume of 16, 1/4... „,kt, } controversial problems associated with upgrading wane to only that which r Y ' 1 facing this country today is the existing landfill operations to " cannot otherwise be processed w=, safe, non-polluting disposal of meet new legislative require or recycled,scarce landfill .��ir� I municipal solid waste. Statistics ments and those anticipated for eons vair the over- ` ,. 4 show that the American public the execution of landfill closure " committal � , ,is greatly ' ' produces about 150 million plans continue,to produce ` w tons of residential and commer- dramatic increases in the cost a cial waste annually.While the of solid waste disposal. This concept of volume reduc- production and accumulation of " ' _ a " lion through recycling and the "�� solid waste continues at an Based on results obtained transformation of waste alarming rate,the availability from numerous•municipal materials to useable products is ,x = of suitable disposal space in and independent studies,the the basic philosophy behind the . existing landfills continues to most cost effective and environ- Wit,�,and diminish. Due to pressures mentally sound means of deal- facilities dev ens by WASTE ;a exerted by both private and ". = ing widt this p�is to aig SERVICE TT�ryI AGIES. '-tilt; �E' public sectors,economically ' n fietintly reds a the''volume of s' and ecologically acceptable waste material placed m the I sites for new solid waste landfill. l disposal landfills are also < 7 q z ,,., nn , _- . �. �� //% a • �[ 1 ,-, r �1 q ,A '!"' I' 0°.9 y Because no one method of open plastics,paper and PRODUCTION OF volume reduction is ap- cardboard containers, and COMPOST plicable to every community, spreads the material over the For the production of compost, WASTE SERVICE surface of the conveyor belt. biodegradable materials such as TECHNOLOGIES, INC. will After reaching the Resource paper, food waste, and some conduct a preliminary site and Recovery sorting conveyor, yard waste are removed from community evaluation study to recyclable materials such as the main sorting conveyor and determine which technology cardboard, (OCC), newspaper, reduced in size by shredding offered by WST will produce a (ONP), glass containers, and pulverizing equipment. The volume reduction compatible aluminum cans, and ferrous resulting material is then con- with the economics and metals are removed for further veyed to Aerobic Digesters ecologic needs of the processing and transportation to where biological degradation community. users of recycled materials. produces compost for use as a This single recovery process soil enrichment. In many cases, The primary goal of a WASTE will reduce the incoming waste sewage sludge can be added to SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES stream by as much as 30%. the compostable material to not Resource Recovery Center is to only enhance the quality of the significantly reduce the volume The material remaining after compost, but to provide a of material requiring disposal in the removal of recyclable, means of disposal for another the landfill. To achieve this which consists of miscel- waste product produced by goal, WST employs four laneous paper products,plas- municipalities. Like RDF,the proven methods of volume tics, putrecibles (food wastes), cost effectiveness of producing reduction. Each of these proces- etc. is then subjected to one or compost is dependent upon the ses can be used separately or in more of the following processes marketability of the product conjunction with one another to determined. provide both a cost effective PRODUCTION OF and environmentally sound sys- REFUSED DERIVED VOLUME REDUCTION tem for volumetric reduction. FUEL (RDF) OF BALING For the production of RDF, Where the economic climate is RECOVERY OF combustible materials such as RECYCLABLE wood, paper& some plastics not conducive to cost effective MATERIALS Production of RDF or compost, are removed from the main sort- The first phase of a WST ing conveyor and reduced in volume reduction of material placed in landfill is done by Resource Recovery Facility is size by shredding and pulveriz- compaction of non-recyclable the recovery of recyclable ing equipment. The resulting materials into bales. By baling materials. Commercial and "fluff' material can be baled the remaining material, the residential solid waste is and sold as "fluff' fuel or volume of materials disposed of received at the facility, processed into pellet fuel. The in the landfill can be reduced deposited on the tipping floor, suitability or cost effectiveness by 50% over conventional and moved into a recessed pit of producing RDF at a WST landfill compaction methods. conveyor. facility is dependent upon the production of high density marketability of the product bales reduced the negative The pit conveyor transports the determined by our initial study. environmental impact of the material to the incline conveyor landfill by reducing the produc- where the bag breaker tears tion of leachate and methane gas produced by the biodegrada- tion of waste material. 52 'A1 i. _— The modular design concept existing facility should Each Center is custom of the WASTE SERVICE changes in the economics designed to achieve this TECHNOLOGIES Resource climate make such systems cost goal while handling solid waste Recovery Center provides effective. streams ranging in capacity flexibility to our clients in from 50 to 3,000 tons per day. selecting the most effective WST Resource Recovery When required by local site method of dealing with this Centers are designed to provide design parameters,multiple solid waste disposal problem. owners and operators of processing lines are utilized to Another benefit of our modular landfills and/or transfer stations increase plant capacity or system design is the ability to a practical method of on-site improve facility reliability. add processing systems to any volume reduction. FLUFF FUEL SHIP SHIP PELLET FUEL I 4 I COMPOST BALE I I BALE I I SHRED I I SHRED I I SHRED.... 1 * * 4 OCC ONP OTHER PAPER 8 COMBUSTIBLES 10% B% 36 INCOMING 34% MUNICIPAL NON-RECYCI AR F$ SOLID TO LANDFILL WASTE LOOSE OR BALED (MSW) 6% 5% 1% GLASS FERROUS NON-FERROUS METALS METALS I COLOR SORT I I SEPARATE CANS I I SEPARATE CANS I I CRUSH J SHIP SHIP SHIP RESOURCE RECOVERY FLOW CHART SC Gel FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS WASTE SERVICE Most of our clients ask: TECHNOLOGIES will conduct a study of your exist- WASTE SERVICE ing operations from which to "How do we achieve maxi- TECHNOLOGIES, INC. make recommendations for mum utilization of existing designs, builds, installs, and equipment and processes g volume reduction and resource when considering volume operates custom tailored sys- recovery. reduction and resource tems for volume reduction and recovery?" resource recovery of municipal The study will reveal the solid waste. The systems are capability and limitations of the "What are the effects of the P Y systems on the overall costs specifically designed to be existing process; the expanded of disposal operations of flexible, enabling these to be capability when combined with solid waste?" integrated into existing additional systems and equip- operations and enhance the ment, the ex ense associated "What are the long term overall effectiveness of our expense