The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About920638.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN AMENDED DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SANITARY LANDFILL PERMITTED UNDER SUP #400 - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 15th day of July, 1992, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , P.O. Box 320, Erie, Colorado 80516, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400 on the following described real estate, to-wit: Part of the WI NE' and El NW*, Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Scott Schreiber, Regional Landfill Development Manager, and Fred Otis, attorney, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Special Review Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the Environmental Quality and Natural Resource Section of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Quality and Natural Resource Goals provide that solid waste facilities shall be planned, located, designed and operated so that they are compatible with surrounding land uses in terms of general use, scale, height, traffic, dust, noise, and visual pollution. This site is located adjacent to two reclaimed landfills and is located approximately .25 miles west of two undeveloped, approved landfills -- one in the Town of Erie, and one in the unincorporated area of the County. (� 920638 PL.c �c c-r' I L )L,f f �, n i r i. r, `;� SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 2 b. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zone District and is provided for as -a Use by Special Review. c. The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include two reclaimed landfills, two proposed landfills, agricultural production, and oil and gas production. d. The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone district and with future development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County. e. The site is located in the Geologic Hazard Overlay District. Special Review Permit Development Standards will censure compliance with the overlay district requirements. f. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. g. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld Oounty, Colorado, that the application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400 on the hereinabove described parcel 'of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Amended Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. Nothing in this paragraph shall -prohibit the applicant from continuing operations under the terms and conditions of the existing SUP #400 until such Amended Special Review plat is recorded. 3. Within six months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall submit: 920638 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO), INC. PAGE 3 a. A performance agreement guaranteeing proper closure and post- closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill. The agreement shall outline the costs associated with closure and post- closure monitoring and shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas) . The Board of County Commissioners shall review and approve the form of _collateral and security tendered and -accepted for the closure and post closure -monitoring. The amount accepted shall include sufficient funds for_orrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas) . The approved method of financial guartantee shall be-automatically adjusted every two years for the life of the post-closure care of the facility. The approved method of financial guarantee shall be adjusted based upon the Consumer Price Index Percent change by year statement. In the event that the State of Colorado or Federal Government require the applicant to post a financial mechanism to guarantee proper closure and post-closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill, other than those required hereunder, any duplicate or redundant provision of the performance agreement required hereunder shall be deemed satisfied and the performance agreement modified appropriately. b. A proposed off—site road maintenance and improvements agreement. The -agreement shall identify the type, costs, and timing of all off-site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall identify -who pays and performs the off site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall be supported by a traffic analysis, obtained by the applicant, which estimates the traffic impacts of the proposed use on Weld County roads. The Board of County Commissioners shall review and approve the form of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the off-site road maintenance and improvements agreement. c. Evidence that the -Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District has accepted and approved a detailed reclamation -plan, prepared by the applicant. d. An amendment to the application -specifying the testing method and frequency of non-destructive seam testing. The applicants shall also submit evidence that the testing method and frequency have been approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the State of -Colorado, Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. 92063B SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 4 e. Evidence that a plan for controlling fugitive dust has been approved by Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. f. An access -control plan to ensure appropriate wastes are being allowed at the facility. The access control plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the State of Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. g. Evidence that any required air emissions permit has been obtained from the Ai-r Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 4. The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and -the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be kept apprised of fault location conditions discovered during excavation. Permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring may be required. 5. Within four working days of discovery of perched water conditions during excavation activities, the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be notified. Contingency plans may be -required to be developed by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. 6. Prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell, a certification report shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County -Environmental Protection Services Division. The report shall provide written evidence -that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance -with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 7. The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, and it shall describe the actions that will: a. Update and _revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan. b. Take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions. c. Take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. 920638 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 5 This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan shall be completed and submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by the Colorado Department of Health and/or the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be accomplished within mutually agreed upon time frames. Laidlaw South may continue -to operate in accordance with the approved revised Design and Operations Plan for a period of fourteen months following receipt of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction, excavation and operations of the newly designed areas will not create a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulation may exist. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of July, A.D. , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: Li/ Ail& WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board —— George Kenne , Chairman BY: EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (AYE) Deputy Clerk to the d Constance L. Harbert, Pro l'em APPROVED AS TO RM: /.�� C. W. Kirby EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (AYE) County Attorney GordLJ'7 Lacy bOd W. 920638 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. USA #972 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit is for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400, allowed to operate from 5:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. per day, seven days a week, except in certain emergency situations as approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. Construction equipment may operate until 11:00 p.m. until December 1, 1992. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the application materials on file with Weld County, and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. The applicant and/or operator shall be responsible for constructing and operating in compliance with minimum standards pertaining to the Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and applicable Federal Laws. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Only non-hazardous and non-radioactive household, industrial, and commercial solid waste, approved by the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be accepted. No liquid waste of any nature, as defined by the State of Colorado or Environmental Protection Agency, shall be accepted. 4. A manager, knowledgeable in operating a solid waste disposal site and facility, shall be on the site at all times the facility is operating. An up-to-date list of all managers shall be provided to Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 5. The maximum size of the working face of the disposal site shall not exceed 150 feet in width and 14 feet in vertical depth at any time. 6. All waste received at the facility shall be inspected to ensure appropriate wastes are being disposed of at the facility. The access control plan, approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be maintained. 7. There shall be a single point of ingress and egress to the facility. The approved off-site maintenance and improvements agreement shall identify the haul route. Weld County Road 7 shall not be used as a haul route. The main haul route shall be from State Highway 7 along Weld County Road 5. The secondary haul route shall be from Weld County Road 8 -along Weld County Road 5. 8. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and groundwater contamination. The facility operator shall implement the groundwater monitoring plan approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. The analytical method and statistical evaluation of groundwater monitoring data shall comply with Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the Solid and 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 2 Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. Carbonate and cation-anion balance shall be included as part of the groundwater monitoring program. The applicant shall also analyze leachate for the following parameters: total organic halides, biochemical oxygen demand total petroleum hydrocarbons, total phenols, pH, and specific conductivity. These are a minimum. The operator may choose to do a more detailed analysis. 9. Any changes or updates to the groundwater monitoring plan or specific groundwater monitoring plan shall be made by the facility operator when requested in writing by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division or Colorado Department of Health. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review. 10. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be conducted in a manner that controls blowing debris. The working face will be closed to disposal when high wind warning conditions exist as defined in Section 1.2 of the Colorado Department of Health's Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. The following operation measures shall be employed to control blowing or illegally dumped debris: a. Any debris found outside the working face shall be picked up within 24 hours. b. The following shall be patrolled daily by facility staff to pick up all debris and return it to the working face: i. The fence along the perimeter of the Special Review Permit area; ii. Weld County Road 5 between State Highway 7 and Weld County -toad 8; iii. Weld County Road 6 between Weld County Roads 5 and 7; iv. State Highway 7 between Weld County Roads 5 and 7. c. The manager of the facility shall respond to requests for picking up debris within 24 hours of notification by Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division personnel. d. A minimum 6-inch solid cover or other cover alternative approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be applied daily to control the 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LAIDLAW WASTE SYST-EMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 3 size of the working face. Cover shall be placed on debris as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. e. The working face shall be enclosed on the downwind side(s) with a minimum 12 foot litter screen while accepting waste. An 8-foot litter and access-control fence shall be maintained around the Special Review Permit area. f. During windy periods, which have not reached the threshold to be defined as high wind warning conditions, the size of the working face shall be reduced to a size that eliminates debris escaping the screen. g. The size of the working face shall be -reduced to 100 feet in width while accepting waste after dark. 11. Colorado Department of Health Regulations pertaining to Solid -Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, Section 2.2.7. state: "Disposal sites and facilities that accept putrescible wastes that may attract birds, and which occur within 10,000 feet (3048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet, or within 5,000 feet (1523 meters) of any airport runway used by piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft." The facility must be operated in compliance with the approved bird hazard study and mitigation plan. 12. The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odor. Odors 4etected off-site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution threshold, -as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 13. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control fugitive -dust at all -times. The facility operator shall implement the plan for controlling fugitive dust, as approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. Any changes or updates to the plan for controlling fugitive dust shall be made by the facility operator when required in writing by representatives of Weld County. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review according to Development Standard #34. 14. The Special Review Permit site and facility shall be operated in compliance with any required Air Emissions Permit approved by the Air Pollution -Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 15. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB(A), as measured according to Section 25-12-102, C.R.S. 16. Adequate toilet facilities, served by an individual sewage disposal system, are required for the facility. The facilities shall be installed in accordance with the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal and Building Code Regulations. 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LAIDLAW WASTE SYST-EMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 4 17. The owner and/or facility operator shall _comply with the off—site road improvements and -maintenance agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 18. The owner and/or facility operator shall maintain an adequate water supply for the disposal site facility. The source of -rater for construction, operation, drinking, and sanitary facilities shall be approved by representatives of Weld County Environmental Protection - rvices Division and the Division of Water -Resources. 19. The proposed facility shall be operated incompliance with the applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. 20. The disposal site facility shall be operated in compliance - with the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Plans for any additional buildings to be constructed on the site shall be submitted to the Tire District -prior to beginning construction. 21. All stockpile overburden, soil, and associated materials shall be managed to prevent nuisance conditions. The facility operator shall comply with the reclamation -plan approved by the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District. 22. The facility shall continue to be subject to the terms of -Weld County Ordinance No. 164 as it exists or as it may from time to time be amended. 23. The owner or operator shall be responsible for maintaining the approved screening and landscaping plan. 24. Two metal signs shall be posted at the customer entrance. The first sign shall state: "ALL UNCOVERED-LOADS SHALL BE CHARGED TWICE THE NORMAL_FEE". The second sign shall state: "ABSOLUTELY NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, SEPTIC, OR LIQUID SLUDGE ACCEPTED." 25. The facility operator shall keep the following -records at the facility to be available for County and Mate review at any reasonable time: a. Quarterly operations inspection reports, completed by the Weld County Environmental -Protection Services Division. b. Results of -wind, methane, and water quality monitoring. c. _Soil liner certification report. d. Any special waste accepted at the facility. 26. The solid waste disposal site and facility plan and monitoring programs are subject to revisions pending the receipt of pertinent data and/or changing site -conditions. All requests for revision shall be submitted in 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO), INC. PAGE 5 writing to the Department of Planning Services for review in accordance with Development Standard #34. 27. Lighting provided for security operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. 28. All phases of the operation must conform to Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, C.R.S. , as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 29. There shall be no discharge of wastes into any stream, other todies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Colorado Department of Health. This Development Standard shall be deemed satisfied as determined by the St-ate of Colorado, Department of Health. 30. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Geologic Hazard Overlay District requirements. 31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning -Ordinance. 32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.-6 of the Weld -County Zoning Ordinance. 33. Personnel from Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, Colorado Department of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at -any xeasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applic-able Weld County Regulations. 34. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown therein and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Feld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require. the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the -Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans Dr Development Standards are Termitted. Any other xhanges shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 33. The property owner or Dperator shall be-responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with -any of the foregoing Development Standards may he reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 920638 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 92-38 RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN AMENDED DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SANITARY LANDFILL PERMITTED UNDER SUP #400 - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. A public hearing was conducted on July 15, 1992, at 10:00 A.M. , with the following present: Commissioner George Kennedy, Chairman Commissioner Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem Commissioner C. W. Kirby Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy Commissioner W. H. Webster Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Shelly Miller Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Lanell Swanson Health Department representative, John Pickle The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated June 3, 1992, and duly published July 2, 1992, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400. Chairman Kennedy stated he will be leaving at 6:00 p.m. ; however, the hearing may continue, and he will review the record if there is a tie vote. He also said the Planning Commission -recommendation will be entered as written, with copies being available for review. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Lanell Swanson, Planning Department representative, entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. Scott Schreiber, Regional Landfill Development Manager, said they submitted a letter regarding clarification of recommended Conditions of Approval. He said he feels staff and Laidlaw have full concurrence on all proposed modifications. Ms. Swanson concurred with the clarifications. Mr. Schreiber reviewed various slides on the background of Laidlaw, composting, recycling, features of the proposed landfill, and aerial photos of the surrounding area and views. Ben Doty, engineer, reviewed slides on the site investigation which included sampling and testing of soil and water, well and boring locations, drilling locations, bedrock stratigraphy, a geologic block diagram, groundwater usage within one mile of the site, surface water features, locational criteria, and faults and seismicity. (Changed to Tape #92-23 during Mr. Doty's presentation. ) Dr. Chris Breeds reviewed slides on mining and underground workings which included the existing mining features; pillar, floor, and roof stability; subsidence; sink holes; finished mining features; and geogrid installation. Dr. Breeds said Jeff Hynes, State representative, found the study results to be entirely conservative and very supportive. Dave O'Sadnick, design engineer, reviewed slides on the vertical expansion which included the proposed site layout which exceeds Subtitle D regulations; the leachate collection pipe trench, liner, and system; closure and cover detail; the anchor trench; surface water control plan, which design was approved by the FAA; gas collection system; and gas well. Mr. Doty reviewed further slides on the environmental monitoring which included the groundwater, surface water, leachate, and landfill gas monitoring systems. Let the record reflect that a recess was taken at this time. -920638 RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO), INC. PAGE 2 Mr. Schreiber made further comments on the environmental integrity of Laidlaw. He said the site is to 'be approximately 5334 feet above sea level. He said they will mitigate the lighting and bird problems as much as possible in regards to the airport. He submitted a letter from Robert Stoecker, Exhibit 0, regarding the bird study. A sample of the plastic portion of the liner was circulated. Fred Otis, Attorney, stated this original site was permitted in 1397-9 and increased in size in 1983 and 1988. -1-n regard to material deviations or a major -change, Mr. Otis said accepting this amendment will enhance the safety of the existing landfill. He summarized the differences which the amended permit will include and said the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval are very comprehensive with Subtitle D regulations and the Department of Health. Dr. Breeds answered questions of the Board concerning subsidence, with the Town of Lafayette and the Coal Creek Tech Center as examples. Scott Hahn, Town of Erie, submitted copies of two letters, dated June 25, 1992, and July 9, 1992, to Weld County from the Town of -Erie, Exhibit P; a letter from Marilyn Crust, Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Erie, Exhibit Q; and a copy of a letter to Rick Hoffman, Laidlaw, from the Town of -Erie, dated July 15, 1992, Exhibit R. Mr. Hahn stated conc-erns about the bird hazard, the need in the area for the landfill, screening, effects -on the town of Erie, violation of agreements between Laidlaw and the Town of Erie, construction, and dust. There was discussion between Mr. Hahn and the -Board. Barbara Tillman, surrounding property owner and environmentalist, stated concerns about subsidence, storm water requirements, sedimentation pond, mitigation procedures, monitoring wells and contamination, recycling proposals, fugitive dust and emission controls, hazardous waste, closeness of residences, and -well permits. Mr. Morrison clarified that the issuance of the Subtitle D regulations has been delayed for quite some time. It is proposed that the states will be allowed to submit a plan to the EPA, which will permit them to not be as stringent as Federal regulations. John Pickle, -Health Department representative, said he agrees with Mr. Morrison's opinion. -Warner Boatwright, Erie Airpark, stated concerns about the lights at night, heavy equipment, loud noise, _closeness of the landfill to an active runway, and traffic. Dennis Wiley, Erie Airpark, stated concerns about closeness of residences and wells. He also stated concerns and answered questions of the Board about the bird issue and FAA Order 5200.5A. Ms. Swanson said staff and the Colorado -Department of Health consider this a serious issue, and there is language included to mitigate the problem. Mr. Wiley answered further questions of the Board concerning the airpark. Sue Wheeler, surrounding property owner, stated her opposition and read a letter of opposition, Exhibit T, from Jeanne Marks, also a surrounding property owner. Tim Wheeler, surrounding property owner, said he is also in opposition. Jack Roberts submitted for the record requests for inclusion in Laidlaw Kermit modification, exhibit U. Said requests included postponing the decision, allowing only eight hours of operation per day, minimizing nuisance factors, including trees in landscaping requirements, allowing representative of the Erie Airpark Homeowners Association to inspect the facility, implementing monthly sampling and analysis by a third-party contractor on all private wells within a two- mile radius, providing replacement water source if contamination is found, monthly sampling of monitoring wells on the facility, requiring the applicant to submit a map pertaining to agreement for property devaluation, and ensuring fugitive dust control. Mr. Roberts estimated 25 takeoffs and landings per day, and he reiterated the importance of toxic waste controls. Judy Wiley and Lyle Picraux, surrounding property owners, stated their opposition. Let the record reflect a recess was taken at this time. Mr. Schreiber began his rebuttal by commenting on various issues with the Town of Erie and Mr. Hahn. He explained that an NPDES permit cannot -even be applied for until the landfill is built. He said under the existing 420638 RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 3 permit the site will be completed by September 1, 1992, and if the amended permit is approved today, the site will be completed by December 1, 1992. In response to Ms. Tillman's comments, Mr. Schreiber said there will be no subsidence impact to the liner, and the report has all pertinent information. He -said the groundwater mitigation plan meets State approval. The recycling takes place in Denver and Boulder -before the material is brought to the landfill, and there will be a recycling drop off center on site. Mr. Schreiber said most of the borings were done outside of the landfill site, and the ones done inside were filled with concrete. Concerning the issue of lights, he said they are presently permitted to operate 24 hours per day; however, they try to operate between 5:00 a.in. and 9:00 p.m. He said except for during construction or emergency situations, -5:00 a.m. to -9:00 p.m. would be acceptable. He said the site is approximately one mile from the runways, and they will work with whomever they need to concerning the bird situation. A mitigation plan has been implemented. This expansion will not bring the site any closer to any Thames, it swill only increase the el-evation. The hazardous waste issue has been addressed, with stricter regulations than the State requires. In response to Mr. Roberts' requests, Mr. Schreiber explained the urgency for approval of this permit is to allow the installation -of the new technology by December. -He said permitting only 8 hours of operation per day would not be agreeable; however, 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. would be acceptable. They will minimize the lights and noise as much as possible, but they are -needed for safety. He said the reason they are using prairie grass in their landscaping plan, rather than trees, is so it will blend with the surrounding area. Mr. Schreiber said there would be no problem with a representative from the Airpark accompanying a County or State representative during an inspection; therefore, that would allow them to understand the criteria. The need for monthly sampling of private wells would need to be determined by the County, and Laidlaw would not be automatically guilty if contamination were found. He said the State does not require monthly sampling of Laidlaw's wells. Concerning the property valuation guarantees, Mr. Schreiber said with all the improvements the surrounding property valuation will likely increase. Fugitive dust is addressed in a staff condition. Even though there will be more dust during construction, they will still be complying. He stated there is -a need for this landfill. Commissioner Harbert said her concerns are in the area of noise and nuisance factors, and she 'questioned the closeness of the residences. Mr. Schreiber said he estimated the closest house in Erie Airpark to be 4899 feet from the site. Commissioner Harbert said she feels the facility is too close to houses to operate 24 hours per day, and she questioned whether the equipment could be shut down _by 9:09 or 9:30 p.m. Mr. Schreiber agreed to operating between S:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. , excepting emergency situations approved by the County. Commissioner Lacy questioned whether the proposed changes are agreeable to staff and the applicant. Ms. Swanson said Condition of Approval #7 needs to include a small change -as recommended by the Colorado Department of Health. Mr. Morrison stated the proposed changes, submitted by the applicant, are Exhibit N for the record. Commissioner Lacy confirmed that all existing road agreements, bonded indebtedness, and impacts will be part of this amendment, as per Drew Scheltinga, County Engineer. Ms. Swanson said Development Standard #29, concerning the NPDE-S permit, will be enforced by the State. Mr. Schreiber said the permit -will not to applied for until the sedimentation pond is constructed, and he said a National permit can take up to two or three years to receive. After further :discussion, Ms. Swanson suggested incorporating language into Development Standard #29 as follows: ". . . as determined by the State of Colorado department of Health." (Changed to Tape #92-24 during :discussion. ) In response to a question from Mr. Schreiber, Ms. Swanson said E.R.D. 's hours of operation are 6:110 a.in. to S:00 -p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Kirby questioned whether monthly sampling of private swells -within a two-mile radius was necessary. Mr. Pickle said only four or five of Mr. -Roberts requested tests are done at Weld County. He said the state can do most of 920638 RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. PAGE 4 them; however, they are very expensive, being approximately $180 for one sample. Concerning the monitoring wells, minimum State requirements were recommended. Ms. Swanson said this is addressed in Development Standard #8. Concerning leachate, Mr. Pickle said local monitoring is done once per year, and he agreed that contamination would be seen on site before it was able to get into any household water supply. At the request of Commissioner Lacy, Ms. Swanson read Development Standards #29 and #1 into the record. Mr. Morrison said, concerning Development Standard #1 regarding the hours of operation, the Environmental Protection Division would need to respond to emergency situations. Mr. Schreiber requested an extension of hours for the six-month construction period, in order to complete Cell #1 by December 1. Ms. Swanson incorporated language into Development Standard #1, which allows operation until 11:00 p.m. until December 1, 1992, for construction _equipment only. Let the record reflect that Chairman Kennedy left at this time. Commissioner Webster questioned the need for the expansion of this landfill. Mr. Schreiber explained the economic reasons and stressed the integrity of Laidlaw. Commissioner Webster asked Mr. Schreiber when he thought their competitors would be opening. Mr. Schreiber said there are lawsuits pending; therefore, it could be years, but he does not know for certain. Commissioner Kirby said he would rather see an existing landfill become higher and deeper or longer and wider rather than more new landfills. Commissioner Lacy moved to approve the request of Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400, with the recommended changes in Development Standards #1 and #29, as entered by Ms. Swanson, and all the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards recommended by the Planning staff and the Planning Commission as entered into the record. Mr. Morrison suggested incorporating Exhibit N into the motion, which includes changes to Conditions of Approval #2, #3, #3a, #7, and Development -Standards #7, #19, and #29. Ms. Swanson clarified that Condition of Approval #7 needs to include the language recommended by the Colorado Department of Health, and Development Standard #29 needs to be as read into the record. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirby, who stressed the bird issue does need control measures. The motion carried unanimously. This Certification was approved on the 20th day of July, 1992. /A APPROVED: ATTEST: { ' Rip /L /, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS J,C110 1�' �X�Oo�i_(_ WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Cierthe Board lam`"/ By: ��,4 � �� i„ — 4Kedy, Chairman Deputy Clerk to the Board EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem TAPE #92-12, #92-23, and #92-24 /411 C. W. Kirby DOCKET #92-38 EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL Gordon E. Lacy, PL0413 ltd 7/ /J W. H. Webster 920638 ? .. ROY ROMER Tekle- ambers: Mein Building, Denver Governor (303)322-9076 _ Ptarmigan Plabq lllaQrC01 .TY PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303)320-1529 Executive Director First National gBank Building,Denver (303)35 '7 rt —2 "j D: 97 • Hazardous Materials and Waste Management DivisionSanction(303749-7198 'Office 4210 East 11th Avenue COLORADO Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office CLERK (303) 3314030/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-9441 TO TV' F C DEPARTMENT c,. OFAHEALTH August 31, 1992 Dave O'Sadnick Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Boulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: Proposed Work Plan, Bird Study Denver Regional Landfill (South) Weld County Dear Mr. O'Sadnick: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has reviewed your 'Proposed Work Plan, Bird Study for the Denver Regional Landfill (South).' The Division has the following comments regarding the Proposed Work Plan: 1. Page 1, second paragraph. The text references the 'Erie Landfill.' To avoid confusion, please refer to the landfill by its proper name,which is the Denver Regional Landfill (South). 2. Page 1, second paragraph. The bird hazards should be evaluated with respect to the effects of landfilling in proximity to the Tri-County Airport, not with respect to the current vs proposed site conditions. The current solid waste and Subtitle D regulations-state that facilities which accept putrescible wastes shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. 3. Page 1, second paragraph. The revised bird study should be consistent with existing, as well as new rules and regulations. 4. Page 2, first paragraph. Other objectives of the study should be to determine the flight pattern of the planes using the Tri-County Airport, and the altitude at which the birds and planes fly. nprinted on recycled paper Dave O Sadnick Denver Regional Landfill (South) August 31, 1992 page 2/2 5. Page 2, paragraph 3. Will the twice per month site visit be performed at random intervals or regularly scheduled intervals? 6. Page 2, paragraph 3. Will Laidlaw be performing tactics during the study period to deter birds from the area, or will the birds be allowed to behave 'naturally', in a effort to evaluate the natural behavior not subject to disturbances? 7. Page 2, paragraph 4. Are birds known not to frequent the area in the morning? The plan seems to emphasis bird observations scheduled during the mid-day and evening. These conclude the Division's comments regarding the Proposed Work Plan for the Bird Study. Please contact me at this office, if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, lam ` wC Lc Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Doty, Doty and Associates S. Hahn, Town of Erie R. Hoffman, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. - G. Lacy, Weld County Commissioners J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning L. Swansen, Weld County Planning file: SW/WLD/LAI South RECEIVED SANITATION DIVISION • Golder Associates Inc. 1 200 Union Boulevard,Suite 100 �V CI ° 199Z Lakewood,CO USA 80228 OGolder Associates Telephone(303)980-0540 Fax(303)985-2080 V"7 CH'• Y DIM DT. TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: August 17, 1992 PROJECT NO.: 923-2480 TO: Mr. John Pickle SENT BY: Mail QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Proposed Work Bird Study, Laidlaw South Site Plan REMARKS: Please review and comment as per Item #7 in the Special Review Permit Per David L. O'Sadnick EIV' AUG 2U1992 11 Weld County Planning OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN•UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES $'UG3S RECEIVED PROPOSED WORK PLAN SANITATION DIVISION AUG 1D1992 1992 BIRD HAZARD STUDY Tag CC'-TI MEA TII FOR THE DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL SOUTH SITE Prepared by Robert E . Stoecker, Ph .D. Animal Ecologist Stoecker Ecological Consultants 279 Forest Lane Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 444-3979 This work plan describes a proposed bird hazard study to be conducted at the Denver Regional Landfill (South) site. The landfill is owned by Laidlaw Waste Systems, Colorado, Inc. , and will hereafter be referred to as Laidlaw South. The purpose of the study will be to: (a) update the previous study and mitigation plan ( A Study to Determine if the Erie Landfill Poses a Bird Strike Hazard to the Erie Airport. Report #2 . dated March 15, 1982) ; (b) evaluate bird hazards in relation to current and proposed site conditions; (c) evaluate the effectiveness of the bird control devices that are currently used at the site; and (d) be consistent with any new rules and regulations of pertinent State and Federal agencies. .2C£;3:3 The main objectives of the study will be to answer the following questions: 1. How frequently do gulls and other large scavenging birds occur at the Laidlaw South site; 2 . How abundant are these birds; and 3 . What are their flight patterns as these relate to potential hazards to the Tri-County Airport? The field work proposed to answer these questions will consist of conducting site visits approximately twice per month to Laidlaw _South over a 10 to 12-month period. This effort will be performed Joy a biologist experienced in field ornithology. Resumes of field personnel who will perform these site visits are attached. Bird observations will be recorded in a designated site notebook on a daily basis by site personnel. Dated photographs and/or videotape will also be used to verify the daily recorded observations. Site visits will be performed during times when gulls are normally observed by site personnel. The number of site visits per month is uncertain because the seasonality of gull -occurrence is unknown. An attempt will be made, however, to perform at least two site visits each month in order to document the yearly pattern of bird occurrence. field observations will consist of observing the larger scavenging bird with binoculars and spotting scope. Observations will be performed throughout the mid-day and into the evening in order to evaluate movement patterns during times when the birds are feeding and also when they depart from the site. A video camera will be used if needed to assist documenting these flight patterns. 82O638 Although gulls are anticipated to be the birds that represent the greatest potential hazard to aircraft, eagles, crows, ravens, and magpies may to significant species as well. Therefore, the species, and approximate numbers of each at the landfill , will be recorded during each site visit. Additionally, the current disposal activities at taidlaw South will be recorded in order to relate bird use to landfill operations. The study will commence upon acceptance of this work plan by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSP) . Progress reports will be prepared once every 3 months and submitted to the CDH and WCEPSD. The final report and mitigation plan will be submitted to the CDH and WCEPSD on or before September 15, 1993 . 220839 RESUME of ROBERT E. STOECKER POSITION: President, STOECKER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 279 Forest Lane,-Boulder, Colorado. 80302 Telephone or FAX (3O3) 444-3979 Adjunct professor, University of Denver, Department of Environmental Policy and Management. EDUCATION: -University of Missouri B.A., Zoology, 1965. Montana State-University M.S., Zoology, 1967. University of Colorado Ph.D., Biology, 1970. Master's-thesis 1965-67. Small mammal population dynamics in clear cut forests. -Montana. Doctoral thesis 1967-70. Competition between sympatric populations of rodents. Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming and Montana. AREAS OF Terrestrial Animal Ecology, Statistics, Computer Database Design, EXPERTISE: Threatened and Endangered Species, and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. CONSULTING Since 197O a full time effort has been devoted to wildlife and statistical EXPERIENCE: consulting. Wildlife habitat evaluation, research, reclamation monitoring, and quantitative analyses have been performed for coal, nil shale, gravel, molybdenum, uranium, transmission corridor, water reservoir,and hazardous waste projects. Nature park design has been provided to cities, ski areas, residential developments, and municipal parks. Other wildlife projects include computer databases for city open-space management, EIA preparation, -expert witness, and technical reviews. Statistical consulting has emphasized the environmental sciences,including such disciplines as wildlife, vegetation,aquatics, and soils research. Field work has been conducted in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri,Iowa, and Indiana. TEACHING Currently a master's level course in Applied Statistics for Environmental EXPERIENCE: Managers is being taught at the University of Denver. Several courses in statistics and field sampling have been taught at the University of Colorado Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. 820638 AWARDS and Dr. Stoecker was the_principal wildlife consultant o Flatiron Sand and CERTIFICATIONS: Gravel Co. of Boulder, Colorado, the company that won the 1984 National Wildlife Reclamation Award. Certified biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's I3abitat Evaluation Procedure. Certified biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Survey Procedures for Black-footed ferrets. PUBLICATIONS: Stoecker,R.E. 1972. Competitive relations between sympatricpopulations of voles (Microtus montanus and M.-Pennsylvanicus). J.Aaim. Ecol. 41:311-329. Stoecker, R.E. 1982. A moving transect method for estimating relative abundance of small mammals. Pages 66-69 in R.D. Comer et al.,eds. Proc. Issues and Technology in the-Management iof Impacted Western Wildlife. SteamboatSpgs., CO. Stoecker, RE. 1982. Creating -small islands for wildlife and visual enhancement. -Pages 4SS0 in W.D.Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford. eds. Prec. Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits. Univ.-of Minnesota, St. Paul. Stoecker, R.E. 1982. Improving wildlife habitat as mined land reclamation. Pages 99-102 in KM. Bauer,-ed. I'roc. Shaping Land for Tomorrow. Michigan State Univ.,Fast Lansing. Stoecker,ICE., R.W. Thompson, and R..-Comer. 1985. An evaluation of wildlife mitigation practices at four western surface coal mines. In Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. 2nd Biennial Symposium, Thorne Ecological Inst., Glenwood Springs, Co. RESUME of JILL A. STOECKER POSITION: Research Associate, STOECKER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 279 Forest Ln. Boulder, Co. 80302 Telephone or FAX (303) 444-3979 EDUCATION: Hope College, Michigan 1965 Univ. of Barcelona, Spain 1966 University of Colorado B.S. , 1970 Reststered Nurse 1970 University of Colorado M.A. , 1973 AWARDS AND University of Colorado graduate grant-in-aid for baboon SCHOLARSHIPS: behavioral research. AREAS OF Ornithology, small and medium-sized mammals, field sampling, EXPERTISE: report preparation, computer data handling, -photo darkroom techniques. PUBLICATIONS: Technical paper on social behavior of baboons. EXPERIENCE: Research Associate, STOECKER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 1973- Responsibil itiesinclode col lectionand summarization of animal present ecological field data, bird identification, small andmedium- sized mammal identification and trapping, big game studies, habitat analysis, field logistics, and photo darkroom work. 1972-73 Research assistant — a study of mammal track -analysis for field identification. Master's graduate student at the _University of Colorado. Independent research on ethology of captive baboons in Dallas, Texas and of wild baboons in Kenya. Seven months in Fast Africa studying animal behavior. 