benefits?" with system up-grades; short client's processes. and long term effects on the "What resources are avail- costs of operations; and financ- able for the financing of new ing and management alterna- tives. "Who can manage the new programs?" At WASTE SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., our goal is to provide you with cost-effective "Practical Solutions". We can sell or lease you the equipment or an entire system. You can own it...we can operate it. Or, we can design, build, install, and operate the system on a fee-for-service basis. We are truly... ... "the Practical Solution Company!" For more information,please contact: =U.S. Waste Services, Inc. OF COLORADO On Site Hazardous Waste Detoxification Chemical Fixation Microorganisms Solid Waste Recycling Water Treatment W ST MS W-1 t8 8/88 Earl Hurkett, M.E. (303) 988-3956 DC CSE,4 i 1 1 i - . ► `�. _ : II, "Nair" i40 � , �- �- to OIL ii fi.0 / i� 0 i%�, 7 OS I 1. I Pr �/ :S X OW `0 liV .. MODEL RECOVERY CENTER 9iC5S`t LANDFILL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER System Description MAIN SORTING CONVEYOR Recessed Pit Conveyor- Steel Pan Type Bag Ripper- Low RPM Climb Conveyor- Flat Belt, 6-Ply Rough-Top with Cleats Main Sorting Conveyor-Flat Belt, 6-Ply Rough-Top, 4'wide Negative Air System Hood over Main Conveyor with Blower and Bag House OLD CORRUGATED CONTAINER (OCC) OLD NEWSPAPER RECOVERY LINES (ONP) Sorting Chutes Flat Belt Conveyor- 4-Ply Rough-Top, 4'wide Shredder- Reduction to 6"minus Baler Feed Conveyor- Flat Belt 3'wide, 4-Ply Rough-Top Balers- Open End Type GLASS CONTAINER RECOVERY LINES Color Sorting Chutes Glass Grinder- Compartmentalized Flail Type Gullet Holding Bin ALUMINUM & NON-FERROUS METALS RECOVERY LINE Sorting Chutes Can Crusher Holding Bins Non-Ferrous Metals Holding Bin FERROUS METAL RECOVERY LINE Overhead Magnetic Belt Collection Chute Holding Bins COMBUSTIBLE RECOVERY LINE Sorting Chutes Flat Belt Conveyor- 4-Ply Rough-Top, 4'wide Shredder- Reduction to 3"minus Flat Belt Conveyor -3'wide, 4-Pty Rough-Top Pulverizer- Reduction to 1/4"minus Air Conveyor Blower Cyclone Pelletizer- 1/4"- 1/2"diameter, Pellet Size Bucket Elevator Storage Bins Flat Belt Conveyor, 24"wide, 4-Ply Rough Top COMPOSTABLE RECOVERY LINE Sorting Chutes Flat Belt Conveyor -4-Ply Rough-Top, 4'wide Shredder-Reduction to 3"minus Flat Belt Conveyor- 3'wide, 4-Ply Rough-Top Pulverizer- Reduction to 1/4"minus Sewage Sludge Feed Chute Feed Conveyor Digester Bucket Elevator Storage Hopper SC 0564 .... Y•-4--CYCLONE • . 1 . ter__- -� I BUCKET 1 ELEVATOR 1.."..."'---.--..""---..-----.'-'.-.---'----"'I : k 1 D/r.i.."...0 1 c';....1 r_-� 1 ___ f � ` + /�----- di I_I SHP PP RECESSED PIT BAG RIPPER CONVEYOR � III I I I I I I I I - IDIPI I r, CORRU( TIPPING ---c7,-- FLOOR --41,- - - -- - -�- RT( ` _I _I _I III I I l I l l 11 l IuIPI I I i ---- -- I CLEAN OUT PIT / I \-- 1-- -TIGHTS BAGHOUSE LIGHTS I 1 OO HOOD f- SORTING CONVEYOR /� -� 7-SHREDDER / ' + ■ I -�■ - BALER --". 9M564 • OVERHEAD DOOR 10'WIDE 16'HIGH -*el r-08." _ I BUILDING i iPULVERIZER .-PERIMETER 4--- ONP BALER - I ❑ FU BLOWER -4- COMPOSTEL OR STORAGE I - HOPPERS 44-4-CONVENOR 121 I I O I + I PELLETIZER ___, EXCESS I ' MATERIAL DOER-Thl \ I i•---SHREDDER TRAILER C TO C J MAGNETIC LANDFILL R� I N A HEAD G A F 1 RR PULLEY / TED NEWSPAPER i SEGREGATED I ALUMINUM 1 COMBUSTIBLE _ ,V-/ ,S- - GLASS 7 OR COMPOSTIBLE_—� _.-.� G A F I _ I -4FERROUS • ACCESS METAL 7---SHREDDER LADDERS BIN I---► 4I-----CONVEYOR I BAG HOUSE (NEGATIVE AIR SYSTEM ao W FOR DUST AND ODOR RAILING CONTROL) + ` CATWALK OCC BALER -� GLASS CRUSHER 1 - r CUTTING STORAGE BIN OVERHEAD DOOR 10'WIDE 16'HIGH RESOURCE RECOVERY FLOOR PLAN 9CC-5s1 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH oe coca Telefax. 'Ne 4210 East 11th Avenue $� Denver, Colorado 802 20-3 71 6 (303)322-9076(Main Building/Denver) ',,�/,9 Y i, Phone (303) 320-8333 (303)320-1529(Ptarmigan Place/Denver) 4. (303)248-7198(Grand)unction Regional Office) i/ 876 May 31, 1990 O4rL 21 ti �� ` -� ROY Romer J !! /T� Governor ( s LIr]r�r 4 �/ _..I_ Thomas M. Vernon, M.D. iLiN G 1770 Executive Director Gloria Lister fj Route 2, Box 124 LI Eaton, Colorado , 80615 bid Cu. Bonk Cnmtnissioh Re: Proposed North Weld County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mrs. Lister: I appreciated your letter of May 1, 1990 and the concerns you expressed about the proposed landfill. The concerns and questions of the citizens who live near proposed solid waste disposal sites are considered as a part of our decision making process. I feel, however, that it is important to clarify the roles of the Colorado Department of Health and County in the review and permitting of such facilities. The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Department is responsible for the review of solid waste disposal facility proposals to make sure that they meet minimum technical design criteria. The division's review is authorized under the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act" and is based on the criteria contained in the "Regulations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities". The County is responsible for the land-use and zoning decisions concerning such proposals. Comments concerning these types of issues are referred back to the County whenever they are received as a part of a letter sent to this Department. Now I would like to address your specific comments. As to your comments pertaining to high winds problems, the reviewing staff agreed with the need for specific controls. All solid waste disposal facilities in our state, are required to cease operations during periods of high wind warning. "Periods of high wind warning" are defined as periods when the National Weather Service expects sustained winds of forty miles per hour (40 MPH) or greater, or gusts of fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) or greater for one hour or longer. As additional protection against high wind and blowing debris the review comments forwarded to the county commission contained the following recommendations. The operator is intended to implement measures to control blowing litter at the site as necessary including all of the following: (1) a. At the end of each day following refuse placement and compaction, an application of six (6) inches of soil as daily cover is required. This cover will be placed on refuse as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. b. The size of the working face (exposed trash) is to be limited during windy periods. c. Permanent and movable site fencing is required to collect wind blown debris and prevent it from leaving the working face or property. d. Litter pick up activities are required . SC (C aA i EXHIBIT I 40,R bisiz895 Gloria Lister May 31, 1990 Page 2 (2) Operational inspections of the entire facility will be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the landfill operation. The inspections will be made by an independent contractor experienced with landfill operations. The inspections will be made to ensure that the landfill operations is progressing accordance with all aspects of the approved landfill plan. Inspection reports will be prepared and submitted to both Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH). Also wind velocity measuring equipment will be maintained at the facility. Your