1971-72 Research assistant - a study of snowpack effects on distri butiens of mammals in alpine habitat of southwestern Colorado for the Bureau of Reclamation. Research assistant - photographic research of pollinating insects for Thorne Ecological Institute. ROY ROMER rekfo. ..aarberr' Main Building, Denver i ' Governor (303)322-9076 NOLAN, MD, MPH Ptarmigan Place, Denver PATRICIA A. (303)32a1la Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver (303)355-6559 •`�� Hazardous Materials and-Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office M' IA)1�iT tn AM 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198 (N) W Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office (303)3314830/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-8441 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH August 19, 1992 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc 1441 Weld County Road #6 P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 RE: Denver Regional Landfill (South) Weld County Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division)of the Colorado Department of Health has reviewed the August -4, 1992 submittal for ground water monitoring at the Denver Regional Landfill (South). For future monitoring events, the Division is requesting that volatile organic compound nalysis be performed on GW-8, S-203, S-208, and P-3. may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions. cerely, • Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste and Incident Management_Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Doty,Doty and Associates D. D'Sadnick, Golder Associates, Inc. J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. L. Swanson, Weld County Dep tment of Planning Weld County Commissioners file: SW/WLD/LAI South rI pined an recycled parer A.. ROY ROMER Telefax Numbers: i!' '� Governor Main Building, Denver (303)322-9076 PATRICIA A. NOLAN, Ptarmigan Place, Denver g u4, MD> MPH (303)320-1629 Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver (303)'3556559 • A41` Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office 4t 4210 East 11th-Avenue (303)248-7198 COLORADO Denver, Colorado 8 0220-3 71 6 pueblo Office (303) 331-4830/FAX (303) 3314401 (719)543-8441 DEPARTMENT OFA-HEALTH August 12, 1992 Dave O Sadnick Golder Associates Inc. 200 UnionBoulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: Non-Destructive Testing Procedures Quality Assurance for Soil and Rack Liner Components Denver Regional Landfill (South), Weld County Dear Mr. O'Sadnick: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has reviewed the documents submitted regarding non-destructive testing procedures andlhe request to modify the quality assurance manual for soils and rock components of lining and leachate management systems for the Denver Regional Landfill (South). The review of the document was perfoixned under the authority of the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act," Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statues, as amended (the Statute), and_the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities." The Regulations were adopted for the implementation ofthe Statute and are contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations). The Division approves the non-destructive test procedures and theproposed changes to the -quality assurance for soil and-roc-k liner components with the following modifications: SOIL AND ROCK LINER COMPONENTS Though not specifically stated in the tables,it is presumed that the clay cap receives the same frequency of testing as the clay liner. TABLE 1 1. The unified soil class and natural moisture content shall beperformed for soil material evaluation. TABLE 3 1. Thestandard proctor shall be performed at a frequency of one per soil source and one per 5000 cubic yards (cy) of material, whichever provides the most data. Nr-nrJ9 1°L 1 €c)c1 L°f I ='j pnnredd an reeycld pcpe Dave O Sadnick Denver Regional Landfill (South) August 12, 1992 page 2 2. Atterberg limits,grain size analysis,unified soil class, natural moisture content and hydraulic conductivity shall be performed per proctor. 3. Permeability (ASTM D5084) shall be performed per 5000 cy of clay liner placed. uen of 3000 frequency 4. Grain size shall be performed at a q cy cy of drainage material placed or one per source, whichever provides the most data. NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST PROCEDURES 1. The maximum allowable loss of air pressure for the air pressure testing technique shall be no greater than 3 psi and the pressure shall stabilize within the five minute testing period. The Division requests that the test fill document,which details the constructionprocedures that will be utilized during liner placement, be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating liner construction. I may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Di sion cc: B.Doty, Doty and Associates R. Hoffman, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. J. Pickle, Weld County-Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. L. Swanson, Weld County Dep tment of Planning Weld County Commissioners file: SW/WLD/LAI South ✓rf638 4,4M 0 6Atp. _,v0`0 TOWN OF ERIE a. ,( 4 645 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 11,��p'2} .t. ERIE,COLORADO 80516 828-3843 > �� ` /a 665-3555 / �•�\/// n a 1874 July 30, 1992 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Attn: Shelly, Clerk to the Board Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $5.00 to cover the cost of copies of the minutes of the Public Hearing concerning Laidlaw Landfill proposal dated July 15, 1992. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, C k(2414A-1614. Marilyn Crust Administrative Assistant tdj POLICE DEPT. METRO 449-3156 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O. BOX 510 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 666-4404 ROY ROMER Telefaambers: Main Building, Denver Governor (303)322-9076 Ptarmigan PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH 320-Place, Denver V-m, (3(303 �`�[/�C nnvv'' Executive Director First National Bank B ' Deny (303)355-6559 C7 - Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office 4210• t 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198 wipe ? !9 11RA� Denver, Colorado 8022O-3716 Pueblo Office ; (Y) 9 WLl/ (303)331-4830/FAX (303) 331.4401 (719)543-&41 44_ ? DEPARTMENT S'jp, OFAHEALTH DATE: July 15, 1992 4 TO: Lanell Swanson Weld County Planning FAX 1-352-0242 John Pickle Weld County Health Department FAX 1-356-4966 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. FAX 673-9432 Dave O'Sadnick Golder Associates FAX 985-2080 / FROM: Austin Buckingham ( Hazardous Materials and aste Management Division Colorado Department of Health SUBJECT: Bird Study Laidlaw South Landfill Weld County The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH) approval of the revised Design and Operations Plan was predicated on information contained in the application. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate information upon which CDH may evaluate the merit of the application. After formal review and approval was given by the CDH, it became known that the Tri-County Airport accepted turbojet aircraft; therefore placing the Laidlaw South landfill within 10,000 feet of an airport runway. Landfills within 10,000 feet of an airport runway have location restrictions and as such, shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. A demonstration is required for the purpose of documenting that no bird hazard exists due to landfill activities. (Tl meted an recycled paper The CDH continues to believe that the Laidlaw South site has adequate subsurface characteristics and adequate design, and is in conformance with the intent to Subtitle D. Based on this new information, the CDH must now modify its original approval of the amended Design and Operations Plan to a conditional approval contingent upon a favorable demonstration that the landfill does not and will not pose a bird hazard to the Tri-County Airport. There is no evidence to suggest that a bird hazard, due to landfill activities, has been created at the Tri-County Airport to date. Therefore, the CDH supports continued landfilling activities at the Laidlaw South site in conformance with the approved amendment for a period of fourteen months following approval by the Board of County Commissioners. However, if the bird hazard study is not completed after a period of fourteen months, the CDH may withdraw its approval of the amended Design and Operations Plan. If the bird study shows that hazards do exist, the landfill must comply with the locations restrictions set forth in Subtitle D. I suggest the following modifications to the Laidlaw proposed language on bird study: 'The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and it shall describe the actions that will: (i) update and revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan; (ii) take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions; and (iii) take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSD) as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the (CDH) and the WCEPSD, the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan shall be completed and submitted to the CDH and WCEPSD within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by the CDH and/or the WCEPSD shall be accomplished within mutually agreed upon time frames. Laidlaw South may to continue to operate in accordance with the approved revised Design and Operations Plan for a period of fourteen months following receipt of • n .^ .1 iJ 3j approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction, excavation and operations of the newly designed areas will not create a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulation may exist.' ` 634 NOT I C E The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on July 15, 1992, conditionally approved a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the property and purpose described below. Conditional approval of this plan creates a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S. , as amended, for a period of three years. APPLICANT: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado), Inc. P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 _LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W'-, NE* and Ez NWa of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado TYPE AND INTENSITY OF APPROVED USE: An amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP #400 SIZE OF PARCEL: 160 acres, more or less Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of approval will result in a forfeiture of the vested property right. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Deputy C rk to the Board PUBLISHED: July 30, 1942, in the Windsor Beacon :csZ9 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF WELD I,KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly sworn,say that I am publisher of minaWINDSOR BEACON The beard of Coeur a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said Commiesleae M We id County,Calera*an day County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, 16, 1992. Cea6Nbnally in said County and State; and that the notice, of which w the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said fa weekly for I successive weeks, that the notice th•prop Coda. was published in the regular and entire issue of every aesowar el this pin meleenumber of the paper during the period and time of a vested properly right publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a -a CAS.,rpurant to ear q�e o/lir supplement, and that the first publication of said notice •porSddthree Pter was in said paper bearing the date of the APPLICANT:h eWw // Systems(Colorado(.Inc., J'-O day of Cr w 1,4 , A.D., 19 q v and P.O.Bon 920.Ede.Colorado 8O518 the last publication bearing tlie date of the LEGAL DESCRIPTION:W 1/2 NE 1µ and SE Ir2 NW day of , A.D., 19 and 1w of Seaton 29,Towner that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published 1 North,AM9.Ill West of continuously and uninterruptedly for the the 6th P.M.,Weld Covey, P Y period of 5 Colorado consecutive weeks,in said County and State, prior to the TYPE AND INTENSITY date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a OF APPROVED USE:An newspaper within the meanin of an Act to regulate amended drip and operations plan for an printing of legal notices and vertisements, approved existing sanitary landfill May 18, 1931,and all prior a r as in force. pem8nd under SUPaaco SIZE OF PARCEL: 180 we,eon or less Failure to abide Mrearms B SHER _.. and maddens of wort will result in a Iod.Mrn of the vested properly right Subscribed a d sworn to before me this Al"— day BOARD OF COUNTY of 444 Ili sr 19:1y. COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, 1 CotoRADo �lll? ?Litt NOTARY PUBLIC BY:DONALD D.WARDEN CLERK TO THE BOARD My commission expires 9 - I _j i9 BYBhely K Mgw‘psputy taalttatha Sealal. - Psss alyd III Se*YW Dour es Arai f19. Kyr:. c ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 15th DAY OF July 1992: DOCKET # 91-50 - Show Cause Hearing re: James McDonald DOCKET # 92-20 - Weld County Road 8 Local Improvement District #1992-3 DOCKET # 92-38 - Special Review Permit for Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. DOCKET # PLEASE write or print your name legibly, your address and the DOCKET # (as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING 1TI-Fi -TieDOOCelt tQk71 lak7't Ict.ptv , 00 l';7 -t 7) `i (7 11 jI ; {ys�;1 37, ( u ),p:i.r" h i n� en el,A - IAi,,:'.,, .. _live et; .05/`7 d6 .`/l. /, 1•� (i ,..-A4, / LLJv�.�' :>z( is 4.• C - ii?, Cit A. ;�, 7�.if 4:3 ='-1c It Q,-1,e z , 7z,:--14,5 r Firev f ret 1 z i5 i 'z‘iitil c, c,l -J( v i7 5 c;TCAlei-€-AAi 0, /tzic 72' - \ \ U./,�' L 1..� S. ice r vct A et E nr �l.).- 3 g 'e, ,rn .4--Yi/.�i „''.,n/C/I I 2-mac � I'J ec' . .P.N F- i? ilV v0iilu L.1:-:. S )O c c- Rb 3 t=Ri G (-7(`)- .3'c). h >ut \'‘,.4-11,-..c., LS-7 ,2- L C � AIR f car.1. ,,,,, ,,A,, En, 6 logo 92?-38 O_, ex co G c . ?/ i Z.S5 }L �� rip 3.3 t3::916/ f, . 35 ,i _ CIO' CO. .+4 t t,.rth,. RV-Chi 79 � 6 L- dl l�'L P "z i J / 0--(4.1? -- ta \ . )c/ ( l'10-)2t% 1 '11'6,3 G 7 .-"D— Kier,- i7- l,p isi rc� I/— di-(1,,,, ,, , l G)C, tti.,ti, : 2S l?cc , 1 n L1 1 ( N - c ) GJC + - t- r VI' t . f ( - SC) /m e!_ '-l(Y . . A1 gn`J WC Ct k I Le)i7 7 locrp + `1 I - t;(:j ID,7C839 . .. c : :AX Na 3033314401 P. 01 "L 4 ROY ROMER War NnaM: 1 "1,I '� � Governor (tc:, 03) Deaver a PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH Twinge Flo Denver 20-1329 Executive Director F,„Nabs!Bast gy,m Deaver(303)1154559 et• Ita.ordow Materiel'and Waste Management Division trod iuiVve Offiec 421 033) 98 �g De East tr Avenue 8072 Feeble Office Denver,Colorado 80710.3716 DEPARTMENT (303)331- 830/PAX(303)331.4401 (719))1'543 1 OFAHEALTH DATE: July 15, 1992 TO: Lanell Swanson Weld County Planning FAX 1-352-0242 John Pickle Weld County Health Department FAX 1-3564966 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. FAX 673-9432 Dave O1 Sadnick Golder Associates FAX 985.2080 FROM: Austin Buckingham I "- -- Hazardous Materials and aste Management Division Colorado Department of Health SUBJECT: Bird Study Laidlaw South landfill Weld County The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH) approval of the revised Design and Operations Plan was predicated on information contained in the application. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate information upon which CDH may evaluate the merit of the application. After formal review and approval was given by the CDH, it became known that the Tri-County Airport accepted turbojet aircraft;therefore placing the Laidlaw South landfill within 10,000 feet of an airport runway. Landfills within 10,000 feet of an airport runway have location restrictions and as such, shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. A demonstration is required for the purpose of documenting that no bird hazard exists due to landfill activities. JUL 15 '92 13: 17 3033314401 PPGE.001 Exhib,+ V C'?CS35 ,'UL-15-92 WE) 13: 18 Ht WI FAX NO. 303331^d01 P. 02 The CDH continues to believe that the Laidlaw South site has adequate subsurface characteristics and adequate design, and Is in conformance with the intent to Subtitle D. Based on this new information, the CDH must now modify its original approval of the amended Design and Operations Plan to a conditional approval contingent upon a favorable demonstration that the landfill does not and will not pose a bird hazard to the Tri-County Airport. There is no evidence to suggest that a bird hazard, duc to landfill activities, has been created at the Tri-County Airport to date. Therefore, the CDH supports continued landfilling activities at the Laidlaw South site in conformance with the approved amendment for a period of fourteen months following approval by the Board of County Commissioners. However, if the bird hazard study is not completed after a period of fourteen months, the CDH may withdraw its approval of the amended Design and Operations Plan, If the bird study shows that hazards do exist,the landfill must comply with the locations restrictions set forth in Subtitle D. I suggest the following modifications to the Laidlaw proposed language on bird study: 'The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and it shall describe the actions that will: (1) update and revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan; (ii) take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions; and (iii) take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSD) as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the (CDH) and the WCEPSD, the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan shall be completed and submitted to the CDII and WCEPSD within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by the CDH and/or the WCEPSD shall be accomplished within mutually agreed upon time frames. Laidlaw South may to continue to operate in accordance with the approved revised Design and Operations Plan for a period of fourteen months following receipt of JUL 15 '92 13: 18 3033314401 PAGE. 002 ::131;38 JU1-15-92 WED 13: 19 HMWIN FAX NO. 30333' '401 P. 03 approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction, excavation and operations of the newly designed areas will not create a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulation may exist JUL 15 ' 92 13; 18 3033314401 PAGE.a�0�?03 e rtila July 15,1992 THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF WELD COUNTY Requests for Inclusion in Laidlaw Permit Modification Don Feldhaus' (your own Weld county planning & zoning member) posed a very pertinent question on July 7 , 1992 . "What is the urgency to revise this permit?" Based upon this comment by Weld County; we respectfully request that you postpone your decision on this permit revision request until ALL UNANSWERED ISSUES raised here today have been answered. If this commission votes in favor of the revised permit we would like it entered into the record that the citizens are requesting the following issues be an integral documented part of your approval: 1 . The facility is permitted to operate for 8 hours per day. -This includes hours open for customers as well as backfill operations etc. 2. Nuisance factors relative to light and noise shall be controlled from intruding into nearby residences. The planning & zoning staff recommendation # 25 is amended to read lighting for "security and/or operations" 3 . The permit approval shall include REAL landscaping; to include trees etc, not just sage brush and rabbit brush as stated in Golder & Associates proposed operations document, Section # 2 . 2. 1 . 4 . 4. The facility shall allow a representative of the Erie Airpark Homeowners Association an unannounced inspection of the facility to ensure compliance withthe permit for the life of the facility. t.� 1c5 CC?Z,"�n,'h 5. The .owner o€ the facility shall implement monthly sampling and analysis by an independent third-party contractor on all private wells within a 2 mile radius of the facility for the following parameters: a. Total Dissolved Solids b. pH c. Nitrate d. Fluoride e. -Total Hardness f. Sodium g. Sulfate h. Iron i . Oil & Grease j . Turbidity k. Arsenic EXHIBIT 1 . Barium , m. Cadmium i.C ^r) n. Chromium y o. Lead / p. Mercury q. Seleniun r. Silver s. Pesticides t. Herbicides D rr y ,::vi:3S Voters' Requests Page 2 u. Radioactivity v. Magnesium w. Hazardous waste constituents as defined by the Federal government in Title 40 Code of Federal regulation Subpart C x. -The following water analysis categories 1 . Trihalomethanes 2 . Standard Unregulated Volatile Organics 3 . Regulated Volatile Organic Carbons A. Vulnerable Systems Parameters 5. States Discretion Parameters y. PCBs 2 . Tecal Coliform -6. . If contamination is found on any of the above parameters Laidlaw shall provide replacement water source equal to the resident's currently permitted well uses. These uses are defined by the Colorado Division of Water Resources on each permit application form. 7. Monthly sampling of monitoring wells on the facility shall be conducted. Immediate notification shall be made to the Colorado Department of health if any permit parameters are found to be out of compliance. B . In accordance with the precedent set by Weld county in their condition for approval for other landfill facilities ( see USR-924 page 2) : The applicant shall submit a map identifying the legal description, address, and the property owner of each lot or parcel that is included in the terms of the . . . .agreement . . . . " In essence, this agreement states if there is a property devaluation that the facility owner will pay the decreased dollar amount. 9. The owner and operators will ensure fugitive dust control procedures are implemented at all times, especially during construction and excavation. b: (dump)requests •Jt + t 7x13-92 Weld County Commissioners P. 0. BoH 758 Greeley, Co. 80632 Deer Commissioners, I am a resident of Weld County. Mg address is 145 E. Cessna Dr., Erie, CO. We moved to this address ten years ago with no idea that any landfills would be located here. We have witnessed the approval of three of them. Now the Laidlaw landfill Is within a mile of my home end they are asking to expand its' elevation 94 feet. Where will it end? if you approve this eupanslon aren't you setting another precedent for other landfills to do like wise? Much of America is in a new age of thinking about the environment. Instead of increasing landfills I encourage Weld County to agressiuely think about recycling and treating markets for recycled products. People are looking for leaders who will seek alternatives to protect our environment from unsightliness, noise and hazardous waste problems etc. William7latheie, a professor at the University of Arizona wrote in the Meg 1991 Issue of National Geographic magazine that landfills contain 50% paper which does not easily decompose. In his book "Rubbish Garbage Archaeology" Mr. RathJe sags paper mills for recycling are greatly needed and this would be a beneficial industry for our county. He maintains we recycle 13% now but could easily be 45%. The future of South West Weld County is in your power. Please consider the long term impact you are making on our lives and the environment and note no on this eHpansion proposal. Si cereiy, / exit,ilt Jeanne Mark July 15, 1992 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED PRIOR TO COMMISSION APPROVAL OF LAIDLAW'S PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUEST: Planning & Zoning Compliance and Environmental Impact 1. Since the facility owners have determined there is a potential fro a 2 foot subsidence incidence: —They have modified the design so that the leachate collection system will supposedly not be disturbed. — They have not addressed the impact of a 2 foot subsidence on the poly liner of the adjacent CERCLIS site containing hazardous wastes as documented by CDH. 2. Has this plan been reviewed for compliance with the Federal Storm water regulations? 3 . Why is there no specific time-frame requirement in the current documents for HOW SOON mitigation procedures will be taken if contamination is found in the facility's monitoring wells? 4. Why are there no recycling activities planned for this facility if the owners state they are "ONE OF THE LARGEST RECYCLING COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES"? B. Since it is now public record that the current facility is not in compliance with their current permit relative to light and noise creating a nuisance to nearby residents, why would this commission believe they would be in compliance with the modified permit 6. Since it was obvious during the day of July 14th that the facility was out of compliance relative to control of fugitive dust emission during excavation procedure, why would this panel believe they would be in compliance with the new permit requirements for fugitive dust emission controls? 7. How will Weld County ensure that the facility will not accept Hazardous Wastes as stated in their permit modification documents? -Where is their operating plan that delineates how this will be accomplished? 8 . Since the owners have admitted they made a mistake in their research of how close residents are to their property and how many of their resident rely on drinking water from the Laramie Fox-Hills aquifer; i.e. there many more than one resident within one mile (in fact you can see most all of our houses from their facility) , the obvious questions arises of what other pertinent facts have been omitted from their submittal documents? irePnr tin b: (dump)715quest = EXHIBIT S- 2 ^/ 2 ` 8N OT IF EE CO 4. N- TOWN OF ERIE 645 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 o a ERIE,COLORADO 80516 828-3843 665-3555 4 n74 July 15, 1992 Mr. Rick Hoffman Zaidlaw Waste Systems, Inc P . O . Box 320 Erie, CO 80516 RE : Denver Regional Landfill North Dear Mr. Hoffman: 2 have reviewed some of the agreements between Laidlaw and the Town of Erie . I have several concerns that I hope you can eliminate . It seems that Laidlaw failed to increase the financial assurities to $400,000 as discussed last year. It is clear from a letter from your counsel at Holland and Hart, John Fognani , that Laidlaw was to increase this amount until the potential violations of the well 103 issues are mitigated. This is a violation of our agreement. The -landfill has now been closed for several months and I have not received a post closure performance bond in the amount of $180, 000 . This is a second violation of our agreement . The Town ' s consultant, Walsh and Associates, will continue to review the pre-closure quarterly reports . There is a considerable lag time between the completion of the analytical review by Doty and the subsequent completed quarterly report . I am concerned that Laidlaw may not be cooperating with Walsh and Associates . It appears that you have failed to provide a copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit as required by federal , state , and local regulations . Walsh and Associates has also expressed concern that there are increases of constituents in well 101-A, 201-B, and 204 ' A. I am also concerned that the amount of fluids along your clay wall . EXHIBIT 7/01 vtevN POLICE DEPT.-JMETRO449-3156 LOCAL828-3200 P.O. BOX 510 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT666-4404 Mr. Rick -Hoffman July 15 , 1992 Page 2 This notice is given to you, as specified in the Annexation agreement section VI " sanctions" . You are hereby given 15 days from receipt to respond. Sincerely, 4179 Scott A. Hahn -Erie Town Administrator SAH/js CC : Doug Thorburn _Gene Reardon John Fognani a d:\wpn \adn inist\1992\I aidlau f �eN7" June 15, 1992 I , Marilyn Crust, Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission, of the Town of Erie, Colorado do hereby certify that the following statement was made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 4, 1992: question was asked by one of the Commissioners, "South of Garfield, the landfill exit, now active, a footprint tract as Ben Doty described it, does not have a liner under it, is that correct?" Ben Doty responded by saying "That is correct. " Ben also stated, " One part that was there before Laidlaw, was tested by independent engineers and found to have -a 6" clay liner and is all sloping down. " When asked about the east area, Ben Doty stated, "I don' t know. " Rick Hoffman stated, "The bottom line here is, this is an amendment to the existing operations plan. If this plan does not pass Weld County in mid July, we are still going to be operating a landfill there under an old, old design. " Scott Hahn, the Town Administrator then confirmed the question concerning EPA standards. He questioned, " With the existing design would the new EPA regulations have any effect on you or would you have to change your behavior at all? Could you continue with the existing design even though the EPA came out with more restrictive standards? The way your plan was approved, could you keep that same plan even the new EPA rules were passed? Would you have to improve your landfill design if the EPA rules got passed, or could you just stick with the old original design you got approved back in 1979?" Rick Hoffman stated, "We would have to upgrade the current design somewhat, but not this far. " In witness whereof, I attest this 15th day of June, A.D. 1992 , to these true and exact statements given by Ben Doty and Rick Hoffman at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 4, 1992 . Mar ' yn Cru , Secretary o the Pla ping an Zoning Commission EX IT 771 V-4erN S°bfi,(c-te t ku co no vi Ut [a-1-4- t l w,✓L, '/`'�ya. .�7 ' LCl(r39 let OF ERI. �t. ,_ _ TOWN OF ERIE a 645 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 > ERIE,COLORADO 80516 828-3843 \ j:I 665-3555 1974 July 9 , 1992 Weld County Commissioners P . O . Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners : The Town of Erie is highly opposed to the expansion of the Laidlaw South landfill . This landfill was originally planned as a small local dump. In 1979 , it was approved and became a large regional landfill . Several years later, you approved an Expansion. Erie officials were so up set with your decision that they attempted to have the county boundaries moved. After this, we decided to get into the oversight of this activity. Now, you are going to expand it again. However, this time , the Town is much more knowledgeable and sophisticated. Attached is the Town ' s letter to your planning Board. Please review this letter. I would like to raise two points that became more clear during the Weld County Planning hearing . First, you are -approving landfilling on an area that has no liner with no way to document whether a barrier to leachate transmission ( pollution ) exists . How vulnerable to litigation do the Commissioners wish` to become? Second , Weld County policy and procedure requires that the applicant prove there is a "need" for additional landfill space . Further, the Commissioners must make a finding that "need" exists . The applicant did not provide evidence of "need" at .the Planning hearing . I doubt they will do any differently for the Commissioners hearing . However, your approval of this expansion may be negligent unless you make a finding of "need" based on reasonable evidence . EXH�yT 1 j�—J 4a �(,sk_ Subor;it J �01 (01v1624$-192C\ POLICE DEPT. METRO 449-3156 OQcAL 828-3200 P.O. BOX 510 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 666-4404 Weld County Commissioners July 9 , 1992 Page 2 I hereby put you on notice of the above two mentioned issues . This expansion is unsafe . There is no "need" for additional space . The existing facility has 10 years capacity. The Horst landfill is fully approved, the EflD/Zigan landfill, which you approved only one year ago, is fully approved. If anything, there is an excess of space . Erie recommends denial of this expansion . Thank you for allowing Erie to submit comments . Sincerely, - -E ,16(10(Zif % Scott A. Hahn Erie Town Administrator SAH: js • d:\vowk\let\eaminilt\1992\taidiay.son r v._Donn M pY ER/ O • TOWN OF ERIE 645 HOLBROOK OK P.O.BOX 100 P ERIE,,COLORADO 80516 828-3843 \ 4 665-3555 Ip71 June 25, 1992 JUN 3 D Me..Paid Weld County Department of Planning Services Caw"NNW% 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Lanell J. Swanson Dear Lanell Swanson: I apologize for the lateness of this letter. A busy schedule and a short response time made it difficult to comply. However the following is the Erie Planning and Zoning Commission ' s position regarding the application from Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. Case USR-972 for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the Design and Operations Plan for and existing Sanitary Landfill . The Erie Planning and Zoning Commission is opposed to the expansion. First, the site has several mine shafts which have to be plugged. In fact one mine shaft location is unknown and a dangerous procedure of location will need to be accomplished. We are confused how anyone can allow landfilling on top of mine shafts that lead directly to coal mines below, when the Dan Horst landfill was required to stay away from locating directly above the coal mines without any connecting mine shafts. Second, we feel that an activity as threatening as landfills should be under the jurisdiction of the local entity, the Town of Erie. The Colorado Department of Health has stated that Erie does a much better job of oversite and regulation than most of the cities in the State of Colorado and Weld County itself. Third, the northeast quarter section of this site has already been filled. Laidlaw engineer Ben Doty, stated that they did not know whether there was any liner under this side . So they want to build on top of this site that would not meet today' s standards for liners . That does not make sense and seems very dangerous. The next problem is that this site is contiguous to an old dump site that did not have adequate liners . It will be much more difficult to identify the source of a contaminate release between these sites . Laidlaw is selling the idea that if they are allowed to expand that the result will be improved design and safety measures on the remaining three quarters of the surface area of the presently approved site. I feel this is misleading because the soon to be adopted regulations mill likely require this design. POLICE DEPT. METRO 449-3156 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O. BOX 510 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 666-4404 920638 June 25, 1992 Page 2 In conclusion, the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that this proposal is not clean and uncomplicated. This site is tainted and complicated with many issues. Superficially, it seems that expanding higher on an existing site would be better than creating a new site, this is false logic. It is the Planning and Zoning Commission ' s belief that a new site that is clean and uncomplicated is safer for the citizens of Weld County. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to this proposal . Sincerely, � �l .1✓iw v'—z11r5 /4/ Scott A. Hahn Town Administrator SAH: mc 920638 Mr. Dave O'Sadnick Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Blvd. Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 July 14, 1992 Dear -Mr. O'Sadnick, Pursuant to your request, I have completed a preliminary evaluation of the Denver Regional Landfill (South) site with respect to bird hazards near the Tri-County Airport. My evaluation consisted of a site visit on June 30, 1992, and a review of REPORT 42 A aTUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE ERIE LANDFILL 9OSES A BIRD STRIKE HAZARD TO THE ERIE AIRPORT, conducted by the Ornithology Study Committee for the State of Colorado Department of Health and Colorado Landfill , Inc. , dated March 15, 1982. While it is difficult to assess the dynamics of bird use at a landfill , let me at least summarize several observations that I telieve are especially pertinent to this issue: 1. REPORT _12 (op. cit. ) stated, with regard to gulls, that "none was observed scavenging at the landfill" (page 12) . This, and similar statements documenting the total lack of gulls during the time of these investigations, suggests to me that the near vicinity of the landfill is not suitable gull habitat, and that exposed garbage at the landfill would be the only potential attractant to these birds. Also, there are no open bodies of water nearby to attract gulls, or to provide additional habitat that would keep gulls in the area. 2 . The nearest landfill of which I am aware is the Longmont Landfill , located approximately 10 miles north. While gulls are - 1[= EXHIBIT E 7 /5 72 U zo - a 5Lc= bbb c0c a Hoao :5 qoa capable of flying great distances, 10 miles is Tonetheless well removed from the Denver Regional site and, furthermore, is not along a flight path in line with the Tri-County Airport. 3 . According to personnel working at the landfill, gulls occur only occasionally and very sporadically at the landfill. If this is the case, gulls are not demonstrating any dependency on the landfill and have not _developed routine or frequent use patterns. As well, the sound deterrent device used by landfill personnel is apparently effective at dispersing gulls and may well be an adequate means of keeping gulls and other birds from the area. while I cannot, of course, predict how gulls and other birds might use the landfill in the future, it appears that measures such as sound deterrents, and the current procedures that are being used for quickly covering refuse, may be sufficient to not increase the likelihood of a bird-aircraft strike. As requested by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) in their letter to Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. , we plan to perform a study of bird flight paths and populations associated with the landfill activity. I hope these comments are helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely /7.--1S1 Robert E. Stoecker, PhD Animal ecologist STOECKER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. ENTi.oMCNTAL i STATISTIC., Co.sulnue 279 Foam Lima. 6ow.nn. totowo. 80302. (303) 444-3979 S0 ' d 5L55 bbb 20c Ja o aa +J�� vti l7aoi� o PROPOSED CHANGE TO CONDITION #2: Special review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Amended Special Review Plat is ready to be recorded in the Office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the applicant from continuing operations under the terms and conditions of the existing SUP 400 until such Amended Special Review Plat is recorded. Comment: The above change adds the word "amended" in the first sentence and adds the second sentence. E�siBIT 7 /S 9-Z .L E39 PROPOSED CHANGE TO CONDITION #3: Within six months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall submit: .i, vu PROPOSED CHANGE TO CONDITION #3a: A performance agreement -guaranteeing proper closure and post-closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill. The agreement shall outline the costs associated with closure and post-closure monitoring and shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas). The Board of County Commissioners shall review and approve the form of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the closure and post-closure monitoring. The amount accepted shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas). The approved method of financial guarantee shall be automatically adjusted every two years for the life of the post-closure care of the facility. The approved method of financial guarantee shall be adjusted based upon the Consumer Price Index Percent change by year statement. In the event that the State of Colorado or federal government require the Applicant to post a financial mechanism to guarantee proper closure and post- closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill, other than those required hereunder, any duplicate or redundant provision of the Performance Agreement required hereunder shall be deemed satisfied and the performance agreement modified appropriately. Comment: The above proposed language changes the words "minimum annual contribution" to "approved method of financial guarantee" and adds the last paragraph. x^639 PROPOSED CHANGE TO CONDITION #7: The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and it shall describe the actions that will: (i) Update and revise the-existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan; (ii) Take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions; and (iii) Take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSD) as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDGH) and the WCEPSD, the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new-bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan shall be completed and submitted to the CDH_and WCEPSD within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by CDH -and/or the WCEPSD shall be accomplished within agreed upon time frames. Laidlaw South may continue to operate for fourteen months. At that time, if the findings of thebird study prove a hazard, Laidlaw South will be required to close as set forth in Subtitle D, Part 258.10. Construction, excavation and operations of the newly designed area will not created a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulations may exist. —Ou_.S...� Z..,'JJ.W ?xit� tiY_ >> �aM1s ,.,.,,.. ..�i.,l ..„ci .. ....,.� Sc.. forth in Subtitle D, I suggest the following modifications to the Laidlaw proposed language on bird study: 'The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and it shall describe the actions that will: (1) update and revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan; (ii) take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions; and (iii) take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSD) as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the (CDH) and the WCEPSD, the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan shall be completed and submitted to the CDH and WCEPSD within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by the CDH and/or the WCEPSD shall be accomplished within mutually agreed upon time frames. Laidlaw South may to continue to operate in accordance with the approved revised Design and Operations Plan for a period of fourteen months following receipt of JUL 15 ' 92 13: 18 3033314401 PPGE . 002 approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction, excavation and operations of the newly designed areas will not create a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulation may exist' -argon.tJ1 PROPOSED CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARD #7: There shall be a single point of ingress and egress to the facility. The approved off-site maintenance and improvements agreement shall identify the haul route. Weld County Road 7 shall not be used as a haul route. The main haul route shall be from State Highway 7 along Weld County Road 5. The secondary haul route shall be from Weld County Road 8 along Weld County Road 5. Comment: The above language simply deletes the words " . . . located on Weld County Road 5." .d,- PROPOSED CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARD #19: The proposed facility shall be operated in compliance with the applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Comment: The proposed change adds the word "applicable." tz'a . n a�.< L U�u PROPOSED CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARD #29: There shall be no discharge of wastes into any stream other than bodies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Colorado Department of Health. This Development Standard shall be deemed satisfied while the Applieant--isj -censtrxcting-the surface water control feature approved hereunder and while the ay'-Pati (U.ttkatta_ ._a(__ JJL Th ,dt tz rt- Cettnetat, AQ-0.p.t Ot k YA . Comment: The change simply adds the last sentence. .�i uD,i 9 JUL-14-92 TUE 16: 11 arpnl': Fin "N.C. ','C DATE: July 14, 1992 TO: Lane11 Swanson Weld County Planning FAX 1-352-0242 John. Pickle Weld County Health partment FAX 1-3564966 /iQ\ FROM: Austin Buckingham • Hazardous Materials Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health SUBJECT: Bird Study Laidlaw South Landfill I suggest the following modifications to the Laidlaw proposed language on bird study: The applicant shall submit a bird hazard study and mitigation work plan within thirty days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and it shall describe the actions that will: (i) update and revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan; (ii) take into account current site conditions and proposed site conditions; and (iii)take into consideration compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division (WCEPSD) as the various tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division(CDH) and the WCEPSD,the applicant shall implement this work plan to complete the new bird study and mitigation plan. The bird hazard study and mitigation plan cha11 be completed and submitted to the CDH and WCEPSD within fourteen months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Any deficiency or additional studies required by CDH and/or the WCEPSD shall be accomplished within agreed upon time frames. Until the bird hazard study is completed and approved, Laidlaw South may not exceed the currently approved final elevation of the landfill. Construction,excavation and operations of the newly designed area will not create a vested right to continue operations, if the results of the bird hazard study indicate that violations to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulation may exist. • JUL 14 ' 92 16: 10 3033314401 PPGE.00f1 �QffoACTQA Utiltvadjeoun:Plan July 10, 1992 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Lanell Swanson Subject: Laidlaw South Landfill Expansion - Clarification of Conditions of Approval Dear Ms. Swanson: As I stated in testimony before the Planning Commission on July 7, 1992, Laidlaw believes that it understands the intent of all of the recommended conditions of approval and Laidlaw will comply with the intent of each and every one of the said conditions. It is Laidlaw's desire to receive some clarification of a few of the conditions in order to prevent any future misunderstanding. Laidlaw's Denver Regional Landfill is an ongoing active operation which routinely -receives about 7500 cubic yards of trash each day from numerous customers. Construction activities and environmental monitoring duties are ongoing. In order to provide continuous service to our customers we must build the next disposal area and have construction completed by December, 1992 according to the new design and by September, 1992 according to the old design. Construction activities to prepare the next phase of the landfill have continued. Our problem is, simply put, that all the construction needs to be done before winter weather sets in. It will take about six months to build the next phase of the landfill according to the new design and therefore any delay in this construction would disrupt our business. Exh, oft Pi 135; vr-r- Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Lane11 Swanson July 10, 1992 Page 2 We are certain that it is not the County's desire to disrupt our business in any way, but that it is the County's intention to make sure things are done properly. Laidlaw concurs wholeheartedly. The County is evaluating a modification of an existing operating facility. The permit application before the County is an amendment of an existing permit. The Colorado Department of Health ("CDH") has already approved our redesign and operation plan modification. CDH's position of the statutes was that the new design and operation plan did not require a new Certificate of Designation and initially it was Weld County's position that if a new Certificate of Designation was not necessary, then an amendment to the Special Use Permit was also unnecessary. Laidlaw continues to -believe this is the correct legal position. Regardless of this, it is Laidlaw's desire and intention to work with Weld County to resolve any issues, and again Laidlaw will comply with the recommended Conditions of Approval when adopted by the County. A few of the County's permit conditions as written could be misconstrued to mean that we must halt all operations until the Special Review Plat is recorded or until a condition of approval is met. We understand that this is not the County's intention. Condition #2 of the staff recommendation specifically states that "The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder" and then later in Condition#3 of the staff recommendations, seven items are called out which must be demonstrated prior to recording the Special Review Permit Plat. It is Laidlaw's intention to perform everything called for in Condition #3, but compliance is not completely with Laidlaw's control and more importantly, the time necessary to demonstrate compliance is completely dependent on how long it will take for numerous governmental bodies to respond to our requests. Unfortunately, achieving compliance with Condition#3 will probably take several months and thus, if Condition #2 were interpreted to mean nothing may occur on the Landfill until compliance with #3 is demonstrated, someone could argue that we must close down in the interim. Obviously, this is not the County's intent or our desire. Such a misunderstanding could be avoided if Condition #3 were modified striking the words "Prior to recording the Special Review permit plat, and . . ." and then Laidlaw would Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Lanell-Swanson July 10, 1992 Page 3 be required to demonstrate compliance with Condition #3 within six months of County approval. Condition #3a requires Laidlaw to post a financial mechanism to guarantee the proper closure and post closure care of the landfill. Again, Laidlaw has no problem with the intent of this condition and in fact the new Federal regulations already specify such a requirement. TheTeds call this provision "Financial Responsibility" and have detailed and specific requirements. We would raise two points of clarification. First, the Federal Government or the State of Colorado in its place will require proof of Financial Responsibility sometime during the next 18 months. This proof could be the County agreement required under Condition #3. The potential problem is that the Feds or the State may not accept something they do not control and so the County agreement specified under Condition #3 may not be acceptable to them. If that occurred, Laidlaw would be in the position of having to demonstrate Financial Responsibility twice. We are confident that it is not the County's intent to place this unnecessary financial burden on Laidlaw. We believe the County's intent can be clarified by simply adding the following language to the end of Condition #3a: "In the event that the State of Colorado or the Federal Government require the applicant to post a financial mechanism to guarantee proper closure and post-closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill, other than those required hereunder, any duplicate or redundant provision of the performance agreement required hereunder shall be deemed satisfied and the performance agreement modified appropriately." The second point of clarification with Condition #3a is that it appears to be written to require a trust fund. Although this may be acceptable, typically, Financial Responsibility is established either through a bond or a letter of credit. We believe that this issue could be clarified by simply replacing the words "minimum annual contribution" with "approved method of financial guarantee." Condition #7 of the staff recommendation requires Laidlaw to prepare a bird hazard study and mitigation plan as soon as possible. We agree that this must be done as soon as possible and we have already begun this study. A comprehensive study will take time a�.�. r''^ .��._ n Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Lanell Swanson July 10, 1992 Page 4 to complete; perhaps even as long as one year to determine seasonal variations in migratory routes and bird populations. Once the study is complete, we will determine what, if any, modifications to the mitigation measures will need to be incorporated. A bird hazard study and mitigation plan was done in 1981. That study and plan are attached as amendment #1 to the currently approved Operating Plan for the landfill. We implemented that program and it has been quite effective in minimizing birds at the landfill. That study concluded that upon implementation of the recommendations, any significant bird hazard would be eliminated. We do not believe that the bird situation at the landfill has changed significantly since 1981, but a new study and mitigation plan is underway. Condition #7 as currently written could be misinterpreted to require Laidlaw to temporarily close-down until the bird study is completed even though we were making a good faith effort to complete this plan as soon as possible. Again, we are certain that this is not the County's intent. Our concerns on this subject are as follows: First, the redesign includes the vertical expansion which could be interpreted to be a newly designed area. We will need to be filling in that area by September. We do not believe it is possible to complete the bird study by then. Second, we will need to have Phase A of the site available by December. Again, it may not be possible to complete a new study and mitigation plan and get approval from both CDH and the County by then. We believe that the County's intention can be clarified by modifying Condition #7 to read as follows: "The applicant shall submit a work plan describing the actions that will be taken to update and revise the existing bird hazard study and mitigation plan to take into account -current and proposed site conditions and bring it into compliance with any new rules and regulations of the pertinent State and Federal agencies. This work plan shall include a schedule for completion of the various tasks and shall require progress reports to be made to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division as the various Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Lanell Swanson July 10, 1992 Page 5 tasks are completed. Upon approval of the work plan by Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, the applicant shall implement this workplan to complete the new bird hazard study and mitigation plan as rapidly as is practical. Upon completion of the study and mitigation plan, the applicant must submit same to the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division for approval. Any deficiency or additional studies required by Colorado Department of health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and/or the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be accomplished as soon as practical. Construction, excavation and operation of the newly designed area will not create a vested right to continue operations if the bird hazard issue is not resolved." Development Standard #19 of the staff recommendations requires us to operate in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). Iaidlaw would always operate in compliance with any state, federal or local regulatory body with jurisdiction over our facilities. We do not believe that the County intends to grant FAA any new or special regulatory authority which has not previously been granted to FAA by the United States Congress. What concerns us is that someone may misconstrue the language of the Development Standard to imply some new sort of regulatory authority or expect us to comply with some FAA guideline that is not a law or regulation. We believe this can be clarified by replacing the word "requirements" in Development Standard #19 with "pertinent regulations." The first sentence of Development Standard #7 of the staff recommendations states, "There shall be a single point of ingress and egress to the facility located on Weld County Road 5." Laidlaw is concerned because the access to the landfill is actually on Road 6 (Garfield Road) and the landfill is not adjacent to Weld County Road 5. Someone could misconstrue the language in Development Standard #7 to assert use of Garfield Road for access is a violation of this Development Standard. We believe this Development Standard can be clarified by simply deleting the words " . . . located on Weld County Road 5." The remainder of the Development Standard should remain unchanged. Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Lanell Swanson July 10, 1992 Page 6 The final points of clarification pertain to Development Standard #29 of the staff recommendations. Development Standard #29 states that "There will be no discharge of wastes into any stream, other bodies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a Permit from the Colorado Department of Health. We believe the County's intention is to require Laidlaw to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System "NPDES" regulations. Laidlaw intends to comply with the NPDES provisions. Laidlaw has applied for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit "NPDES" for the landfill but we have not yet received it. Furthermore, we are in the process of altering our permit application to incorporate the new surface water control system and sedimentation basin. And then it will take some time to construct the various surface water control structures. We expect the permitting process to take as long as two years. The way Development Standard #29 is currently written, it could be misinterpreted to -require Laidlaw to have a new NPDES permit for the redesign landfill the day the County approves the application. This Development Standard can be clarified to require compliance with the NPDES regulations while allowing for the permit process by simply adding the sentence "This Development Standard shall be deemed satisfied while the applicant is constructing the surface water control feature approved hereunder and while the initial permitting exercises are underway." Laidlaw appreciates all the efforts of the County and its staff to evaluate and consider our landfill redesign and expansion application. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (800) 288-2909. Sincerely, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. Scott Schreiber Regional Landfill Development Manager July 10, 1992 2480 Bellanca Ct. Erie, CO B0516 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Laidlaw South's request for vertical expansion of their landfill Dear Commissioners: We stand opposed to yet another expansion to this continuously developing Land of Landfills. 'Phis scenario appears to have no end. The close residential areas are, and will be, negatively affected by this development. Please stand with us. Decisions must have a consideration of NEED. This expansion will add about ten more years to this landfill's closure date. There are now well over 500 acres of permitted landfills here. We all know they will be developed as the need arises. It is the responsibility of the county's elected officials to represent the people living in their county. No local citizens are supporting this expansion. The corporation is Canadian and is not based in Weld County at all. Its service area is almost exclusively other counties in the metro area. Why not defend your citizens' interests? Please consider the plight of the area affected. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Janice Whalen, chairman S.E.E. Committee Tom Konetski Vice- chairman Marilyn Brand Secretary-treasurer Dick Medenwaldt Patricia Rice Virginia Blacker -Donald Brand CC ; PL -gxh/Lk L. POWER ENG.-DENNIS WILEY 3036655169 c'• '^i UN. EARLY BIRD m;> '!=' AIRCRAFT CO. YO : LyQELCE SAJ*dSoaJ PtittiAitit)& El 2-410/AJC-.. SeACC Fitosi . ".-**DE•ThivAl/S" ‘Jitoiey s- .Ts F4m oazo .. $7 d. SA judo1 , , 3 /992 ii p Ini1,1fflnr_ ii. el i JUL1 ; lyyl !, L._ 1; : 125 Stearman Court • Erie, Colorado 8 64111)* -5169 JUL 13 ' 92 8: 40 3036655169 PAGE . 001 rr POWER ENG. -DENNIS WILEY 3036655169 P. 02 U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION ORDER FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 52C0.5d U co T 1/31/90 JUL 1 33 1992 SUBJ: WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NFiSR'erAMISBn)t19 1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the establishment,elimination or monitoring of landfills, open dumps, waste disposal sites or similarly titled facilities on or in the 'vicinity of airports. 2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the division level in the Offices of Airport Planning and Pro- gramming, Airport Safety and Standards.Air Traffic Evaluations and Analysis,Aviation Safety Oversight,Air Traf- fic Operations Service, and Flight Standards Service; to the division level in the regional Airports, Air Traffic,and Flight Standards Divisions; to the director level at the Aeronautical Center and the FAA Technical Center, and a limited distribution to all Airport-District Offices,Flight Standards field Offices,and Air Traffic Facilities. 3. CANCELLATION. Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On Or Near Airports,dated October 16, 1974, is canceled, e. tnutsrr^us-Mints nts tt��arby 4. BACKGROUND. Landfills,garbage dumps, sewer or fish waste outfalls and ot8er similarly licensed or titled facilities used for operau'o—ns io process. miry, store-or other wise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will attract rodents and birds. Where the dump is ignited-and produces smoke, an additional.attractant is created. All of the above axe undesirable and potential hazards to aviation since they erode the safety of the airport environment. The fAA neither approves nor disapproves locations of the facilities above. Such action is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency and/or the appropriate state and local agencies. The role of the FAA is to ensure That airport owners and operators meet their contractual obligations to the United States government regarding com- patible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strobe in flight will always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define conditions within fairly narrow limits where the risk is in- / creased. 'Those high-risk conditions exist in the approach and departure patterns and landing areas on and in the ( vicinity of airports. The number of bird strikes reported on aircraft is a matter of continuing concern to the FAA and to airport management Various observations support the conclusion that waste disposal sites are artificial at- .ractants to birds. Accordingly, disposal sites located in the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with safe flight operations. Those sites that are not compatible need to be eliminated. Airport owners need guidance in making those decisions and the FAA must be in a position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction of the community or local governing body having control of land usage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases, the airport owner should use its resources and exert its best efforts to close or control waste disposal operations within the general vicinity of the airport 5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. The following list outlines the major changes to Order 5200.5: a. -Recent developments and new techniques of waste disposal warranted updating and clarification of what constitutes a sanitary landfill.This listing of new titles for waste disposal were outlined in paragraph 4. b. Due to a reorganization which placed the Animal Damage Control branch of the U.S. Department of Inte- rior Fish and Wildlife Service under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Depnrunent of Agriculture, an address addition was -necessary. c. A zone of notification was "rhted to the criteria which should provide the appropriate FAA Airports office an opportunity to comment on the proposed disposal site during the selection process. Distribution: A—WP(AP/AS/TS/0Y/O/ )-2; A—R(AS/AT/FS)-2; Initiated By: Als_300 al—'17r1; A—FAS/FFb/FAT-0(LTD) JUL 13 ' 92 8: 41 3036655169 L:t.i PAGE . 802 '-"r �t.3 .J POWER ENG. -DENNIS WILEY 3036655169 P. 03 5200.5A 1/31190 6- ACTION. d a. Waste-disposal sites located or proposed to be located within the areas established for an airport by the guidelines set forth in paragraph 7a, b, and c of this order should not be allowed to operate. If a waste-disposal site is incompatible with an airport in accordance with guidelines of paragraph 7 and cannot be closed within a reasona- ble time, it should be operated in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services,and other such regulatory bodies that may have applicable requirements. The appropriate FAA airports office should advise airport owners. operators and waste disposal proponents against locating, permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill or similar facility on or in the vicinity of airports. (1) Additionally, any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal site within 5 miles of a runway end should notify the airport and the appropriate FAA Airports office so as to provide an opportunity to review and comment on the she in accordance with guidance contained in this order.FAA field offices may wish to contact the appropriate State director of the United States Department of Agriculture to assist in this review. Also, any Air Traffic control tower manager or Flight Standards District Office manager and their staffs that become aware of a proposal to develop or expand a disposal site should notify the appropriate FAA Airports office. b. The operation of a disposal site located beyond the areas described in paragraph 7 must be properly super- vised to insure compatibility with the airport. c. If at any time the disposal site, by virtue of its location or operation, presents a potential hazard to aircraft operations, the owner should take action to correct the situation or terminate operation of the facility. if the owner of the airport also owns or controls the disposal facility and is subject to Federal obligations to protect compatibility of land uses around the airport, failure to take corrective action could place the airport owner in noncompliance with its commitments to the Federal government. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate the situ- ation to detennine compliance with federal agreements and take such action as may be warranted under the guide- lines as prescribed in Order 5190.6,Airports Compliance Requirements,current edition. (1) Airport owners should be encouraged to make periodic inspections of current operations of existing ^� disposal sites near a federally obligated airport where potential bird hazard problems have been reported. -- d. This order is not intended to resolve all related problems, but is specifically directed toward eliminating waste disposal sites, landfills and similarly titled facilities in the proximity of airports, thus providing a safer envi- ronment for aircraft operations. e. At airports certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, the airport certification manual/speci- _fications should require disposal site inspections at appropriate intervals for those operations meeting the criteria of -paragraph 7 that cannot be dosed. These inspections are necessary to assure that bird populations are not increasing and that appropriate control procedures arc being established and followed. The appropriate FAA Airports offices should develop working relationships with state aviation agencies and state agencies that have authority over waste disposal and landfills to stay abreast of proposed developments and expansions and apprise them of the hazards to aviation that these sites present. f. When proposing a disposal site,operators should make their plans available to the appropriate state regula- tory agencies. Many states have criteria concerning siting requirements specific to their jurisdictions. g. Additional information on waste disposal, bird hazard and related problems may be obtained from the fol- lowing agencies: US. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 18th and C Streets,NW Washington, DC 20240 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal-Plant Health Inspection Service Y.O. Box 96464 - Animal Damage Control Program Room 1624 South Agriculture Building Washington, DC 20090-6464 2 JUL 13 ' 92 8: 43 3036655169 PAGE . 003 e n POWER ENG.-DENNIS WILEV 3036655169 P. 04 kt 3190 5200.5A 1- U.S.Environmental Protection Agency g i. 401 M Street, SW ? 6-- i ¢,.,- Washington,DC 20406 -t U.S.Department of Health and Human Services 3 srP 200 Independence Avenue,3W y Washington,DC 20201 %, RY e. CTERIA. Disposal sites will be considered as incompatible if located within areas established for the air- s .e", t through the application of the following criteria: .914,t,:l a. Waste disposal rtes located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine • tr 'Ward aircraft. 4 , b. Waste disposal sites located within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircraft. 'ts dT #.. �, !k¢- My waste disposal site located within a 5 mile radius of a runway end that attracts or sustains hazardous ..A. ....movements from feeding, water cc roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure ` `„items of aircraft. t P./4 ; /N^ tie and E. Mudd fi,ti {' , ,Office of Airport.Safety and Standards r'. I "' n c : "t�7 , yyyyy 1 ( a91 I ,-7...- - T.7 bn 1 a.'14' .-1 f `4 . a .. i l 3 . a ._ JUL 13 ' 92 8: 44 303665516�,PAGE ^004 imp COQ ,C4' O, ROY ROMER iPe I HAROLD (HAL) D. SIMPSON Governor Ir* Qo. *; Acting State Engineer 4' M MGM, /876 4 / OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 FAX[303] 866-3589 July 9, 1992 Ms. Lanell J. Swanson Weld County Department of Planning Services 910 10Th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. USR-972 Sec. 29, T1N, R68W, 6TH PM W. Division 1, W. District 6 Dear Ms. Swanson: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to amend the plan for a sanitary landfill to allow up to 23.2 million cubic yards of fill and to incorporate certain design changes, on a 160 acre site. No information was provided on projected water requirements. The source of water supply for this landfill is to be from two on lot wells with Permit Numbers 038450-F and 038451-F. The combined annual diversion permitted is 46.0 acre feet. We have no objection to the proposal and recommend approval contingent upon the applicant documenting to the county and to this office ,that the maximum water requirement will not exceed the 46 acre feet available. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, j&ePtAit) SUVA e1,12 John Schurer, P.E. Senior Water Resource Engineer JS/laidlaw cc: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer Bruce DeBrine U gil I F`7gr rrJi v ILl JUL 1 1992 VYCldCountr Planning Ex41' ID/f I (00 : i - ;i �,1 0. OF !Yu Y A ° TOWN OF ERIE • no 645-HOLBROOKP.O.BOX 100 a - - ERIE,COLORAtO 80516 828-3843 e\ �a 665-3555 M74 July 9, 1992 Weld County Commissioners P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners: The Town of Erie is highly opposed to the expansion of the Laidlaw South Landfill . This landfill was originally planned as a small local dump. In 1979, it was approved and became a large regional landfill . Several years later, you approved an expansion. Erie officials were so up set with your decision that they attempted to have the county boundaries moved. After this, we decided to get into the oversight of this activity. Now, you are going to Expand it again. However, this time, the Town is much more knowledgeable and sophisticated. Attached is the Town' s letter to your planning Board. Please review this letter. I would like to raise two points that -became more clear during the Weld County Planning hearing. First, you are approving landfilling on an area that has no liner with no way to document whether a barrier to leachate transmission (pollution) exists. -How vulnerable to litigation do the Commissioners wish to become? Second, Weld County policy and procedure requires that the applicant prove there is a "need" for additional landfill space . Further, the Commissioners must make a finding that "need" exists. The applicant did not provide evidence of "need" at the Planning hearing. I doubt they will do any differently for the Commissioners hearing. However, your approval of this expansion may be negligent unless you make a finding of "need" based on reasonable evidence . POLICE DEPT. METRO 449-3156 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O.BOX 510 .- n (5) LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTIFJA RICT666-4404 ah; r l a v. u� y 3 Weld County Commissioners July 9, 1992 Pane 2 I hereby put you on notice of the above two mentioned issues. This expansion is unsafe . There is no "need" for additional space. The existing facility has 10 years capacity. The Horst landfill is fully approved, the ERD/Zigan landfill, which you approved only one year ago, is fully approved. If anything, there is an excess of space . Erie recommends denial of this expansion. Thank you for allowing Erie to submit comments. Sincerely, -/ /dliZaig% Scott A. Hahn Erie Town Administrator SAH: js d:\wpwk\let\adainist\1912\laidlay.son ✓..-".I'wi.Lid J memoRAn Dun t A. \ Laidlaw File Suzy 10, 1992 lo Dev Lanell Swanson, Current Planner COLORADO T,o,,, USR-972, Laidlaw Waste Syste olorado) Inc. Subject- I spoke to Ted Melland, FAA, Seattle office. He said Laidlaw will have fulfilled their only responsibility to FAA when they have filed Form 7460-1. At that time, after review, FAA can make a recommendation. He also said he does not believe there will be a problem with the airport or the birds, as they are continually -covering the waste. r.rnrnrn9 DJ;h,-I N- - SUMMARY OF TEE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7 , 1992 Page 4 The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Tom Rulon - yes; Bill D'-Hare - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes; Juliette Kroskel - yes; Don Feldhaus - yes; Shirley Camenisch - yes . Motion unanimously carried. CASE NUMBER: USR-972 APPLICANT: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit and an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the 'Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. Fred Otis, Attorney, representative for Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , explained this application to upgrade an existing permit (SUP-400) is one of the most extensive applications in the State of Colorado. Judy Yamaguchi explained the Planning Commission has had ample opportunity to view the application and Bill O'Hare told the audience they had toured the site with the Director of Planning Services, Chuck Cunliffe, Lanell Swanson, Lee Morrison and John Pickle. Lee Morrison explained the Planning Commission had no contacts with operators of the facility or surrounding property owners. Scott Schreiber, Regional Development Director, Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , gave a detailed overview of this application and similar applications throughout the United States. Laidlaw is a Fortune 500 company, employs 35,000 people, and handles 220 million tons of trash yearly. He presented a detailed slide show with aerial photographs of the landfill site and surrounding areas. Shirley Camenisch asked about heavy equipment tearing the liner of the landfill bed. Scott Schreiber explained the liner is covered with 3 feet of sand and special equipment is used to push household type (small trash) out to cover it. Don Feldhaus asked about problems with birds. Scott Schreiber said given the distance of the State of Colorado from the seaboards, birds are not a large problem in this area. Bill O'Hare asked about the water table depth in the area. Bill O'Hare asked what the operation times at the existing facility are. Scott Schreiber said they usually work from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Cx b Fa SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 1992 Page 5 Judy Wiley, surrounding property owner, said they work longer hours than what was stated for the record. She read from the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. She has -environmental concerns and wants to see growth and progress for the southern area of Weld County. Warren Boatright, surrounding property owner, said his primary concern is the noise on the equipment when it is backing up and the bright lights that shine in his windows at night. David Margos, surrounding property owner, he built his home 1 year ago and he understands landfill needs but doesn' t understand why they are overloading this particular area. Barbara Tillman, surrounding property owner, said she has been unsuccessful in her attempts to obtain clarification on water contamination levels. Bill O'Hare asked if she had requested help. She said at the Weld County Health Department and the State Health Department will test for bacteria only. Bill O'Hare asked • what she wanted them to test for. She said petroleum and fuel spills or runoff, solvents, and toxic organics. Bill O'Hare asked about her background. She said she works for Hewlett Packard in Environmental Issues. Scott Hahn, Manager, Town of Erie, said the Town is opposed to this expansion. He feels there is no need for such expansion. He said Laidlaw has a monopoly in this area and it affects the airport corridor because birds are a nuisance. This has a definite negative effect on the Town of Erie. Dennis Wiley, surrounding property owner, said the few homeowners present at this meeting are representing a large majority who could not attend due to work schedules. He holds a commercial pilot's license. The birds are a definite problem for air navigation. Juliette Kroekel asked if the height of the facility causes takeoff, air turbulence and wind level problems. Dennis Wiley said yes. Dorothy Shamy, President, Ranch Eggs Subdivision Homeowners Association, said she speaks for the entire population of the subdivision. She is concerned that the entire area beneath the landfill consists of mines and mineshafts. Movement of the earth in this area is a strong possibility due to a deep mine disturbance. This application would take virgin land away, plus have they investigated the virgin land to assure there is not already trash under it. What will they be digging up. She also commented on the slide exhibit and wondered why the birds and trash do not show up. •,._,.„..r w f� SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7 , 1992 Page 6 Scott Schreiber said it is impossible to go into all the technical information necessary to answer all questions. He introduced Ben Doty and Chris Breeds, technical advisors on this project, and they presented a detailed, very technical overview that answered the concerns of the surrounding property owners. Scott Schreiber said no other site in Colorado has been as extensively tested. This will be the safest landfill in the State of Colorado. There is a definite need for this facility. Bill O'Hare asked the applicant if they had read the Planning staff' s recommendation and agreed. Scott Schreiber said they agree. Judy Yamaguchi reminded the audience that materials would be available in the Planning Department and Clerk to the Board' s Office. Bill O'Hare moved Case Number USR-972, Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, to include the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval. Richard Kimmel seconded the motion. The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Tom Rulon - no; Bill O'Hare - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes; Juliette Kroekel - no; Don Feldhaus - no; Shirley Camenisch - yes. Motion carried with a vote of four to three. COMMENTS Juliette Kroekel said this had been a hard decision but she is extremely concerned about the airpark. She said you can' t change the flight patterns of birds. There is 10 years to work toward an alternative. Don Feldhaus , said this had been a tough "no" vote. He can appreciate the agony and effort that had gone into this application, but he feels with the amount of time we have we could examine the issues in more detail. Respectfully submitted, Sharyn F. Ruff Secretary BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION ' RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Bill O'Hare that the following resolution with Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: USR-972 NAME: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 320, Erie, CO 80516 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Environmental Quality and Natural Resource Section of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Quality and Natural Resource goals provide that solid waste facilities shall be planned, located, designed and operated so that they are compatible with surrounding land uses in terms of general use, scale, height, traffic, dust, noise, and visual pollution. This site is located adjacent to two reclaimed landfills and is located approximately .25 miles west of two undeveloped, approved landfills -- one in the Town of Erie, and one in the unincorporated area of the County. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural zone district and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include two reclaimed landfills, two proposed landfills, agricultural production, and oil and gas production. ernrelin Ex in; �f F RESOLUTION, USR-972 Zaidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 2 The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone district and with future development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County. The site is located in the Geologic Hazard Overlay District. Special Review permit development standards will ensure compliance with the overlay district requirements. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Special Review permit development standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral Entities. The Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder' s office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to recording the Special Review permit plat, and within six months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall submit: a. a performance agreement guaranteeing proper closure and post-closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill. The agreement shall outline the costs associated with closure and post-closure monitoring and shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas) . r'n np W,f a:1i3 RESOLUTION, USR-972 Zaidlaw -Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 3 The Board of County -Commissioners shall review and approve the form -of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the closure and post-closure monitoring. The amount accepted shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas) . The minimum annual contribution shall be automatically adjusted every two years for the life of the post-closure care period of the facility. The minimum annual -contribution shall be adjusted based upon the Consumer Trice Index percent change by year statement. b. a proposed off-site road maintenance and improvements agreement. The agreement shall identify the type, costs, and timing of all off-site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall identify who pays and performs the off-site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall be supported by a traffic analysis, obtained by the applicant, which -estimates the traffic impacts of the proposed use on Weld County roads. The Board of County Commissioners shall review and approve the form of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the off-site road maintenance and improvements agreement. c. evidence that the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District has accepted and approved a detailed reclamation plan, prepared by the applicant. Al. an amendment to the application specifying the testing method and frequency of non-destructive seam testing. The applicants shall also submit evidence that the testing method and frequency have been approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. e. evidence that a plan for controlling fugitive dust has been approved by Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. f. -an access control plan to ensure appropriate wastes are being allowed at the facility. The access control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Health, -Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. ern('no .,i...`vU.0 RESOLUTION, USR-972 Laidlaw -Waste Systems (Color-ado) , Inc. Page 4 g. evidence that any required air emissions permit has been obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 4. The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County-Environmental Protection Services Division shall be kept apprised of fault location conditions discovered during excavation. Permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring may be required. 5. Within four working days of discovery of perched water conditions during excavation activities, the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be notified. Contingency plans may be required to be developed -by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. 6. Prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell, a certification report shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Colorado Department of -Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 7. -Prior to accepting any waste in the newly designed area, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County -Environmental Protection Services Division, have approved a bird hazard study and mitigation plan. Construction and excavation of the -newly designed area will not create a vested right to proceed if the bird hazard issue is not resolved. ✓•.:u L:'Lek.) RESOLUTION, USA-972 July 7, 1992 Page 5 Motion seconded by Richard Kimmel. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Richard Kimmel Tom Rulon Bill O'Hare Juliette Kroekel Judy Y-amaguchi Don Feldhaus Shirley Camenisch The Chairman declared th-e resolution Passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissions for further proceedings. CERTI₹ICATION OF _COPY I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution, is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on July 7, 1992. Dated the 7th of J , 1992. Sharyn J'. Ruff Secretary SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LAIDLAW WA-ST-E SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. USR-972 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Speci-al Review Permit is for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400, allowed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the application materials on file with Weld -County, and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. The applicant and/or operator -shall be responsible _for constructing and operating in compliance with minimum standards pertaining to the Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and -applicable -Federal Laws. 2. Approval -of this plan -may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Only -non-hazardous and non-radioactive household, industrial, and commercial solid waste, approved by the Colorado Department of HeaLth and Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be accepted. No liquid waste of any nature, as defined ty the State of Colorado or Environmental Protection Agency, shall be accepted. 4. A manager, knowledgeable in operating a solid waste disposal site and facility, shall be on the site at all times the facility is operating. -An up-to-date list of all managers shall be provided to Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 5. The maximum size of the working face of the -disposal site shall not exceed 150 feet in width and 14 feet in vertical depth at any time. 6. All waste received at the facility shall he inspected to ensure appropriate wastes are being disposed of at the facility. The access control plan, approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County -Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be maintained. 7. There shall be a single point of ingress and -egress to the facility located on Weld County Road 5. -The approved off-site maintenance and improvements agreement shall identify the haul route. Weld County Road 7 shall not be used as a -haul route. The main haul route shall be from State Highway 7 along Weld County Road 5. The secondary haul route shall be from Weld County Road S along Weld County Road 5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 2 8. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and groundwater contamination. The facility operator shall implement the groundwater monitoring plan approved-by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. The analytical method and statistical evaluation of groundwater -monitoring data shall comply with -Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. Carbonate and cation-anion balance shall be included as part of the groundwater monitoring program. The applicant shall also analyze leachate for the following parameters: total organic halides, biochemical oxygen demand total petroleum hydrocarbons, total phenols, pH, and specific conductivity. These are a minimum. The operator may choose to do -a more detailed analysis. 9. Any changes or updates to the groundwater -monitoring plan or specific groundwater monitoring plan shall be made by the facility operator when requested in writing by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division or Colorado Department of HeaLth. -A copy of any request for change shall be for-warded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for r-eview. 10. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be conducted in a manner that controls blowing debris. .The working face will be closed to disposal when high wind warning conditions Exist as defined in Section 1.2 -of the Colorado Department of Health's Stolid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. The following operation measures shall be employed to _control blowing or illegally dumped debris: a. Any debris found outside the working face shall be picked up within 24 hours. b. The following shall fie patrolled dailyiby facility staff to-pick up all debris and return it to the working face: i. The fence along the perimeter of the Special Review Permit area; ii. Weld County Road 5 tetween State Highway 7 and Weld County Road 8; iii. Weld County Road 6 between Weld County Road-s 5 and 7; iv. State Highway 7 between Weld County -Roads 5 and 7. sA _, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 3 c. The manager of the facility shall respond to requests for picking up debris within 24 hours of notification by County Environmental Protection Services Division personnel. d. A-minimum 5-inch solid cover ar other cover alternative approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be applied daily to control the size of the working face. Cover shall be placed on debris as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. e. The working face shall be enclosed on the downwind side(s) with a minimum 12-foot litter screen while accepting waste. -An 8-foot litter and access-control fence shall be maintained around the Special Review Permit area. f. During windy periods, which have not reached the threshold to be defined as high wind warning conditions, the size of the working face shall be reduced to a size that eliminates debris escaping the screen. g. The size of the working face shall be reduced to 100 feet in width while accepting waste after dark. 11. Colorado Department of Health Regulations pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, Section 2.2.7. state: "Disposal sites and facilities that accept putrescible wastes that may attract birds, and which occur within 10,000 feet (3048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet, or within 5,000 feet (1523 meters) of any airport runway used by piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. " The facility must be operated in compliance with the approved laird hazard study and mitigation plan. 12. The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odor. Odors detected off-site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen to one dilution threshold, as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 13. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control fugitive dust at all times. The facility operator shall implement the plan for controlling fugitive dust, as approved by the Weld County Environmental _Protection Services Division. Any changes or updates to the plan for controlling fugitive dust shall be made by the facility operator when required in writing by representatives of Weld County. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review according to Development Standard 34. 14. The Special Review Permit site and facility shall be operated in compliance with any required Air Emissions Permit approved by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. �.,r.-ne,,r�..eV('� DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 4 15. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB(A) , as measured according to Section 25-12-102, C.R.S. 16. Adequate toilet facilities, served by an individual sewage disposal system, are required for the facility. The facilities shall be installed in accordance with the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal and Building Code Regulations. 17. The owner and/or facility operator shall comply with the off-site road improvements and maintenance agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 18. The owner and/or facility operator shall maintain an adequate water supply for the disposal site facility. The source of water for construction, operation, drinking, and sanitary facilities shall be approved by representatives of Weld County -Environmental Protection Services Division and the Division of Water Resources. 19. The disposal facility shall be operated in compliance with the requirements of the Federal -Aviation Administration. 20. The disposal site facility shall be operated in compliance with the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Plans for any additional buildings to be constructed on the site shall be submitted to the Fire District prior to beginning construction. 21. All stockpile overburden, soil, and associated materials shall be managed to prevent nuisance conditions. The facility operator shall comply with the reclamation plan approved by the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District. 22. The facility shall continue to be subject to the terms of Weld County Ordinance 164 as it exists or as it may from time to time be amended. 23. The owner or operator shall be responsible for maintaining the approved screening and landscaping plan. 24. Two metal signs shall be posted at the customer _entrance. The first sign shall st-ate: "ALL UNCOVERED LOADS SHALL BE CHARGED TWICE THE NORMAL FEE" . The second sign shall state: "ABSOLUTELY NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, SEPTIC, OR LIQUID SLUDGE ACCEPTED" . 25. The facility oper-ator shall keep the following records at the facility to be available for County and State review at any reasonable time: a. Quarterly operations inspection reports, completed by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. b. Results of wind, methane, and water quality monitoring. rc !"rn _3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 5 c. Soil liner certification report. d. Any special waste accepted at the facility. 