concern for health and safety is also well stated. Section 2.1.4 of the department's regulations require that facilities shall be operated in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, wind blown debris, insects and rodent by providing an adequate layer of inert material for daily cover. We believe that the requirements in the regulations and the recommendations shown above adequately address your concern. Your concerns about the location of the facility with respect to the public highway should be directed to the county as a land-use issue. The public hearing on the facility's permit for land-use by special review is scheduled for June 5, 1990, at the Weld County Commissioners' Office. It should be noted that the county can be more restrictive than the state and can imposed additional operational requirements if they choose. These additional requirements or conditions become part of the permit issued for the facility. In summary, the Division believes that if the facility is operated as outlined in the "Engineering Design and Operation Report" and our additional recommendations to the commissioners, this landfill can be constructed and operated in a safe manner and protect the health and safety of the community. I have enclosed a copy of 30-20-104 of the state statue for your information. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at (303) 331-4806. Sincerely, ef2tiLettla� Pout E. Poulsen Engineer Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Haznrdous Materials and Waste Management Division PEP/ht/6944K cc: R. Allison, Weld County Department of Planning W. Potter, Weld County Health Department G. Brantner, Weld County Board of Commissioners 71-064 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ��a \° (+ 4210 East 11th ?venue telefax. r( Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 13031 722.9075(Main Building/De�verl �^ 1� Q er Phone O03) 320-8333 (703)320-1529(Ptarmigan Place/Denver �e�-t„Asoir y� ry X14 (3071248-7198(Grand'unction Regional Office) s�876 Jane 1, 1990 Idr pg\-17�� Rov Romer "r�-'`I Governor JUN 6 1990 Thomas M. Vernon, MA. Executive Director Ray Danielson 39509 WCR #31 ?Id CO. Hamlet Commission Ault, Colorado 5061 Re: Proposed North Weld County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mr. Danielson: I appreciated your letter of May 9, 1990 and the concerns you expressed about the proposed landfill. The concerns and questions of the citizens who live near proposed solid waste disposal sites are considered as a part of our decision making process. I feel, however, that it is important to clarify the roles of the Colorado Department of Health and County in the review and permitting of such facilities. The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Department is responsible for the review of solid waste disposal facility proposals to make sure that they meet minimum technical design criteria. The division's review is authorized under the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act" and is based on the criteria contained in the "Regulations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities". The County is responsible for the land-use and zoning decisions concerning such proposals. Comments concerning these types of issues are referred back to the County whenever they are received as a part of a letter sent to this Department. Now I would like to address your specific comments. As to your comments pertaining to high winds problems, the reviewing staff agreed with the need for spec controls. All solid waste disposal facilities in our state, are required to cease operations during periods of high wind warning. "Periods of high wind warning" are defined as periods when the National Weather Service expects sustained winds of forty miles per hour (40 MPH) or greater, or gusts of fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) or greater for one hour or longer. As additional protection against high wind and blowing debris the review comments forwarded to the county commission contained the following recommendations. The operator is intended to implement measures to control blowing litter at the site as necessary including all of the following: (1) a. At the end of each day following refuse placement and compaction, an application of six (6) inches of soil as daily cover is required. This cover will be placed on refuse as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. b. The size of the working face (exposed trash) is to be limited during windy periods. c. Permanent and movable site fencing is required to collect wind blown debris and prevent it from leaving the working face or property. ^� ---- d. Litter pick up activities are required . 0 �S"+!I 9C`�$64 JUN C, ) meld Ce. ri � Ray Danielson June 1 1990 Page 2 (2) Operational inspections of the entire facility will be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the landfill operation. The inspections will be made by an independent contractor experienced with landfill operations. The inspections will be made to ensure that the landfill operations is progressing accordance with all aspects of the approved landfill plan. Inspection reports will be prepared and submitted to both Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH). Also wind velocity measuring equipment will be maintained at the facility. Your concern for health and safety is also well stated. Section 2.1.4 of the department's regulations require that facilities shall be operated in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions such as ordors, wind blown debris, insects and rodent by providing an adequate layer of insert material for daily cover. We believe that the requirements in the regulations and the recommendations shown above adequately address your concern. We reviewed the potential landfill impact on the location of your well. As you stated, your well is rechanged from surface run-off in to a shallow alluvial sand system. The topographic map indicates that run-off would be the south-east from the landfill and thus away from any recharge area effecting your well. The design of the landfill will control surface water run-on and run-off and at the same time contain water that falls within it. Your concerns about the location of the facility with respect to the public highway should be directed to the county as a land-use issue. The public hearing on the facility's permit for land-use by special review is scheduled for June 5, 1990, at the Weld County Commissioners' Office. It should be noted that the county can be more restrictive than the state and can imposed additional operational requirements if they choose. These additional requirements or conditions become part of the permit issued for the facility. In summary, the Division believes that if the facility is operated as outlined in the "Engineering Design and Operation Report" and our additional recommendations to the commissioners, this landfill can be constructed and operated in a safe manner and protect the health and safety of the community. I have enclosed a copy of 30-20-104 of the state statue for your information. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at (303) 331-4806. Sincerely, pris/erzeL7 Poul E. Poulsen Engineer Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division PEP/ht/6944K cc: R. Allison, Weld County Department of Planning W. Potter, Weld County Health Department G. Brantner, Weld County Board of Commissioners 9( : TOn n - nom' -i 7a n S -� = - - 't _ - v•v °O v-. 7 C ! ---• C O G _ S n - -. v = L,r i� I- -^G. n 7 -c n f 77 n n _ -' - - �n r � n . = n. En = 7 - � - - n - m v '< r., = ._ 7 - •�, ,p r 7 n C ^' n _ n. -, ,n '^ -, - _ ,� - ?. m • Gn rn _ - �-^,• G __ n n_ - O - — _ J_ �, O. = n = 7 7_ .< —' n G -- _ n S � n• > -, n. - v n n L v m n c ,.., ,••5' v a t- n = c_. �" vS ` nnn _ n _ 77 .� Win _ � � a :Or OG ` ` - - -• J = ^ S J n v = .. n n n n _A -. 7 �' .. - = C n v j - C n n 7 .. n _ - C •< S _ n - n - - a, v ., ✓, n .n ., C ,^ G � G ...) = , = n - _ J' p = n n• - _ _ _ ,- S c, .---- n• .... - - C = o' o ,, " v m _ ^ n =• -' s T ^ . 7 Z. J - G 5 _` = v n .5 - n n m n n G 's -• ., " � - 4 n - - - ,7ryp , -. v _ r � = .a = ^ - _ V • .�• n _ O .p n. r. n z it n 7 `= n• n n -• - n• _ n !n G n _ •`O n 7 _ n ^ -• c- =, - G rn• n 7 n.^ m = �. ^ n -` r., a � C ` � S `G.� -. C n S = 00.., - -rn - r- - - 7 -, w n -rya - 5 y.. ,� - n n n , n 77 K � n ., _.C .p ,.a y n -� ^ =n n n _.n n - _, -s a n v at G n 7 _ n v m 7 n - , n = n G 17 , n n y n r .- _ n n▪' i J n o• p ; n J J ' C: 6 0, .1•- = =, J• -• � C. 4 G, ,^, n -•-•22.7.5 '..< m = v• C n - - " - � 1 7e• -, nn.. 7 S A 's VJ -7 tn. = 7 n_ n G "r n 7 v G^. VJ J n _ -, ? n n m n n -, O n .. r') 'T • _ C 7 n 7. `• tn O •-n •-• r-y c, = PPc- c" v 00 .-i00 =7" :0`. n S7 . n -• = V, � C ,o n 74 Cr, O < in '� = v m L G 4. n C :" - � 7 n n' - - = - _7_ S S J B. -• ,� n m=' • ..tn' _ • n m C7. n - = n n n n` ar n n m n � v - - G . n _.n • 7 ^ < " �,., ="n T.,-•.!" S = v 0. a 7 70 = S , _ ., � G J j• C. J' ;. - v - G L - ,O n = C 'rn C. - n .• _ j G C a= .<C.ICJ - _ ^ � � G � F. .-.▪ = = ^ , .� T _ .�+ ,- _ _ �_ n .n _ n_ _ +, _ _ - n -, n m can n = rnj -. n = r.! n = L = n = m n ..▪ _ n = _ _ 7 n =7. 0 _ _ ^ 7 - r L. -• G n r_ r - ,.< G _ N • n ^ - v G n r-- G = .-7 -, G n m n a.. a o. � n _7 n n =-4 n S �, _ i .- m O" < _ -, Lo C - -j - 7 n r - r C: n ^ - � -•n .--- S n O n - Gn A = _ ^ G7 n ,--.7 n Gn N• J C n- ; n O7 ; n n• 7 _ j C n .< c, .= ? r.nnnn non - O '4"n - ^•0nnG m ' n - 70, �� S G _ G ;n. C""'" _. -. C7 K ., - rr 3 7 ^ c 'a n - v C -. m re n O ,•n <, v 7 L= n - ,- 7 _ _ _ - =, = n - n L n n �_ - v n G = 7 w n v ,c 7 m rn n = n .^.•7 - .< L - n O r n n _ G - _ � n ^ '-r C :, n - n n U m <or �' J -. - _ _ _ -,- - - n o - - G � '3 n - G n n n = - - � n 0n _ -Gi v r ,G n 0 G, D.' •-C G ? 00 r = a , ,n .�. [-'v L G,n S 00 000 :0 -0. = ^V `.2.27.q - m = -, me 7 = 7 � =, -- n - n c- n 3 U c. C O- - v m /, -i n _ n n ,..... -rni - G V, G = v O G n n n n - -. s- 7 n, G = n , -..-. -• S O G 2 O ^m � o c �a ▪ n -- n n G ro c n ° m C `'' L - • m n n - G � � •." L G .. © v `. .. „ J ^ n... J - N • _. n n - G O'O m = ,,,� G n �, S G O 9 ° '< m. `< C v ;n y - n -i• O Z a. =1 m -` O p. p n`c n v CJ S G n n -• 7 •-, ^ 7 • -.N ^77 =en= T p T- • n - -J O n n ' n S ^ m G = < 7 7 7 _ n :r n n C- - n n n u• . m v v • . 7 m j G- - T 7 n •C' ` n. O • n ', n = 7 7 v C n d ,-, n 7. n • c_': <n G = n G n c c, a w - r, L S v = .V. � <' G '� v 7 '. n w+ = n n CD _S n C = _ O _.-7, n.., ^ -, L- � n 3 r 5 c ,. - -' --, m ^ : n n n7- ,t,-n = no O vni - c< W rt � G -- < p -.n ^ 0. A --, v n v� m o c 7 S n C- ^ - LA • C `< C' n - C• <, r1 J = 7 y n ,,, Z S n T c.= 7 C C v m S ' - .C. O-7 = 7 __ 70 _ n • '^ ^ c - - c J C., < - c < - O G = nn �-?. 7 - v LnC - n G7S m-n oo A w -. S a v_., =7 2 c 9 = _ S AA O G n _ v. - n v - ^ in O • , 7a a O� � � 77 v - o ="F 0 n m 7o p n v G G ' n m n• n n < ^' S7 n n = C = _ c_ ,J G, •" -n v �-n n' n L =7O 7 n - _- a 7 m = = G J `< m n m 7 v 0 ., c, C 7: n _ . 9 = _ ,o, = n n C = _ < 7 n S - _ n m G < n n S S .- T - -. '-,r9 7, - 1' n n m = — n s n = n �. n L _ `; Gn = .: n J m c = n - -, n J n _ �-c J _ - n. R - n r = � n 7 L 7 • m n ;.+ ^ n — De' - ti n r; °, L n :. n n O n, � ,n^ — = n L � C. 7- 7 —r 7 n n O S g 7 � G n y r? c = r. ,- •:: n. n - ' G -, 4 L n• _ ' ••• n .< j• G n '^ V r--, y = - :o ? .I.sc nn. - S ?'?_. G' __ m = m = - ❑_ n % 6 - n L ... n L G _. _. Q47: r n _ G = ,- _ .. C n " n n n = = En _ n• m 70- p7 r .n, . n O ,Sv ,. n C v `< . Gn rn n v r. v S _ S -ni G. - J CG -'T m = � = G. 7 a ; nU77G w �• m .r^-.. = nGy � G ' m � W = -- rn•- =- n� � - = n nI. L� _ O ` v -� C n c - `n, n r =- m n n O' n n n ? = G L ^ G ^, ri . n c z - = a = -. ,< G s. S v G _ n n ^.m,7 1 7 - .-<', 'n='.7 rn - n n r o n = n - � - ^ -`< - r = s = 7 G .< ._ no o y - = n C S :. G L`- r,• nn -.- _ - v = - - :7,1 ^ - _ _ _ C _ n .. - _• :s m n _ ▪ 7 _ L? __ n n _. - 7_ _ _ 7. _ n -7 _ n n a. mX'-n,„'iJ�ld n _ _ J_ - T r n -J _ri' ,- ,-7SD a ' - - _ ^ S ^ =▪, � n S• -, LG 7 (, ^�. ,n^ v - n n _ m - n - _ — — n -. _ - - • L _ _ - T 5 - - n m S = G G C n J .n -J C - n G. c = 7 ,n n' ,., _ _ n 7 7 n = = n - �n n = 7 -, 7 70 .- - y n S = 7 - - - _ - _ _ = n - S ?7° _. n n J .. n C. - r,• n - C h, 7 _ - ^ z J _ 7 - - Al- _ -3 G ^ n n - O f r - .- , , r• _ _-- o - .- =m r, , "- - .- - n v v, 7- C- Y7o n - STATE OF COLD OO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH soF coteq� 4210 East 11th Avenue Telefax: 13031322-9076(Main Building/Denver) Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 r.‘,A ) Phone (303) 320-8333 13031320-1629(Ptarmigan Place/Denver) �*<"c..w�'♦i 1303)248-7198(Grand Junction Regional Office) �876�,b June 1, 1990 _ DGov Romer E 71\1)7 - Governor Thomas M. Vernon, M.D. Douglas and Joyce Fred JUN 6 1990 Executive Director 40505 WCR #27 Ault, Colorado 80610 Ylaid Co. Plamin&Ml th* Re: Proposed North Weld County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mr. Fred: I appreciated your letter of May 8, 1990 and the concerns you expressed about the proposed landfill. The concerns and questions of the citizens who live near proposed solid waste disposal sites are considered as a part of our decision making process. I feel, however, that it is important to clarify the roles of the Colorado Department of Health and County in the review and permitting of such facilities. The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Department is responsible for the review of solid waste disposal facility proposals to make sure that they meet minimum technical design criteria. The division's review is authorized under the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act" and is based on the criteria contained in the "Regulations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities". The County is responsible for the land-use and zoning decisions concerning such proposals. Comments concerning these types of issues are referred back to the County whenever they are received as a part of a letter sent to this Department. Now I would like to address your specific comments. As to your comments pertaining to high winds problems, the reviewing staff agreed with the need for specific controls. All solid waste disposal facilities in our state, are required to cease operations during periods of high wind warning. "Periods of high wind warning" are defined as periods when the National Weather Service expects sustained winds of forty miles per hour (40 MPH) or greater, or gusts of fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) or greater for one hour or longer. As additional protection against high wind and blowing debris the review comments forwarded to the