26. The solid waste disposal site and facility plan and monitoring programs are subject to revisions pending the receipt of pertinent data and/or changing site conditions. All requests for revision shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services for review in accordance with Development Standard Number 34. 27. Lighting provided for security operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. 28. All phases of the operation must conform to Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, C.R.S. , and regulations promulgated thereunder, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and_Recovery 29. There shall be no discharge of wastes into any stream, other bodies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a National_Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Colorado Department of Health. 30. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Geologic Hazard Overlay District requirements. 31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 33. Personnel from Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, Colorado Department of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 34. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 6 35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. ipe-1,0-Ni.esta ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. USR-972 The Town of Erie Planning and Zoning Commission has responded, in its referral response of June 25, that it is opposed to the application. The first reason stated for opposition to this application is that the Erie Planning Commission is "confused how anyone can allow landfilling on top of mine shafts that lead directly to coal mines below. . . " . The subsidence issue has been addressed in detail in a September, 1991, study by Golder and Associates. Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the study and has responded that, "We concur with and reiterate the overall findings in the report and we have no concerns that this facility, as designed, will suffer any ill effects from the potential mine subsidence associated with the site. " The Town of Erie Planning Commission has also raised issues regarding the liners on this and surrounding sites. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the environmental updates and monitoring plans proposed as part of this amendment to the application, with the staff's recommended conditions of approval and development standards, will adequately address this and other environmental concerns. A representative of the Federal Aviation Administration has stated that the proposed amendment to this permit does not appear to be a problem because the proposed expansion is vertical and because the disposal area will be covered during the night. "fin'fr"10 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant: Laidlaw Waste System (Colorado) , Inc. Case Number: USR-972 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1. Application 4 Volumes X 2. Application plats and maps X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation X 5. DPS Surrounding Property Owner' s Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. June 22, 1992 memo from John Pickle, Weld County Health Department X 12. June 16, 1992 memo from Drew Scheltinga, Weld County Engineering Department X 13. June 4, 1992 referral from Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District X 14. April 28, 1992 letter from Colorado Department of Health to Rick Hoffman, Laidlaw X 15. June 3, 1992 memo from John Pickle, Weld County Health Department X 16. May 28, 1992 referral from Mountain View Fire Protection District X 17. May 21, 1992 referral from Oil and Gas Conservation Commission X 18. May 27, 1992 letter from City of Lafayette X 19. May 22, 1992 letter from City of Thornton X 20. May 14, 1992 letter of concurrence from Golder Associates to Austin Buckingham X 21. May 18, 1992 memo from Chuck Cunliffe to Board of County Commissioners X 22. May 4, 1992 letter from Fred L. Otis to Chuck Cunliffe X 23. June 1, 1992 preadvertisement request from Fred L. Otis X 24. June 26, 1992 memo from John Pickle, Weld County Health Department X 25. Odor Emission Regulations X 26. June 25, 1992 letter to John Pickle from Dan Sweeney, EMCON and attached FAA order X 27. Newspaper clipping regarding plane crash tied to birds X efi nreN U, _'r C: lJ. [xhib+ 4E INVENTORY OF ITEMS adBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Laidlaw Waste System (Colorado) , Inc. Page 2 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing 28. June 22, 1992 letter to John Pickle from Dennis and Judy Wiley and attached PA questionnaire and preliminary assessment X 29. June 24, 1992 letter to Rick Hoffman from Austin Buckingham regarding bird hazard issues X 30. June 25, 1992 letter to Lanell Swanson from Dennis C. Wiley with attached letter submitted to Scott Brownlee, Colorado Division of Aviation and 3 attached maps X 31. June 25, 1992 letter from Town of Erie X 32. Exhibit 32 - Photograph Points - submitted by Scott Schreiber, Laidlaw X 33. Two boxes of slides X 34. Exhibit 34 - sample of liner material X 35. Exhibit 35 - photos of houses in Erie Air Park - submitted by Dennis Wiley X 36. Exhibit 36 - aerial photograph X 37. Exhibit 37 - aerial photograph with overlay X I hereby certify that the 37 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. S further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on July 10, 1992. 206,-,✓ r ent Pla e'. STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /Jr day of � t< (�t_� 19 '7 9 . SEAL ;� 1I Ctx--` _fh'-� ' •s-f-{ c"'.mac_ / i c. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires (, - 0 — `f c/ ROY ROME' n4 Vamben: to .: Governor Mai. ,inkling, Denver ".;x�,;;p,." (303)322-9076 PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH Ptarmigan Place, Denver Executive Director (303)32071529 First National Bank Building, Denver (303)355-6559 p Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grad Junetios Office � 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)2g8-7190 Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office DEPARTMENT (303) 331-4830/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-8441 OFAHEALTH June 24, 1992 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld County Raod 6 P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado, 80516 RE: Amended Design and Operations Plan Denver Regional Landfill (Laidlaw South) Weld County Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health approval of the Laidlaw South Amended Design and Operations Plan was predicated on the fact that the Tri-County Airport accepted only piston-type aircraft. Under this scenario, the landfill would be located at a distance greater than 5, 000 feet from the end of the Tri-County Airport runway and as such, did not require any special provisions under the existing Solid Waste Regulations. However, it has recently come to the Divisions attention that the Tri-County Airport has been accepting non-commercial jets (primarily for corporate customers) approximately once a year since the airport opened in 1981. The problems that have arisen due to this new information are: 1. The landfill falls into a category of less than 10, 000 feet from an airport runway that is used by a turbojet. 2 . The current regulation states that disposal sites and facilities located less than 10, 000 feet from the end of an airport runway used by a turbojet shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. Subtitle D states that 'The owners or operators . . . must demonstrate that the units are designed and operated so that the municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. ' 3 . In addition, Subtitle D states that 'Owners or operators . . . within a five-mile radius of any airport runway. . must notify the affected airport and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . ' ®pined on recycled paper �/` Exhi. bl+ � cc- , , ERD Landfill June 24 , 1992 page 2/2 The Division requests that the disposal site and facility evaluate bird hazards posed to the Tri-County Airport. A report documenting aircraft flight paths, bird flight paths and populations associated with the landfill activity shall be prepared and submitted to the governing body having jurisdiction and to this Division for review and approval. The Division also requests that the affected airports within a five mile radius of the site and the FAA be notified of the existence of the MSWLF units. I may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions. ,Sincerely, / i i Austin N. Buckingham " Geologist , Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: J. Baron, Mid-America Waste Systems, Inc. Hahn, Town of Erie G. Lacy, Weld County Commissioners J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department L. Swanson, Weld County Planning K. White, KRW Consulting, Inc. T. Zigen, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. file: SW/WLD/ENV er nrni v��•.s ii.9,,;y CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket #92-38, was placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this 24th day of June, 1992. Deputy Clerk tf) the Board LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS VVVV P.O. BOX 122283 FORT WORTH, TX 76116 LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. P.O. BOX 320 ' ERIE, CO 80516 CENCALL, INC. 1999 BROADWAY, #2100 DENVER, CO 80202 COLORADO LANDFILL, INC C/O BOB MCKENZIE P.O. BOX 122283 FORT WORTH, TX 76116 KENNETH E. PRATT KAREN K. LANDERS P.O. BOX 801 LONGMONT, CO 80501 RICHARD COSELETT, EFFIE E. TIERNEY, RAY ARMSTRONG, BEVERLY J. COLLINS, JUNE ANN PEASE, & BETTY JEAN COSELETT GILKINSON C/0 LONGMONT NATIONAL BANK 5TH AND COFFMAN LONGMONT, CO 80501 GSX DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL, INC. C/O BOB MCKENZIE P.O. BOX 122283 FORT WORTH, TX 76116 ROCKY MOUNTAIN FUEL COMPANY 910 15TH STREET #756 DENVER, CO 80202 ROCKY MOUNTAIN FUEL COMPANY 608 EMPIRE BUILDING DENVER, CO 80202 v ^ Q33 ENERGY OIL, INC. 1801 LEFTHAND CIRCLE LONGMONT, CO 80501 SNYDER OIL PARTNERS L.P. A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2500 INTERFIRST TOWER FORT WORTH, TX 76102 SNYDER OIL PARTNERS L.P. A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2500 FIRST REPUBLIC BANK TOWER FORT WORTH, TX 76102 SNYDER OIL PARTNERS L.P. A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1800 GLENARM PLACE, SUITE 700 DENVER, CO 80202 n a?• 3 DOYLE, KLEIN, OTIS, FREY,HELLERICH & LAZAR ATTORNEYS AT LAW WELD ELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RICHARD N.DOYLE SUITE 300 HENRY C.FREY AFFWATED NATIONA 4 _ e DE THOMAS E.HELLERICH 822 7th STREET!' I Ft9 3: 13 ( O(3033>)659-7576 METRO ROGER A.KLEIN GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 // FAX MICHAEL A.LAZAR CLERK FRED L.OTIS (303)353-6712 (303)363-6700 TO THE BOARD June 1, 1992 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Use by Special Review Application No. 972 - Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Inc., to Amend Special Use Permit 400 Dear County Commissioners: On behalf of my client, Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Inc. ("Laidlaw"), permission is requested to accelerate the hearing process in the referenced • application by pre-advertising the Weld County Commissioner Hearing to be held July 15, 1992 following the Planning Commission Hearing to be held on July 7, 1992. An accelerated hearing is being requested for business reasons connected with Laidlaw's development of the property. Sincerely, Fred L. Otis Attorney at Law FLO:cas c: Lanell Swanson, Department of Planning Services Scott Schreiber Rick Hoffman xhlhYf4 Fn 3Lo 415 92O484 �pp EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEE" Case (,'SP— cXkL �TLrii ) ��L1(1 2 P�na`nn Exhibit Submitted -By Exhibit Description ii/ `� !-{�-`'l A. )aAcL. YQ ttPL/ Ae y(j LfLA . iatittd 40/8 B. (/1,1 110 Am/L./ ZGLo r�i i i,64lf )(Audi( 0,�l ifi zJ ,,at .6- ,E3aekLfz Mc -7/O E. Pi /7 na Q� �Y2itp/��n - i_LC 1/D F. Aa-r-h-+-,y, C67nmUioto-r) as bitimJ tic le2Cr» in fandct_c.o-ii ril io C• \ !4-A-/1,C/lOn l tni tn.[i,)/J t dx� �C-171 nim y, Th3 �1QG�',1,L,hq j �l D H. ( � ll h-h ti F p ik �, i l l r MI) n / : S/ Air tyY�l k urc ti;rJ AMY (� 2t t/Aa I. i it&C7z eg F2 II-Zw o 0j7Ji 7113'• 'tit .-kith e enau4fl A fie he.Cerr nn.am �cl"� or- ) ruMo ( Jj to Lr II/3 K. CV-EtLAI" -f-W A- O,L ,t_. ..2Ot4 5A li t( L. 6 E-E l ,b 7Yv nui Vac.. I/ f ln- , O f p#3th B h) ,bvtt hj.tn- 1115 H. A hiPDaai- a A0,,,,,0 di 71 /L : L C zmh ort) 6)4l /11 kN• Cc-kg SokudreA, U -07 0- SColt S-cktktbk. IS in2 pt\ 3-16/e/4-2A- o5r a Clip 1 -7A Q• Lc ;1r r Of ,,,11,4,--t 6 -/7 91, > l7/n' a } V If 6c, 13- ye/72- Qf 7 S Q 63,, ,,,,ova r'a i„,„,,,,,, Wain' 4- IC T. Chit vvYuciaL elk y---- 0/ )(476O-, flet1l ,775 u. a c 0 Ri)-3E,' %f' idiaii,,, hiztruf-l�kL�i aio,- jcJ2r (.�i+��n � 4 3 V. $t 'ft n2 kleia.P eh fl : Snit /C17411— Off*1 w. X. Y. Z. 441.,",• u'S+'li'3 ' 6H- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET ipGREELEY,COLORADO 80631 C COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, July 7, at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for the property described below. Approval of the request may created a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Law. APPLICANT: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED USE: An amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Town of Erie, south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. SIZE: 160 acres, more or less The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning Commission for the consideration of the above referenced request will be conducted in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on July 7, 1992. Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, Room 342, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado, - Phone - 356-4000, Extension 4400. Bud Clemons, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Windsor Beacon. To be published one (1) time by May 28, 1992. -Received by: Date: r ,� dmay' Date: July 7, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-972 NAME: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. -ADDRESS: P.O. Box 320, Erie, CO 80516 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the -6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Environmental Quality and Natural Resource Section of the Weld County Comprehensive _Plan. The Environmental Quality and Natural Resource goals _provide that solid waste facilities shall be planned, located, designed and operated so that they are compatible with surrounding land uses in terms of general use, scale, -height, traffic, dust, noise, and visual pollution. This site is located adjacent to two reclaimed landfills and is located approximately .25 miles west of two undeveloped, approved landfills -- one in the Town of Erie, and one in the unincorporated area of the County. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural zone district and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. -The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include two reclaimed landfills, two proposed landfills, agricultural production, and oil and gas production. -The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone district and with future development as -projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County. e-rN p u, .r U. RECOMMENDATION, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 2 The site is located in the Geologic Hazard Overlay District. Special Review permit development standards will ensure compliance with the overlay district requirements. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Special Review permit development standards will provide adequate-protection -of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder' s office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. -The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to recording the Special -Review permit plat, and within six months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall submit: a. a performance agreement guaranteeing -proper closure and post-closure monitoring of the sanitary landfill. The agreement shall outline the costs associated with closure and post-closure monitoring and shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachate and methane gas) . �,n1tr n RECOMMENDATION, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 3 The Board of County Commissioners shall review and approve the farm of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the closure and post-closure monitoring. The amount accepted shall include sufficient funds for corrective action for known releases (leachat-e and methane gas) . The minimum annual contribution shall be automaticallyadjusted every two years for the life of the post-closure care period of the facility. The minimum annual contribution shall. be adjusted Lased upon the Consumer Price Index percent -change by year statement. b. a proposed off-site road maintenance and improvements agreement. The agreement shall identify the type, costs, and timing of all off-site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall identify who pays and performs the off-site road improvements and maintenance. The agreement shall be supported by a traffic analysis, obtained by -the applicant, which estimates the traffic impacts of the proposed use on Weld County roads. The Board of Bounty Commissioners shall review and approve the form of collateral and security tendered and accepted for the off-site road maintenance and improvements agreement. c. evidence that the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District has accepted and approved a detailed reclamation plan, prepared by the applicant. d. an amendment to the application specifying the testing method and frequency of non-destructive seam testing. The applicants shall also submit -evidence that the testing method and frequency have been approved by the Weld County Environmental -Protection Services Division and the State of Colorado, Colorado lDepartment of-Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. e. -evidence that a plan for controlling fugitive dust has been approved by Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. f. an access control Plan to ensure appropriate wastes are being allowed at the facility. The access control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. (.tri,r•-ir Olt CD RECOMMENDATION, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 4 g. evidence that any required air emissions permit has been obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 4. The Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be kept apprised of fault location conditions discovered during excavation. Permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring may be required. 5. Within four working days of discovery of perched water conditions during -excavation activities, the Colorado Department of -Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be notified. Contingency plans may be re-quired to be developed by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. 6. Prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell, a certification report shall be _prepared -by the applicant and reviewed by the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was iperformed in conformance with the design criteria, the project -plans and specifications. 7. Prior to accepting any -waste in the newly designed area, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the Colorado -Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, have approved a bird hazard study and mitigation-plan. Construction and excavation of the newly designed area will not create a vested right to proceed if the bird hazard issue is not resolved. �.,rn Jr-n9 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. USR-972 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit is for an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400, allowed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the application materials on file with Weld County, and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. The applicant and/or operator shall be responsible for constructing and operating in compliance with minimum standards pertaining to the Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and applicable Federal Laws. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Only non-hazardous and non-radioactive household, industrial, and commercial solid waste, approved by the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be accepted. No liquid waste of any nature, as defined by the State of Colorado or Environmental Protection Agency, shall be accepted. 4. A manager, knowledgeable in operating a solid waste disposal site and facility, shall be on the site at all times the facility is operating. An up-to-date list of all managers shall be provided to Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 5. The maximum size -of the working face of the disposal site shall not -exceed 150 feet in width and 14 feet in vertical depth at any time. 6. All waste received at the facility shall be inspected to ensure appropriate wastes are being disposed of at the facility. The access control plan, approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, shall be maintained. 7. There shall be a single point of ingress and egress to the facility located on Weld County Road 5. She approved off-site maintenance -and improvements agreement shall identify the haul route. Weld County Road 7 shall not be used as a haul route. The main haul route shall be from State Highway 7 along Weld County Road 5. The secondary haul route shall be from Weld County Road 8 along Weld County Road 5. ern b_ CI I.- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 2 8. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and groundwater contamination. The facility -operator shall implement the groundwater monitoring plan approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. The analytical method and statistical evaluation of groundwater monitoring data shall comply with Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. Carbonate and cation-anion balance shall be included as part of the groundwater monitoring program. The applicant shall also analyze leachate for the following parameters: total organic halides, biochemical oxygen demand total petroleum hydrocarbons, total phenols, pH, and specific conductivity. These are a minimum. The operator may choose to do a more detailed analysis. 9. Any changes or updates to the groundwater monitoring plan or specific groundwater monitoring plan shall be made by the facility operator when requested in writing by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division or _Colorado Department of Health. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review. 10. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be conducted in a manner that controls blowing debris. The working face will be closed to disposal when high wind warning conditions exist as defined in Section 1.20 of the Colorado _Department of Health' s Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations. 6 CCR 1007-2. The following -operation measures shall be employed to 'control blowing or illegally dumped debris: a. Any debris found outside the working face shall be picked up within 24 hours. b. The following shall be patrolled daily by facility staff to pick up all debris and return it to the working face: i. The fence along the perimeter of the Special Review Permit area; ii. Weld County Road 5 between State Highway 7 and Weld County Road 8; r -00‘r.nn DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 3 iii. Weld County Road 6 between Weld County Roads 5 and 7; iv. State Highway 7 between Weld County Roads 5 and 7. c. The manager of the facility shall respond to requests for picking up debris within 24 hours of notification by County Environmental Protection Services Division personnel. d. A minimum 6-inch solid cover or other cover alternative approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division shall be applied daily to control the size of the working face. Cover shall be placed on debris as soon as possible on days when wind is a noticeable problem. e. The working face shall be enclosed on the downwind side(s) with a minimum 12-foot litter screen while accepting waste. An 8-foot litter and access-control fence shall be maintained around the Special Review Permit area. f. During windy periods, which have not reached the threshold to be defined as high wind warning conditions, the size of the working face shall be reduced to a size that eliminates debris escaping the screen. g. The size of the working face shall be reduced to 100 feet in width while accepting waste after dark. 11. Colorado Department of Health Regulations pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, Section 2.2.7. state: "Disposal sites and facilities that accept putrescible wastes that may attract birds, and which occur within 10,000 feet (3048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet, or within 5,000 feet (1523 meters) of any airport runway used by piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. " The facility must be operated in compliance with the approved bird hazard study and mitigation plan. 12. The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odor. Odors detected off-site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen to one dilution threshold, as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 4 13. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control fugitive dust at all times. The facility operator shall implement the plan for controlling fugitive dust, as approved by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. Any changes or updates to the plan for controlling fugitive dust shall be made by the facility operator when required in writing by representatives of Weld County. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review according to Development Standard 34. 14. The Special Review Permit site and facility shall be operated in compliance with any required Air Emissions Permit approved by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 15. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB(A) , as measured according to Section 25- 12-102, C.R.S. 16. Adequate toilet facilities, served by an individual sewage disposal system, are required for the facility. The facilities shall be installed in accordance with the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal and Building Code Regulations. 17. The owner and/or facility operator shall comply with the off-site road improvements and maintenance agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 18. The owner and/or facility operator shall maintain an adequate water supply for the disposal site facility. The source of water for construction, operation, drinking, and sanitary facilities shall be approved by representatives of Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division and the Division of Water Resources. 19. The disposal facility shall be operated in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. 20. The disposal site facility shall be operated in compliance with the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Plans for any additional buildings to be constructed on the site shall be submitted to the Fire District prior to beginning construction. 21. All stockpile overburden, soil, and associated materials shall be managed to prevent nuisance conditions. The facility operator shall comply with the reclamation plan approved by the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District. 920638 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 5 22. The facility shall continue to be subject to the terms of Weld County Ordinance 164 as it exists or as it may from time to time be amended. 23. The owner or operator shall be responsible for maintaining the approved screening and landscaping plan. 24. Two metal signs shall be posted at the customer entrance. The first sign shall state: "ALL UNCOVERED LOADS SHALL BE CHARGED TWICE THE NORMAL FEE" . The second sign shall state: "ABSOLUTELY NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, SEPTIC, OR LIQUID SLUDGE ACCEPTED" . 25. The facility operator shall keep the following records at the facility to be available for County and State review at any reasonable time: a. Quarterly operations inspection reports, completed by the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. b. Results of wind, methane, and water quality monitoring. c. Soil liner certification report. d. Any special waste accepted at the facility. 26. The solid waste disposal site and facility plan and monitoring programs are subject to revisions pending the receipt of pertinent data and/or changing site conditions. All requests for revision shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services for review in accordance with Development Standard Number 34. 27. Lighting provided for security operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. 7O 14. CR57 .ZtL4 30, ad-4A- 28. All phases of the operation must conform to 30 20 1$i and regulations promulgated thereunder, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 29. There shall be no discharge of wastes into any stream, other bodies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Colorado Department of Health. 30. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Geologic Hazard Overlay District requirements. 92 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. Page 6 31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 33. Personnel from Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, Colorado Department of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 34. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 920638 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (COLORADO) , INC. USR-972 The Town of Erie Planning and Zoning Commission has responded, in its referral response of June 25, that it is opposed to the application. The first reason stated for opposition to this application is that the Erie Planning Commission is "confused how anyone can allow landfilling on top of mine shafts that lead directly to coal mines below. . . " . The subsidence issue has been addressed in detail in a September, 1991, study by Golder and Associates. Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the study and has responded that, "We concur with and reiterate the overall findings in the report and we have no concerns that this facility, as designed, will suffer any ill effects from the potential mine subsidence associated with the site. " The Town of Erie Planning Commission has also raised issues regarding the liners on this and surrounding sites. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the environmental updates and monitoring plans proposed as part of this amendment to the application, with the staff's recommended conditions of approval and development standards, will adequately address this and other environmental concerns. A representative of the Federal Aviation Administration has stated that the proposed amendment to this permit does not appear to be a problem because the proposed expansion is vertical and because the disposal area will be covered during the night. 920639 809076 i .; 1 1 . . A y i t S r ! t t �. i ) i. it' Li I ,! ..M . 1 V { Is f I ' x I„ F • . I 1 , 1 t 1 -�Fl• 7 ^' ' ' �c v ��)� - `7 A \ \\ I� ' I , �� `V W • • �� E +\ #3. A�f �' #2'r PROPOSED HORST LAPDF' i 7 �', i �r w��7 5325 i Z , XISTING 'RTH ± FIE/ _`, , �'� '1 - ? ( u - rfc • - 7-----" I IC 1 ,- 442 I��I , \ Y��r� [rCriN/ti ‘ /-7 c., , L- - NN 7 .._ , I ) = , , ,, , c ,y )j +2/fh , ._ _ N ...r) ,) 7,, ). _ ,, ,, gym h� 7 �,,� 1. o m . , /� ��/ $ -9(12.;=-) co� �� t �i�s 5365Ihj ` 1 /__ e�' PROP•So DRLS A r X a it �\( / ,` "7 i AI M . 5...\.___cH L > 1 )1 C r 49 Sill :7 • + PHOTO POINT , scale n feet _ J : c ' H , 1//,\ , ® Golder Associates Inc. TITLE Denver, Colorado PHOTOGRAPH POINTS CUENT/PROJECT LAIDLAW/ORES PERMIT APPLICATION DATE JUNE 1992 SCALE AS SHOWN JO8 N • 923-2480 DRAWN �L CHECKED SSL REVIEWED Flue DWG.NO. FI920fi39 `v H n ...., .sa14Qe iii 1 V ilgeLeir,_ : .4.1:t .r. 46441‘ - J•F. +�•.1rat• ' --..:-. sic Ion ' : _•. re- IRIV.N. , ,1404 liiiiTH- I...rt.- •i : -.ME. 1•IY. 0;0 ' sc,.•' ,„,r__ „ 1, ' it 1:.--..c. •lilt' — . - --- - — � �. .q ` ..•. rwry� 1 •J$ Si i. } II - Est-_ • ' Y .�71. ' i . ' I .. ".•nom-+��_^ •---\Klik f• - �^ f —li1/4 ___ _ ��t ► 1 _ - I a • !tills, - •-_ \ ......- ---• . linci eassmspiir r ri • albiliaalr- , --••••••••••-. --_... ...••• ••••••••••• ••01 ••••••_.. •-•..- -4.- • a. • - -...--_ -is ..... -- . trait .,._ ? lir _sec . . . . 1r �r6T1_ t —„ . `fir ~ s l� .ti_ CT Yr. rr _. " ' 1 ttli\III: . i_... . . ...... .4000ir • isg: 'N 4, • t t ` lam i V-' 'mil vii- - '. ., 4 •- i A,/ I : Liii, ` J t r 4. 10.0. -1 ,1 ( .4.' Jew,•-, �-' err . - \ . 1 'r • `_ ~ yyp.,,.� .':141.... �r .t •� YS •- - j j ` . * i. �,' _.. ,jar. _ •. r • T• ( .•T inr...77,11:4:-..:::_ - 1Cr - - .+ •r<. a-- I • _ y � 1 d . -•s,::• - _ ^ "` t ► . !? '4 � tr' _ 40 4• . .-) I: 4 4-.);,44.1-*a . . iiiete: 1)/4 _ . . . .,,it_It•, e . s• 1.... lilt t ' %hi' ...'15,.;1' 4.7,,-1,-no" . e'' e.. '' -• . . ' a ' ] t S.. , • • •� . 1, 4-. ** •"-fir ran+ .et. 9 r �/�[ "e". I y Ai• .r+ • r . \%Ai\, ,N,Iii' . , i .1 . 10° ".., li is. .. . 4„ . .ieshr ..."-- - 441.1140H . . . .. . . -0-0- _. _. . . • . .6. • -, *. 4 a.- • ,,ill rz, _ lir• _ -. - . . .." • 4iir - N. pt.-- . . • .4 Its Mr te. 11.11144t - te f! I * - • _;!_ I 1. a . - - v -se a I___ . - ' - - t • •, — FILE PLO415 USR400 AMEND 920638 LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS , INC . CONTAINS SAMPLES OF LINING AND PICTURES MARKED EXIBITS 32,35,36 AND 37 - PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL FILE • pt 1 to 3r• ROY ROMER Tekfax Na Main Builo 3enver 4(I Governor (303)322-9076 z PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH Ptarmigan Place, Denver �..-� (303)320-1529 ` Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver (303)355-6559 ' Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office �°n �M 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198 COLORADO O Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Pueblo Office (303) 331-4830/FAX (303) 331-4401 (719)543-8441 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH June 24 , 1992 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. SFir'r_'it U cn'1441 Weld County Raod 6 P.O. Box 320 ll JUN 2 ,1 i”? iii i Erie, Colorado, 80516 RE: Amended Design and Operations Plan Weld County PI3ming Denver Regional Landfill (Laidlaw South) Weld County Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health approval of the Laidlaw South Amended Design and Operations Plan was predicated on the fact that the Tri-County Airport accepted only piston-type aircraft. Under this scenario, the landfill would be located at a distance greater than 5, 000 feet from the end of the Tri—County Airport runway and as such, did not require any special provisions under the existing Solid Waste Regulations. However, it has recently come to the Divisions attention that the Tri-County Airport has been accepting non-commercial jets (primarily for corporate customers) approximately once a year since the airport opened in 1981. The problems that have arisen due to this new information are: 1. The landfill falls into a category of less than 10, 000 feet from an airport runway that is used by a turbojet. 2 . The current regulation states that disposal sites and facilities located less than 10, 000 feet from the end of an airport runway used by a turbojet shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. Subtitle D states that 'The owners or operators . . . must demonstrate that the units are designed and operated so that the municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. ' 3 . In addition, Subtitle D states that 'Owners or operators . . . within a five-mile radius of any airport runway. . . must notify the affected airport and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . ' WELD COUNTY CLERK RECEI'r`"^ JUN291992 Oprinted on recycled paper ' REELEY, C^ 0 ERD Landfill June 24 , 1992 page 2/2 The Division requests that the disposal site and facility evaluate -bird hazards posed to the Tri-County Airport. A report documenting aircraft flight paths, bird flight paths and populations associated with the landfill activity shall be prepared and submitted to the -governing body having jurisdiction and to this Division for review and approval. The Division also requests that the affected airports within a five mile radius of the site and the FAA be notified of the existence of the MSWLF units. I may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions. (Sincerely, j I v , „_s Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: J. Baron, Mid-America Waste Systems, Inc. S. Hahn, Town of Erie G. Lacy, Weld County Commissioners 4, Pickle, Weld County Health Department Vt. Swanson, Weld County Planning 1C. White, KRW Consulting, Inc. T. Zigen, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. file: SW/WLD/ENV X2063® ERIE AIRPARK - HOMEOWNERS ASS • 12.5 STEARMAN CT. ERIE, C 051N 2 9 1992 I Wo!MCoanly Planning June 25, 1992 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Lane11 J. Swanson Please find attached a copy of the letter and documentation which we recently sub- mitted to Mr. Scott Brownlee Df the State of Colorado Division of Aviation as well as a copy to Mr. Ted Melland atthe Federal Aviation Administration in Renton, Wash- ington, who studies possible hazards to air navigation. The letter we have written to these two men reference our concern -for the proposed expansion of the Laidlaw South landfill in southwestern lUeld county which is coming up before your board for -a hearing on July 7, 1992. Sincer-ely, C : 7 Dennis C. Wiley President, Homeowners -Assn. -920638 ERIE AIR PARK HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 125 STEARMAN CT. ERIE, CO 80516 June 23, 1992 Mr. Scott ,Brownlee State of Colorado Division of Aviation 6848 Revere Parkway, Suite 101 Englewood, CO 80112-6703 Dear Scott, This is a written -follow up of our conversation of Monday, -June 22, to -provide you with a written request to ask for an investigation of and the results there of of Laidlaw Waste -System's request before Weld County to raise the elevation of their Laidlaw South landfill 94' to an elevation of-5334'. We believe one violation is of FAR 77.13 (A)(2)(i). The center of the proposed dump site is 7000' Trom the end of runway 33 and the 100:1 horizontal distance would mean any -construction over 70' of the runway elevation of 5090' would be a violation. They are requesting 94'. The existing landfill has risen to 150' above (to 5240') the runway already and they are asking -for an additional 94' on top of that to 5334'. This will create a 244' obstacle just over a mile from the end of runway 33. In regards to FAR 77.13 (A)(3) the dump frequently has 40 yard _dump bead trucks that extend some 20' plus in the -air creating additional mobile obstacles. Again I would like to stress the current existence of seagulls -and other scavenging birds in the area, -due to the dump, which pose -a serious hazarli to aircraft (the traffic pattern for runway 09 is within 500' of the Western Landfill - Laidlaw South - see DRCOG map sheet b of 8). The existing landfill -as -approved now is estimated to be filled to rapacity and -closed within two years. Regardless of the height obstacle the addi- tional capacity (CO million cubic yards) will create a growing bird hazard into the year 2000+. We feel that this is an inappropriate area in such close proximity to a growing airport to expand both the height and duration of this facility. Please find enclosed maps depicting the airport, the dump site plus information as to Laidlaw's request. 71 Si erely, Dennis C. Wiley, President 920&3fl r - ING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE PART-77 PART 77 OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIG. 477.13 Construction -or -alteration -requiring notice. traverse it, would exceedii standard of sub- 4 77. in, (a) Except as provided in §77.r5, each paragraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph. or sponsor who proposes any of the following (4) When requested by the FAA, any Nc qls construction or alteration shall notify the A-d- construction or alteration that-would be in istra :nt ministrator in the form and manner prescribed an instrument approach area (defined in the oral in §77.17: FAA standards governing instrument ap- (a �r- (1) Any construction or alteration of proach procedures) and available informa- exist ht more than 200 feet in height above the tion indicates it might exceed a standard of stant m- ground level at its-site. Subpart C of this part. grap .ed Any construction or alteration of (5) Any construction or alteration on and (2) any of the following airports (including a cif,greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of heliports) : beyo (the following slopes: (i) An airport that is available for so �} public use and is listed in the Airport air n (i) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance Directory-of the current Airman's Infor- of 20,000 feet. -from the nearest point of (b the-nearest runway-of each airport sped- mation Manual or in either the Alaska less 'o or Pacific Airman's Guide and ChartSup- fied in subparagraph (5) of this para- the 1 onplement. ye graph with at least one runway more than c .i- 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heli- (ii) An airport under construction. visua ports. that is the subject of a-notice orproposal resti on file with the Federal Aviation Admin- : -e_ (ii) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance type of of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of istration, and -except for military air- ports, it is clearly indicated that that air- apl'I al the nearest runway of Each airport sped- port he fled in subparagraph (5) of this para- port will be available for public use. by i a- graph with its longest runway no more (iii) An airport that is_operated by an er than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding armed force of the-United States. (" heliports. (b) Each -sponsor who proposes construe- notic o- (iii) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance tion or alteration that is the subject of a notice 4 77 of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the under paragraph (a) of this section and is ic- nearest landing and takeoff area of each advised by an FAA regional office that a (a ts heliport specified in subparagraph (5) of supplemental notice is _required shall submit the . this paragraph. that notice on a prescribedform to be received one (3) Any highway, railroad, or other I by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours Fort. or 2 or traverse way-for mobile objects, of a height before the start of-the construction or altera- Sion. which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an tion. over tg Interstate Highway that is part of the Na- (c) Each sponsor who undertakes construe- or a ce tional System of Military and -Interstate tion or alteration that is-the subject of a notice Fort s Highways where overcrossings are designed _order paragraph (a) of this section shall, guar n- for a-minimum of 17 feet vertical -distance, within 5 days afterthat construction or altera- tion 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet tion reaches its greatest height,-submits sup- he or the height of the highest mobile object plemental notice-on a prescribed form to the (1 WI FAA regional -office having jurisdiction over thrc 0 that would normally traverse the road, thearea involved, if— day: s whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 (1) The construction or alteration is date of feet-for a railroad, and -for a waterwsy or any other traverse way mot previously-men- more than 200 feet above the surface level al r- tioned, an amount equal to the height of the of its site;-or (2) An FAA regional office advises him highest mobile object that would normally that submission of the form is required. st 9 638 JLAI:J 1) (24 & € 5e( emyYti b� Pkrj- ��L9 Don- ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,GROUND-WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENTENGINEERS 20011 GOLDEN GATE CANYON ROAD SUITE 100 GOLDEN,COLORADO 80403-8125 TELEPHONE: (303)279-9181 FAX: (303)279-9186 May 4 , 1992 12-02-05 Mr. Rick Hoffman -Division Manager/landfill Laidlaw waste Systems, Znc. P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado -80516 Subject: Need for Amend-ed Special -Use Permit Denver Regional Landfill (-South) Laidlaw Weste -Systems, Inc. Dear Mr. Hoffman: This letter evaluates the need for an -amended Special Use Permit (SUP) with Weld County for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . -HISTORICAL DESIGNS The south site has be-en operated under three operations plans; a fourth has recently been approved by the Colorado Department of Health. The -various plans are described below and, in summary, are as follows. Design 1x973 1932 1988 1991 Fill Area (acres) 107 148 148 114 Maximum ll. (ft) 5220 524D -5240 5334 Est. Volume (M yd3) 1 4 . 2 16. 3 16 . 3 23 .2 Liner Thickness (-ft) 1. 0 1. 0 0 . 5 3 . 02 Leach-ate System None 3 wells 4 wells fulls Cover Thickness (ft) 2 .D 2 . 0 3 . 5 4 . 0 Env. Monitoring None Yes Yes Yes Hours (hrs/days)4 8/6 8/6 16/7 15/6 Amended SUP re-q'il. Original No No 920&14 ( 1 , \ / I ,-, I 1 c i 11 ,.t ., ' 1 , ,'(-----Y1. i,i i: I ( / D %i o abo.. . .. ___ _, If S S '� l / m ji i it- --- ___ rS 1� �1Iy 1, (\ 1 , V wv15 \ `, y N W • , H q I . \ --?- .. . . P � �� )o T W �� S ( .(�=rx l iar 2 , 19 z .. .:• � 'I- / / mil/ \ �1 I�� - �. � ��Sly( • \ _,l, y\ `T _ ` '• j��• (.7 ) / •L� Lam. .\1.'.-•:r-- tO. 2N_.--. 1•z �i — 'alp e \ I, 1 \�� Z . : . . ( U,, ,e, \ \ v.' �\' •. ►� l : \ �� ` . '�%J� viii! -- • •_ • . . /.-- . r _,, ,.. ..,..: ,..i, • . , iinfile‘14 i , 1 % - .- =r,-7 1 i ' .\rir ‘C4,4 E ;44 i ;ice. .i e A? / .. , riz3 ,,ciii ( ,. :7c!- ( . •y = ',ALA' 1\ _� I____________ — — — 01111414N 0111144 Iff- __.Ii I A ..�p*qi ; 1,„.---A IZIP'" _ -MO ........ .. -..--- ..,4 5.--, ,,L - r�� 'lr sF`��h I�p III 1.1 % , \-,,„ (fir'e,j� /_. � - • �= .i rj'I tc ._,f/r r i , ,, , / 1 / `. ilifirt:Wiluirj".",,I,:liiii I�� fib�' 1-3 11,7N lb: \ . :." : .: : Pl• ; 1 : :. li i / likliNSLI164lille: 1 WU"•-. _ .... * . !..0 ,,:.,I , kl)1 . .• . , III-:. : . . i ( 41 , Ni 1 1 Cr* / xd Ailr / , 7 . . 41 i .Ile, . :. .. : . ' . • . • • • . ' . . ,4 ,i I ,... IllI 11 1 ( I‘1*/ I / r al 65 -Xii, ' , CI 'l,,t- ,V4.0 / , ';':i:*. * . • • . • . . /1" ,_ t 'i `\' \ ,,, e/ \"\ z, - ' riv4°'" )',0441 ' ' . ' � -L • 1,4;.,or l,�I �, liw' - -2(grn ��. III _ r1 i li 1m, ,,,,,, ;.. II 1 JP w__ res-,------ .„- .(r,t( LINL.e,„..••,,, 1 Np 4 .k 1O I ea" i \'y��" W N -Q N a '� s Pi 0 II III. v � 3 ¢a = r: r ih la t . s g y o Q ;W o o — : °E - a z to P VO O � E 4_ a T V - ',rte l � ��I•' � � f -- l C _J - -J 'r, - 1 ' c,`�`'" Y `r, ,•, to r / i ( Ifs 1 � t I 7I Fa i I �r i )1i ilc1 col � )-pi I' \ /, �l ,.r i J l w..