county commission contained the following recommendations. The operator is intended to implement measures to control blowing litter at the site as necessary including all of the following: (1) a. At the end of each day following refuse placement and compaction, an application of six (6) inches of soil as daily cover is required. This cover will be placed on refuse as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. b. The size of the working face (exposed trash) is to be limited during windy periods. c. Permanent and movable site fencing is required to collect wind blown debris and prevent it from leaving the working face or property. d. Litter pick up activities are required . S 4�9 + . Douglas & Joyce Fred June 1, 1990 Page 2 (2) Operational inspections of the entire facility will be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the landfill operation. The inspections will be made by an independent contractor experienced with landfill operations. The inspections will be made to ensure that the landfill operations is progressing accordance with all aspects of the approved landfill plan. Inspection reports will be prepared and submitted to both Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH). Also wind velocity measuring equipment will be maintained at the facility. We have found that in Colorado's dry climate a landfill sited away from any low lands possess very little change of movement of material within the facility. The design incorporates safeguards to connect unforseen events. Your concerns about the location of the facility with respect to the public highway should be directed to the county as a land-use issue. The public hearing on the facility's permit for land-use by special review is scheduled for June 5, 1990, at the Weld County Commissioners' Office. It should be noted that the county can be more restrictive than the state and can imposed additional operational requirements if they choose. These additional requirements or conditions become part of the permit issued for the facility. In summary, the Division believes that if the facility is operated as outlined in the "Engineering Design and Operation Report" and our additional recommendations to the commissioners, this landfill can be constructed and operated in a safe manner and protect the health and safety of the community. I have enclosed a copy of 30-20-104 of the state statue for your information. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at (303) 331-4806. Sincerely, ��al Poul E. Poulsen Engineer Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division PEP/ht/6944K cc: R. Allison, Weld County Department of Planning W. Potter, Weld County Health Department G. Brantner, Weld County Board of Commissioners 9C C564 c.N U 'J 'Y 7 U L r C R U ^ v. cy-- - � J - e = • C _ O q O �E a 174 , W G -.. C u '^ u - u_ 7. G L v, - 7_4 = u_ _ ry U_ N ' L E - 7 u 7 O G a V. C Cl .J L_ _ _ u E - = c a'. .7.. _TW _ - R a7 L J .... c.-. u ` _ U - - v N _ .- R C -_ .L 17 J � U - 3 r. 5 ... - � - - L - _ v y,- ,, V G v . R u _ - _ - 0 - - - U CI U 7 U - e - _ - _ - - R 7 v. W L - v - ce � L - G L .' G. _ - G v L - K' - u r. 0 a u .- v. -. - G ,- - r u - ^^ C - - u _ .. - S U W � u �L R - C co C - T N - _ R 7 .. •V: U 'v. .= r — ^ C — N Un aE 'u c � uv E � = t � � � u � c C - 7 U - Z. 7 7 ' U - v E ` - e e c - L Ek. v • � ❑ r u .S R E c ^ � L. C L G u ` r o U L O j v u - u - - :- L u L 7 G - C U U 7 r-i - � -- = - r F - 7 - 47 i U U C R u ... L J L J L _ 4. •' 7 T S V - G N. 17 00 G .. J � � 7 A - � � -L c - = u U ... .. E u- N. C > c �- N U J U L .N - .� T r'•. - O u n L' C J ' u W 7 0 7 G E L J 7 � � u - .0 .- I- - C � 'C u .o+ E s=� W cr _ - .n=. O u C >, " U 5 i- - .� - E R n U _ - cD O - G `C ,-0 � O R C U . .,y ^ J ❑ i� 0 __ � _ ^ E -- V 2 .�., 'r G 7 py R rU O- 'D r '^ -E. u - - V 17 ` 7 •v u L L v E r u u `� 7 r >. R a s u >, n L v c u - E uL RO4 - '� CCL CL �' VUN .= GW . T LRU L � t _ 7D c� � 7A .. � - u 7 1 .'. U ci �- L V r •u �.n E 4.7 - G v u = C : i E`-' u G ` t V L• N • u U G u 7 C N - U u C - .N-, L r _ O '�. ct 7 G �J r 5 v"`�G c Tn .. W ` _ $... g >, L - r 7 el t•- N . U - - � v: J ^ W .^ � u E u �Y 67 - C -� -, _ U -- C - u c . L u a r .. u y ._ R L f5}„ > C C O C C O u U r. .o. =' �_ c U ,c - .. v is 7 - G U vL G '_ C7 - - C v G . _ U G 170- 7 _ V �. � %, U • 3 C _ 170` C Oc Uu - GL ._ �> UU = w UL77 ` Uuvmvu " ';cri c _ .v uCv: .- C ' C co r2a L_ G7 u = W m7 of n ` '-^ u7 'n G = uRn 7CrL rr- E ..m ,2 °eC .c4 - gym r U �-' L M C C `., U U 7 G L U c _C -J N ^-v L � _R v > V O • C"u L V- � •L U "J •tU U cn C V u 7 C u ._ T — :D a 7 y E ` 7 — y R G G o c u�>,L ,� u 7 � 7 .E C wj - co U._ O 7 z u v C •v, O u C ^ J U ,lL G _ •- R R .' a— Li. W U 7 6. c — U U E R R O .v: C N C ..= U J R n r\ C. O C c [ 6d W .7 4- U r O ". C - O u L 'Jr.) "ut v R a O u u ^J •- v^ .1 c` V v C 70700 ? u " u E in u p R G u 0 u ` E J.4 G U .- = G CO 5 G yr E. T. .v.tea •rn � r" e0 u �n eL OPEelt .j U L U GG U U.N C C O C "' CO u G - _v"0C.U. v " b o y C ^ •— c.) c —, S i� OU !— y vui ... ° .—_. x L•r .v u_ L U R C- u v u• U - E ,,, S .' 'O E. G o-0 u O v y r 4. el ._ _ .• - T >10 R C .. U > N 7 U _ .6 • R U U C • R c E 7 .- - G •• U J R v' R C - T _E ,7010 - u0 v u U u :_ G. e 0 U .ri - u c � G � en E L ❑ - '7 .. o e " .` en J -, u v O, < e4 e' U _ L —.. U U ve C -. — 17 U u U 7 ^ R L � h �' c c"_ L C. F u U V V. u. .,� L ❑ L v G — n T m � v u n G e U. R .❑ O W Om 7 U .-, u L R G C LL R � .= m ^ �'.°J'G 0.'5 R R R G • co C L 'C G ^ u O = rO W W - T 1 p U 7 U . R U u n N -= 00 - V G O J L ^ ;...H- G _Lk) Ofl L_ q - ` G C L 7 C .� O C J n ` � •- . v, ^ _ e N N n •r U U in G U - R nI1 /1 v ci` 7,• ` _ u U V. .0 GD U T U I` L J N e C G `• C u7ir. .- WU C .n - ` 410 c .= ` LLB GL .v .o. T L._ ` ... .. O 7 u a Cr a J v, � � • - W -� � � � LW 17 17 .7 0 _ N C u ,Y — C ,N . G e ms - ....C.c.' 2- U t• 7 ^. 7 u ..--c-7 C C7 c '> . O U -.. N - u - - '^ .v `• G N L C 7 C-- v, u •' E 4 G u U ❑ O e0 u R i v 7 e 7 v. U ` - R G E um 04 r- ti el."' W `" • - ` c o - u E ' G - G ^ 9- Fe `V '- R U • r u u y L u :- C ^ u ea G L"� u .. CG r E -- 'u+ J _ J _ up. c C ` O L - G _ u _ r n . _ u G7 C _ u R 7 v. .'v. O C r u LL - - ,. G - N - u u =� - - V. u G •- L u v:ul � W _ •i c.., u V, J u - r. w vi L u L- ` R �` G` tr. t"n' • c •-' _ � ' E-.^- C O '- ••-• D G '^' u • C U C 7 R .. .. C G cc ,., _ co u L 7 U C _ C a - _G R P u ? L v - v. G >` _ N L .J U e - c.• 7 _ _ - .-, G 0 G^ R u .•-• .. V rV— — ^ u —. V C u v J � `` C P R 7 = r. ! ▪ C•CC LY � � j 'u UU..- Cr. 3 ' - 7 '� - W _ � - 17 R � - - - 0. fr 7 ▪ W - - r! G - U u u C - - - - N ! O G - r._ - _ _ N •• C C n n q L T p O O 7 E. ` - ✓. C, u .= L u ,e a > - 7 •� r. - G G .O u C C n - - G � C L u as•C r` c _ � � N 'a � C r . U -v a 7 •- - = u U .o. — W R 7 7 U .. v, u w n _ ` _ V rG 0U L ✓. N % Q .— tea[ J G '= L >`� — R Ecu UG - .- - , rat) v' 7 ._. v N ` W n U �. .. T C N C •- - LL _+ c. R 7 v:. v. L L- a - . r J • ` L U O G. G C ,- - 0, 'a O W C - T n u O C. r ON v.,., u R C•;-_, cu � L u r' N U L W G U u ' r. C CGW RG W = ✓r .. m UG L r. OT RLL7C ._ R 5 ' Cv R O U T7 O E, c. u Q a - C ,G ` O U u " 0 �.' u •u E v - L. u C r - u = • CJ " V co C `7 u G- u U R v_ .E •- 7 w G� V) v. `c u= U W c4 C7 -' -= _ .. - C ^ - R C c C R T -1=2 w u N 4. 