-�I I , '' s, ,,Y' / - ! V �b '1 w : 4?) ' vii '' :4 o ( 'f 1, 1 I i � o �7 F,� 11i:T �L 1 jy , / !, I( P�._ I H c i 7 ' ,�i 7,�' A o�-..I{!Q I .,._-_-,-',„,,„--.J 1' ;l l `'\.es dam �S ✓��' " I ``� � I ,�1 11 \), \� I \. .p;, 1'affiJI I I; �.t :5'Air 1�1) �i ? I'L',, r�; 1 7 I r bi z u ,, ; j r a r urn,iiiP ,. >� - awiti�,///- ..,t + ' ♦1 Al,„., ','{V �I. �. I`�— -- rte'' >�}o.o r / �r ^ .� ��..' �, Yl/ A 9, �,�lfu'�WN �y f_"r.' �� ', \ f }/r — � ' 1 I� as elm^ I� a ( 1 '''-'\ /' e _ c� _ -� J f ; )1 I) )�: 1\ , �>'' t/ .P ''� -( ^,� `�- 1• b> ,,,,„,�A� ` �11E ' I PP' ( .- , ,iw• e i >, r; �Fi 71�.f 1� - '�I I r '%,/,,,,-7—A'''0.7,-. � it �01 v,r iP'� �� (III i /o'` i � t ,H )� 1' / -V '•''�}" / r 'n,) I I j I II' I �( ✓r./" , _ _ ` , J pi//` J'I ° / by c { (__ ( ( '' I „ ; `( '//,/, r� r I, Lr ��, ,,y.,-_,,,(? ,,,__7 ( ,'' .ii ') ,_ ) )- ,,,',L___ f\ ) ,, ) ' ,.-\f,_„_ , , _ 7 7:..,,,,, A.„,,. , __..k.,;._ ( ) -1 l f m R < 44 o Y O(2 J w m - _1 a w ow Z J l - '. , A a .wa z &o e„ .. `its....,^ A l 1 LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: June 30, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-972 NAME: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 320, Erie, CO 80516 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an amended design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for review of this proposal is listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services' staff has received referral responses from the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, Weld County Engineering Department, Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District, Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, Mountain View Fire Protection District, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, City of Lafayette, and City of Thornton. Several phone calls have been received requesting information regarding this application. 920638 5086 50/C _ 't i i_ ! F or il—: • II ` L , ns� � IL III • \ ) / • -�� ill yob' ' I II •0 , in� t ��t s .�7 _ sow -�- r� — _ a -I��l1�1 �— -Thi,fii 5 sr ) � �� )1 • ! !A I �• i'h V �, a �2� 4 sail 1 3 a A J AAA (/� - tH -ti1MUNlTY J ?ice_ j -�-. � y ' o �_ =C — \ �- II N �` - - , 0;11, •j �� 5' �J I v Zo i / � �A � �. r e — f� cv a \I o kl OLD 4J ° moo �`- [ ; I \.,� - k'I� /,Et '�_�( I' \ �� \ l !/,IcI: S.31 7R > \ , , / _ r .7 A_ �o •' 1 l 1 i, '� v l/ _� "111YYYII! i l% �c,„,..ce. Y�s� i ! �� /j ! l �� Y L , t V A ° I �z p \rod ,), �� Th , , _ ) , � � r� � L I'' ,' o y �. i -__- ..._ • L L ..� 4G' •V attif w - x• 2t 5 _ _ I z�� 2• 2, .1 _� - II4p { G• :, a,'In Eo` .,: r f\\may I� , .: F • / 10 ]E 33 ; 3 ]] 7]. 3 qt. " • ]. I 3' C, a .•a r . • i/ . GREAT •2 • ga '_ L Z• • 0,• � : — 1 L. C a (_ I .c:°p �� II• • o ( - x �1 / xa. �6 C �. II• p. i Iiu zo 4 e. a �' lid s\.i 1 zz '� _> Y i .�� ` .� �F, h� III I I� [ • I* '4 17,:.22.1,,,,,,,,E 1 :. 'r•J• . s :FI F `'.'� �- tix-.5 _,...i. rN .az 0 s ,65 d. g A• a2 : '/rr I!' _I k • 7_ . `.1 rs,„ x • `I ..0 °y'•_ - • p y a°I•, • °I. .•. ^ 2 ,co...o. .a.'. a r ' ` x, • • • . 1d I ��rbe I . 8 p .-i x��' x. . 'o za Ie S�n�byn� .}beg " I =s •I F h/ :v. xC: 'x. , x' R1. e .- - -• .1 WI ,ci l °_) e. QP4 ry, - - - 1� • .i• L illlllllk•a •� '_ �1dFRBUUR '0/105 . V o .-,� ^` • • 1' G o5 t ▪ n 8., nri REC I / L •l --_•I. •..a°.3 .li. . Il lI • 1 erexAMre'•f�: v\ s,� FIG [ • I' , si / • I 1 z •I I 'MILLS '--� a ` of d— —111 (Ili ' ' �rc = .-a • as ,,•E�„Z.,,.•J • ,y •1 • .A J o - _a .I , ` __• -'o• :_oil r ..- '----., .. .4, n •• • x/ Up — x. xo u 9 x>eE ' _it 111 •a xY 1.u. ( j I ,J L. •.▪ _:_▪ I ' ▪ I+ � • : r� ra a 'x •i x. I °l' ° ' ( 't 1+'• a a z°•• j•ffIl • .1 I Pa. CC • '4 IN°I .it 1 • c ] .1 RcoEa / Ic q er alit. • 'in 1 / • •4 — a . P• .l .P 7, t 3...� ;ixl�.!-' i � - 1, I. I2 •l 1. _ . ,/ .4• / y r� �� 1' / cr,f ,' • a••�= 3? •DL• .LI 1�.° I .ACON• ! �j-� • • ..--1_ ,H (`^" OFin lI.aON e0,./(1 • •�• • 1 Z� I /'- 1 °��.� ex 5 3•y�.1 �y 11 at� ! .�` a ryIRr 1 •�/�l (-J. like a. n W. 1 ue r_3? I ix o t 7 ' • a •.'. - j— ---1 f Lam, , i• , . y rIitI °▪ •',,1„ ' •• � "IS �\ �. —i 61 ,�f'`."`:. . BFI aiii o� . a + ' lEf_>_Jp • N.S.I n ! i[([(JI / .C t'` tlx ▪' ' 1 J �▪ • '•1z ° :) • _ _ _.IoW. ...)" zg 4ej° _• 2' a ,/a - 2' It 20 _ 'a == ` :9 2 x,\ °I `x P 'II • po°a a° • 'Aft., . J , wor TFNeEGG I! I \ 4-- �I '. t / II -. ,q G.. • a l I• Aft.,,.--_• Irun,n \ .14 M ••• I 9 I. •-- L I f, qcF • a ,✓ �tl _ 1 4: sspp• ,.e : I • �,• MI6 •�! 1a1 `, ; :It. • l1o� - • ': ,. ;EH': `. 6ASE •,'I ) • lu . .t. 1, III I .l's '�41 �•a _ a 1. , p1 ' 5R / I/ ,i! W 11 a N -Cr Iu ac \ 1 I R 68 ., l� R7 W-G .I r R.66 W. t.}} .. t r . � rfi ‘ • • • #gg . • ; - G o-:,. .66 %.':•111.4•;I:':4:4: $3 "T"`�' ° "' 3 s ..d .t r £ r o: ,44:7'..1: 53 .. �' , •:i • .2 a .: • o .. ,. 't 9? *44•. .., i - fi r4 ' ^4- 3` x} .`•j id • 31`i I• • :. Ni s'.:i«: ' • e4 KN �F!', g 4 w' ,. Jt: .. r to lit... , !: t "'• 1 I. ; f rv" ; t i*id : !ir •J ray • , . Cift :. *:: i •. ^Wa: r • • • • • • # t• • • d 1 .�. .Wei' a i ,,yj`i • ,j{c�'' .ii. f r.r gv,k •• • az •a ',` p ,r�•�,t f , A i • ' • •. } C i y .. S. :: • v}.Q •riLytr�L*�,. ::yy...dk ii'. . .Jg.g # +i► 1 t: �,„x r t z<r 41 ats } y- 3 ': 3 • :fitln • ' '.. . ,r.4.;••• tf . 3P .a 4 jj . . a '...a T^ ..•I Yb: p • C.:.;t:.... . 5'. • .E!• a f ro ,' Y icia: 9Ifi I —• •, :' # ,. ;, • 46 "tr� ., . yea e y,• fy,. .;.. J. . • * <.&- .s . �g i flin �c 3 `i, t� " i } t.i�ty tt., • FIELD LHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-972 DATE OF INSPECTION: June 5, 1992 APPLICANT'S NAME: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. REQUEST: An Amended -Design and Operations Plan for an Existing Sanitary Landfill permitted under SUP-400. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 NE4 and the E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road 6, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. LAND USE: N Weld County Road 6 (Garfield Road) , reclaimed 80 acre landfill, agricultural production, nil and gas production. E Farmground, oil and gas production, Pratt Landfill (35 acres, reclaimed) , radar tower, Weld County Road 5. S Agricultural production, oil and gas production. W Agricultural production, Coal Creek, oil and gas production. ZONING: N Town of Erie zoning, County Agricultural zoning. E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) COMMENTS: Access to this parcel is from Weld County Road 5, a paved County local. Erie -Airpark is to the southwest of this site. The Town of Erie is to the northwest. -Ranch Eggs Subdivision is to the southeast. Weld County Road 6, on the site, is leased from the Town of Erie and has been named Garfield Road by the Town. Work is proceeding on the cell just south of the office area. New cells are being excavated on the southern portion of the site. The area currently being excavated has metal cages available to catch blowing debris. The gatehouse and office structures are not visible from Weld County Road 5. aLf v of u rent Plcnnr 920638 REFERRAL LIST NAME: Lail:law Waste Systems, Inc. CASE NUMBER: USR--972 REFERRALS SENT: May 20, 1992 -REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: June 3, 1:992 COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES _Attorney Ault X Health Department _Brighton Extension Service - X Broomfield _ _Emergency Management Office _Dacono Sheriff's_ Office Eaton X Engineering — X Erie _Housing Authority _Evans _Airport Authority Firestone Building Inspection _Fort Lupton Frederick STATE _Garden City X Division of Water Resources _£ilcrest X Geological Survey Greeley _Department of Health _- Grover _Highway Department _Hudson Historical Society _ _ Johnstown Water Conservation -Board Keenesburg . X Oil and -Gas Conservation Commission - Kersey La Salle FIRE DISTRICTS Zochbuie Ault F-1 _Longmont _ Berthoud F-2 Mead _ _Brighton F-3 Milliken Eaton F-4 New Raymer _ _Fort Lupton F-5 r X Northglenn Galeton F-6 Nunn Hudson -F-7 Platteville _ Johnstown F-8 Severance _ _La Salle F-9 X Thornton X Mountain View F-10 Windsor Milliken F-11 _ _Nunn F-12 COUNTIES -B-awnee F-22 -- X Adams _ Platteville F-13 r X Boulder _ _Platte Valley F-14 _Larimer -Poudre Valley -T-15 _ Raymer F-23 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES _Southeast Weld F-16 US Army Corps of Engineers ----Wiggins F-17 _USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service _-Wiggins F-18 X Federal Aviation Administration -Western Hills F-20 Federal Communication Commission OTHER SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. _Brighton Panhandle Eastern -Pipe Line Co. Fort Collins _ _Tri-Area Planning Commission _Greeley X Mr. Brent Bean, AICP - X Longmont Director of Planning West Adams City of Lafayette 1290 South Public -Road COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER Lafayette, CO 80026 X Shirley Cameniach 92063e crebtiL , m EmoRAI1 Dum To Lanell Swanson, Planning DMe May 22, 1992 COLORADO From / John :Pickle, Env. Health' Subject: Laidlaw Landfill Review This memo will confirm our telephone conversation -of _6/12/92 -regarding the -above mentioned project. As you -nay recall, there was some -discussion about the minimum distance between a landfill and an airport-runway. The distance differs depending upon whether or not the airport accepts jet traffic or is restricted to prop type aircraft only. _For jet aircraft the minimum _distance is 10,000 feet, and for prop type aircraft the minimum is 5,000 feet. Laidlaw is approximately a mile from the runway at Erie Airpark. However, sometime around 1986, they began to allow jet traffic at this airport. Consequently, a -minimum distance of 10,000 feet is now requited. A location less than the applicable -minimum does not neccassarily rule out a landfill operation. The rule says that " they shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft." I have asked Austin -Buckingham of Colorado Department of Health for her help as to what constitutes compliance with this standard. In talking with Ms. Buckingham, she felt that this issue was of enough importance so that we should -halt further review until it is tesolve8. She further felt it would -probably not be resolved quickly enough to proceed with the July 7, and July 15 hearings. I will keep you informed as to any further discussion with Austin Buckingham. Please let -me know if you encounter any -difficulties regarding this, or if there are any other concerns. o� Jl1N 2 4 1992 Weld County Planning 920638 flo ,t m€moRnn um inTo Lanell Swanson. Planning Dace - 992 COLORADO From Drew Scheltinga. County Engineer subject: Laid Law Waste Systems USR-972 As with the other landfills permitted in the area, the applicant should be required so enter a-road improvements and maintenance agreement with -the board of Weld County Commissioners. She applicant should perform -a traffic impact study that would address needed road improvements and -maintenance due to the additional traffic generated by the proposed landfill. DS/gb:usr972 D !—r cc: Commissioner Webster Laid Law Waste Systems USR-972 JUN 1-6 1992 L U Weld County Planning 920638 cr DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET ID GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO May 2O, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-972 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an -application from Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the Design and Operations Plan for an existing Sanitary Landfill permitted under SUP-4OO. The parcel of land is 'described as the W2 NE4 and E2 14W4 of Section 29, TIN, R68W of the -6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is adjacent to the Town of Erie on the south side of Weld County Road I, approximately 1/4-mile west of Weld County Road 5. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. -Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitat-e the processing of the application and will _ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by June 10, 1992, -so that we may give full consideration to your r-ecommendation. IPlease call Lanell J. Swanson, Current 3lanner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 2. We _10 -not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible -with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you _prior to: 5. x Please -refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: 466 r._l Agency: Bnutder Valley �I Conserv�-fwrn / "� District JUN (' 1992 Date: June 4, 1992 «</// ragr1;4 'F,.,-n.,s)t+Pr,:MI 920639 NNW Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District 9595 Nelson Road, Box D- Longmont, CO 80501 - Phone (303) 776-4034 June 4, 1992 Lanell J. Swanson, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case Number USR-972 - Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado), Inc. Dear Lanell: This letter is in regard to the application from Laidlaw Waste System (Colorado), Inc. , -amending -the Design and Operations Plans for an existing Sanitary Landfill permitted under SUP-400. Establishing vegetation in this semi-arid climate is a difficult process. Proper seedbed pr-eparation is needed, timing of seeding is critical and a weed control plan needs to be established in order to -successfully est-ablish a stand of -grass. It is recommended that a detailed reclamation plan be developed. Attached is a copy of SCS Standards and Specifications -to give help set minimum guidelines for the plan. Sincerely, � ,cei t. Barry L. Sinkey President BLS:rah ra h Attachment: Critical Area Planting Standards and Specifications CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT SELF-GOVERNMENT 92°63,3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Technical Guide Soil Conservation Service Section IV Colorado All Field Offices July 1981 STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS CRITICAL AREA PLANTING (ac.) (342) Standard Planning considerations Definition Other conservation practices, including but not limited to diversions, land Planting vegetation, such as trees, smoothing, obstruction removal, surface shrubs, vines, grasses or forbs, and subsurface drains, and underground on highly erodible or critically outlets, may be necessary to prepare a eroding areas (does not include tree critical area for planting. Site pre- planting mainly for wood products) . paration accomplished through the appli- cation of the above practices should Purpose result in a site meeting the following standards. To stabilize the soil, reduce damage from sediment and runoff to downstream 1. Land slopes should not exceed 50 areas, and improve wildlife habitat percent (2:1) and should be flatter and visual resources. where feasible saidpracticable. Conditions where practice applies 2. Soils or soil materials must have sufficient depth and potential On highly erodible or critically ero- fertility to support the type of dible or critically eroding areas. vegetation to be established. These areas usually cannot be stabil- ized by ordinary conservation treat- 3. Materials such as socks and trash ment and management and, if left I that swill interfere with planting untreated, can cause severe erosion must be removed. or sediment damage. Examples of applicable areas are dams, dikes, 4. Runoff water from the site or adja- mine spoil, levees, roadsides, cuts, cent areas must be controlled in a fills, surface-mined areas, -and de- manner -that will prevent serious nuded or gullied areas where vegeta- erosion and damage -to the planting. tion is difficult to establish by usual planting methods. Specifications Critical area planting should be Topsoiling applied only on sites that have the capability of supporting vegetation. In the event that the sails have insuffi- Some critical areas are so hostile to cient depth or have physical character— plant growth, because of climate, istics unsuitable for development of soils or slope, that stabilization vegetative cover, topsoil or soil material can be achieved only through strut- having the capability of supporting the tural measures. planned vegetative planting shall be brought in and spread over the deficient areas. The material must be applied `4= uniformly in sufficient depth to support the type and quality of vegetative cover planned for the site. Source of materials must -be approved -by the responsible TGN /170 technician. 9200S 342-2 xritical Area -Planting Fertilizer requirements 1. All critical area plantings shall be fertilized unless field evidence or a laboratory soilanalysis indicates sufficient amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are present for establishment of vegetation. 2. The rate of. fertilizer application shall be no less than 4-0 founds of nitrogen (N) and 40 pounds ofphosphate (P205) per acre. Animal manures or similar organic material may be used to supply all or part of the specified nutrients. 3. Time of application shall be immediately _prior to seeding, at the time of seeding, or immediately following seeding, as applicable to the kind of fertilizer and type of equipment used. Seedbed preparation The seedbed shall to well settled and firm, but friable enough that seed can be placed at the seeding depths specified in "Depth of seeding." The seedbed shall be reasonably free of weeds. Competitive stands of weeds that are present before -seeding must be controlled by shallow tillage or by application of herbicides labeled for this purpose. Soils that have been over-compacted by traffic or equipment, especially when wet, should be tilled to break up rooting restrictive layers, and then harrowed, rolled or Tacked to prepare the required firm seedbed. Methods of seeding. 1. seed should he planted with a drill on all slopes of 33 percent (3:1) or flatter. The drill must have the capability -0f handling the kind and rate of seed being planted. 2. Seed may be broadcast by hand, by mechanical spreader, or _by hydraulic equipment on areas that are small, too steep, or not accessible for seed-drill operations. This specification does not provide -for hydraulic application of seed and mulch ins single operation. Depth of seeding 1. Seed planted with a drill shall be covered with soil to adepth of 1/4 to 3/4 inch. 2. _Seed planted by the -broadcast method shall be incorporated into the surface soil, not to exceed a _depth of 3/4 inch, by raking, harrowing or other proven method. 3. Indian ricegrass may be seeded to a depth of 2 inches on sandy loam and loamy sand soils. USDA/SCS/COLORADO 7/81 TGN #170 9206,'wj Critical Area Planting 342-3 Time of seeding_ i Grasses, legumes and other seeded species shall be planted within the seeding periods specified in Table 1, with the provision that up to 10 days tolerance from the specified periods may be allowed for the purpose of adapting to local soil moisture conditions. Rocky Mountain peustemon, hairy vetch, milkvetch and Indian ricegrass should be planted in the fall•so that freezing and thawing can break seed dormancy for spring germination. Table 1. Seeding dates for Critical Area Plantings Cool Season Plants Warm Season Plants MLRA* Dormant-Spring Summer Dormant-Spring Summer D-34A,B,C, Oct 15-Apr 30 Jul 15-Aug 31 Oct 15-Apr 30 Jun 15-Jul 15 D-35,D-37, D-39 E-48A,E-48B, Oct 1-Apr 30 Jun 15-Jul 15 1/ Oct 1-Apr 30 Jun 15-Jul 15 E-47 E-49A,E-49B Oct 15-May 15 Aug 1-Aug 31 2/ Oct 15-May 31 E-51 Oct 15-Apr 15 Jun 15-Jul 15 Oct 15-Apr 15 Jun 15-Jul 15 G-67 So.Colo. Nov 1-Apr 30 Aug 15-Sep 15 2/ Nov 1-May 31 G-70,H-77 G-67 No.Colo. Oct 15-May 15 Aug 15-Sep 15 2/ Nov 1-May 31 H-72 G-69A,G-69B Nov 1-Apr 30 Aug 15-Sep 15 2/ Nov 1-May 31 *Major Land Resource Area 1/ Applicable to MLRA E-48A and E-48B on eastern slope of Rocky Mountains. 2/ Applicable to irrigated sites. Rates of seeding Seeding rates shall be in accordance with Colorado Agronomy Technical Note #61,7 "Seeding Rates" dated March 16, 1981. Purity and germination tests for all lots of seed shall be less than one year old. Selection of species Species planted shall be selected from the tables of "Perennial Grasses and Forbs for Critical Area Plantings" and from the table of "Woody Plants for Critical Area Plantings" attached• to this specification (Tables 2 through 12) . Use the attached map of Major Land Resource Areas as a guide to the plant tables. The tables list species that are normally available on a commercial basis. Other plants that are indigenous to the site may also be planted whenever available. TGN #170 USDA/SCS/Colorado-7/81 920635 342-4 Critical Area Planting Mulching Critical area plantings shall be mulched where rapid establishment of seeded species is essential, or where one or more of the following factors are likely to cause failure of the planting, as determined by the responsible technician. 1. Low or erratic precipitation 2. Droughty or slowly permeable soils 3. High soil temperatures 4. Erosive soils 5. Drying winds Where need for mulching has been determined, follow standard and specifications for "Mulching" (484) . Cover crops or crop residues produced on the site will satisfy mulching requirements if present in sufficient quantity to provide needed soil protection and moisture conservation. Planting trees, shrubs and vines 1. Planting of woody plants must be done in late winter or early spring before bud burst. 2. Roots shall be kept moist at all times before planting. 3. Roots should be spread out as close to natural position as possible during planting. 4. Holes shall be deep and wide enough to accommodate seedlings without bending roots. 5. Stock should be set the same depth as in the nursery or slightly deeper. In no case should a plant be set shallower than it was in the nursery. 6. Soil shall be packed well around roots until seedling cannot he easily pulled from the ground. Care should be taken to eliminate all air pockets in the soil around the roots. 7. Plants shall be watered at planting time. Supplemental water for establishment of plantings 1. Seeded plantings. In low rainfall areas, where water is available and where rapid establishment is needed, irrigation of new seeding should be performed during the first growing season. Water should be applied at approximately 1-week intervals, at a rate of 3/4 - 1 inch per application, when rainfall is deficient for plant development. 2. Woody plantings. Woody transplants should be watered at time of planting, followed by application of at least 1 gallon per plant per week, applied to the soil at the base of the plant during the first growing season. USDA/SCS/Colorado-7/81 TGN #170 920639 342-5 Critical Area Planting Protection of planting. Planted sites shall be protected from trampling and grazing until plants are well established. In heavy-use areas, critical area plantings should be protected by fencing or barriers. Woody seedling transplants may be protected from fodents and browsing animals by enclosing the plant in Vexar tubing or by painting with animal repellent. The Vexar tubing must be anchored to the soil by means of a lath or long wire staple to prevent removal of the tubing by wind. TGN #170 USDA/SCS/Colorado-7/81 920639 • 2 Z M Q o m .4W ry Z Vf w p u 0 Q a ; w CDs o x r o 7 "' tie Q , 2 a_ E E a °CO "I S 5 8 EFP u i d $ EL = W --. U a ° ° F g a a t p 8 3 E e 3 W ♦ U Q < . R 1 u Et ; 1 � o 2E < < 5 2 ai0 3 cC D 6' 24' Z il E c c 1323l E 3g ij < L L Y ; E f] O Ow . 2 k2 ` ' Z Ell se 3 d3 ' g e O Z W V u .y E 23 ! 1 ` F3 , % % 1 5 !LP ' t' vs w4 � E. a Eg ? 1f s gifJ5 b '18 o 1 O Z 4 s s - ,Z J z Q s I Hla J K A N S A S ...< F I.1 y • a... f itili . '�� i 42 . I�! 1 1 6, 4 _ , 6, :ri , . ) 4=. 2--- k 4 �`'��E ' - i I .. it.. . rit:11. ,/ ,„ , 960. ... y e q g4 a -IC4 �' . o 3 i • 1 U y .. w O I t "'zit $] 1. I 1 ,; off/ I n Dot N �� it Y I 0 - • -J` < 9v+ + + 342-15 Critical Area ,_ dating Table 9. Perennial grasses and forbs for critical area plantings in northern part of Major Land Resource Area G-67 or areas in G-67 receiving more than 15 inches annual precipitation. a Soilsl/ and Exposure -la 2/ L o, Adaptability Ratings— c Slopes over 6:1 Gently Recom- U�- m Species mended c v L t sloping Varieties CO.R L c North South to Ease of Rate Salt =6--• and East and West flat Establish- of Tolerance m ment Spread coy, SLCSLC SLC Fairway wheatgrass 11 B 12 X X X X 5 2 2 (Agropyron cristatum) Thickspike wheatgrass Critana S 20 X X X X X 4 3 3 (Agropyron dasystachyum) Crested wheatgrass 1/ Nordan B 12 X X X X 5 2 2 (Agropyron desertorum) Tall wheatgrass4/ Largo B 48 X X 5 1 5 (Agropyron elongatum) Western wheatgrass Arriba 5 12 X X X X X X 2 4 3 (Agropyron smithii) Barton Rosana Pubescent wheatgrass J Luna S- 30 X X X X 5 3 2 (Agropyron trichophorum) Sand bluestem Elida S 48 X X X 4 4 1 (Andropogon hallii) Sideoats grama Vaughn B 15 XXXXXX XXX 5 3 1 (Bouteloua curtipendula) Butte Blue grama Lovington B 12 XXXXX XXX 2 2 2 (Bouteloua gracilis) Smooth brome Manchar S 24 XX X X X X 4 'R 2,;, (Bromus inermis) Lincoln Buffalograss 5/ S 4 - X X 2 5 2 (Buchloe dactyloides) Prairie sandreed Goshen S 48 X X X 3 5 1 (Calamovilfa longifolia) Russian wildrye Vinall B 24 X X 4 1 3 (Elymus junceus) Sand lovegrass2/ Nebraska 27 B 24 X X X 4 3 1 (Eragrostis trichodes) Alfalfa 2/ Ladak 15 XXXXXX XXX 4 2 3 (Medicago sativa) Yellow sweetclover 36 XXXXXX XXX 5 3 3 (Melilotus officinalis) Switchgrass Grenville S- 30 X X X X X X 4 2 4 (Panicum virgatum) Little bluestem Pastura 8 24 XXXXXX XXX 4 2 1 (Schizachyrium scoparium) , USDA/SCS/Colorado 7/81 TGN #170 342-16 Ci._tical Area Planting Table 9. (continued) Pii Soils1( and Exposure Recom- —. v Slopes over 6:1 Gently Adaptability Ratings?/ Species mended c w sloping Varieties =.n o North South to Ease of Rate �;^ and East and West flat Establish- of Salt °"' x ment Spread Tolerance SLCSLC SLC Alkali sacato4' 5/ B 24 (Sporobolus airoides) X X 2 2 5 Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) 5/ B 20 X X X X X X 4 3 1 Green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) B 24 % % X . X X X 4 2 1 • 1i Soils: S = sandy; L = loamy; C = clayey. T₹/ Adaptability ratings: 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = moderate; 4 = good; 5 = excellent. ./ Recommended for sites north of U.S. Highway No. 24 / Moist lowlands. 5/ Seed source from within 150 miles of planting site is recommended. TGN #170 USDA/SCS/Colorado 7-81 J20639 ROY ROMEk TLF/,.4 Naarben: • '"s" Main Building, Denver Governor g' - - — e (303)322.9076 PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH Ptarmigan Placa, Denver - (303)320-1329 Executive Director F nt National Bank Building, Denver ,'c •..,^ ••,. _. r. !'u(303)3554559 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office '^COLORADO 4210 East 11th Avenue - - (303)248-7198 COLORADO Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 (,�' ^ ..' _ Pueblo Office DEPARTMENT (303) 331-4830/FAX (303)331.4401 T I j ' _ _ (719)543-8441 OFAHEALTH April 28, 1992 Certified Mail No. P 533 510 858 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld County Road 6 P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 RE: Amended Design and Operations Plan Denver Regional Landfill (South) Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has completed its review of the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . The review of the Amended Design and Operations Plan is performed under the authority of the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, " Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statues, as amended (the Statute) , and the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. " The Regulations were adopted for the implementation of the Statute and are contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations) . The intent of the Amended Plan is to provide the revised site characterization, revised design and operations plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) expansion. The expansion area is contained wholly within the existing Certificate of Designation area. The Division views this application as a substantial change in operations, meaning a redesign or planned construction which would significantly change the planned design performance of the facility as originally designated. A substantial change of the planned design or construction of the solid waste facility necessitates the submittal of an amendment to the Design and Operations Plan, and a Division technical review. Based on the information contained within the Amended Plan and the subsequent amendment to the Plan, the Division finds that the site meets the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Statute and Regulations with the inclusion of the following recommendations. The Division requests that these recommendations be incorporated in c a ; P !-. AIL ,a 4 52;1?., .,.cw.epay.r Rick Hoffman Denver Regional Landfill (South) April 28, 1992 page 2/3 the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . The recommendations are: 1. All health laws, standards, rules and regulations for the Department, Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commission and applicable zoning laws and ordinances shall be complied with. 2. One or more faults may traverse the proposed site. The Division wishes to be kept apprised of fault location and conditions discovered during excavation. The Division may request permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring. 3 . If perched water conditions are encountered during excavation activities, the Division shall be notified within four working days. The Division may request that contingency plans be developed by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. 4. A certification report shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 5. Appendix A of the Amended Design and Operations Plan specifies that non-destructive seam testing will performed; however the testing method and frequency of testing was not defined. The testing method and frequency shall be specified for the site and submitted to the Division for review and approval. If during the excavation, ongoing activities and monitoring of the site, information is revealed that changes the currently held concept of the site, the Division may request modifications to the design and operations, and monitoring program. In addition, regulatory changes that the Division may implement in the future may also become binding and necessitate modifications to design and operations plans. The Division cannot specifically require closure and post-closure 920635 Rick Hoffman Denver Regional Landfill (South) April 28, 1992 page 3/3 financial assurances. The inclusion of financial assurances as commitments for the owner and operator of the site is recommended. The Division requests written concurrence by the Applicant on all recommendations outlined above. Please contact Austin Buckingham at this office if you have any questions regarding the Divisions' recommendation for approval. Sincerely, Austin N. Buckingham Glenn Mallory Geologist Unit Leader Solid Waste and Incid t Solid Waste and In ident Management Section Management Sectio Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Waste Management Division cc: B. Doty, Doty and Associates S. Hahn, Town of Erie D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates, Inc. J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning " weld County Commissioners file: SW/WLD/LAI South 920639 tifinw mEmoRAnDum Pr" Imi IJUN 0� �\1992y W I`k To Lanell J. Swanson Planning Department Date June 3. 1992ev.'©Lm?p;i"aT71F1 COLORADO From John S. Pickle. M.S.E.H. . Director. E.P.S Subject: USR-972 Name: T.aidlaw Waste Systems, Inc Environmental Protection Services Division of Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. The following conditions are recommended to be part of any approval: 1. All phases of the landfill facilities and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of government bodies having jurisdiction on the premises. a. All phases of the operation must conform to maximum permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, Colorado Revised Statutes. b. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining an emission permit for fugitive dust. c. The applicant shall be responsible for adhering to the provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2. d. There shall be no discharge of wastes into any stream, other bodies of water, or adjacent drainage systems without obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from Colorado Department of Health. e. All phases of the operation must conform to 30-20-101 and regulations promulgated thereunder, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973 for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, and revision being developed regarding Subtitle D of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In addition, this Division would reference the recommendations of Colorado Division of Health in their approval letter of April 28, 1992. 1. One or more faults may traverse the proposed site. The Division wishes to be kept apprised of fault location and conditions discovered during excavation. The Division may request permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring. 2. If perched water conditions are encountered during excavation activities, the Division shall be notified within four (4) working days. The Division may request that contingency plans be developed by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. USR-972 June 3, 1992 Page 2 3. A certification report shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 4. Appendix A of the Amended Design and Operations Plan specifies that non- destructive seam testing will be performed; however, the testing method and frequency of testing was not defined. The testing method and frequency shall be specified for the site and submitted to the Division for review and approval. This Division would recommend closure and post closure financial assurances. If you have any questions or we can be of any further service, please contact us. Very truly yours, ohn S. Pickle, M.S.E.H. Director Environmental Protection Services JSP/cs-1106 920639 •tf lik7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)358-4000,EXT.4400 81510th STREET IGREELEY,COLORADO 80637 COLORADO JUNC11992 �� May 20, 1992 CASE NUMBER: 2 Weld Court,"Tanning TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the Design and Operations Plan for an existing Sanitary Landfill permitted under SUP-4OO. The parcel of land is described as the W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is adjacent to the Town of Erie on the south side of Weld County Road 6, approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road 5. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by June 10, 1992, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Kg Please refer to the enclosed letter. S igned:\` � Agency: Mnun + ain ViPw Fire flistri r. t Date: May 28 , 1992 920638 MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PRI, I ECTION DISTRICT -Administrative Office: f,,ex, ,' 700 Weaver Park Road• Longmont, CO 80501 �� (303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 May 28, 1992 Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Swanson: RE: Case Number USR-972 Denver Regional Landfill (South) I have reviewed the material submitted for the Amended Use by Special Review Permit for the redesign of the Denver Regional Landfill (South). The Fire District has no objections to the Amended Permit as described in the submitted material. The following comment applies to this application: 1. If any additional buildings are to be constructed on this site, then plans for those buildings are to be submitted to the Fire District for review prior to beginning construction. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Charles E. Boyes Fire Prevention Specialist CC: Jerry Ward, Chief of the District Mark A. Lawley, Division Chief, Fire Prevention Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 9119 Cnty Line Rd. 10971 WCR 13 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Oobdn Run P.O.Box 666 P.O.Box 40 Longmont.CO Longmont.CO 299 Pa liner Ave. 6900 Niwot Roeo Lafayette,CO 600 Briggs 100 So.Forest St. 80501 60501 Mead.CO 90542 NNW.CO 60544 90026 Erie,CO 60516 Se© y-7 90514 • 6 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)3564000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 60631 EmiC. COLORADO May 20, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-972 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the Design and Operations Plan for an existing Sanitary Landfill permitted under SUP-400. The parcel of land is described as the W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. -The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is adjacent to the Town of Erie on the south side of Weld County Road 6, approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County Road 5. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by June 10, 1992, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please mall Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 2. We do not have a Comprehensive -Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3 �Y We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration submitted to you prior to: 1 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. l MAY 2 2 1992 g /t 24-� Il. a Agency: /� 9 Signed: rrJl A enc �i� at 1�A5 ONINeld a matyStanning Date: .2I ' .2- 92063a joi . Planning-& Building Ale \t_MAY2d May 27, 1992 1992 U Weld county Weld County Planning Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 8-0631 Attn: Zanell U. Swanson The City of Lafayette has reviewed the amended plan for Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. The primary concern that the City has is increased traffic through or around the -City of Lafayette. The State Highway Department will begin work on the realignment of State Highway 287 in 1993, which will eventually result in the City taking over maintenance of old SH 287 (Public Road) . We are also concerned about traffic using 120th Street to go around the community. 120th Street has been annexed to the City, but was not originally constructed to handle excessive traffic loads. The amended report shows a one day traffic analysis taken on July 12 , 1989. A one day, three year old report is minimal information for City or County traffic analysis purposes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Laidlaw amended plan. Sincerely, Brent H. Bean, AICP Director of Planning City of Lafayette 1290 S. Public Rd. • Lafayette, Colorado 80026 • (303) 665-5588 Fax (303) 665-2153 �cCrvrc Center City of * Thornton --- -------- � )0 Civic Center Dr�.ve ---PO 91220 rh nto 2 Colorado I „�(�� 1�\�4�4 Thornton. Colorado &0229-1220 !, 91_ tl V of MAY 2 9 1992 Weld Courgv Pima* May 22, 1992 Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Ms. Swanson: I received the referral of the application from Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the Design and Operations Plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400. Since this permit is for a use of land that is 3 miles to the northwest of our currently identified growth corridor, we do not have a jurisdictional interest in it. However, out of deference to the Southern Weld County & Northern Adams County Growth/Preservation Policies Plan, we believe that there are two policies listed in the Plan that apply to this case, and that these policies should be used to assist in the development of the conditions under which this permit should be granted. For your convenience, the policies are listed below: • Policy RU-2: Non-agricultural development in agricultural areas should be buffered from adjacent uses through one or more of the following: arterial thoroughfares, open space, landscaping, and/or screening. • Policy N-1: When intense uses must be located within this regional area, they should be located, developed and operated in a manner that minimizes interference with agriculture, rural settlement patterns, existing residential communities, and environmental preservation areas. Based on the above policies, and on our understanding that the proposed amendment to SUP-400 will allow for both extended hours of operation, and an increase of 94 feet in height of the existing landfill, we recommend that additional landscaping, screening or other suitable buffers be installed— where warranted—as a means to minimize interference between this proposed use and other adjoining uses. 3210639 Lane11 Swanson May 22,1992 Weld County Greely, Colorado Page 2 If I can provide you with additional information, or if you would like to discuss this issue further, please contact me at 538-7206. Sincerely, �9 David Callahan, AICP, ASLA Planning and Development Manager cc: David Wenzel, Community Development Director 920638 Golder Associates Inc. � / 200 Union Boulevard,Suite 100 Golder Lakewood,CO USA 80223 �� '�S Teleonone(303)980-0540 iVAir Fax(303)985-2080 May 14, 1992 Our Ref: 923-2457 Colorado Department of Health Ha7nrdous Materials and Waste Management Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Attention: Ms. Austin Buckingham, Geologist RE: CONCURRENCE ON ALL RECOMMENDATIONS BY CDH REGARDING THE AMENDED DESIGN AND OPERATION PLAN, DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) Dear Ms. Buckingham: On behalf of our client, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., we concur and hereby commit to perform the five recommendations discussed in your letter dated April 28, 1992 regarding the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South). Specifically, the agreed upon conditions are as follows: 1. All health laws, standards, rules and regulations for the Department, Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commission and applicable zoning laws and ordinances will be complied with. 2. The Division will be kept appraised of any fault location and conditions discovered during excavation. We understand that the Division may request a permeability evaluation of any fault and\or additional monitoring. 3. If perched water conditions are encountered during the excavation activities, the Division will be notified within four working days. We understand that the Division may request that contingency plans be developed by Laidlaw to mitigate perched conditions. 4. A certification report will be prepared by Laidlaw and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell. The report will provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITAC/SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED 4-(ES May 14, 1992 -2- 923-2457 5. As requested by the Division, attached to this letter are procedures which will be used during non-destructive seam testing of the geomembrane liner material. Please note that all field seams will be non-destructively seam tested over their full length using vacuum testing or air pressure testing. Any seam in which neither of these test methods can be used (due to difficult geometric configurations) will be capped and seamed. We have appreciated your assistance and cooperation throughout this entire project. If you have any questions regarding the attached non-destructive testing procedures, please contact me. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. David L. O'Sadnick, P.E. Associate Attachment: Non-Destructive Testing Procedures cc: Rick Hoffman Scott Schreiber Miles Stotts Ben Doty Golder Associates 920635 Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Boulevard,Suite 100 W molder Lakewood.CO USA 80228 SO sates Telephone(303)980-0540 Fax(303)985-2080 NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING PROCEDURES DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 2340 South Arlington Heights Road, Suite 230 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005 Prepared by: Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Blvd., Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Distribution: May 1992 923-2457 929 OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY.SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM.UNITED STATES May 1992 -1- 923-2457 1.0 PROCEDURE FOR AIR PRESSURE TESTING This test will provide a nondestructive evaluation of the integrity of geomembrane seams made by the double fusion weld technique. The presence of the unwelded channel between the two distinct seamed regions allows for inflation of the sealed channel with air to a predetermined pressure. The tightness of the pressurized air channel over time is noted and recorded. If air pressure cannot be maintained, a leak in the seam is found and corrective actions will be taken. Air pressure testing, repair procedures, and retesting will be recorded and made part of the CQA Report. The double fusion weld technique leaves an air channel between the two seam tracks. Both ends of the air channel will be sealed and then a hollow needle with attached pressure gage will be inserted into the air space. Air pressure will be applied and the gage monitored for excessive air pressure drop. The channel will be pressurized initially from 27 to 30 psi. Monitoring time will be a minimum of 5 minutes. Maximum allowable loss of air pressure will be 4 psi. Wide mouth vice grips will be used to lock-off the sealed ends. A hollow needle with a properly functioning pressure gage will be used to insert air into the open channel and monitor air pressure. An air pump capable of generating and sustaining the required air pressures will be used. The pump will not be attached while the air pressure is being monitored. The procedure for conducting the non-destructive test on a double fusion seam will be as follows: 1. After making the desired dual track seam and deciding upon the length of seam that is to be evaluated, the two ends of the continuous air channel will be sealed off. 2. Both ends of the air channel will be clamped with wide-mouth vice grips so as to form an air-tight seal at both ends of the channel. The wide- mouth vice grips can remain in place throughout the test or be removed as the installer sees fit. 3. Insert the air pressure needle into the air channel. 4. Connect an air pump to the pressure gage and pressurize the air channel. For 60 mil HDPE, the air channel can be pressurized between 27 and 30 psi. The pressure will be maintained with the air pump connected during a two minute stabilization period. 5. Disconnect the air pump. Observe the air pressure gage for a minimum of 5 minutes. Record the time and pressure of the beginning and end of the test. The maximum allowable pressure drop should not exceed 4 psi. 920639 Golder Associates May 1992 -2- 923-2457 6. If the pressure does not drop below the above value after the minimum five minutes test period, the air channel will be cut open at the end away from the pressure gage. Air should rush out and the pressure gage should register an immediate drop in pressure, indicating that the entire length of the seam has been tested. If this does not happen, the air channel is blocked. The seam will then be walked to look and feel for the location bf the blockage. The channel will be inflated up to the point of blockage. The air channel on the gage side of the blockage will be cut and the pressure loss verified. The weld will then be inflated from the far side. If the pressure holds, the seam will be cut at just prior to the blockage and -the pressure drop verified. All cuts and seal small holes will be patched with extrudate from a filet extrusion seam device. 7. For a pressure drop greater than the above value, the end of the seals will be checked and resealed. Leaks around the end seals and air pressure insertion needle will be located by putting moisture around the suspected area and looking for bubbles to occur. 8. If the problem is not located, peel tests will be performed at the beginning and end of the seam to determine seam strength. • 9. If the seam strength is inadequate, the edge of the loose flap of the upper sheet (which extends beyond the outer track) will be extrusion fillet welded to the bottom sheet. Thus the extrusion fillet weld becomes the primary seam. It will then be vacuum box tested until satisfactory performance is obtained. 10. If the seam passes the destructive tests, the leak is looked for by vacuum box testing the outer track of the seam. if a leak is found, it will be repaired by extrusion fillet welding. 11. If no leak is found in the track and all other leak location possibilities have been eliminated, the leak is assumed to be in the inner track. since this inner track is for the purpose of air channel testing only, it is redundant and can be ignored. The single good outer track is adequate and will be accepted as such. 2.0 PROCEDURE FOR VACUUM TESTING In those locations where extrusion welding is used, all of the welding will be vacuum tested except in areas inaccessible to a vacuum box. Defects found will be repaired and tested. Vacuum testing, repair procedures, and retesting will be recorded and made part of the CQA Report. Areas that can not be vacuum box tested will be capped and extrusion welded. Golder Associates 920635 May 1992 -3- 923-2457 The procedure that will be followed for vacuum testing will conform to the procedure identified in ASTM Designation D4437-84 "Determining the Integrity of Field Seams Used in Joining Flexible Polymeric Sheet Geomembranes." This procedure will -be followed with two exceptions. First, the vacuum pressure applied to the vacuum box will not be less than 5 psi which is accordance with the current EPA specifications given in guidance memorandum, "Use of Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Programs and Control of Stress Cracking in Flexible Membrane Liner's Seams," rather than the 4 to 8 inches of mercury (approximately 2 psi to 4 psi) as indicated m the ASTM D4437-84 standard. Second, a dwell time of 15 seconds will be used in accordance with the EPA current guidance. There is no designated dwell time in the ASTM D4437-84 standard. The procedure will be as follows: All seams welded using the extrusion process will be inspected for unbonded areas by applying a vacuum to a soaped section of the seam. The vacuum will be applied by a vacuum box equipped with a vacuum gage, a clear glass view panel in the top, and a soft rubber gasket on the periphery of the open bottom. A section of the seam will be thoroughly soaped and the inspection box placed over the soaped seam section, and the gasket sealed to the liner. A vacuum of not less than 5 psi will be applied to the box by use of a vacuum pump. The vacuum will be applied for a minimum dwell time of fifteen (15) seconds. The applied vacuum will show bubbles over unbonded areas; the unbonded areas shall then be marked for repair. Golder Associates 920639 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO NonCE cc mut ss NEARING COUNTY OF WELDTM Web County Planate SAlaeritelon MI conduct edible ,,[/ / Meth wTreeday. I, $y + �'1 F iSefl , of said County a T. at t90 p.m. la theof Weld,being duly sworn,say that Ism publisher of mopes* a anabedtg a Mb 9paile Development PSI and a Epeaal-Review permit for the WINDSOR-BEACON property described bellow. Approval of the request ray ward a vested property rips a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said moment to Colorado Law. _County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, APPLICANT: Lability Waste OperR(Colorado) Inn in said County and State; and that the notice, of which M L,DESCRIPTION:WelS4 the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said -sit St a NW4 Section 20.191. weekly for_/ successive weeks, that the notice RION of ltheo. PM.. Weld tautly, was published in the regular and entire issue of every -TYPEColorado. AND INTENSITY OF number of the paper during the period and time of PROPOSED USE:-An publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a m amended t a and mentions plan for existing supplement, and that the first publication of said notice artitary landfill pemmed under was in said paper bearing the date of the SUP-400. LOCATION:Ad)eare to the Tent M y8r day of , A.D., 19 q2- and a SOIL south a Weld CounCounty N S.apprmimetay 26 firm the last publication bear. the date of the vego al Weld County Road 5. TTrac Y p aMyh, day of A.D., 19 and WMd County Planate that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published ownlot the 'r eM" continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 •the eked referenced repast he conducted n the Weld consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the Commissioners'Hearin,Toothdate of Srst publication of said notice, and the same is a First Floor. a County newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate rdN Center. 918 p Greeley, Coloreds. printing of legal notices and ad ertisements, approved r objections MOM 18, 1931, and all prior a t o far as in force. !unts abovesquint should M �.n Meng Is*5 user Mlwlmw d Plane. 916 Ted Street. /4 9a2, Greeley. Colorado U ISHER 1.base the Mae MG m at the Pub"' NS" Aq T.ttt02 Subscribed andsworn to before me this 3'1"'1- day a the appllatbn w of -. ttir.4 191 for public Inpea ni bo Departmg se.Ro m 3 Planning -. E 1/4 ��Na1w.Roem Sd9. VMS ae*Cent onw Center.tso Sts N ARY P C Undo 9tre4GrearY.-Calaeds. -.hers-959-torn.Estonia MOO. IMO ,1 My commission expires 1 ec.j 2 7 I 19 ?`! ale Ta be published n etc WI ,i tat To be pubINMd ode(I)time 9y Wy29.199¢ Published In the Windsor Basle on lama 7992 iIIH .!{1?d 1992___ __ } -)rt-t,r,_,...,.,,,,,,.,_;,,,A, 2063 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I -hereby certify that I have placed a true and correct copy of the surrounding property owners and owners and lessees of minerals in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in Case Number USR-972 for Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. , in the United States Mail, post-age prepaid First Class Mail -by letter as addressed on the attached list. this 26th day of May, 1992. 920638 ("Triliwzt DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)3564000,TXT.4400 91510th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO May 20, 1992 TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS CASE NUMBE-R: USR-972 There will be a _Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 7, 1992, at 1:30 p.m. , in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First -Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request of: NAME: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. FOR: A Site _Specific Development Plan and a Special Reveiw permit to amend a design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-4OO. LEGAL-DESCRITTION: W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29, 71N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: -Adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of Weld County Road b, approximately .25 miles west of Weld County Road 5. Your property is within five-hundred (500) feet of the property on which this request has been made. For additional information write or telephone Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner. 92063 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE/INTEREST OWNERS Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems P.O. Box 12283 Ft. Worth, TX 76116 Cencall, Inc. 1999 Broadway, #2100 Denver, CO 80202 Colorado Landfill, Inc. c/a Bob McKenzie P.D. Box 122883 Ft. Worth, TX 76116 Kenneth E. Pratt and Karen K. Landers P.O. Box 801 Longmont, CO 80501 Richard Cosslett, Effie Tierney, -Ray Armstrong Beverly J. Pease, June Ann Gilkinson and Betty Jean Cosslett c/o Longmont National Bank 5th -and Coffman Longmont, CO £0501 GSX Denver Regional Landfill, Inc. c/o Bob McKenzie P.O. Box 122283 Ft. Worth, IX 76116 Rocky Mountain Fuel Company 910 15th Street, #756 Denver, CO 80202 Rocky Mountain Fuel Company 608 Empire Building Denver, CO 802702 Energy Oil, Inc. 1-801 l.efthand Circle Longmont, CO 80501 9211638 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE/INTEREST OWNERS Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. USR-972 - Page 2 Snyder Oil Partners, L.P. A Delaware Limited Partnership 2500 Interfirst Tower Ft. Worth, TX 76102 Snyder Oil Partners, L.P. A Delaware Limited Partnership 2500 First Republic Bank Tower Ft. Worth, TX 76102 Snyder Oil Partners, L.F. A Delaware Limited Partnership 1800 Glenarm Place, -Suite 700 Denver, LO 80202 920639 AnLOAVLT or INTZAEST OWNERS SulpACE ESTATL% App l-i-cNtion No, Subject PrifptrtY TIM N11/IgINI,14 AND 1 NCRT8, RANG 68 WRIT OF T 55TW P.., MEL ; ciAti J, i lkHCTION 29, U1 - EXCEPT Two laCEL8 STATE OF COLORADO ) se. COUNT! -OF WELD ) THE UHuERSICHED, being first duly sworn, states -that to the -best of hie or her kncwled;s the attached list ia -a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the correapondin$ Parcel Identificati-on Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (-the surface estate) - within five -hundred (300) fest of the property subject to the application. This list was compiled from the records of the 14tH County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or -abstract company or ettornsy, derived from such records, or -from the r-ecords of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. -The net compiled from the records of the Weld County Antiwar shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. Le RUDY-L, xEI WELD COUNTY ITLE COMPANY The "foregoing instrument was sub-scrribed and sworn to before ma this day o1 , 1-9i• WITNESS lilyhand and otficis' seal. My fob gMaton. expires. WG/p'3 too ty• tlAltr ;-1 ••• (9/1 .. •-\?. otary liet 920638 £ a ' d - - NI37N ` a7AOa ` 3at1HS 1-IOW IE.- as -� 3s ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, AC57.83012'I PARCEL NA ! STATE AND lIP CODE TDENTIfICATION # Laidlaw Watts Systeme PLO, &+x 17,2243 146279000006_ Fs. Worth, TX 16116 _ • Cencall I-n. . 1999 Its Y 12'0 _ 1467299 Ob09 Denver, CO 802702 Colorado _Landfill Inc. 4 lob MrZenzia 1461290011020 P,D Box 1 283 72, Worth TX 1611¢ . Piste, Kenneth $. P.D. Boat 801 14.6719QQ9Q42 and Lan-deie, Karen X, Longmont , CO 805Q1 Casale t.t, Itich-atd %Longmont National Bank 146-72Q00001D uarney, -Effie I. Armstrong, Ray 5th d CoUr-anT__ coZlina, 1aver1y 2. Pease, June Ann Longmont, CO 80301 Gilkinson, lett)* _Jean—nal-ate GSX Denver Regional x Bob McKenzie ILA/X.000011 Landfill Inc. P.O. lox 112283 Ft. Worth, TX 7611- . �.. .. .. -.� . ... ........w.--- -....-.-r.«. •...u_w.M r.......�..vs.�. ..rr wow.w.rY.i-.r.r.�M..wrw.wrrW 920&33 b ® - d - N13 , ]1 `31 .A. 0t1 Q `3C1-Hs S t NOW r _E -b = - d a S • Application No. Subject Property THE NE1/4NW1/4 AND THE NW1/4NE1/4 OP SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANCE 46 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO EXCEPT TWO PARCELS STATE OF COLORADO ) .s, COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being liret duly sworn, stets. that to the bait of his or het knowledge the attached list Is a true and -accurate list of the names end eddresaea of all mineral owners and lessee of mineral owners on or ander the parcel of land which is the subject of 3la application as -their names tppest upon the records 4-n the Weld County -Clerk end Recorder's Office, or tram an owner-ship spdat,a from -s title or abstract company or en attorney, RUDY 1.. MffiS WELD -COUNTY TITLE COMPANY Thy foregoing instrument was sub-s-cr_ibed e-nd sworn to before me this ,50k4 day of \,o zej • 19�. WITNESS my hand and olliciel seal, flirbsde441,,Pii•txptraai -o-1/v/ . ;•,4161 cite fit'•;;•0,% • Hotary lit z.e-1616--yi • ",,t.Ft _CO • . • ' . 920638 NAMES OF OWNMRS Op MINCRAL8 AND LESSZS OF MIN3RAL 0WNORS Rocky Mountain Fuel Companx All Oil, Gas and other Minors1s 910 15th Street 1'756 Denver, CO 80202 AND 608 Erwin Building Denver, -00 80202 Lessee an 01.1 -and Gas Lease Energy Oil, Inc. 1801 Lefthand Circle Longmont, CO 80501 Assignee of 01.1. and Gas Leas. Snyd t Vi1 Patres-a L.15. , A Del-aware limited partnership 25D0 zntinlirat Tower, Fort -Worth, TX 76102 AND . 2300 1 -r-st RepublicBank Tower Fort Worth, TX 76102 AND 1800 Glens= _Place, Suti-e 700 Denver, CO £0202 • 920638 943 ' ' " N I 3'1 >I Aa '"1Ab7j A3Q7H-S 2: : GS NOW SY, - OF— ass DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES firfcHett1/2 PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO May 21, 1992 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. P.O. Box 320 Erie, CO 80516 Subject: USR-972 - Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit amending the design and operations plan for an existing sanitary landfill permitted under SUP-400 on a -parcel of land described as the W2 NE4 and E2 NW4 of Section 29 , T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Hoffman: Your application and related materials for the request described above are complete -and in order at the Tresent time. I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for Tuesday, July 7, 1992 , at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members might have with respect to your application. It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Broomfield, Erie, Northglenn, and Thornton Planning Commissions for their review and _comments . Please call Kirk Oglesby, City of -Broomfield, at 469-3301; Scott Hahn, Town of Erie , at 66-5-3555 ; Jerome Starling, _City of Northglenn, at 451-1648; -and David Callahan, City of Thornton, at 538-7295, for further details regarding the date, time, and place of these meetings. It is recommended that you and/or a representative he in attendance at the Broomfield, Erie, Northglenn, and T-hornton Planning Commission Meetings to answer any questions the _Commission members may have with respect to your application. It is the responsibility o£ an applicant to see that a sign is posted on the property under consideration at least 10 days preceding the hearing date. Sometime prior to June 23 , 19-92, you or a representative should call me to obtain a sign to be posted on the site no later than June 27, 1992. The sign shall be S206138 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) , Inc. May 21, 992 Page 2 posted adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way. In the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, the applicant shall post one sign in the most prominent place on the property and post a second sign at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. Your sign posting certificate must:be returned to the Department of Planning Services' office on or before the date of the hearing. The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four (24) hours before the scheduled hearing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services' office before the Planning Commission hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Respectfully, w. `-Lanell J.tanson Current Planner LJS/sfr pc: Scott Schreiber Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 230 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Fred L. Otis Attorney at Law Affiliated National Plaza 822 7th Street, Suite 300 Greeley, CO 80631 820639 .11 T Weld County Title Company 1221 8th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 • (303)356-3232 Metro 623-3232 MAY 19, 1992 Mr. Fred Otis Attorney At Law Greeley National Bank Plaza, Suite 300 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Laidlaw Waste Systems Ni 29-1-68 Dear Fred, At your request, our office updated the above referenced Affidavits for surface and mineral owners. Per the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, no new instruments have been recorded affecting the subject property. Our new certification date is May 13, 1992 @ 7:00 A.M. If you have any questions, or need any further information, please don't hesitate to call. Sin erely, Kathryn Wolking Vice President 0 EIV MAY 1 9 1992 c7 — Weld County Planning 520638 / mtmoRAn®un r 44,cif Board of County Commissioners May 18, 1992 To Date Department of Planning Services COLORADO From SUP-400 Laidlaw Waste Systems Colorado, Inc. Subject It is the opinion of the Planning Staff that the requested changes in the 1991 design are a material deviation from the original permit and will require an amendment to the Special Use permit prior to the changes being implemented. The staff recommends that the Board direct the staff to schedule a public hearing similar to the "probable cause" hearing process to determine if the requested changes are a material deviation to the Special Use permit. This would give surrounding property owners an opportunity to be informed of the changes proposed by Laidlaw Waste Systems and participate in the decision making process. Utilizing this process would be consistent with the Board's recent actions on Loloff Construction (USR-690) and Rod Staudinger (USR-953) when the Board considered material deviations to their Special Review permits. 920639 DOYLE, KLEIN, OTIS, FREY, HELLERICh .k LAZAR ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARD N.DOYLE SUITE 300 DENVER METRO HENRY C.FREY AFFILIATED NATIONAL PLAZA (303)659-7576 THOMAS E.HELLERICH 822 7th STREET ROGER A.KLEIN GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 FAX MICHAEL A.LAZAR (303)353-6712 FRED L.OTIS (303)353-6700 May 4 , 1992 Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Planning Director 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Denver Regional Landfill South - SUP-400/Laidlaw Waste Systems Colorado, Inc. Dear Mr. Cunliffe: Attached please find a letter dated May 4, 1992 from Ben Doty of Doty & Associates which compares the 1979 , 1982 , 1988 and 1991 applications with regard to Special Use Permit - 400. Hopefully this information will assist you and the County Commissioners in evaluating the need for an Amendment to the Special Use Permit. Sincerely, Fred L. Otis Attorney at Law FLO:cas Enclosure c: Weld County Commissioners Weld County Attorney Rick Hoffman Scott Schreiber D MAY 41992 c3 - Wald County Planning 920633 DOYLE LEIN, OTIS, FREY, HELLERICH .AZAR ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARD N DOYLE SUITE 300 DENVER METRO HENRY C FREY AFFILIATED NATIONAL PLAZA (303)659-7576 THOMAS E.HELLERICH 822 7th STREET ROGER A.KLEIN GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 FAX MICHAEL A.LAZAR (303)353712 FRED L.OTIS (303)353-6700 June 1, 1992 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Use by Special Review Application No. 972 - Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Inc., to Amend Special Use Permit 400 Dear County Commissioners: On behalf of my client, Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Inc. ("Laidlaw"), permission is requested to accelerate the hearing process in the referenced application by pre-advertising the Weld County Commissioner Hearing to be held July 15, 1992 following the Planning Commission Hearing to be held on July 7, 1992. An accelerated hearing is being requested for business reasons connected with Laidlaw's development of the property. Sincerely, Fred L. Otis Attorney at Law FLO:cas c: Lanell Swanson, Department of Planning Services p �N��y7�i4L Scott Schreiber 1 _t,_ /m Rick Hoffman JLuNou992L1J Li Weld ' . v '1/1r mEmoRAnDum To Lanell Swanson, Planning Date June 26, 1992 COLORADO From John S. Pickle, Env. Health Subject: USR-972 Laidlaw Waste Systems This memo is an addendum to my memo of 6/3/92 regarding Laidlaw,and is a follow- up to our 6/18/92 meeting with Rick Hoffmann and Fred Otis. At that meeting, several issues were raised, and subsequently there have been new developments. Consequently, I wish to add the following standards: 1. The noise level at this operation should not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB. 2. The maximum size of the working face of the disposal site shall not exceed 150 feet in width and 12 feet in depth at any point in time. 3. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and ground water contamination. The facility operator shall implement the ground water monitoring plan approved by the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Health Department. The analytical method and statistical evaluation of ground water monitoring data shall -comply with Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites Facilities Regulations contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2. Carbonate and cation-anion balance shall be included as part of the ground water monitoring program. The applicant shall also analyze leachate for the following parameters: Total organic halides, biochemical oxygen demand, total petroleum hydro- carbons, total phenols, pH, and specific conductivity. These are a minimum, the operator may choose to do a more detailed analysis. 4. A manager, knowledgeable in solid waste disposal site operation, and the facility shall be on site at all times that the facility is in operation. An up to date list of all managers shall be provided to the Weld County Health Department. / 5. Only non-hazardous and non-radioactive, household, industrial, and commercial solid waste approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Health Department shall be accepted. No liquid waste of any nature, including semi-solid sludges, domestic sewage sludge, and domestic septic sludge shall be accepted. 6. There shall be an access control plan as part of the operations plan. This plan shall insure appropriate wastes are being disposed at the facility. S2063€3 Laidlaw Waste Systems USR-972 June 26, 1992 Page 2 7. Any changes or updates to ground water monitoring plan or specific ground water monitoring plan shall be made by the facility operator when requested in writing by Weld County or Colorado Department of Health. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services staff for review. 8. The facility shall be operated in a manner so as to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be conducted in a manner that controls blowing debris. The working face will be closed to disposal when high wind warning conditions exist as defined in Section 1.2.31 of the Colorado Department of Health's Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations, 6 CRR 1007-2. The following operation measures shall be employed to control blowing or illegally dumped debris: a. Any debris found outside the working face shall be picked up within 24 hours. b. The manager of the facility shall respond to requests for picking up debris within 24 hours of notification by County Health Department personnel. c. A minimum 6-inch soil cover or other cover alternative approved by Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Health Department shall be applied daily to control the size of the working face. Cover shall be placed on debris as soon as possible ion days when wind is a noticeable problem. d. The working f-ace shall be enclosed on downwind sides with a minimum 15- foot litter screen while accepting waste. A 12,foot litter and access- control fence shall be maintained around the Use by Special Review area. e. During windy periods, which have not reached the threshold to be defined as high wind warning conditions, the size of the working face shall be reduced to a size that eliminates debris escaping the two sided screen. f. The size of the working face shall be reduced to 100 feet in width while accepting waste after dark. 9. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control fugitive dust at all times. The facility operator shall implement the plan for controlling fugitive dust as approved by the Weld County Health Department. Any changes or updates to the plan for controlling fugitive dust shall be made by the facility operator when required in writing by representatives of Weld County. A copy of any request for change shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning Services' staff for review according to Standard Number 39. 320639 Laidlaw Waste Systems USR-972 June 26, 1992 Page 3 10. The Special Use Permit site and facility shall obtain any emissions permit required by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 11. Adequate toilet facilities, served by an individual sewage disposal system, are required for the disposal site facility. The bathroom shall be installed in accordance with the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal and Building Code Regulations. 12. The owner and/or facility operator shall maintain an adequate water supply for the disposal site facility. The source of water for construction, operation, drinking, and sanitary facilities shall be approved by representatives of the Weld County Health Department and the Division of Water Resources. 13. All stockpile overburden, soil, and associated materials shall be managed to prevent nuisance conditions. 14. Operation inspection reports of the entire facility shall be made on a quarterly basis for the life of the recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility. The inspection report shall be made by Weld County Health Department Personnel experienced with landfill operations. The engineer shall certify the operation is progressing in accordance with all aspects of the approved Special Review Permit and Certificate of Designation. A signed copy of the report shall be submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Health Department. 15. The owner or operator shall be responsible for maintaining the approved screening and landscape plan. ,' 16. Two metal signs shall be posted at the customer entrance. The first sign shall state: "ALL UNCOVERED LOADS SHALL BE CHARGED TWICE THE NORMAL FEE". The second sign shall state: "ABSOLUTELY NO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, TOXIC SUBSTANCES, SEPTIC OR LIQUID SLUDGE ACCEPTED". /17. The facility operator shall keep the following records at the facility to be available for County and State review at any reasonable time: a. Quarterly operations inspection reports b. Results of wind, methane, and water quality monitoring. c. Soil liner certification report. d. Any special waste accepted at the facility. $20639 Laidlaw Waste Systems USR-972 June 26, 1992 Page 4 18. Personnel from the Colorado Department of Health, Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 19. Colorado Department of Health Regulations pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities, Section 2.2.7. state: "Disposal sites and facilities that accept putrescible wastes that may attract birds, and which occur within 10,000 feet (3048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet, or within 5,000 feet (1523 meters) of any airport runway used by piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft." Applicant must show compliance with this section prior to initiation of this expanded operation. If you have any questions or we can be of any further service, please contact us. Very truly yours,Yj.l t. /John S. Pickle, M.S.E.H. Director Environmental Health Division JSP/cs-1289 920639 j 0 en,Thu Posuc RacOiO COAPoR mom Au.R(ONT*Rasdvso 1p11,1-n Page 1 REGULATION 2 ODOR EMISSION REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 66-31-B(2)(e) of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act of 1970, the following Emission Regulations are issued: A. No person, wherever located, shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air contaminants from any single source such as to result in detectable odors which are measured in excess of the following limits: (1) For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial purposes it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more Volumes of odor free air. (2) In all other land use areas, it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with fifteen (15) or more volumes of odor free air. (31 (a) When the source is a manufacturing process or agricultural operation, no violation of Subsections (1) and (2) shall be cited by the Division; provided that the best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous gases and, where applicable, provided there is compliance with Item 4r of the Colorado Depart- ment of Health Pasteurized Fluid Milk and Milk Products Regulation adopted 16 April 1967. In determining the best practical control methods, the Division shall not require 1 any method which would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of property or in the practical closing of any lawful business or activity, if such would be without corresponding public benefit. (b) For all areas it is a violation when odors are detected ' after the odorous air has been diluted with one hundred twenty-seven (127) or more volumes of odor free air in which case provisions of Paragraph A 3• g p ( ) (a) shall not be applicable. • • B. For the purposes of this Regulation, two odor measurements shall be made within a period of one hour, these measurements being separated by at least fifteen (16) minutes. These measurements shall be made outside the property line of the property from which the emission originates. F C. For the purposes of this Regulation,4 personnel for evaluating odors shall be selected using an ^intensity rating test" as outlined in • "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory Evaluation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors." USPHS Pub.4999- AP-32. D, The Parnebey-Cheney Scentometer, suitably calibrated, or any other . instrument, device, or technique designated by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, may be used in the determination of the intensity of an odor and may be used as a guide in the enforce- • went of this Regulation. E. The provisions of this Regulation shall •. of Colorado. apply throughout the State k. Adopted 1 March 11, 1971 Effective Date: April 20, 1971 T. 920639 THE CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001 - 4 4.1141 \ /, ' RECEIVE �/" SANITATION DIM:,utj June 25, 1992 Emcon JUN 26 1992 Consultants in Wastes Management and sn �j�1pp y[� y; Environmental Control WELD C0{R TY I1[RLiil DEPT. Mr. John S. Pickle, M.S.E.H. Director, Environmental Protection Services Weld County Health Department 1517 16th Avenue Court Greeley, CO 80631 Dear John: It was a pleasure to meet you at the OEC Recycling Meeting. As a follow up to our discussion of the FAA involvement with landfills near airports, I've enclosed FAA's Order on this subject. I checked with FAA, and this Order still is current (i.e., has not been superseded). I also have enclosed statements of qualifications for EMCON for your information. We specialize in solid waste planning and engineering. Please include us on your bidders list for any future efforts. I personally have extensive experience with landfill audits, medical waste and scrap tire processing, recycling programs and solid waste regulatory matters (I've attached my resume). Please call on me if we can be of service to Weld County. Best regards, Dan Sweeney Director, Solid Waste Services EMCON Mountain States Office DS/ydh 3.O639 Mountain States Region:1746 Cole Boulevard,Suite 225,Golden,CO 80401,(303)278-7740•FAX(303)278-0092 %tea r-:• a^n U. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR1ER' - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION '5200.5A 1`'5D A,NC Of1t i ('rF' 1/31/90 Frplc,r)f VED FOR USE SUBJ: WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS I. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the establishment,elimination or monitoring of landfills, open dumps, waste disposal sites or similarly titled facilities on or in the vicinity of airports. 2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the division level in the Offices of Airport Planning and Pro- gramming,amming, Airport Safety and Standards, Air Traffic Evaluations and Analysis, Aviation Safety Oversight, Air Traf- fic Op rations Service, and Right Standards Service; to the division level in the regional Airports, Air Traffic, and Flight Standards Divisions; to the director level at the Aeronautical Center and the FAA Technical Center, and a limited distribution to all Airport District Offices,Flight Standards Field Offices, and Air Traffic Facilities. 3. CANCELLATION. Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On Or Near Airports, dated October 16, 1974, is canceled. 4. BACKGROUND. Landfills, garbage dumps, sewer or fish waste outfalls and other similarly licensed or titled facilities used for operations to process, bury, store or otherwise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will attract rodents and birds. Where the dump is ignited and produces smoke, an additional attractant is created. AU of the atave are undesirable and potential hazards to aviation since they erode the safety of the airpor; environment. The FAA neither approves nor disapproves locations of the facilities above. Such action is the re ponsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency and/or the appropriate state and local agencies. The role of the FAA is to ensure that airport owners and operators meet their contractual obligations to the United States government regarding com- patible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in flight will always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define conditions within fairly narrow limits where the risk is in- creased. Those high-risk conditions exist in the approach and departure patterns 2nd landing areas on and in the vicinity of airports. The number of bird strikes reported on aircraft is a matter of continuing concern to the FAA and to airport management. Various observations support the conclusion that waste disposal sites are artificial at- tractants to birds. Accordingly, disposal sites located in the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with safe flight operations. Those sites that are not compatible need to be eliminated.-Airport owners need guidance in making those decisions and the FAA must be in r position to assist. Some airports are-not under the jurisdiction of • the community or local governing body having control of_land usage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases, the airport owner should use its resources and exert its test efforts to close or control waste disposal operations within the general vicinity of the airport. 5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. The following list outlines the major changes to Order 5200.5: a. Recent developments and new techniques of waste disposal warranted updating and clarification of what constitutes a sanitary landfill. This listing of new titles for waste disposal were outlined in paragraph 4. b. Due to a reorganization which placed the Animal Damage Control branch of the U.S. Department of Inte- rior Fish and Wildlife Service under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an address addition was necessary. c. A zone of notification was added to th criteria which should provide the appropriate FAA Airports office an opportunity to comment on the proposed disposal site during the selection process. Distribution: A—WP(AP/AS/TS/OV/TO/FS)-2; A—X(AS/AT/FA)-2; Initiated By: A4S—,SOO A—YZ-1; A—FAS/FFS/FAT-0(LTD) ' • 5200.5A 1/31/90 6. ACTION. a. Waste disposal sites located or proposed to be located within the areas established for an airport by the guidelines set forth in paragraph 7a, b, and c of this order should not be allowed to operate. If a waste disposal site _ is incompatible with an airport in accordance with guidelines of paragraph 7 and cannot be closed within a reasona- ble time, it should be operated in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services, and other such regulatory bodies that may have applicable requirements. The appropriate FAA airports office should advise airport owners, operators and waste disposal proponents against locating, permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill or similar facility on or in the vicinity of airports. (1) Additionally, any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal site within 5 miles of a runway end should notify the airport and the appropriate FAA Airports office so as to provide an opportunity to review and comment on the site in accordance with guidance contained in this order.FAA field offices may wish to contact the appropriate State director of the United States Department of Agriculture to assist in this review. Also, any Air Traffic control tower manager or Flight Standards District Office manager and their staffs that become aware of a proposal to develop or expand a disposal site should notify the appropriate FAA Airports office. b. The operation of a disposal site located beyond the areas described in paragraph 7 must be properly super- vised to insure compatibility with theairport. c. If at any time the disposal site, by virtue of its location or operation, presents a potential hazard to aircraft operations, the owner should take action to correct the situation or terminate operation of the facility. If the owner of the airport also owns or controls the disposal facility and is subject to Federal obligations to protect compatibility of land uses around the airport, failure to take corrective action could place the airport owner in noncompliance with its commitments to the Federal government. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate the situ- ation to determine compliance with federal agreements and take such action as may be warranted under the guide- lines as prescribed in Order 5190.6, Airports Compliance Requirements, current edition. (1) Airport owners should be encouraged to make periodic inspections of current operations of existing disposal sites near a federally obligated airport where potential bird hazard problems have been reported. d. This order is not intended to resolve all related problems, but is specifically directed toward eliminating waste disposal sites, landfills and similarly titled facilities in the proximity of airports, thus providing a safer envi- ronment for aircraft operations. e. At airports certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, the airport certification manual/speci- fications should require disposal site inspections at appropriate intervals for those operations meeting the criteria of paragraph 7 that cannot be closed. These inspections are necessary to assure that bird populations are not increasing and that appropriate control procedures are being established and followed. The appropriate FAA Airports offices should develop working relationships with state aviation agencies and state agencies ths: :ave authorit/ over waste disposaland.landfills to stay abreast of proposed developments and expansions-and apprise them of the hazards to aviation that these sites present. 1. When proposing a disposal site, operators should make their plans available to the appropriate state regula- tory agencies. Many states have criteria concerning siting requirements specific to their jurisdictions. g. Additional information on waste disposal, bird hazard and related problems may be obtained from the fol- lowing agencies: U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 18th and C Streets,NW Washington, DC 20240 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service P.O. Box 96464 Animal Damage Control Program Room 1624 South Agriculture Building • Washington, DC 20090-6464 • p (++y 2 soasa3 • 1/31/90 5200.5A • U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20406 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 7. CRITERIA. Disposal sites will be considered as incompatible if located within areas established for the air- port through the application of the following criteria: a. Waste disposal sites located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine powered aircraft. b. Waste disposal sites located within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircraft. c. Any waste disposal site located within a 5 mile radius of a runway end that attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements from feeding, water or roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure patterns of aircraft. Leonard E. Mudd Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards • • 92063!3 3 I 1-i t I r ,...- F 5$ enr. Panamanian • • • plane crash : tied to birds PANAMA CITY,Panama(AP)—A . .. twin engine plane carrying 22 people • crashed yesterday minutes after take- off from Contadora island when birds. were sucked into its right engine, Aeroperlas airline said. It said 20 people were missing and two were rescued. Passenger lists showed four Amen- -; tans aboard the aircraft,the airline • and control tower said. U.S.planes,boats and divers joined. Panamanian rescue workers in the search for survivors of the Twin Otter plane in 120-foot-deep Pacific waters three miles south of the resort,the . US.Southern Command said The search was suspended last night and will resume this morning . said Panama's director of civil avia • - tion,Jaime Fabrega. The Americans were listed as Anita He lc,Karl Heck,Lisa Larglow and Richard Point,according to Panama- nian civil aviation sources.No home- ' towns and ages were available,and ' • late yesterday the State Department in Washington said it had no details_ • on the plane crash or the Americans . on board • A statement by the airline blamed . i3 the crash on the failure of the right engine after a group of birds flew into • it as chtak nci eAnt ,the eximpact of t that o in such incidents the impact of the birds causes the engine's turbines to stop,forcing the plane to stall . The statement added that those res- • . . . • • cued and taken to Panama City were "Frederick Pirot Jr.,14,and Mrs.Ma • Jury."The passenger list shows two others with the name of Pirot—pre- sumably related to him . Jury,of Switzerland,suffered a broken vertebra,and Pirot,of • France,suffered a broken arm,the • airline said : The rest of the paecengers and two crew members were Panamanians, the Civil Aviation office said The plane was en route from Conta- dora,about 50 miles southeast of Pan- ama Qty,to the capital ■ . • • 920639 ERIE AIR PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 125 STEARMAN COURT ERIE, CO 80516 June 22, 1992 � v, t REC sN Mr. John Pickle --) 129,12 Director, Environmental Protection Services � 1517 16th Ave. Ct. ty ttM.a �G21 Greeley, CO 80631 %ID CO ti RE: LANDFILL EXPANSIONS IN SOUTHWESTERN WELD COUNTY Dear Mr. Pickle; As a follow up to our phone conversation on Wednesday, June 17, 1992, I am enclosing copies of two documents you mentioned you had not seen. The first document is titled "PA QUESTIONAIRE" and was prepared by Austin Buckingham on October 15, 1990. I think you will find of particular interest the information provided in question numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 28. In #28 we believe that the data presenting population served by ground water within y to 1 mile from the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is incorrect. There are 3 residences on Weld County Road 3 who have permits to utilize this aquifer for drinking water and some agricultural use. The second document enclosed for your review is the Preliminary Assessment prepared by Austin Buckingham and submitted 11-27- 90. There is a great deal of interesting information contained within this report. However, there are a few pieces of informa- tion of particular interest to the entire question of the en- vironmental impact of landfills in this area of Weld County. The introduction clearly states: "The area had been identi- fied as an area of environmental concern and was placed on CERCLIS in 1984. " 920639 -Page #3 of this document identifies 84, 000 gallons of chemical waste disposed at this sitz by IBM. Pages 8 and 9 further iden- tify chemicals IBM disposed at the site that even the most novice of citizens would believe would have an environmental impact on the area and potentially impact human health based upon the design of the OLD landfill. There are other data points refer- enced throughout the report of other chemical waste (including solvents) disposed by other companies such as Sundstrand Aviation. Page #6 states "the coals of the Laramie Foundation have been extensively mined in the area by Columbine mine #1" . Please note section #4. 6 on page 12 "Summary of Overall Release Poten- tial" . We believe the facts are incorrect relative to "closest alluvial aquifer. . . (and) . . . the closest Laramie-Fox aquifer use is a mile down gradient. . . ". It would be logical to assume that if the facts are incorrect, the conclusion would be erron- eous as well . - Page #13 ' s conclusion section is interesting - "alluvial ground water contamination is documented in wells 103A and 103B at Laidlaw North" . "The shallow bedrock wells appear to show degra- dation of ground water quality." "The major pathway of concern is the ground water pathway with contamination to the alluvial aquifer, the shallow bedrock aquifer and a nearby spring" . In conclusion, it is inconceivable to the members of our Home- Owners Association (as well as- our neighbors) that the Environ- mental Protection Services of Weld County and/or the EPA would allow any further expansion of this area for solid waste disposal activities. It appears from these documents your agency should be focusing its efforts on clean up of a CERCLIS and potential Superfund site. This type of activity is on the far end of the spectrum from the expansion activities your agency is curr- ently focused upon. Our association would appreciate receiving in writing a summary of ANY agency' s rationale and the scientific basis as to the appropriateness of expanding/approving any solid waste disposal expansion in this area of Weld County. We are in the process of determining if the Columbine site was put on the NPL after being placed on CERCLIS. If this area was SZO3639 not placed on the NPL, we will be pursuing that rationale as well. Our association has also received a copy of EPA' s document titled "The Citizen' s Guidance Manual for the Technical Assis- tance Grant Program" . We intend to pursue any avenues of assis- tance about the threat to human health and the environment on the issue of landfills in this area of Weld County. The Erie Air Park Home Owners Association looks forward to work- ing with you in the future. I appreciated your time and interest in our telephone conversation last week. Sincerely, / Dens C. _and Judith A. Wiley Erie Air Park Home Owners Association pc: Austin Buckingham - CDH David Schaller - EPA Saosae RECEIVED SANITATION OlvISIQN JUN 2 5 1992 WELD Whin HUGH DEPT. Name Austin Buckingham -Location S 1/2 Sec 20 and Sec 29 TIN, R68W Site Name Columbine Landfill Date October 15, 1990 PA OUESTIONNAIR• 2:X0639 PA Questionnaire -Page 2 (A) DOES ANY QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION EXIST THAT MAY INDICATE AN OBSERVED REi EASE TO AIR, GROUND WATER, SOIL OR SURFACE WATER? Ye-s Describe: Shallow ground water ccnt3mi nazi nn Z �n ___r. rr• i di by IBM and Sundstrand into NF NF Section 29 (B) IF THE ANSWER TO #1 IS YES, IS THERE EVIDENCE OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATION OR ANY OTHER TARGET CONTAMINATION (i.e. food chain, recreation areas, or sensitive environments)? Yes wetlands and spring in the South draw show evidence of Strasser vesetal-inn 'The Tone contains rusted half hurled drums and shredded photo conductor MA Perin (C) ARE THESE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN A 4-MILE RADIUS OR IS DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE? vas IF YES, DESCRIBE IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY: -Multiple sensitive environments? Federally designated sensitive environment(s)? -Sensitive environment(s) downstream on a small or slow flowing surface waer body? The wetlands area(s1 are located in a draw that- is south of the site and runs oaralle1 to the site (D) IS THE SITE LOCATED IN AN AREA OFKARST TERRAIN? No Describe: (E) DOES THE WASTE SOURCE LIE FULLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN A WELLHEAD HEAD PROTECTION AREA AS DESIGNATED ACCORDING TO SECTION 1428 OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT? No Describe: (F) DOES ANY QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION EXIST THAT PEOPLE LIVE OR ATTEND SCHOOL ON ONSITE CONTAMINATED PROPERTY? No Describe: 332:O639 PA Questionnaire Page 3 SITE INFORMATION 1. SITE NAME: Columbine Taj dfi J 1 ADDRESS: 1441 Weld County -Road Tit-P.