6.' ¢ _ W C. _ C w le= Cr •C v. N ` ` ^_ h - u - _ �' _ u C - - U E R 7 W U U -�- v. G _7 u G =_ v c..) p h._ 7 y u -• ,l 'V ,_ ` .. ,G C � v m Du _ - G U ` v -NU,, V U G v- R ✓ _W Gcu . u ••,.^, a = •- — , 1. t U � - = U U LU U 1747 - uC rn O, C.: y 'E Le.'" U 0 _ r E U J u .- r.: rJ � ..i _ C 0- u en - R L - ^ _ p 00` C C ,o 00 _ • _ .P - J ' _ .• i R � -5 r ` Y U Y ^'C E ,rj W j 'P C u L V GL r . J '- N � U _C r" . G7 a L - r cLC [J. u = v� L •••••y Y Z tu.. ` _ ,lam, ❑ v. U v u u y a_ v E E "•• V G• __ - W _ - _ cz CV R _ N - CZ VG 7 _ _ r- e =r u v ._ W E. � V. ,. - U V _ r+ r w a E. E, G - R r - •m .- C L u u . W u u` �_ - - u G n v u _ u — .. U V. m T G 7_ �_ i v G •C W E L D i u rL7 L -• ty — � W J r. ri L L V J •• ra L l.v 7 U .- .. V t UU J � ^ J � -_ ^�! .. L y - - _ _ .. _. - ..ri i - _ - = C C V = Ar.� = - C r- u R U " V. U -u. - W R U7. ' r. '" - rf. N r- -7, ,E U u_ J O Bret 6: -C • 'dr C ry T v '- u .•" _ - - c N U - U T G L, L C C -C' ... V-. C - � T U R - -'. - U N - ❑ _' -. C ; L C u - _ - V - OD W C.4 U .. V_, N T7 C C -- � •-- U C - U � DG =t G ! - t' - ❑ C u t. u r _ a cc Lc. U V - -- .- U L _ G _ u,� Z . C - L- ..' _eC _ G = - u_ C - u - L = U C. 7 a. _ V _ '7, _ _ - J U _ V _ _ _ - _ - L V 0 W _ C ' U _ _ _ _ - - f ry - - C _ 7 - - - _ '! _ - _ _ ../. _ _ _ -_ � - .. __ _ .. - _ / _ _ S , _ ',`y /sib o E EIS+ 14v1-14, C� M 11Y 1 n 1��p ;:i4vDOU %di dr°-.Aa - 2 . 14,/__‘&,L ad-ci 0-.z, 4/2'7 ,� , CODS •ti in) crt_& . X4-4 _a,„,2 cart-1$ o-4,te& c 6 vico/ dew d-- °- - e- , - er_Ea_a _ �ag-- a � L drd.• • fee/ co a carn- O Rt 2 Box 124 Eaton, CO. 80615 1, lsso 410Y Colorado State Health Dept. Nq� 0.? 'ig 1% 4210 E. 11th Avenue 114O"19001, A T 99 Denver, CO. 80220 AST O1 otts To Whom It May Concern: I would like to protest the proposed landfill that is to be located at a site four miles west of Ault, Colorado. In the first place, why would anyone okay a landfill so near to a public highway? The location is in a very windy area and I can't see how it would be possible to prevent papers and debris from blowing onto the highway. Fences will not stop the blowing debris when the wind reaches 30- 40 mph as it often does. I live southeast of the proposed site and I'm sure if it is approved we will be subject to flying debris from the landfill. This is a nice country setting and would certainty be ruined by an unsightly landfill in the area. Highway 14 is a well traveled highway, used by a Zot of tourists and local people as well. In my opinion, the landfill should be located miles away from a main highway in an area that is not going to cause a safety and health hazard. Why not Locate the landfill farther north or east of Ault? There are plenty of locations that would not situate the landfill along a main highway in a populated area. Also the sanitary side of this is to be considered. The Landfill will attract flies and rats which spread disease. This is in an area where almost everyone owns cattle, horses, and household pets that would be subject to a health threat. Not to mention the human population. Please do not approve a landfill in this location. The landfill would be detrimental to the community. The health and safety of the citizens in our community certainly outweighs the need for a landfill in this location. Thank you for your consideration. .} O� Gloria Lister Concerned Citizen 9C C$6A1 ], Iii i( _ ._ I\II' MAR 0 4 1990 L I� L. ) May 3, 1990 Ak_ G 'JJT Colorado State Health Dept. Solid Waste Div. 4210 E llth Ave. Denver, Colorado 80220 I am writing concerning the proposed Weld County landfill on a site four miles west of Ault, CO on Highway 14. The land in question is on a high WINDY hill. The area is visible for many miles nom all directions. The proposed 220 foot high "mound" will look like a mountain. ! Highway 14 is a BUSY highway. It curves, and is on a hill at W.C. road 25. . .which would be the entry and exit to the fill. IT WOULD BE VERY HAZARDOUS. When a vehicle enters Highway 14 from WC Rd. 25 and turns east, it is impossible to see cars coming from the west. Even though one sees no on-coming traffic, and quickly makes a left turn .and accelerates to top speed, the cars coming from the west are immediately upon you. Trucks would create an even greater problem, due to the fact that they cannot accelerate quickly. If the landfill is allowed, something MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS HAZARDOUS TRAFFIC PROBLEM! ! ! This so-called "State-of-the-art" landfill has absolutely no plans at all to re-cycle. Some of the County and State regulations nbed to be revised. Respectfully, .=:,--- ,:-.3/ ' t,,—�, Lois W. Jones Box 313 Pierce CO 80650 2n-7S6.41 May 8, 1990 Colorado Department of Health D ATTN: Paul Paulsen 4210 E. 11th Avenue MAY 11 1998 Denver, CO 80220 -HAZARDOUS-m RE: North Weld County Sanitary Landfill AND WASTE MANAGEMENT Dear Paul: As a property owner and resident of 40505 WCR 1127, we are addressing the above referenced issue that is currently in the final stages of approval. The location that has been chosen, SW } of SEC 7, TWN 7 N, AGE 66 W, presents unaddressed problems for the surrounding landowners and residents, the community, and tourists/travelers that frequent Colorado HWY 14. The proposed location is situated on the top of a hill which constitutes a high wind area, thus dispersing unsafe & unsightly waste to all the landowners' & resident' s property, as well as dispersing waste into all the many surrounding irrigation ditches and in the "MOST VISUAL RESPECT" to Colorado HWY 14. Significant environmental problems consist of rodent & insect infestation which will produce disease carriers to the many farming residences in the area, affecting live- stock and other means of survival for these residences. Although, this landfill is not designed for hazardous waste, the evidence of any concealed hazaradous waste will most definitely affect the many nearby irrigation ditches that provide essential water supply. Furthermore, the rodent & waste odor will create an environmentally unsafe atmosphere to the community including tourists & travelers that frequent Colorado HWY 14. Upon receipt of a letter in October 1989 from the applicant, Brad Keirnes, we were informed that this facility will be so suitable that the appearance will not be recognized as a landfill. However, since the proposed location is already situated at the peak of a hill and the landfill protruding 175' to 200' at a 4 to 1 side slope (even in the early stages of use and with extensive landscaping) , it is highly unlikely this location will ever provide an "unseen & unrecognizable" landfill. This unsightly mountain-like protrusion of waste cannot be contained or properly managed by the six to ten foot fence that will surround the location. The land currently provides a beautiful and picturesque location of rolling hills in a farming community and is equipped with a beautiful crop of wheat. It seems so unnecessary to place a landfill on such a picturesque location, simply for the "convenience sake" of a proprietor or a corporation. There are other locations of land available that would provide the applicant with a sufficient, convenient landfill away from a major highway, and most importantly not destroy the magnificent beauty of the Rockies to the surrounding residents and tourists traveling Colorado HWY 14. Please consider all the above points given when processing the application of this location for approval of this business proposition. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 1-3( C561 eatrfft Dou las & Joyce red 40505 WCR 1127, Ault, CO 80610 D May 9 , 1990 MAY 14 1990 {I HAZARDOUS MATEMALS AND WASTEh1ANAGEMENT To the Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th AV Denver, CO. 80220 Re : Landfill West o£ Ault, Weld County, Colorado The Landfill (Dump) that is proposed west of Ault I feel is a very poor location. In the future it will be a problem with paper, trash, etc blowing onto Highway 14, along with the odor that will be in the air . Tourist and regular communters traveling between Fort Collins and Ault will be welcomed with this scene. That is not what we want to promote for our County and State. We have been promised that will not happen. In checking around the country -- why do all the other Landfills ( Dumps) have this problem. There is a possibility I might be in favor if the 'e' owner would want to build and live in a home south of the Landfill (Dump) . Water Supply and Storage Ditch Company have a lateral going through the south side of the section. I believe the Ditch would also be a recipient of the blowing paper and trash. I am sure our State and County Health Departments, Weld County Planning Commission and our County Commissioners would not OK the permit if they realize how it would hurt this area. I ask you to strongly consider NOT to approve this permit for the Landfill ( Dump) in this area. Thank You: Ray `Danielson 39509 WCR 31 Ault, CO. 80610 834 - 1303 9C C561 ‘....1_, P a' u O V ( C..L� — 0 a I ^I 30x3AY Nltl! 1 I I ranastaaanuasanassammuasr-� i i t i IS - _� L ION MOM _ J W -.1 ' u~MI ;':4 N WW Q 66 N » NF 30N3AV N30AVx y 1 S � 1 0 1- „..._ _/ S g 1 6 ' I ! 6 i ., a s II __ _ �� ' I I � ' ..... _ ��- / HIGH �� _ 1 /// lOx3nY OHO OH .-- / — A /._— � �1 !// — III I lirli ill 11 7 l ��._ of - cr L. Qc to ~— z 30xlAY 3I3Wi la � 1 -��' n I ----- 1 (��, YP N 30NIM z J3Ytl0 (rw�' „ �� U I O V 6_ • � —I3M13AY DOOM I°(� i N11 Leon Pr ' i MION3nV 101 NI• 30N3AY wan a . z 2 l'i;:i0.44:. i .5• ut LLOCOe Y " = z U le:i: 1:54 'K- II- — a � Jt=09 •la Ininenlannrstninitar"...........,.��nr....... .....�.�... Tj t -rim ° = i! k I 1 Si 91(356 a s I: ;₹ti :r 9 *1 May 12, 1990 kt L 1 c, 1990 €F Dear sirs, - ,, lEM As land owner residents of Weld County, we are writing this letter in protest of the proposed land fill which will be located three miles west of our property near Highway 14 and County iloaC 2`i. We feel that this is a totally inacloquato sit.^.. and will cause great harm to our property and its value. It will be an eye sore and nuisance to our neighborhood. We feel it will generate a great amount of traffic, noise, odor, and pollution. Surely there are more appropriate sites to locate this land fill! We chose to live in the country to be away from urban pollution and trash. It is unfair that one man with a profit motive should be allowed to ruin land values and the quality of country living. We could not in good conscience support any public official who would allow this land fill to be located here. We suggest that the County Commissioners who support this disaster locate it close to their homes and then tell us how they like it forty years from now! ! Sincerely, Isabelle and Herbert Schmidt Jon and Marsha Schmidt Herbert Schmidt, Jr. 9C 0561 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH i`o+ ° 4210 East 11th Avenue Telefaa: re�% Denver. Colorado 80220-3716 (303)322-9076 1Mam Building/Denver) Phone (303) 320-8333 13031320-16291Ptarmlgan Place/Denver) i*r�,n-md '3031 248-7198(Grand Junction Regional Otlice) •�876 Q fL y ROY Romer June 1, 1990 IJI,if y�//'' Governor Thomas M. Vernon, M.D. ,JUT 6 1990 Executive Director Paul Lind & Sons, Inc. 9672 WCRD #74 Windsor, Colorado 80550 bid CO. &taint tatiwissits Re: Proposed North Weld County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mr. Danielson: I appreciated your letter of May 6, 1990 and the concerns you expressed about the proposed landfill. The concerns and questions of the citizens who live near proposed solid waste disposal sites are considered as a part of our decision making process. I feel, however, that it is important to clarify the roles of the Colorado Department of Health and County in the review and permitting of such facilities. The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Department is responsible for the review of solid waste disposal facility proposals to make sure that they meet minimum technical design criteria. The division's review is authorized under the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act" and is based on the criteria contained in the "Regulations Pekaiaing to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities". The County is responsible for the land-use and zoning decisions concerning such proposals. Comments concerning these types of issues are referred back to the County whenever they are received as a part of a letter sent to this Department. Now I would like to address your specific comments. As to your comments pertaining to high winds problems, the reviewing staff agreed with the need for specific controls. All solid waste disposal facilities in our state`, are required to cease operations during periods of high wind warning. "Periods of high wind warning" are defined as periods when the National Weather Service expects sustained 'winds of forty miles per hour (40 MPH) or greater, or gusts of fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) or greater for one hour or longer. As additional protection against high wind and blowing debris the review comments forwarded to the county commission contained the following recommendations. The operator is intended to is plement measures to control blowing litter at the site as necessary including all of the following: (1) a. At the end of each day following refuse placement and compaction, an application of six (6) inches of soil as daily cover is required. This cover will be placed on refuse as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. b. The size of the working face (exposed trash) is to be limited during windy periods. c. Permanent and movable site fencing is required to collect wind blown debris and prevent it from leaving the working face or property. 9(.LS`t2M d. Litter pick up activities are required . Paul Lind & Sons, Inc. June 1 1990 Page 2 (2) Operational inspections of the entire facility will be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the landfill operation. The inspections will be made by an independent contractor experienced with landfill operations. The inspections will be made to ensure that the landfill operations is progressing accordance with all aspects of the approved landfill plan. Inspection reports will be prepared and submitted to both Weld County Department of Health (WCDH) and the Colorado Department of Health (CDH). Also wind velocity measuring equipment will be maintained at the facility. Your concern for health and safety is also well stated. Section 2.1.4 of the department's regulations require that facilities shall be operated in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions such as ordors, wind blown debris, insects and rodent by providing an adequate layer of insert material for daily cover. We believe that the requirements in the regulations and the recommendations shown above adequately address your concern. We reviewed the potential landfill impact on the location of your well. As you stated, your well is rechanged from surface run-off in to a shallow alluvial sand system. The topographic map indicates that run-off would be the south-east from the landfill and thus away from any recharge area effecting your well. The design of the landfill will control surface water run-on and run-off and at the same time contain water that falls within it. Your concerns about the location of the facility with respect to the public highway should be directed to the county as a land-use issue. The public hearing on the facility's permit for land-use by special review is scheduled for June 5, 1990, at the Weld County Commissioners' Office. It should be noted that the county can be more restrictive than the state and can imposed additional operational requirements if they choose. These additional requirements or conditions become part of the permit issued for the facility. In summary, the Division believes that if the facility is operated as outlined in the "Engineering Design and Operation Report" and our additional recommendations to the commissioners, this landfill can be constructed and operated in a safe manner and protect the health and safety of the community. I have enclosed a copy of 30-20-104 of the state statue for your information. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at (303) 331-4806. Sincerely, Priltt Pout E. Poulsen Engineer Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division PEP/ht/6944K cc: R. Allison, Weld County Department of Planning W. Potter, Weld County Health Department G. Brantner, Weld County Board of Commissioners ofc56 r u u dr ^ —• ' — v r u 57 _ = C — Cl cd� ..... = _ -— - Cl U_ O , •—. — .. F v. ^ a 'O � G C U 'n = u ❑ u L G,• G • v G " = u L u C _ G ` AV a ._ Y. - ` L U c — v ` � L � _ LC C c„, c; LL 'r p — ,90• m 'V ' c U .. — � V L U u .U 7 V • r, j = c v — C r L Y ✓ .v rGc _ 'Yj OL .•-• L ''� L� _ ULLLL •_ .'�r� C cu — Cs u S L J v� .. w= u = ^ u — ,_ • T ✓ `� u u - V ≥..F u T Y � G •- .0 + ~ - tt. - j Y - = U ±-. C - J U .. a '_ L r c o T .. v u• ^ r .- , ± cc _E a a u 1— c -Le G G G u u t— U ^i _ y — V U L . O _ ^ - - . — •-• - C - v �Cl ` u c r V G y u ^ U _ L .". _ G Z; C V >.�_ E u .v.' c > � L L u'm•- L u u r U = .� a _ r. u-L v c u Ar G U U �_ -cc C G ^J ^J V > V Ly y r C '— _ e_4 - _ ` I.. _ G O " u, .. ^ - u . :r L _v + _ y ....., ..- 7 •` 7 G 7.1 C u v T ' O4 Cr. U 6. Y u •,• - - - U _ V = G E u '. . •- U = - E - r U u N U O ^ - _ L C _ £ =�a P . 7 � ^. -s. ` v u L. v4 ^ v ^ '- .. GL y � •O L._ c >. G R _ - " fn •v v - '. c - ro ,- ^ ` v 0 1 . V :! wC ct. L U c V_ 40-... = C G G G L .V.. 'GP '�' = C '� .V c�, U G G ... c ^ L _ .. _ u - u �• � _ O _ m c u �. u '- .- ,_, • to. _ v y L L L - E " v, • u r T' 7 .J _ ^ v - U •^ ^ L = u _ - _ _ G O .J °• s > _ w u 5.i. r TL LOUT'- v . U � _ v. u � ` cru rU .. n- - 11 c._=' � - u � - O v u u .� r L L .O U .. U p c _ Y C - ? X N °L.) m C. .^ 't . O C = u C. C v U ., v u C. = N CrJ C ^ O u u ^ CO: mr - v. _ry ': L C. O " >•at. � q � G on= 2 . C .7 ❑ v L ^ � ^ Gc.4.7 � ^ - o" YS •rEV • mN G El Cx _ n r J u � GL .G ...Jr. V v Y' U G� � ^ V � ,_n o4 m u .j L ry E'- r`. U G4 in = u]O `: c c a..- L E.7 u 7 ` v ^J' m •. ` ,^ '- u V. J.; O _ u ' - .. •O E C G r E -.. ,, E c i L.N _.V' r r C. C ,n r G G ` U 'J .. L U ^ C J N - � U4 0. ,n .> Cr .. m .^ u +, •u V C U u 24 .. � u 73 >. ^ IL C MI ti L'G v -M. O - 1. -O . . L U C G C L• C'0 m >.L v .0 r i 'O .C [ a8 R U... O C � C U in C ,n G u C u u u Y L w �. _ - .c 66 '_ u •O c c _ v U E r r • G Y c t = v_ u ai i. ._ r es y o = c c " `G u a `o w i r•, O ,`,t C � O CJ a V '^ r G G u • u ^O •• ..^, al r u . `u, C v u ? v U r. O ,_ c o v u E c_ > L u C C 2 6 G v a = a- ` u, u r r u _ 'C ry ' u ers C L O u .. C C O ^ G O O u L. v. -J c v - '" c L- ' u' p n ,^ J •r0 •-- C C... O_ RE e '" 'fl• uL .- =.. wt.) u Y '^ ._ 2 '^ O LCG >_ F � u___ vim. u zc z >. > S i0 OV I-' v ,Vi, ._' G C,a z i.:2, ` •y J c. ur Luv Vu ` at^ y % r r u 7=C'‘c.0>. O '_ �• v `-. r .. o � C .- U Cv. ^ T ,n >. UrtC Gr _ U + " G. ia c'G c . N - J J .` - _ N 1.. r U - .. .., ` r ... C. 2 -0 U • v 'n C. - cs• T .^•, . c..., m'e, ^ O u V ' V Y. p t C U G `� _c .^ �•- 0 a = = �, L F .= .n c = O ^ u u u = r _ 7 y 7 °y _ v C, en Lau _ V = V T < � - - 0 •- r L v `� Y' G T v ... F u = -, - - r. = G r C. v y r .- O .. � G C •D V .�V u L r. =rz c. GL a 6- .E v, = .. ...'II c c c0 CL _— ..)‘tr c r T O _ 7 — ... Co '-u" u O .r u` u - _ u r '� '-' v ...fa, u t: u C ` u v = . m T - - ^'v,v > -c -' 7 m u u '- ^ O -r ✓ v L —= =.- � OV U G - ^ J N - � - v _ v •C U E r L L u_ Lam .'^ ur. T .. L.T .V. v -• U c4 'P G v u •`.i.' L : C J - - .`(-' 7 O � G� E . C 7 L c P. _ O u v N r .^-. U • ry h v R O G w O' C ` Lt t� ,n U U ,n " C 'r O U ^ c C CL V M v C " C M oD _ v C 7 _ _ r r _ E c L ` '^ = u r. U ` -_ r. a E u r _w �: v C. _ .- c O _ - u E G : c': - 0 r _ _u ..L U u u O C N u 7 .' =..-1. u .. c4 q E = u = .= U - ` ^ - . C G L ,- 5 _ u U �` u L 7 l - O' Y C Y. . v. C C U r a- ▪ u• V - = U C •G v .: O U C .Y U L C G V U ' V •-y L V Y -. U C r + ,n v, ' u C.= U c -` G.- •- r ,u Lc. c u u '- . __ �^-• C j - .. ^ v r _ L r u G O G Y l- c _. - O = ..� cc J u c - _ ` G _ L c G _ _ L Y G Y. O G Cl m X _ - v -0. U � '? .. L � ' v C __ _ _.7 r r. _ r. .- _ ^ U m C u 7. O - .c C u ri _ � 5 U G U v �r :J v r C .: — O r. 7- G`ol0.— Lv = uuu — — r riL ✓ Y — _ v Ju C. G . C — C .. ..= rL � L T O O 7 _E - c- ¢ 2 O v .E .. v � T > _ _ .' _ Y 7 c E C a .C u C - r. C v ^ C G - L a= r .^ ['. ' G T ^. u - ^.vim = _ `•- G u a.; uu � ^ _ _ v. O r000_ U Or ._ _ 'n Ui =z u = E _ .j G _ ';� <. CC_ .C Lr '. • r. V G u w. v Y ` �. 'v. U r. .. �c .C ! . C > U � L O G C u • L Le; is C a i n ON r a G u + •u r. Le, C. u . L C u u r G D` .— r. v, r. C •_ r. G� rG .� � .^ .n .. v .. a+ rjG L r'. a � rLr7 C —• � c '..L _ , C a v c- O •u a L° ' C •G � 0 U - u .- O ` u u C Y �•� u C f E u C ,, EV O r O U 7 U u G G C _ G. to r. � .� u ,^ - L G ' ... - C u ^ r O .` O C '-"E G r o v ._'v. � v L 7 , - u G v.'v. ,Y ^ C V' U O C-' �_ F- . - U 'v. 3- T r-a•.C v r O = O .> 'u G r = � u>. - �� ` V N u m O r. _ v - G ` u v U C G "J v u u - — O 6- r v. J w. '. - � G U � " = r U Y v to ^ v .. �• U •... C G . w. O ` ^ u u U o r r v '— C. C u ep ..V s -- ` :: ' c _ ;. - U :— u U L u U OIIc U E ,�;0` o _ v. V u C. U ` C — N oC ...c c C 01 u r. .� L — l v G ' oL— .^_- ^ .o.rL 'E r _, G Ta,c G u ❑ _ .oN .$= - .v. � ur u G— �:= _ . .v - u u L� r LI ' r. `et cf..� .= E Y. . r i $ _` ,_ C "r G _ 1 v u u - ^b _ — L 5 •C � r e .. _ u G •= ,.. c � v. G = u v u, r r o .7C - 7:v r U _ r � _ E u u C oc u ` - E - � u G ^ u a v U C r r .o. .. .L.,:'_ �, v u r _ = E U �_ E L u X C - = > u G • G L - V. C E •_ - - •• - C. ; O� c r. _ c J G L v_ v - t� a U u u .. r �. C u �.• ,, 5 C47 x m ^, r _ � `_ ✓ r c z u_ I ._ 7 Uc. _ V _ _>• CU = u _ ` r c. c = yr .. O u ^ v u .— _ — — = _ c i c _ .. x � — u 7— C C.C. �' ur. U- a ' — u .+. v u .J. — — G ^. � _ _ c r _ . u ._ C —: O U L` L O' - p- .n, L v ^. = U r c., u __ T e V u .. Cm v — 7 = _^ ` — eu4�. u C. 0 a. v. r. T� C C 5 — — U i C _ J 5. L i C .u. C u ` .. oL — v v _ L _. � — U.0 Z . C x u < _ O — C . — U — _ _ — c_ _ u — _ 7 _ V — _ — V U _ _ _ 5 — _ _ _ _ J _ N_ J J — ` u — •_ c G Hello