-O. Box 320 CITY: Erie COUNTY Weld STATE CO ZIP 80516 EPA ID: COD 980951735 LATITUDE 105°1'40" LONGITUDE: 40°1'15' 2. DIRECTIONS TO SITE (From nearest public road): I 25: take Erie Exit: co west miles to Weld County Road #5: _cm south one mile; site occupies the NENE,_W 1/2 NE, £ 1/2 NW Section 29;and S 1/2 SW 1/4 Section 20, TIN, R68W; at intersection WCR 5 & 6 3. SITE OWNERSHIP HISTORY (Use additional sheets, if nern°ary): A. Name of current owner. T.aidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. Address: 1441 Weld County Road 6 , P.O. Box 320 City; Erie County: Weld State CO Zip: 80316 Dates: From 1/88 To present Phone: (303) 673-9431 B. Name of previous owner. Western Disposal, Inc: Address: 5880 Butte Mill Road Litt/ Boulder County.Boulder State: Co Zip 80301 Dates: From 12/85 To 1/88 Phone (303) 444-2037 Source of ownership data: CDH file 4. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP (Check all that apply): X Private _State _Municipal _Federal _County _Other (describe): 920639 PA Questionnaire Page 4 5. NAME OF SITE OPERATOR: Laidlaw Waste Systems ADDRESS 1-441 Weld County Road 6, P.O. Box 320 CITY: Erie -COUNTY: Weld STATE: CO ZIP -80516 PHONE: (3031673-9431 BACKGROUND/OPERATING HISTORY 6. DESCRIBE OPERATING HISTORY OF SITE: 1x365-1969: Neuhauser _operated MSW and industrial chemical disposal on Pratt property; BFI and Roweder operated MSW county landfill on Pratt property 1970-1979; 1979-1985: Colorado Landfill, -Inc. , operated Columbine Landfill; 1985-1988: Western -Disposal operated Columbine; 1988-present: Laidlaw operated Columbine & renamed it to Laidlaw South. Source of_information: CDH file and interviews. 7. DESCRIBE SITE AND NATURE OF SITE OPERATIONS (property size, manufacturing, waste disposal, storage,etc.): The Pratt property (35AC. ) received drtmied chemical waste from IBM, torpedo propellant fran Sundstrand Aviation (which was brought to the site in tankers & burned in on-site pits) and municipal solid waste. -The site was unlined and rarely covered. The Columbine site (160AC)(aka. Laidlaw South) had a scarified -& recompacted liner where clay was absent. MSW and sand & crease trap wastes were accepted. Laidlaw North (80AC) accepted MSW only. The site has a scarified and recompacted clay liner. Source of information: CDH file and interviews 8. DESCRIBE ANY EMERGENCY OR REMEDIAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT THE SITE: July 1968 a chemical fire occured on the Pratt property. Throughout the operation of the site, open burning was a continual problem requiring fire dept. response. Source of information: CDH file. 9. ARE THERE RECORDS OR IC4OWLEDGE OF ACCIDENTS OR SPILLS INVOLVING SITE WASTES? Yes Describe: In drainage to the south o₹ the site, liquid and solid waste disposal has occurred Source of information: intan/iewS and site visit (08/20/001 900639 PA Questionnaire Page 5 10. DISCUSS T_XISTING SAMPLING DATA AND BRIEFLYSU MARIZE DATA QUALITY (e.g., sample objective, age/comparability, analytical methods, detections limits and QA/QC: Current Mali taring icons sts of round -water and surF'ce water (Coal ('reek). Coal Creek does -not show -any -obvious contamination. The on-site monitoring we, 's pre screened to -the shallow alluvial around water -system and a bedrock saturated uni t. The _predominately bicarbonate bedrock -around water -shows effects of sane water quality degradation in the form of elevated chloride sulphat-e, nitrates{ sodium. Wall 103 A&B -show halogenated organic contamination. All analytical methods and detection limits are EPA methods aoarooriate for -the constituent. Source of information: CDH file--nonitorina reports WASTE CONTAINMENT/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION V. a11. FOR EACH SOURCE AT THE SITE, SUMMARIZE ON-TABLE 1 (page 12): 1)Methods of hazardous substance disposal, storage or handling; 2) size/volume/area of all features/structures that might contain NoT hazardous waste; 3) coaditioa/integrity of each storage disposal feature or structure; and 4) types of hazardous pP substances handled. 12. -BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW WASTE QUANTITY WAS ESTIMATED (e.g., historical records or manifests, permit applications, photo measurements, etc.): 1) IBM: 1500 55 gallon drums -of chemical waste disposed on Pratt property 2) -Sundstrand: unknown Quantity of torpedo oropellant disposed in container lined pits then burned 3) un- known quanity of unknown chemical waste disposed in pits 4) 8,700,000 cy solid waste t). 2.3). 4). Source of information: EPA Notification. Interview with Neuhauser. CDH c- 13. DESCRIBE AN" RES C,TIONS OR BARRIERS ON ACCESSIBILITY TO ONSITI J �\ I��rrni pcopc4j) ee The old Erie Landfill had unrestricted access and was not attended e9r47 - a,7: 1979 the Columbine Landfill -adjacent to the Pratt property was fe�4 roast existed with entrance to site since 1965. Roth Taidlaw North F Soi,th is fenced and attended. Source of information: Interviews. aerial photo 1972 & 1974 920639 PA Questionnaire Page 6 GROUND WATER CHARACTERISTICS 14. ANY POSITIVE OR -CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE OF A RELEASE TO GROUND WATER? Yes Describe: GtJ6 (Now-decomrtissioned) showed small levels -of V0C _contamination. 103 A&103B show alluvial tontamination with halogenated oraanic-s. Source of information: monitoring reports in CDH file (2. 15. ON TABLE 2 (page 13), GIVE NAMES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS-UNDERLYING THE SITE. 16. NET PRECB?ITATION: 1f inches/year SURFACE WATER CHARACTERISTIC$ 17. ARE THERE SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN-2 MILES OF THE SITE? yes X -Ditches Lakes X Fond X Creeks Rivers X _Other dry drainaaes, which flow during storm events. 18. DISCUSS THE PROBABLE SURFACE RUNOFF PATTERNS FROM THE SITE TO SURFACE WATERS: surface runoff on natural t000graohv -occurs by sheet runoff into trellis patterned drainages until it roaches Coal Creek 1/2 Ott ie to the west of the site. 19. PROVIDE A SIMPLIFIED SKETCH OF SURFACE RUNOFF AND SURFACE WATER PLOW SYSTEM FOR 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES (see item-#36). 20. ANY POSITIVE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION? Yes Describe: Coal Creek has been sampled at three sample points for 5 years and is uncontaminated. The drainage to south of site shows stressed vegetation in the western most pond. Source of information: Laidlaw monitoring and -site visit (U8/20/90) 2L ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF THE UPGRADIENT DRAINAGE AREA FROM THE SITE:135acres w/o road Source of information: topography map. 9210633 PA Questionnaire Page 7 22. DETERMINE THE AVERAGE ANNUAL STREAM FLOW OF DOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATERS Water body. Coat Creek Flow: 5-25 cfs Water body Boulder Creek Flow: 20-100 cfs Water bodySi-. Vrin Creek Flow: 50-150 cfs Source of_information: Laidlaw North Operations Report. District 46 water eatmissioner 23. IS THE SITE OR PORTIONS THEREOF LOCATED IN SURFACE WATER? no 24. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN A TZOODPLAIN (indicate Blood frequency)?no 25. IDFN iiFY AND LOCATE (see item#36) ANY SURFACE WATER RECREATION AREA WITHIN 15 DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE: None #dentified Source of information: t000arachi-c man. 26. TWO YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL 2.1 inches. TARGETS 27. DISCUSS GROUND WATER USAGE WITHIN-FOUR MILES OF THE SITE: alluvial: irrigation, stock, lawn watering Shallow bedrock: irrigation, stock, lawn watering, sane domestic laramie-Fnx Hills: primarily domestic. Source of_information: State Engineers Office 25. SUMMARIZE THE POPULATION SERVED BY GROUND WAIhR ON-THE TABLE BELOW: Distance Population (miles) 0 - 1/4 1 residence Laramie Fox Hills 1/4 -1/2 1 residence Laramie bat Hills 1/2 - 1 4 residences alluvial PA Questionnaire Page 8 1 - 2 120 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Larimie-Fox Hills 2 - 3 150 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Laramie-Fox Hills 3 - 4 150 residences: alluvial, shallow bedrock, Laramie Fox Hills Source of information: State rngi neeTs Off re 29. IDENTIFY AND LOCATE (see item #36) POPULATION SERVED BY SURFACE WATER INTAKES WITHIN 15 DOWNSTREAM MILTS OF THE SITE: unknown population No diversions dawn_ stream of site on Coal Creek. Boulder _Creek has the following diversions Goodin° Daily & Plumb Ditch, Rural Ditch, Idaho Creek Carrier, Carr & Tylor, Houch 42, Goodina/Hiahland South. -Smith & Minions, and Tom _Delehant. These are _used for stock and irritation. Source of information: District 16 Water C-otmiissioner 30. DESCRIBE AND _LOCATE FISHERIES WITHIN 13 DOWNSTREAM MILES OF THE SITE (i.e., provide standing crop of production and acreage, etc.): There are no fisheries within 15 downs tr-eam miles of -the site. Source -of information: Co. Division of Wildlife, topographic-map. 31. DETERMINE THE DISTANCE -FROM THE SITE TO THE NEAREST OFIACH OF THE FOLLOWING LAND USES Descriotion Distant; (miles) Commercial/Industrial Institutional 1 mi le Single Family_Residential 1/4 mil e Multi-family Residential 1 mile Park Agricultural adjacent to site 920639 Source of information: tocoor-aohic map. W 15 PA Questionnaire Page 9 32. SUMMARIZE THE POPULATION W1TE3INN A FOUR-MILE RADIUS OF THE SIT£: Distance Population onsite 22 0 - 1/4 2 1/4 - 1/2 3 1/2 - 1 16 1 - 2 1500 2 - 3 600 3 - 4 600 Source of information: Town of Erie, Estimated at 4 _persons/household OTHER It£GULATORY INVOLVEMENT 33. DISCUSS ANY PERMITS: County: Certificate of Designation Old Erie Landfill 19-68. lai.dlaw South 1979 State: APCD permit - Laidlaw South 1979 and 1987 Federal: None Other. Laidlaw North Annexed £Y town of Erie in 1985. Source of information: £DH files V iia� PA Questionnaire Page 11 35. SKETCH OF SITE Include all pertinent features, e.g. , vells, storage areas, underground storage tanks, vaste areas, buildings, access roads, areas of ponded -rater, etc. Attach additional sheets vith sketches of enlarged areas, if necessary. s. �=' .'' „▪� 4. it/i `•... F-. � r) ''i ,-t \�l , it �/ ' 8 4: • , 4 &1L __, II _ V �, , ii .. .. � ' �'_ el. I i'\� .Q 1( i __ �- (�7A L,, .. '. TIN ROA) N R643‘.1/41— f .,-:\ � \ / �\ Sy �.c.. --' ii_ e _ • '.is, N-_ --fit I !/ ( ,% \`• 1. :�- �� .__� /� I+ �'!/ I I i I 1.^-.r/T30 mi • W _ . , em..-- -� o: UNIT i w ,`o +fir arum) w�Tal , _ .\\� «3t cs-1 '--�— ::o \ •___� :tE N •.,_ \ -� `• m /; r `/I '1 •jl 1 •`%---..,;:__.t.---4- rte r ` I. r igIVAll �L 0. C -/� 1 2 /I ▪'t i// ,F.....„„ /)e Wmdne Nine s `. - i \ 2 1.O ) -.\\ �. \ i' I'1'}6tkrI (IW1X a ,,. r; •� \\`i�� \ _ \- i \I_i y--\I @9/Lb N. % t 1‘ '\` �J1..n v ) \ - \ ‘.°5-53#• ` I 1 I / \ I 4/J$ •090./- ) , \ � / -./I / l (!.. _l / • o >�r' \ I. ."1.-- ( • -� • . x ^>_ J `� • - i• t it s! 1 re �' jam' o I/ X11,. TRi COUNTY '` _� r../_'_ .--„ / ,' �i � -' ujoa G J AIR ORT /— C ,�nl C sskS�`�,c� P•} i • Calanva w nq la%i1 r. „;-..-„---, ` 1 'n- ei cr • - ! sG.11 be11.o4k 1� „.../,‘47" : i r � -I� ' - ). / - • QI. .4 Ann, J.,.. al'044 - /fir I4*$; \i 1,7 fi J + toi t-tR ❑ 7%,* S=it ?widat � �E` 4izf1' . • " `1169W z 1. ' ! \�.I • ,1 , Lry \1` 4• _ ' �_7. \ �. y1(\ , " • 2N I. ^ .7-"I''42� •So 0.!--,.--- . .r`. q� •t/ I; 5/' +Im as :III atvt -ar 7.— r .. r r / ) r� i r` 1. ,, ..I. ... -- 4.� \ . . <:. , c : ccnay.LC } J " timuWs.Y eL N 1 E/1 I 4 520639 ; 1 :. `f`' 'r' :z, �, r .-I--..---I' POTENTIAL HAZAROOSIS WASTE SITE I.IDENTIFlCATION NiEPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT at sT.E 02 Sin mumati, PART 1-517E INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT CO 0980951735 ILSITE NAME AND LOCATION ' 01 Earl I.AA.E(wpm ansalmnionianint 02 STREET..-ROuTE NO..OA$PECW C LOCATION cearER Columbine Landfill & nearh_v pmpert-ies ,3.441 Weld County Rd b 03 Orr DA STATE OS LPCOOE OSccusre o1000NIYoa CON* 0000 GIST Erie Co 80516 Weld 123 09SOOacaa TES LA aTUOE LONGITUDE Laidlaw North 4_0°_a1'_.5."_ 1051. 011 4D_:._ S1/2 SW Section 20, TIN, R68W;BOAC I0 OIREC RIONS TO NT! - I 25; take Erie Exit; go west to Weld Cty Rd #5; go south one mile; site occupies the NENE, WANE, EliNW Section 29 & SIISW Section 20, TIN, R68W; at intersection of WCR 5&6 III.RESPONSIBLE PARTIES LAIDLAW NORTH 01 awNER,ar..-. 02 STREET lo.......oak...war Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc 1441 Weld County Road 46 03 cry OCZTan OS LP CODE Oa TEIFTCME MIMEER Erie CO 80516 1303 673-9431 or 440-9601 07 OPERA TOR a r.. .—......... 05 STREET ia�d..�N.. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc 1441 Weld County Road #6 aicn i a$rATE II LP CODE IzrELEPHONE NUMBER Erie CO 80516 13031673=9431 01- 440-9601 I a TYPE CP OwNERSHO NJ..... R. A.PRIVATE — a.FZDERAL — C.STATE CO.CCUNTV C E.MUNCPAL �•�, F-CTNER, I-G UNKNOWN ^I I A O W NEP/CPEIATCM IA1 FICATION.ON SAE,G..ei.a OW Ate.1 7. A.M .3001 GATE RECENEO: Ca.UNCONTROLLED WASTE S&TE:CFRrs,Ts a GATE REC-EIVED: C.NONE on._caw Ilia IV.C7IARACTEBIZATION-OFPOTENTIAL HAZARD Cl ON BM WSPECIUI aY,o re.rsr *yEs °ATE 28 '20, 90 C A.-EPA C 9.EPA CONTRACTOR y£t.STATE C 0.OTHER CONTRACTOR .o C n. aAY .E AL RA C E LOC -NEALTHion1C1AL _C-R.OTH NO ER: ,sr. 09/07/90 CONTRACTOR NAMEist: 02 SITE STATIIS,G...Haw 03 YEARSOFCPERAnCN C A.ACTIVE a'INACTIVE C C.UNKNOWN 19B4 I oresent C UNKNOWN *GIS `re... 0pb.(M 0A oESCRono.Of SUBSTANCES POssa;y PIIFSENT.KNOWN.OR ALLEGED Municipal Solid Wastes OS OEECRPT I Cf NO TENnAL-NALARD TO ernspimear.uCOA POPULATION ground water contamination -to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone . surface water contamination to the unnamed drainage and Coal Creek. V.PRIORITY-ASSESSMENT 0 I PNCiary POR PNECRCN.o....w..,....me••... %a,...~I. eaten a-arts...Valais,Ca.i.ow As... A.-SIGH Z a.>�M CS.-LOW C 0.NONE :wen—w:wen ,.Y.. nosiera•n.a. earn. ,N...M.M......... I.es.....na.N....mar VI.INFORMATICNAVAILABL`EROM a,CONTACT 020f,Ae...ON..,... 0.0 TELEPNOF.E NUMBER Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc 13031673-9431 0A PERSON AASPCNS'9LE ACA ASSESSMENT 0.'c<ann 04 OPGANGLApON al TELEPHONE NUMBER -0a OATS Austin N. Buckingham CDH HMWMD 13031331-4830 is. 00.0 On EPA FINN 2070-'2 V.al I D y116a39 c-1 POTF71TIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATION V�,� PRELIMINARY As3sc1MENT of aT.n raasnlwfA P ART t•SITE INFORMATION AND u Eaf 5VET CO I fl980951715 II.SITE NAME AND LOCATION Cu Sin MaME MAIMS aw.s0a a 02$TREAT.ACUTI I.O..CA a/ECJC:QC.<nCn Winne as Orr Ca Sian I 0 D COOS Ios CVUNT'f IOTA Gana OA CCOPCA+arn LAnruoe— I --_LONGR0CE I Laidlaw South E`NW & WIINE Section 29, TIN. R68W- 1 OAC IC aw[c-1aa+TO SITE,aI....aaws— IILRESPONS1sLE PARTIES ramraw snm.I o I OwAa_f,.AA. 02 STREET aunt sA at Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld Crnmty mart uF Oa cm o•5T n Oa 80516 CA rELEP. Mali",Mali",Erie ICIt 1303J 673-9431 or 440-9601 07 CAfRA Mil ans...”.•....esnm< I C. a�STREET ia-•�t as; Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld County Road #6 Ca CTV I STATE 113CCOE I ZTELEPICIAS?WA<AEA Erie CO 18051-6 IdO3 673-9431 o4 440-9601 I4 TVA..CF-0a.er.a 3 A.pa/ATE C. 3.MINERAL _C.STATE CO.CUNTY C E MUNCRAL 'a• a ) =F OTHER seas -G UNKNOWN s•OAn<NVOPEN C aTCR DT MICA PRA?Pas anodes* A.AC3IA=01 DATE RECEIVED: Z9.UNC'NTROLJFD WASTE=TE,wa.,TZ a DATERECEIVED' C.NOW'am Y. •E.a OIw In •W iv.CNAAACnaAOAn0N OF-POTENTIAL NAZARD al ONasri Imam C/< GT,OAA n- -Xyyz DATE 08 H2O , 90 C A.EPA C$FAA ccNTRACTCR JC C.STATE C O.oTHE CCNTRAC.OA ton. a.. •EAw C E LOLL HEALTH OFFICAL C F.OTHER 09/07/90 NTRAcsalN mEISI: :�. rr. 02 SITE STA nu!Pew se 03 VAAIROP CPEPanoN :CA.ACTIVE Cll.aEA :PM C C.a«wwN 1979 T nrPKPnT ❑UNKNOWN ld�Y.EM t ,C.EM -0410656PAPTIO40FSJtTAN=P-0.S.T wlEaa(T.MON.CR ALLLC® municipal solid wastes, asbestos, oily sludges, sand and grease trap wastes OS GF.SGiino.GP PC TEN nag.karats mENaCMAF T-.aCCC11 P0P{R.A ION ytuund water contamination to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone; Surface water contamination to the unnamed drainage and Coal Creek. V.PRIORI/AssscevENT 01-Pa4VT T PCA PCPEC1o.Clow ea.<.w.WMS..4.11.S.04•11•/la saanal..•0.J - ...< C A.P1104 CS S.mama. _ C C.LOW CD.NONE . . .rte.. I.SaA.•••a.•••••••A... ,n.-al.mss<S.eirlitalasAA Vt.INFORMATION AVAILASLEFROM oI CONTACT 01 OF,.•..<.p.w,m.... 03 TELLPSCalt IcMEEP Tick -Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. 3031673=9431 O.-.•EPSG<4ESPC`naa.3 PGA,.55$E$y<ENr OS...GAMIC? °Atacaa..non OT r2LF3.ONE MR.EER 04 OATS Austin N. Buckingham CDH HMWMD 1303 331-4830 10m' 05•-90 0.01 •tAil EPA ACA'.2070.'217-a c—≥. vZO6z'3 £A POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IOENTTFICATION c PRELIMINARY ACSFSSMENT a`ptAR a2p9g0g51735 No PART I•SITE INFORMATION AND ALSre1MEtfT A SITE NAME ANO LOCATION 0 I sirs hint A.a a.w..�.>. 03 STRUT.POUR N0..U SIECFC LJCA(CN Ce.F 4. 03 cart OA STALE 0343P CCOM -Oil CGW.rt IOTCOM.TWO.C.aC CpOE OQT Ot CCOI.OUAR3 LATRUDE LONGTIME __ __ __._ I ___ __ __._ I Old Erie Landfill NE NE Section 29, TIN, R68W, 35AC. la Ow[CTICIAS TO SRI itI.a.'+wAaRea III.AEZPON$XILE PANTIES OLD ERIE LANDFILL 0 CWNtM N..� 025TAtET oAnA A.was Kenneth Pratt 1960 Industrial Circle a3 CTY aA STAR CS Ii COOL OS TEtFAOE MJI.ttA Longmont CO 80502 13031776-449f OT CAW MA,.�....w.....�... a STAGE'(ma...............• John F. Neuhauser P.O. Box 454 Gear, 105TAR II L:/CGOt i 2 rzLS.p'c.t..I.MLA Saraland AL 36571 1205' 675-9366 i 3 TYPE CPCWNERS .cI...... =A.PRIVATE 3.FE➢ERAL C.STATE :➢.COUNTY Z E MUNACPAL O ::,. ..r... L..I,•C -c u•tANOWN WN :C SAIEAA TOP ICTVCt COI Pt$:CA�a a.. .w I L.A.RCRA:001 DATE RECSVE➢' C a.UNCCNT CLLS WASTE aTE:enc.,1f a DATE RECFNED: d C.NONE Warn 6041 t{Y OM :A. rw IV..CNARACTERIZLl1ON OF POTENTIAL NAZ►AO o ON SR IIASAELTZN t1,a•••aa...wl U YES DATE 08 . "0, 90 -c A.EPA C B.CPA CCNTRAC CR $C.STATE L-0.OTHER COMPACTOR NO en.-344 •w C E.LOLL lamOFFIC;As. C F.CTNFA: 7. 09/07/9D =mice, R NAMEISI: 01WTE3TATw,o....._ 03'ISMS OPOPtfAPON finally closed 1983 A.AC IVE Zca.AVACMIE CC.unQCwN 1965 I 1979 u,ceccvm OA ot3Ot mc.•COal511ANCt3 May 1441332212.PICWN.ON ALLEGED torpedo propellant from Sundstrand Aviation; MEK and other unspecified organics, inorganics, solvents,acids and bases from IBM (see"part 2, IV for possible substances) 06 OESC.wTCA CO.OTE31Tta.NAZAAO TO£NVwO,a sent CA PCAIA.A TION ground water contamination to the alluvial and uppermost bedrock saturated zone; surface water contamination to the unnamed _drainage and Coal Creek. V.prncrn Y Aan IIea 0s PTY Ka tCItCTC..IGv....Ia..........a.a—A..1.+..nna..Ma.ONISIO r wa..a 6...w.nini... C A.-NTL>N S-0.-AIEDRIN C-C.LOW C➢.NONE w—+.�— s— I----..r ,_—a...—....—..... —. VI.INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM 01 CONTACT 02 CP...w.a......44. 03 TELIPACNI MAMMA John F. Neuhauser & Kenneth Pratt 101i77F_aa�h aNEP5CN AE:Pena&£CP A<c.•T.•AN T 03..C1LCT Oil CRGAN.LATCN 07 TELEPICNt NUMBER I CO OaTE ilAustin N. Buckingham CDH HMWMD 3031 331-4D30I '05,9D EPA FCPN:OT0..2I£-0II c-1 520639 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L OENTIFICA TION \'��EPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT of sTAre 02 SITE NUMBER PART 2_WASTE INFORMATION I D980951735 II.WASTE STATES.QUANTITIES,ANO CHARACTERISTICS 60 I PHYSICAL STATES -C....r....., 02 WASTE GUANTITY AT SITE 03 WASTE CHARA ..Y�..� C EALTTICS�G.r.r..r rr., r Y A SOUO -'}�}q7f� If A.Tom : E.SCUUEtE d.POWOEA.FlNES X F UCWO C. 10�TcY.y� gam. Ions gE ecR NKJ.LY vcunLE A c.SLUOfi ROSIVF _ F v.FEC^AUS XL ESFLOlIVE - a CA.5 . C.RAOIOAGTNE _a FIANNAELE ._R.HERON& .- A. =n aYARQ& 8.600 000 YD.PEASLSTENT _N K1W E&TRE _ L.INCOUPAnELE D.oTNEA ..4 Nor APRUC.ELE Pa a" F.110.0110RWAS 3500 livid III.WASTE TYPE I'CATEGORY SUE GROSS AMOUNT Ica UNIT GRAd[AsuREI 03 COMMENTS SLU SLUDGE 65,000 gallons sand tram waste 0LW OILY WASTE 30,000 gallons oil & grease SOL * SOLVENTS P50 PESTICIDES * 00C OTHER ORGANIC CHEMICALS *84,000 gallons + unknown r ICC :NCPaANIC CHEMICALS quantity or torpedo propellant ACD * ACIDS US I * EASES MES I HEAVY METALS IV.HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES,S.........,.,.r„,....,...•can GAS A....... 01 CATEGORY I 023U&STANCE NAME I 33 CASNuMEEA DA STORAGEICLS*03ALMETHOD '&uEA3UPEC% OS CCNCEMTPAiieN CfCE!.I�.TI(:r IMethvlethvl TE one 78_93-3 150p 55 z I unknown ( toluene h08-88-3 I 'methylene chloride h5-09-2 I 1 ( chloroform 67-66-3 Itetrahvdrofuran h.09--99-9 I [sulfuric acid 17664-93-9 r^ zinc cyanide 657-21-1 potassium xvanide 0.51-50-8 0 lethylene diamine 0.07-15-3 Lfreon Unknown i I n-butvlzmine Unknown I diethylene glycol dini=rote unknown pumped to pit & burned unknown I I I i Y.F€E0ST I X5.Sao...n,..C..A......,., I I CATEGORY 01 FEECSTOCx smug I 02 CASNUUEEA -CATEGORY r :1 cEEDSTOCx NAuE I OZ CAS NuuEEA WS F0$ P05 I i05 P05 I I WS I I P05 I I POS I VI.SOURCES-OF INFORMATION ica"....".4...."..••.,Nr.,w.,.........r,••••„•I CDH files Weld County Files interviews with: IBM, Sundstrand, John F. Neuhauser EPAFCRM 2020.,2,).&n 02063. C-2 • OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.0-01 Jil CPA 6 C POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE l IOENnsiCAnaN J'~ PART 2.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT COOTArE 02 9 8 9 MA ON OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTSD9$0951734 ESCRIPTI ii. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AMC INC OENTZ 1� �/in f 'Q A.GAOUNOWATER CCNrIM WATlpN 6 G 0J PCPJLAT?CN POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: _flcne 02 C N RESERVED(DATE. 1 3CFOTFNnAL Per fill- Shallow 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION 3CALLEGEO alluvial ground water contamination evi �y°r in wells 103A & B. Other wills (such as st in the form of halogenated organic Chloride, .Sulfate & Sodium. indicating Gal, GW8 & 203) show elevated Nitrate, degraded water quality due to the facility 01 C$5,SURFACE WAS CCNTAMINATKJN 03 POPULATION POTENTALLY AFFECTED: ne 04 (DATE IP IlA /N/rpa1 M��- 04 AARATNE DESCRIPTION ALLEGED er Potential surface water contamination was observed in the drainage to the south of 1 site. A small pond had half buried drums on its shore. Vegetation was either stres- sed or dead. The water was murky with no algae growth. of c C. CCNTAMWARON OF AIR 03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 02 C O85ERVED I0ATE; 04 NARRATIVE OESCRSTION I .:POTENTIAL �. ALLEGED • Contamination of air was not reported or observed t 2 OJ POPULATIONPOTEN TR FIRE/EXPLOSIVELLYNAF ECTED: none 02z ossEAVE0IOATE �71Nt4T 26 t9683POTENTIAL 04 NARRATIVE 0 =ALLEGED A chemical fire was observed on July26, 1968 at the_Pratt Property. _ how the fire was initiated. Pe Y• It is unknown • '� 01 _ E. DIRECT CONTACT !,'r 03 POPULATION POTFNTtsn v AFFECTED: on site 02 Z OBSERVED(DATE, —1 0 O+NwiolArrvE DESCRIPTION _POTENTIAL _ Ai_�.=n Direct contact has not been reported or observed. O1 Z F CONTAMINATION OF SCK. 2S _ 03 AREA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 3 ..a.°.,• 04 NARRATIVE D fE5CDAAIPTI 1 8PO7ENnH. :. ALLEGED ON Contamination of soil is a potential chemical drums and chemical avast 0=G.OPINKWG.WATEACuu^NTAMWATIQN /W ' co C G.ORIN N .WATE CC AFFECTED: 02 C OBSERVED:DATE, 04HARRAnyE DESCRIPTION ' POTENTIAL ALLEGED Ai Ml.; Drinking water contamination not reported or observed. 06: Uri at Z H. WORKER EXPOSUREWJURY 02 Carty 03 WORKERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: �� , 04N OBSERVED:Dar 1 QFOTPOTENTAFFECTED:Worker NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION exposure or injury was not reported or observed. However, the potential exist: I l due to excavation activities on-site. 01 r 1 POPULATION EXPOSUREINJURY OJ POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED. 04N aRSNARRATIVE VED(DAMRIP 1 POTENTIM�04 NMMTNE D A __ ALLEGED ION Population exposure or injury was not rep orted or observed. EPA POFu TOTC.N 2 V-411 C-3 1)633 eis POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE L IDENTIFICATION o EPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CI STATE 02 SITE MJIW PART S-DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS CO D980951735 IL HAZARDOUS CONOTTIONS AND INCIDENTS.c..•... 01 C J.DAMAGE TO FLORA 02 C OBSERVED(DATE I C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED OA NAPAATNE OESCRPTION Damage to flora has not been reported or observed. OI C IC DAMAGE TO FAUNA 02 C OBSERVED(DATE I C POTENTIAL C AU.EGS 04 NARRATIVE DESORPTION Damage to fauna has not been reported or observed. 01 C L CCNTAMNATICN CF FOODCRAW 02 C OBSERVED(MATE I C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Contamination of the food chain has not been reported or observed- 01 Carts.UnSTLECO;T�.`aNT OwRWA.STE5 02,Z OBSERVED(DATE 3 =POTENT-L.4. AILGEp ou Os POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION The chemical waste dnmis are potentially rusted and leaching waste into the shallow aquifer systems. 01 dcN. DAMAGE TO OFFSITE PROPERTY 02 C OBSERVED(DATE; I C POTENTIAL ALLEGED OA NRATIVE CE5CAIPTICN C AR Shallow alluvial contamination from wells 103A&B is migrating off-site. Disposal & possibly a contaminated pond exists off-site to the south of the Columbine Site. 01 C 0.CONTAMWATICN OF SEWERS.STORM CRAWS, ~Ps 02 C OBSERVED MATE 1 C POTENTIAL CALLEGED OA NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Contamination of sewers, storm drains or WWTP's have not been reported or observed. 012E P. ILLEGAUUNAUTNCRIZED DUMPING 02 C OBSERVED IRATE nA/2n/on I C POTENTIAL C ALLEGED 04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Illegal or unauthorized dumping has occurred in the drainage to the south of the Columbine Site. 05 OESCAIPTCN OF ANY OTHER KNOWN.POTENTIAL, OR ALLEGED HAZARDS ScAOC portions of the landfill are potential saturated(due to infiltration of precipita- tion and surface water or contact with shallow ground water) . Therefore significent methane generation is probable. III.TOTAL POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: _estimated at 1410 for town of Erie IV.COMMENTS None. V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION CDH Files 'Weld County Health Department Planning Department & Commissioners office Interviews with Laidlaw; Colorado Landfill Intl; K. Pratt; J. Neuhauser, IBM & Sundstraz, EPA FORM 2010•I2(7-au C-4 906313 al uto; 5 ) § 2 . • • a a o Z 0 [ \ Cu) / ` k § . c0 I§ \ § a gk ( 3= 3a ± a 00 � { �'{ _ / e ))g . la _ _> / w § Cr C 44 0)} \ \ U z 0 5 \ § ) \ C al e \ a \ a / a \ acri I. _ $ § / > 6 Cv-i _ _ . F C \ \ � / } } } t0 4c \ / C § \ \ / •j \ •j \ ' \ - Caas _ E o 4.4 j ) 2 cm o - c I G 7 � . [ VI C ) •2 cn 1.0 / ) ) La 4 , 0 01 \ \ / 8 § \ § ) ] :O a < g \ ) 4 ; \ ® \ � ) ° ^ EJ§ \ ° : 72 -Z-4 •1 5 j - » j f � 0 § ! % - , ] ens = { 'C / % G j Rt-c.- o o Z al k � § • § \ \ / / R ' \ 14 w 44 2 2Q a) k2 a, / In / / \ 7 [1.1u• WU ° q � — = q \ If - ! CD � / \ = Q .2 c o © Z 0,-4EL \ \ • occ / 2 C , . , Z c 8i / � O Zm c 1.7,1 p ® / /\ » § � � U Z o CO) _ ® — � 2 \ $� S / \ § \ k c \ 3 a Z 7 ) V - 2 o' % 3 $ u to 2 C / / ] \ w ° b % 2 / / § o / / \ \\ ] o to 7 / iLl \/ / 2 7Z \\ n �/ 5 R § / C 74 -i 572 Z § 0 • \ 0 / a ' � � it ` � � 5 7 c § § ? © Zi C / \ o 0 c 0 § ≥ / / • 7 § § • § a .. M � �2 , _ z '2A) / C - no 0 c ® / - M crl U = & CA ULn \ \ 1 k a _ $ q2 ? / § 50 / > Lc) t § ) R U , \ o .§ . e Cn 0, \ \ � 0) E '■ CZ( ] a \ / u Q_ 2 k a } 2 u2u m q '\ q2 ) _ ) / / / 2 Q / Q < » © ). >,\ / t 71 & / - / f \ g Cl) q § { _• G Cl, - 3 utl 4-, RSSCE10 t�° `o 2,S 1992 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT COLUMBINE LANDFILL ERIE, COLORADO COD 980951735 PROJECT OFFICER: Austin Buckingham PREPARED BY: Austin Buckingham REVIEWED BY: SUBMITTED TO: Pat Smith, EPA Glenn Mallory, CDH DATE SUBMITTED: (I • z77D TABLE OF CONTENTS page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 OBJECTIVES 2 2.1 PA Objectives 2 2.2 Previous Work 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 3.1 Site Location 2 3.2 Site History 3 33 Site Characteristics: Geology, Hydrogeology, Hydrology S 4.0 PRELIMINARY PATHWAY ANALYSIS 8 4.1 Waste Characterization 8 -4.2 On-site Pathway 10 -43 Air Pathway 10 4.4 Ground Water Pathway 11 46 Surface Water Pathway 11 4.6 Summary of Overall Release Potential for Site 12 3.0 CONCLUSION 13 6.0 REFERENCES 14 FIGURES APPENDICES A. Preliminary Assessment 1984 B. Site Inspection Report 1984 C. Waste Summary from 1983 RCRA Application SARA Title III Report 1987 D. Weld County Sheriffs 1983 Investigation Reports E. Well Permits 020639 F. EPA Preliminary A essment Report Form G. Preliminary Assessment Questionnaire H. Photographs ii S2O6313 • _PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT COLUMBINE LANDFILL ERIE, COLORADO COD 980951735 7.0 INTRODUCTION The Revised Preliminary Assessment (RPA) of the Columbine Landfill near Erie, Colorado has teen_prepared to satisfy the requirements as set forth in a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH). Included in this report are the site history, site characteristics and preliminary pathway analysis. Previous reports include a Preliminary Assessment (PA) and a Site Investigation (SI) performed in June 1984. The area had been identified as an area of environmental concern and was placed on CERCLIS in 1984. On August 20, 1990 and September 7, 1990, a site visit was conducted at the Laidlaw _South Landfill (previously known as the Columbine Landfill) and the surrounding property. This Revised Preliminary Assessment is the result of a records search conducted at the Colorado Department of Health, the Weld County Department of Planning, the Weld County Commissioners Office, and the Weld County Health Department. Additional data gathering 'efforts included interviews with Rick Hoffman of Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (the current -owners and operators of the CERCLIS site), Kenneth Pratt (property owner of the old Erie Landfill), John Neuhauser (operator of the old Erie Landfill),-Brad Kiernes (previous site _operator with Colorado Landfill, Inc), Mrs. Roweder (wife of Ralph Roweder who operated the old Erie Landfill in the late 70's), IBM, Sundstrand Aviation and Browning Ferris, Inc. 1 S?O639 2.0 OBJECTIVB 2.1 The objectives of the PA are to: • characterize potential-onsite wastes; • assess potential for xontaminant migration; and determine potential impacts to the public health and the-environment. 2.2 -Previous Work A Preliminary Assessment (found in Appendix A) of the Columbine Landfill was performed by CDH in June 1984. The PA stated that approximately 1500 -drums containing 84,000 gallons of liquid were disposed on the Pratt property. The waste was generated by IBM between 1965 and 1969. The nature of the liquid-wastes were suspected as solvents, unspecified organics, inorganics, acids and bases. Contamination to the shallow alluvial ground water was listed as a potential but undocumented environmental impact at the time of the PA. The Site Investigation report (found in Appendix B) summarized the site history and geology. Surface water and ground water samples were collected. Organic and inorganic analyses were performed. The presence of several compounds found in the SI were discounted either because they were suspected laboratory contaminants or because the compounds were exotic and only tentatively identified. Two compounds identified as being present in the ground water were 1--butene and oxybismethane. The compounds were found at levels of 130 ug/I in GW-1 for 1-butene, 310 ug/I in GW-1 for oxybismethane and 370 ug/l in GW-8 (aka GW-2 in the SI) for oxybismethane. The SI report concluded that: 1.) The landfill is producing leachate teased on the specific conductivity; 2.) That some mounding may be occurring thus allowing leachate to mute offsite and up gradient; and 3.) That further followup work is needed to accurately determine the presence of the organic constituents. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location The landfill site is located approximately 1 1/4 miles southeast of the town of Erie in Weld County, Colorado. The Columbine Landfill site (now known as Laidlaw South) occupies 160 acres in the E1/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The Old Erie Landfill site (aka the Pratt property) occupies 35 acres in the NE1/4 NE1/4 of S ection 29, Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The Laidlaw North site occupies 80 acres in the S 1/2 SW1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 68 West The approximate site coordinates are lattitude 4fF 01' 40" and longitude 109° or 15". To reach the site from I-25, take the lEne exit,go west to Weld City Road #5 and go south one mile. The entrance to the site is at the intersection of Weld County Road #5 & #6 (figure 1 & 2). 2 S2-0639 3.2 Site History There has been multiple activities and transfer of ownership on the parcels of land in Section 20 and 29, TIN,R68W. The parcel _owned-by Pratt has teen in the family since 1912. Due to the topographic relief of the_draw running from east to west across the site, it was unavailable for farming. To correct this problem the Pratts entered into an agreement with Mr. John F. Neuhauser in 1964 to fill in the drainage in the NE1/4 NE1/4 Section 29, TIN, R68W so that the arca would _eventually be level enough to farm. Neuhauser with Mr. Carl Smith both-employed by Sundstrand Aviation) formed a company tailed Sanitation Engineering, Inc. They_hauled solid waste from nearby-communities. (Record keeping during the late 1960's until the late 1970's was very poor. Much of the following discussion is based on interviews.) Sanitation Engineering had apparently-obtained-a contract -with I B.M:Boulder and Sundstrand Aviation to dispose of a portion of their waste stream. The landfill, which may-have been known as the Erie Landfill, accepted industrial and chemical wastes in addition to regular municipal solid wastes. The site was -not fenced and was a continual source of complaints from the landowner. IBM reported to the EPA an estimate of the amount and type of waste they-had disposed -of at the Erie Landfill between 1965 to June 1969. The -EPA Notification is shown in figure 3. IBM estimated that 84,000 gallons of chemical waste contained in 1500 55 gallon drums were disposed. The chemical waste types were organics, inorganics, solvents, adds and stases. A summary from a 1983 RCRA application (waste characterization and information)and a 1987 SARA Title III report is found in Appendix C. The chemicals typical of IBM manufacturing include No. 1, No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oil, Liquid nitrogen, methyl ethyl ketone, trichlorolluoroethanol, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, tetrahydrofuran, methylene -chloride, n-butylamine, ethylene diamine, ammonia and sulfuric acid. The earliest_document on Tile regarding the Neuhauser site is dated August -9, 1966 (figure -4). A routine Boulder County inspection noted that two pits were Aug for the disposition of some type of chemicals. In a third Tit, it-appeared that chemicals were being burned. Mr. Neuhauser reported that Sundstrand brought torpedo propellant to the site in tanker trucks. The propellant may have been a variation of diethylene glycol dinitrate. The propellant was pumped from the tanker into a pit lined with a metal container. The propellant filled pit was then ignited as a method of disposal. On September 29, 1966 an inspection was performed by a CDH representative. The report noted thai chemical wastes were being_discharged in designated areas and cover material was being supplied from an excavation designed to divert natural drainage around refuse fill rather than through the fill. In addition, Mr. Neuhauser commented at the lime of the inspection, that operational improvements were delayed pending the outcome of the recent court decision. This court 'decision that he may be referring to is the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) hearing regarding poor disposal practices at the old Erie Landfill. It is known, via IBM conversations, that Neuhauser was brought before the PUC for his disposal operations. A transcript of this hearing seems to be unavailable. IBM does not have a copy and the PUC purges their documents every two years. The exact date of the hearing is _unknown. However, as a result of the PUC decision, IBM terminated their contract for disposal with Neuhauser in June 1969. On July 17, 1968, the Erie Landfill-received a Certificate of Designation (CD) issued to John F. -Neuhauser by the Weld Board of County Commissioners (figure 5). An Air Pollution Control Division memo dated July 31, 1968 stated that an uncontrolled chemical fire occurred on July 26, 1968 at the Neuhauser dump located just inside Weld County in the southwestern corner (figure 6). Approximately 3000 gallons of waste chemicals had burned. Adjacent to the area, where the chemical fire occurred, was an open burning dump face that appeared to have been burning for quite some lime. During conversations at the lime-of the incident, Mr. Neuhauser revealed that the waste chemicals were from the IBM plant in Boulder County and she Sundstrand Manufacturing complex in Adams County. The site inspector recalled that Mr. Neuhauser tad at one time operated a_dump site in Boulder County which closed down for contaminating ground water and-operating an _uncontrolled lump. On October 30, 1968 she CD was suspended by Wald County for 33 days but was-held in-abeyance for a-6 month probation period (figure 7). Mr. Neuhasuser sold his share of Sanitation Engineering to his partner Carl Smith in late 1968. There is no information found regarding activities at the Erie Landfill between 1969 and 1973. By this time Weld County had all of the county landfills contracted out to a single operator. According to Mrs. Barbara -Roweder, Ralph (her husband) worked for BFI as supervisor starting sometime around 1973/1974. BFI probably_operated the Erie Landfill and perhaps all of the Weld County Landfills prior to -Ralph's employment. During the mid to late 70's, CDH inspected the landfill several times. A CDH inspection dated 06/02/75 states oil-water waste should be sprayed onto or worked into the existing landfill face (figure 8). Two CDFI inspections in February and April 1976 stated that approximately 1500 gallons per week of oil and water waste was deposited at the base of the landfill (figure 9 & 10). In October 1976, Ralph Roweder purchased-BFI's contract to operate the Weld County Landfills. In a memo from the Dacona Fire Department (dated February"1, 1978), the Fire Chief expresses his concern with the frequent fires at the Erie Landfill requiring 10,000 to 100000 gallons of water to extinguish (figure 11). There is no other information on Tile-regarding site operations _until January 1979 when Ralph Roweder died. Mrs. -Barbara Roweder prepared to sell the contract to operate the Weld County Landfills. Lynn Kiernes (owner of Colorado Landfill, Inc.) purchased the contract sometime in 1979. The Weld County Commissioners revoked the CD by resolution for the Erie Landfill on June 6, 1979 (figure 12). Colorado Landfill, Inc. was-not interested in operating the old Erie Landfill site. Therefore, the abandoned Erie Landfill was never properly closed and sat open from 1979 until 1983. Mr. Lynn ICiemes decided to purchase the Columbine Mine site adjacent to the Pratt property and operate it as a sanitary landfill. The Rocky Mountain Fuel Company owned both the surface and mineral rights of the 160 acres (immediately west of the old Erie Landfill) within El/2 NW1/4 and W1/2 NE1/4 Section-29, TIN, R68W. This area was known as the Columbine Mine No. 1 which operated from 1920-1946. In the subsurface, the mine occupied nearly all of Section 29 and much of the south half of Section 20. 1n June 1979, the surface rights were sold to Colorado Landfill, Inc while Rocky Mountain Fuel retained the mineral rights. Colorado Landfill, Inc. applied for and received a CD in 1979 to operate a sanitary landfill (accepting municipal solid wastes only) on the Columbine Mine site and which was called the Columbine Landfill. The Kiernes planned for continued_disposal into the draw that ran from east to west across the site. The new operations plan called for a 6" scarified and recompacted clay liner and a ground water monitoring plan. A CDH inspection dated 11/17/81 stated that oil and grease was within the soil at the northeast and of the site and ponded sludge was found (figure 13). Approximately 500 gallons per week of car wash and grease trap wastes were -disposed of at the site. In a 1O9/27/82 inspection (figure 14), 6000-9000 gpd of sand and grease trap waste sludges (at 1% solids) were being spread at the landfill site for 6-8 weeks. In 09/01/82, the Colorado Landfill, 4 SZ0539 Inc requested permission to fill and cover the old-Erie Landfill. The request was granted by Weld County on May-4, 1983. On May 24, 1983, -a CDH memo stated that an independent laboratory found the disposed sand trap wastes to be cyanide bearing and containing potentially -EP toxic concentrations of metals (figure 15). Discharge off-site from the Columbine Landfill was observed from a pond at the west end of the site in a May 15, 1983 inspection (figure 16). The dark to black liquid discharge_tad a pH of S.8 and a field conductivity of 2100 atmhos. The old fill area (the Erie-Landfill)had exposed trash as stated in 07/28/83 inspection (figure 17). The Weld County Sheriffs Office conducted an investigation into the alledged 'disposal-activities at She old Erie_Landfill on 09/29/83 (Appendix D). The research turned up several polaroids (dated 12/27/68 and 02/06/69) depicting black colored 55 gallon drums. Some of the drums had the tops bulging and burning. Other -drums (that were not burning)had bulging tops from -apparent internal pressure. A few of the black drums had The word "PROTEX" stenciled on the sides. On December 3, 1985, Columbine Landfill was purchased by Western Disposal. A new operations plan was developed which included closing the old Erie-Landfill site. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. purchased the Columbine_Landfill in January 1988 from Western Disposal, Inc. The property became know as Laidlaw South. Laidlaw developed a closure and post-closure maintenance plan for the old Erie Landfill. By this time the draw through the landfill site had been completely filled. Daniel Horst (of Landfill Systems) developed an operations plan to site a landfill to She north of Columbine-Landfill in sia SW1/4 Section 20, TIN, R68W. The 80 acre Horst site, accepting only municipal solid waste, was annexed by the town of-Erie 'on November 8, 1984. The Horst property was sold to a company called GSX on August 18, 1986. In November 1986, the GSX Corporation was purchased by Laidlaw. This property became known as Laidlaw North. On the north side of the Laidlaw North property, the soil wells 103A & 1035 -were drilled to a depth of 20' in 12/84 and 37138 respectively. Well 103A did not have enough water to sample until 12/87, when it found high concentrations of volatile organics. Contaminants now found in both 103A & 1035 include 1,1-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and trichlorofluoromethane (figure 18). 3.3 Site Characteristics Geology The site is on the northwestern flank of the Denver Basin,a large structural basin That contains important bedrock ground -water resources. The soils on the site are comprised of calcareous silt, with some xlay and very-fine sands. The soil deposits were formed by wind desposition,-by stream deposition and by weathering of the bedrock. Soil color ranges from_light brown to brownishgrey and soil thickness ranges from approximately 2 to 21 feet. Variations in soil thickness are related to irregular bedrock and land surfaces. At the soil/bedrock interface, the bedrock is typically highly weathered with iron-stain -mottling, fracturing and occasionally bearing perched water. Bedrock is exposed along the • eastern edge of the Coal Creek drainage west of the site. Within the site boundaries, bedrock occurs at depths of 2 to 21 feet below the ground surface. The irregular bedrock surface somewhat parallels the surface topography and is probably produced by differential 5 40633 weathering of the bedrock. The Laramie Formation, which immediately underlies the site, is typically divided into upper and lower lithologic units. The upper unit is a buff to dark-gray, organic claystone with interbedded sands. Numerous coal seams in this interval were mined in the early 1900s to provide heating coal to the cities along the Front Range. The lower unit of the Laramie Formation consists of thin to massive beds of fine-grained, moderate to well-cemented sandstone and a buff to dark carbonaceous claystone. This lower unit has been further broken into the A and 3 sandstone units. The sandstones units occur at depths of 350 to 400 feet in the vicinity of the site and comprise the upper part of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. The coals of the Laramie formation have been extensively mined in the area by the Columbine Mine No. 1 (figure 19). Overburden thickness above the mine ranges from a minimum of 150' to a maximum of 400' (figure 20) with the probable-extracted_coal seam thickness ranging from 0' to 15' (figure 21). -The mine was'operated by the room and pillar extraction method. After the coal seams were exhausted, the-pillars ;vere typically removed. Figure 22 shows areas where pillars were removed and where they remain. -Figure 23 shows subsidence hazards. The area has never been evaluated to determine past or future subsidence potential. The Fox Hills Sandstone is beneath the_Laramie Formation. The upper unit, the Milliken Sandstone is composed of fine to medium-grained, parallel, thick bedded sandstone, thin siltstone and shale interbeds. The unit-ranges in thickness from 40 to 90 feet. The Milliken Sandstone and the overlying A and 3 sands of the Laramie Formation comprise the Laramie-Fox-Hills aquifer, an important source of water through out the Denver Basin. The over-lying aquifers of the Dawson ATkose, Denver and Arapahoe -have been eroded away in the vicinity'of the site. The Pierre Shale beneath the Fox Hills Sandstone,xonsists of a 7000 to 8000 foot thick sequence-of gray to brown,-clayey marine shales. The site lies in a structurally complex area. The bedrock has been highly distorted through both folding and faulting, with faults that generally align in a northeasterly direction (figure 24). There is no surface expression of these faults and there is no evidence of recent movement on any faults during the Holocene in the area. Regionally the bedrock dips -one degree to the southeast. However, local structural deformations may cause appreciable variation. - Hydrogeology Data published indicate that the direction of ground water flow in the Laramie-Fox-Hills aquifer is to the eastsoutheast. Ground water is generally produced from the sandstone units at depths of 350 to 400 feet. The potentiometric surface is approximately 200 to 270 feet below land surface, indicating that the aquifer is under confined conditions. Wells tapping the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer are shown in figure 25 and well permits are found in Appendix-E. The exploratory tilling programs-have identified two shallow ground water systems at the site. The shallowest (or alluvial) ground water system is associated with the alluvial and colluvial soil materials in the topographic drainages. In a typical system, the alluvial ground water would move down the west sloping drainage, with a velocity-related to the gradient, permeability and storativity of the-materials. Recharge to the alluvial ground water system occurs by'direct_infiltration of snowmelt and rainfall in topographically elevated areas. The saturated thickness of the shallow system is generally less than S feet a. - 6 06313 and is perched at approximately 10'-20' below the ground surface and above the bedrock. Because the old Erie Landfill remained open essentially from 1965 to 1983, shallow ground water mounding is a possibility. If this is the case, the water table elevation could rise within the landfill therefore reversing a component of flow from west to east. The deeper ground water system found at the site is in a saturated bedrock unit consisting of siltstone, sandstone and coal units. The depth to saturated bedrock ranges from 21 to greater than 82 feet. Bedrock immediately above and below the saturated unit is dry. The lateral extent of the system is unknown but possibly occurs_under much of the site. The perched ground water flow is to the northwest at a gradient of approximately 0.05 ft/ft. The recharge area for the shallow-bedrock ground water system probably_does not occur at the site as indicated by the presence of_dry bedrock above this zone. Because of the large difference in_the potentiometric elevation between the shallow bedrock ground water systems and the iaramieFox Hills aquifer, the low hydraulic conductivity of the upper Laramie _laystones, and the unsaturated bedrock beneath_the perched bedrock system, it is concluded that the perched and regional ground-water systems are mot hydraulically connected. Hydrology The site is on a topographically west-facing slope with total relief across the site at approximately L55 feet. -Flat areas, located between the draws, are farmed. Two well developed drainages, with an east-west_trend cross Section 29. The drainage that bisects the landfill area is-referred to here as the middle draw,_the drainage to the south of the landfill is referred to as the south draw and the _drainage to the north (Section?.0) of the Columbine Landfill is referred to as the-north ≥craw (since these_drainages are_currently unnamed, see figure 2). The middle and south draw are well developed and are incised i feet on the east end of Section 29 to as much as 20 feet farther west. Due to the depth of the drainage channel, farming was-never possible across these draws. The north draw is far less developed and from old aerial photographs, farming was-possible across some portions of the_drainage. The middle and south draw join just west of Section 29 in Section 30. At that confluence, the draws are termed and water ponds behind it. Downgradient of the berm, the draw ted is dry and there is no discharge to Coal Creek. The south draw, as it runs west_through Section 29, is bermed in four places (photos 1 - 4). _Behind each berm, water is ponded and wetlands type vegetation grows there. A seep is shown on the topographic map in the south draw. It is unknown if_the middle draw was aver bermed. However, interviews with those knowledgeable of the site indicate that there were some berms with ponding behind them. The north draw is not bermed and it is generally dry except during storm_events. Coal Creek is the 'only perennial stream within two miles of the site. It is located approximately 1000 feet from the western site boundary and is 50 to 120 feet below the-ground elevation of the site. Surface water_conditions in Coal Creek-have been-monitored upstream and downstream-routinely-by Laidlaw Wastes Systems. Coal Creek flow rates which have been visually-estimated, range from 5 xis to 25 cfs. Generally, the-highest flows appear to'occur in September and the lowest flows in January. This is somewhat inconsistent with the behavior of Front Range streams-which generally have peak flows during snowmelt (April through June). This difference may be due to diversions upstream. 711 U33 Total dissolved solids (TDS) in Coal Creek have ranged from about 300 to B00 milligrams per liter (mg/1). Copper, iron, manganese, and zinc concentrations are routinely at or below their detection limits of 0.01 and 0.05 ang/1. Strontium concentrations are somewhat higher at about 0.5 mg/1. Laidlaw reports that this appears to be a natural condition and does not reflect an impact from the landfill operation. -Nitrate/nitrite in samples from Coal Creek have varied from about 2 to about 6.5 mg/1. Total organic carbon (TOC)-concentrations have consistently been in the-range-of 7 to 10 mg/1. Samples were collected from Coal Creek in June 1987 for analysis of the EPA priority pollutant list. The EPA priority pollutants were not found in any of the samples. On average, -water quality is equivalent at the upstream and-downstream monitoring stations. There is no indication of degraded surface water quality in Coal Creek from the landfill operation to date. 4.0 PRELIMINA-RY PATHWAY ANALYSTS 4.1 Waste Characterization The old Erie Landfill received industrial and chemical waste. Mr. Neuhauser mentions in the July 31,1968 memo (figure S) that waste chemicals from the IBM plant in -Boulder County and the Sundstrand manufacturing complex in Adams County were disposed at the site. Aside from the estimated IBM waste of 1500 55 gallon drums_disposed of at the 'site, it is unknown how much of'each waste type was actually placed at the landfill between 1965 and 1979. Since the landfill was a small, and basically local landfill serving the nearby communities (such as Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Dacona, Lafayette, Louisville and farm operations in the area), it can be assumed that total municipal solid waste volume was relatively smalL In 1982, Colorado-Landfill, Inc requested to fill in and place final cover -on the Erie Landfill site. The volume of waste on the_Pratt-property after it had been finally dosed is approximately 400,000 _cubic yards (cy). The final-elevation of the property was planned at approximately-25 feet above the undisturbed topography. As of January 1990,1.aidlaw South (including the old Erie Landfill) has 2,900,000 ay of solid waste in place and_Laidlaw North has 5,800,000 cy of solid waste in place. The_estimated total waste volume that will be disposed by the time of final closure will be 14,200,000 cy for Laidlaw South at a final elevation of.3240' and 7300,000 cy for Laidlaw North at a final elevation of 5280'. Mr. Neuhauser worked at the Sundstrand Aviation Corporation at-2480 West 70th Street from approximately 1960 until 1969 as an industrial engineer and a property coordinator. Mr. Carl Smith (also of Sundstrand and manager of contractor activities) with Neuhauser operated a company called Sanitation Engineering, Inc. in the 1960's. They were able to obtain contracts with IBM and Sundstrand to dispose of industrial and chemical wastes. Sanitation Engineering kept containers at the IBMBoulder plant to collect their solid and industrial wastes. In addition, Sanitation Engineering was responsible for_transporting the IBM-waste to the landfill site. Neuhauser recalls that the IBM -chemical waste -disposed at the landfill site was primarily barrels of waste methyl ethyl ketone. The wastes disposed by IBM were generally listed in the EPA notification form. Assuming that processes and wastes -were similar to those stated in more recent documents. The possible process wastes that could have been hisposed at the Erie Landfill by IBM (found in a 1983 Generator -Report) are: 8 ✓ .osze 1) Waste magnetic coating solution used to make-magnetic tape products; 2) Waste corrosives, acids and caustics used in plating and cleaning processes; 3) Waste halogenated cleaning solutions, freons, chloroethane, methylchloroform; 4) Waste ethylene-diamine; 5) Waste potassium cyanide; 6) Waste zinc cyanide; and 7) Waste flammable liquids from manufacture of magnetic products containing toluene, methy ethyl ketone,_plasticizers, iron oxide and tetrahydrofuran. Wastes listed in-a 1987 SARA TITLE III Tier Two report lists IBM stored chemicals as: 1) Fuel oils No.1, No._2 and No. 6; 2) _Liquid nitrogen; 3) Methyl-ethyl ketone; 4) Trichlorotluoroethane: 5) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; 6) Toluene; 7) Tetrahydrofuran; 8) Methylene chloride; 9) n-Butylamine; 10) Ethylene -diamine; 11) Ammonia; and 12) Sulfuric Acid. Appendix C_contains the documents regarding IBM-process waste and stored themicals. The waste from Sundstrand was transported to the old Erie Landfill in tanker trucks. The waste, which Mr. Neuhauser referred to as autofuele (a secret propellant for the mark 48 torpedo) was pumped_from the tanker into a 6' by 8' metal container_placed within an earthen pit. The waste was then burned. The iquantity of_Sundstrand waste transported to the site is unknown. The Erie Landfill was apparently-operated by segregating the chemical wastes from the municipal solid wastes. At least some of the industrial wastes were received in drums (based on 1968_photos found at the Weld County Commissioners office). A 1966 document states that the two pits were dug for the deposition of the chemicals and In a third pit themicals were being burned. Burning waste along with co-disposal of industrial and municipal solid waste was a common practice at many landfills during the 1960's -and 1970's. Generally the waste was uncovered, the site was unfenced and unattended. Burning of the waste was a continual complaint and problem at the site. Several memos document this. The most significant incident is the chemical fire of July 26, 1968 in which 3,000-gallons of waste chemicals were ablaze. On February'1, 1978, the Dacono Fire Department wrote of serious and atncontrolled turning of wastes at the landfill. On several occassions, the-foes required fire department response and the pumping of 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of water onto the landfill The landfill routinely accepted liquid waste. -Flow long this disposal-practice_continued-or the total volume of liquid waste disposed is unknown. The landfill was operated by the slope and cover method. Wastes were dumped into the middle draw from a higher elevation. Additional wastes were dumped at the top of the-fill area and pushed over the face. Eventually the face became too steep to be covered-effectively. flS33 9 Sometime in the later 70's a berm was placed across the middle draw separating the Pratt property from the Columbine Mine property. Liquids (surface water, leachate and possibly alluvial ground water) routinely ponded upgradient of this berm. The 1984 SI documents that GW-6 had 7' of saturated trash on the day of sample collection. This well is believed to be downgradient of the berm. The Erie Landfill was operated in a manner that maximized it's contaminant release to the environment. Leachate production, surface water and ground water contamination are common problems associated with landfills that were poorly operated and poorly sited as was the old Erie Landfill. The siting and operational problems included the following. 1) Wastes were placed into a the middle draw which contained permeable alluvial materials; 2) A lack of run-on and run-off surface water control structures contibuted to surface water infiltration through the landfill; 3) The unsecured, unfenced and unattended facility allowed the opportunity for unauthorized disposal; 4) Chemical and industrial liquid wastes that are both flammable and-hazardous were routinely accepted; 5) Liquid sand trap and oily wastes were routinely accepted at the landfill; 6) Burning of wastes in an uncontrolled manner which required_thousands of gallons of water had to be pumped onto the landfill to control the fire; -and 7) A lack of_daily and final cover over the landfill during its years of operation (1965 to 1978) and abandondment (from 1979 to 1983) allowed precipitation to-pond on the surface and infiltrate. The Columbine Landfill Aid pot accept hazardous wastes. -However, it did accept sandtrap wastes and sludges with percent solids as low as 1%in addition to regular municipal solid wastes. The Laidlaw South landfill is approved to.accept wastes typical of present_day solid waste_disposal facilities as is_Laidlaw North. 42 On-site Pathway The potential for exposure of human populations to on-site contamination is low. Access to the property is currently restricted±y-an_8' fence about the entire perimeter. The site is attended with signs posted. The entire landfill property has received either daily, intermediate or final cover. Exposure to on-site workers would te typical of other landfills. 43 Air Pathway The site does not pose -a significant threat to human populations or the environment based on potential migration of contaminants via the air pathway. Onsite waste sources available to the air route are limited to landfill gas migration through the daily, intermediate and final cover. The landfill gases-may contain volatile halogenated organics, methane, carbon_dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. There are six residences, one business and approximately 43 10 Sr70u39 individuals located within a one mile radius of the site. 4.4 Ground Water Pathway The aquifer units which exist beneath the site are: 1) The alluvial aquifer; 2) The shallow Laramie bedrock aquifer, and 3) The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. Approximately four hundred wells within a four mile radius of the site utilize these aquifers (figure 25). The town of Erie obtains its drinking water from Erie Lake and Prince Lake No. 2 located in E1/2 Section 27, T1N, R69W, approximately 2 miles to the southwest of town. By town ordinance the_Erie residences may not use ground water for drinking purposes. However, they may use ground water for watering their yard and gardens, etc. A review of well logs for the town reveals that nearly all local wells are less than 50 feet deep and tap the alluvial . aquifer. There are approaximately 110 alluvial aquifer users with a four mile radius of the site. The alluvial aquifer is_found within the over-burden soil material that ranges from 10' to 21' feet deep. The saturated interval (generally 5' thick) is found in or close to natural topographic drainages at the site. At the Laidlaw North site ground water-monitoring wells 103A and 103 B currently exhibit contamination in the fomr of methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane, chloroform and trichlorolluoromethane. Sind these draws normally do not flow,-contaminated alluvial ground water may reach Coal Creek via the subsurface. However, it is undocumented at this time. The perched shallow bedrock aquifer has not shown halogenated organic_contamination at the site as has the allluvial aquifer. However, it does appear that some degradation of water quality has occured in the form of elevated chloride, sulfate,-nitrate and TDS (figure 26). The occurence of the shallow bedrock aquifer is mot well understood. It may be recharged locally by infiltration of precipitation and surface water through fractures and faults. Regionally, it is probably recharged at the Laramie outcrops located at the basin's-edge. The saturated zones are within sandstone units that may have large areal extent and exist under semi-confined conditions. The shallow bedrock aquifer is utilized within a four mile radius of the site. Dccassionally these _upper Laramie sandstone units may be mistaken for the Laramie-Fox Mills aquifer. The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is utilised by residences-not within the town of Erie. The aquifer averages 350 to 400 feet deep in the vicinity-of the site and is under confined conditions. Infiltration into the Laramie-Fox Hills from upper saturated zones is possible through fractures and faults. 7iowever the primary source of recharge to the aquifer As-at the tasin's edge where the units are exposed. Therefore it appears that the threat to this aquifer from the landfill is to minimal. -There areapproaximately 230 Laramie-Fox_Hills aquifer wells within a four mile radius of the site. 4.5 Surface Water Pathway The-north, middle and south draws form a dendritic drainage pattern prior to entering Coal Creek the west of the site. The north draw is generally dry and shallow enough to allow farming across it. The middle draw is incised 5 to 10 feet. It is believed that the draw may have been bermed in several locations allowing surface water pond behind it. Together, the Columbine Landfill and the old Erie Landfill disposed of both hazardous and non-hazardous liquids and solid wastes into the middle draw. The middle draw (prior to any topographic alterations) drained a 254 acre area. Eventually 3/4 of the length of the middle draw was landfilled. A walk along the middle draw-on 09/07/90 revealed that flowing or standing surface water did not exist until_the confluence of the middle and the south draw (off-site in Section 30). The south draw appears to have been the site of a variety of waste disposal activities over the years. The time of disposal is unknown and the draw has never been a designated landfill. Wastes deposited along the south draw include regular solid wastes, photo conductor film (probably from IBM) and occasionally rusted empty drums. The draw is basically dry but bermed in four areas with surface water ponded behind them (photos 1 - 4). Of the four ponds, the three eastern most ponds exhibit healthy wetlands vegetation and algae growth in clear water. The fourth pond (which is also the location of a spring_depicted on the topographic map) does not have wetlands vegetation or grass growing up to the waters edge. The pond water and the shore is muddy. Several unmarked rusted drums are half buried and-piles of photo conductor material is found at the pond edge and within the pond (photo 4). Access to the south draw is unrestricted. The large pond located in Section 30 is the result of surface water from the middle and south draw retained behind a berm (photo 5). Downgradient of the bermed confluence, the creek bed is_dry and there is no surface water discharge to Coal Creek. Coal Creek flows NW for approximately 4 miles and then enters Boulder Creek in the E1/2 Section 1, TIN, R69W. Boulder Creek flows toward the northeast and enters St. Vrain Creek in Section 9, T2N, R68W. There are no recreational improvements along Coal Creek between the landfill and Boulder Creek as shown on the Erie, Colorado topographic map (USGS 1979). However, it is probable that many unimproved areas of access are present within 1.5 downstream miles of the site along Boulder and St. Vrain Creeks. Several local irrigation_ditches depicted on the topographic map are diverted from Boulder and St. Vrain Creek. Based on conversations with the Fish & Wildlife Assistance possible federal and state endangered species include: 1) Bald eagles which feed on fish and winter in the area; 2) Peregrine falcons which feed on water fowl and migrate through the area; and 3) Black footed ferets which prey on prairie dogs. There appear to be mo sensitive plant life in the area aside from fresh water wetlands_that are present along Coal Creek, Boulder Creek and St. Vrain Creek. There are no fisheries within 15 downstream miles of the site. 4.6 Summary of Overall Release Potential Releases to the air pathway and on-site pathway are typical of most landfill sites. Releases to the surface water pathway also appears to be minimal due to_the lack of off-site surface water flow accept during storm xvents. However, the spring and pond within the south draw exhibit stressed vegetation and may be contaminated. The-potential for release of contaminants to the ground water from the site to the alluvial 12 c.-in . and shallow bedrock perched aquifers is high. The potential for release of contaminants from the site to the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer is low. The closest alluvial aquifer users are 1 1/4 mile down gradient_of the site in the town of Erie. The closest Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer use is approximately 1/4 mile to the northeast of the site. 5.0 CONCLUSION The old Erie Landfill located on the Pratt-property has-documented disposal of halogenated organics and torpedo propellant in addition to other liquid and solid wastes between 1965 and 1979. Between 19/9 and 1983, the site sat open and allowed precipitation to infiltrate the landfill creating the potential of leaching and ground water contamination. The Columbine Landfill which opened in 1979 accepted municipal solid wastes, sand and oil/grease trap wastes. The Laidlaw North Landfill which opened in 1985 accepted municipal solid waste only. Alluvial ground water contamination is documented in wells 103A & 103B at Laidlaw North. The shallow bedrock wells appear to show degradation of ground water quality. The south draw shows stressed vegetation around a pond and spring which indicates possible contamination to either the pond or the spring which feeds it. The major-pathway of concern is the ground water pathway with contamination to the alluvial aquifer, the shallow-bedrock aquifer and a nearby spring. 13 �i � 9 6.0 REFERENCE$ Amuedo & Ivey, CGS: Environmental Geology 9 Colorado Department of Health (site files) Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Mate Engineers Erie, Town of Fish and Wildlife Assistance Interview: Armstrong, Gary; Rock Mountain Fuel Company, Owner of Columbine Mine Hoffman, Richard; manager of Laidlaw Regional Landfill Horst, Daniel; original operator of Laidlaw North IBM Kiernes, Brad; Colorado Landfill Inc Neuhauser, John F.; Co-owner of Sanitation Engineering, Inc. Pratt, Kenneth; owner of Pratt property Roweder, Barbara; wife of Ralph Roweder Sundstrand Aviation Site Inspection to the Laidlaw North and South on 08/2O/90 and 09/07/90 Weld County Assesors Office (site files) Weld County Commissioners Office (site files) Weld County Health Department (site files) Weld County Planning Department (site files) U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps S710639 0639 14 PA Questionnaire Page 12 36. SURFACE WATER FEATURES Provide a simplified sketch of surface runoff and surface eater floe system for 15 downstream wiles. Include all pertinent features, e.g., intakes, recreation areas, fisheries, gauging stations, etc. 36 31 (UNION RESERVOIR) S2 3�" ` f IP3' ,\ \ ••• \ V1:tr— \ e ` l r_� 3 1 ra ail i Li. _ is I A Z ) CHEAT / Z. teal �_ _ __� JY• I L - L✓ Ithm :8 17 ...ie _ f .... W 1 an o [ r,� „ INt F 5"70639 08-> :=.1' \ ;� 24 ' /a �_ I' '�19 if l �/� 2 '1 !=• - •. .r,,.. J �SI \' ��X i 1-> �• 7 1 ! 1 AV. _ Sfa'JO[ "� 6 I r, �]I / d i � [er cr— .37 2.07icti •i�� , _" 1. �• j 0 ..� 4O"• ' - _317777777.7.Via. 12 ]� :�15 o . -LM. \ J a.... 8 .. ; • r°� ��_: o i r; tl ens-- d t d sg- I• i• Mal B.$ IT r' `q, ar�i ti �-=mot I • i. 1 T. , `q. 4- v - ,„ _ . si/r/ W _ nil' - t _ -- T. -- -.A , _ .. —_ �A .Rnmo+.� I x1 tJ - /uiblAto AI r— -- 1- - - . .% �.� -r of - : C oth �Rti LC ill ° - . ;. _ _ _ _ /- -A - A t _ _ ' r Lc RI-COIIYI r ��/ -- ,t r 6' - I - iti- ''/� / 32 x \ v.. F08-> r, e.-) .. -. •).:J C SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES JSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATIOs Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone - 356-4000 - Ext. 4400 Case Number DSR-972 Date Received October 2. 1991 Application Checked By RDA/CAC/LJS Eyler Plat Submitted Application Fee $4,700.00 Receipt Number 64593/accounting Recording Fee Receipt Number en TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld' County Planning Commission and Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Use by Special Review Permit on the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: W1/2 NE1/4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: E1/2 NWl/4,/Section 29 T 1 N, R 68 W LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned which Special Review Permit is proposed: Section T N, R W Property Address (if available) PRESENT ZONE A OVERLAY ZONES Geologic Hazard TOTAL ACREAGE 160 acres PROPOSED LAND USE Sanitary landfill EXISTING LAND USE Sanitary landfill SURFACE PEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT: Name: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado), Inc. Address: P. 0. Box 320 City: Erie, CO Zip: 80516 Home Telephone: Business Telephone: 673-9431 Name: Address: City: Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone: APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) : Name: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Inc. Address: P. 0. Box 320 City: -Erie, CO Zip: 80516 Home Telephone: Business Telephone: 6,3-9431 List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral sights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: (See Affidavit attached to Use by Special Review) Address: City: Zip: Name: Address: City: Zip: I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements. proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within rl=s application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNT1 OF Weld STATE OF COLORADO ) LAIDLAW S TENS (COLORADO) INC. By: N " " 64� risottos*: Authorised Agset ti Rick Hoffsan e.A N ' mind sown so before me this :.i2X-I ja}y of ed2gC2 19 a Y • k v c ' :p � � :,. � c� /2� GL42r ;/ C i1(:TArt nnLIC 'r1�T. o�t><�aloe expires WO/9( ifAffaffAff 47 LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEVS , \ C . DE\ VET REGIONAL LA\ DFILL ( SO , T- ) COESPC \ DE \ CE UP - DATE 1991 2E DV_ SIG \ DI-_ \ VF P - EGIO \ AL LA \ DFILL ( SOUTH ; May 15, 1992 Prepared by: Doty & Associates 20011 Golden Gate Canyon Road Golden, Colorado 80403 9206: DOTY & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,GROUND-WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERS 20011 GOLDEN GATE CANYON ROAD SUITE 100 GOLDEN,COLORADO 80403-8125 TELEPHONE: (303)279-9181 FAX: (303)279-9186 CORRESPONDENCE UP-DATE 1991 RE-DESIGN DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) May 15, 1992 Prepared for: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 Prepared by: Doty & Associates 20011 Golden Gate Canyon Road Suite 100 Golden, Colorado 80403 Project No. 1202-05 enjamin P. Do y, P.E. 920638 Denver Regional Landfill (South) Correspondence Up-Date May 15, 1992 Doty & Associates INTRODUCTION This document is an addendum to the various documents previously submitted by Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , in support of the application to amend the Use by Special Review Permit #400. The intent in preparing this document is to gather the pertinent correspondence into a single volume for documentation purposes and for ease of review. The following documents and correspondence are presented in separate tabbed sections following this introduction. 1. Modification of Operations Plan, Proposed Vertical Expansion, Denver Regional Landfill (South) , letter to A.N. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, from R. Hoffman, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , October 22 , 1991. Laidlaw confirms submittal of documents to Colorado Department of Health (CDH) on October 21 and requests a modification of the existing operations plan. 2 . Public Notice and Request for Public Comment, prepared by A. Buckingham and M.M. Galant, Colorado Department of Health, February 7, 1992 . 3 . Amended Design and Operations Plan, Denver Regional Landfill (South) , Weld County, Colorado, letter to R. Hoffman, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , from A.N. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, March 31, 1992 . CDH response to request for review of proposal . CDH requests additional information and clarification of certain issues. Review process stops until requested information is received. 4 . Subsidence Review - Denver Regional Landfill (South) , letter to A.N. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, from J.L. Hynes, Colorado Geological Survey, April 7, 1992 . Finds that the facility, as designed, will not suffer any ill effects from potential mine subsidence. -1- 9206,38 Denver Regional Landfill (South) Correspondence Up-Date May 15, 1992 Doty & Associates 5. Clarification of Technical Issues, Amended Design and Operations Plan, Denver Regional Landfill (South) , Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , letter to A.N. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, from B.P. Doty, Doty & Associates, April 8 , 1992 . Responds to CDH letter of March 31, 1992 . 6. Amended Design and Operations Plan, Denver Regional Landfill (South) , Weld County, Colorado, letter to R. Hoffman, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , from A.N. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, April 28, 1992 . Decision by CDH that the proposed modifications meet the minimum standards of the regulations; however, certain recommendations are made. 7. Concurrence on All Recommendations by CDH regarding the Amended Design and Operations Plan, Denver Regional Landfill (South) , letter to A. Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, from D.L. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates Inc. , May 14, 1992 . Accepts recommendations made in CDH letter of April 28, 1992 . -2- 920635 iAffo5A LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC. DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL -October 22, 1991 Ms. Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Subject: Modification of Operations Plan Proposed Vertical Expansion Denver Regional Landfill (South) Dear Ms. Buckingham: This letter is a formal request for a modification of the existing operations plan for the above referenced site to include a vertical expansion. Yesterday, Mr. Doty hand-delivered the appropriate documents to you that describe and support the vertical expansion. We request that the Division review these materials as expedi- tiously as possible. Please call if you have questions or comments. We are available at your convenience for meetings or telephone conversations to discuss this matter. Sincerely, LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Rick Hoffman Division Manager cc: Fred L. Otis, Esq. Shade, Doyle, Klein, Otis and Frey Rod Allison Weld County Planning Department 1441 WELD COUNTY ROAD 6, P.O. BOX 320, ERIE, COLORADO 80516 (303) 673-9431 920638 RFr-im 'PD FEB tC. 1942 ,it u.. for further information call FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2/7/92 Austin Buckingham (303) 331-4846 Marion M. Galant (303) 331-4855 WELD COUNTY REQUESTS REVIEW OF DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) DISPOSAL FACILITY DENVER--The public is invited to submit written comments by March 31, 1992, on an application by the Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. , 1441 Weld County Road 6, Erie, Co. , to expand volume of the existing Denver Regional Landfill (South) landfill facility (from approximately 10 million cubic yards to approximately 16.4 million cubic yards) located approximately 1 1/2 mile southeast of the town of Erie, CO, (at the southwest corner of WCR6 & WCR7) . This proposed expansion 6f the existing facility will be located within the west half of the northeast quarter and the east half of the northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 1N, Range 68W. As required by state law, the application to the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) for technical review. The Department's Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division will review the application for any impact the facility may have on the environment and for compliance with the state's Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and Regulations. ---more--- 9ZO6as Laidlaw page 2 CDH professional staff will analyze site characteristics and the ioperation plan for the proposed facility, according to Austin Buckingham, geologist with the Division. Based upon a technical review of the application, the Health Department will provide the Weld County and the applicant with a statement of findings as to whether the facility meets minimum requirements. If the Department issues a positive recommendation, the applicant may then proceed to implement the amended design and -operations plans for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . Interested citizens may review the application during regular business hours through March 31, 1992, at the Weld Health Dept. , 1517 16th Ave. Court, Greeley or at the Colorado Department of -Health, 4210 E. 11th Ave. , Room 351, Denver, -CO. Written comments should be sent to Austin Buckingham, Colorado Department of Health, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, 4210 E. 11th Ave. , Rm. 351, Denver, CO 80220. For further information contact Austin Buckingham at (303) 331-4846. ---30--- 920638 ROY ROMER Telefax Monkey Governor RECEIVED Main Building,Deaver (303)322-9076 , Ptarmi n Place,Denver I' " PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, rip p 6 1992 (303)320-1529 Executive Director First National Bank Building, Denver DOTY R ASs°C. (303)355.6559 4210 East 11th Avenue Grand Junction Office COLORADO Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303)248-7198 COLORADO Phone (303) 320-8333 Pueblo Office (719)543-8441 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH March 31, 1992 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1441 Weld County Road 6 P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 RE: Amended Design and Operations Plan Denver Regional Landfill (South) Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hoffman: • The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has received and reviewed the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . The review of the amended application is performed under the authority of the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, " Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statues, as amended (the Statute) , and the "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. " The Regulations were adopted for the implementation of the Statute and are contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations) . The intent of the amended application is to provide the site characterization, design and operations plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) expansion. The expansion area is contained wholly within the existing Certificate of Designation area. The Division views this application as a substantial change in operations, meaning a redesign or planned construction which would significantly change the planned design performance of the facility as originally designated. A substantial change of the planned design or construction of the solid waste facility necessitates the submittal of an amendment to the Design and Operations Plan, and a Division technical review. The Division has completed its review of the amended application. A number a technical issues require additional clarification or modification to the plan. These issues are detailed below. 9206,38 Rick Hoffman Laidlaw South March 31, 1992 page 2/3 1. Statistical methods suggested in the document are a t- test followed by linear regression analysis. Subtitle D statistical evaluations are preferred. 2. The QA/QC should include a liner test pad to evaluate the methods of construction and selection of on-site materials for the clay component of the liner. 3. Based on the apparent ground water flow direction described in the application, it appears that the well location known as GW-13 should be maintained as part of the ground water monitoring program. A deeper well in this location will be needed to encounter the No. 6 coal unit. 4 . Page 1 of the Design and Operations plan states that 'This document represents the second redesign of the South Landfill and, when approved, will replace all existing permit documents thus far prepared for the site, including the first redesign prepared by IC (1988) . ' If this is the case, the Design and Operation Plan should also include current structures or designs that are in place on the north half of the Denver Regional Landfill (South) site. Information which should be included are base grades, liner preparation and leachate sump systems. Integration of the previous design elements into the revised design of the facility should be shown on maps and cross-sections. 5. The main failure of the application is that the pertinent geology/hydrogeology maps and design maps were not combined to reflect the relationship between the proposed design and the site geologic/geohydrologic characteristics. Based on the Divisions' assessment of the information provided, it appears that the No. 6 coal will eventually intersect the landfill liner. The area where the coal layer will intersect the liner has not been well defined; as to whether saturation will be anticipated. A related issue, is how or where the No.6 coal beneath the north half of the Denver Regional Landfill (South) will impact or intersect the liner in the south half of the site. 6. Discussion in the document indicates that the No. 6 coal is the uppermost saturated bedrock unit, and therefore is an important part of the monitoring program. Q^O'2S . Rick Hoffman Laidlaw South March 31, 1992 page 3/3 However, the revised cross-section E-E' and F-F' received by this Division on March 27, 1992 indicates that saturation is not confined to the No. 6 coal. It appears that saturation also exists in claystone directly beneath the No. 6 coal. Clarification is needed on the conditions W.. which control saturation in these units. Due to the significance of these issues, the Division can not proceed with its review until they are resolved. The applicant should plan to comprehensively address the technical issues detailed above in an amendment to the existing application. The review process will continue once the amendment has been received. I may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, o-C_\C.7 Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division cc: B. Doty, Doty and Associates D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates, Inc. J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning Weld County Commissioners file: SW/WLD/LAI South 920638 �l tip tiffilia.t r,Ct� L HI � �(([ �" ��i, I i e{ t 1x192 )Y R. ROMER * +^ yI *1 a I / W—ROW GOVERNOR f # �^L� #.P �„ . LJ DIAeCTOR L87B COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING- 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303) 666-2611 April 7, 1992 92-WE-0007 Ms. Austin N. Buckingham Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220-3716 Dear Ms. Buckingham: Re: Subsidence Review - Denver Regional Landfill (South) We have completed our review of the Subsidence Evaluation prepared by Golder Associates and SubTerra. In addition to the above document, the Design and Operations Plan for the landfill and other relevant information regarding the general and engineering geology of the area, and specific mining subsidence potential in the vicinity of the tract were reviewed as necessary. The report by Chris Breeds does an excellent job of characterizing the physical conditions at the site which bear on the future potential for surface subsidence related to undermining. The data and assumptions used in the evaluation are valid and conservative, and the methodology employed is appropriate for the determination of the impacts likely to affect the design of the landfill. The vertical subsidence, tilt curvature and horizontal strains derived from the evaluation are well within reason given the conditions in the mine and overburden, and we have qualitatively verified their accuracy. The design parameters of the liners and leacbate collection system are well conceived and more than adequate to mitigate the potential impacts of the worst-case subsidence event modeled in the report. We concur with and reiterate the overall findings in the report and we have no concerns that this facility, as designed. will suffer any ill effects from the potential mine subsidence associated with the site. GEOLOGY 920635 STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE ( Ms. Austin N. Buckingham -2- April 7, 1992 If additional needs or questions arise regarding this matter, please contact us as you see fit. Yours very tru y, //J/ ,,, Jeffrey L ynes Senior Engineering Geologist JLIJ/vbs xc: Chris Breeds David O'Sadnick Rick Hoffman C:\WP51\WE920007.MH 920 DOTY & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL, GROUND-WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERS 20011 GOLDEN GATE CANYON ROAD SUITE 100 GOLDEN,COLORADO 80403-8125 TELEPHONE:(303)279-9181 -FAX: (303)279-9186 April 8 , 1992 1202-05 Ms. Austin N. Buckingham Geologist Solid Waste & Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Subject: Clarification of Technical Issues Amended Design and Operations Plan Denver Regional Landfill (South) Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. -Dear Ms. Buckingham: This letter is intended to provide clarification of the techni- cal issues raised in your letter of March 31, 1992 , to Mr. Rick Hoffman of Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 1. Statistical Methods -As requested, we will use one of the Subtitle D statistical methods to evaluate ground-water monitoring data. Specifically, • we will use the tolerance interval method. 2 . QA/OC As requested, a liner test pad will be added to the QA/QC program. 3 . Well GW-13 As requested, GW-13 will be maintained as part of the ground- water monitoring system. 4 . -Inclusion of As-Builts As-built details of the existing fill have been added to Drawings No. 4 and 10 of the design drawings (attached) . Since Laidlaw began operating the site in January 1988 , all excava- tions and liners have been inspected by independent engineers end the elevations established by topographic survey. These areas are in approximately the western third of the existing fill . No as-built details were kept for the earlier operations; 92063E Ms. Austin N. Buckingham Page 2 April -8 , 1992 Doty & Associates Dr-awing No. 4 shows the Nelson Engineers base of sxcavatton design which was prepared in 1983 . 5 . Relationship between No. 6 Coal and Liner Sheet 6 of the site characterization report (attached) has been revised to show the relationship between the Nb. 6 Coal and the liner. The hydrologic implications of this relationship are discussed in the next section. 6 . Extent of Saturation in No. 6 Coal The inclusion of the potentiometric surface in the No. 6 Coal on Sheet 6 indicated some inconsistencies on Sheets 2 and 3 ; these are also attached. Sheet 3 shows a relatively small area of saturation in the No. 6 Coal, along the south and east property boundaries. -The coal is apparently recharged along its subcrop -beneath on-site soils. The recharge waters move along the base of the coal as slugs of saturation; movement is down the structure of the coal (Sheet 2) . Ultimately, the recharge waters reach the continuously saturated zone shown on Sheet 3 . The area of continuous saturation is caused by limitation of flow away from the site (perhaps by the fault located east o₹ the property) . It is our opinion that the claystone beneath the No. 6 Coal is unsaturated, in spite of the fact that some of the piezometers located north and west of the continuously saturated area have traces of water inside their casings (PZ-2 and -3) . These wells are located in a slight trough on the base of the No. 6 Coal in which recharge waters are probably concentrated. It is believed that the concentrated recharge flows down the structure of the No. 6 Coal and cascades into the wells. Note that the water -column in the wells is very small ; the water levels are very near or within the sumps beneath the screens, indicating that the water is trapped in the well. In addition, it can be seen by examining the geophysical logs of S-1 that the claystone is unsaturated beneath the No. 6 Coal . The coal occurs at 73 . 0 to 75. 0 feet below ground, based on the boring log. The coal density signature (large shift to right of solid line) can be seen at 74 to 76 feet below ground (a one foot datum difference) . The lack of saturation is indicated by the opposing trends of the density and neutron responses. Given that recharge to the No. 6 Coal occurs on the western half of the site, the modified excavation plan will result in removal of the recharge area and decreased recharge to the coal . No reverse impacts are anticipated (i .e. , there should be no inflow to the excavation from the No. 6 Coal) . S20638 Ms. Austin N. I3uckingham Page 3 April 8, 19:32 Doty & Associates The No. 6 Coal is also present beneath the existing refuse. Based on the block diagram presented as Figure 9 of the site characterization report, it appears that the coal subcrops beneath the western third of the -existing till . Most of this area (approximately 90 percent) was excavated by Laidlaw according to the Industrial Compliance operations plan prepared in 1988. -Coal was present in these excavations. A 6-inch thick compacted soil liner was constructed in these areas and a leachate collection system was installed in the northern half. -Because the coal is present beneath the refuse in the northern half of the site, it is conceivable that a leachate release -could occur to the coal ; however, such a release is not likely because: 1. most of the area is lined, 2 . the liner slopes to the west (encouraging the flow of leachate over the subcrop, rather than into it) , and 3 . a portion of the area is protected by a leachate collection system. -Therefore, it is believed that the existing refuse is effective- ly isolated from the No. b Coal. * I trust that these responses meet your needs. Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, DOTY & ASSOCIATES Benjamin P. D y, P.E. 920639 ..:...r.° 'M'.i ROY ROMER rdefax Members: Governor (303) Building, Deaver s (303)322-9076 PtarPATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH (303) 0- Place, Denver 3 (303)szo•1s29 - . . Executive Director First NationalBank Building,-Denver • (303)3554559 .4, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Grand Junction Office 4210 East 11th Avenue (303)248-7198 COW Denver, Coloradol0220-3716 Pueblo Office hS.11TJ (303)331-4830/TAX (303) 331-4401 (719)5434441 DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH April 28, 1992 Certified Mail No. P 533 510 -858 RECEIVED Rick -Hoffman Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. MAY 0� 1992 1441 Weld County Road 6 P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 DOTY R ASSOC. RE: _upended Design and Operations Plan Denver Regional Landfill (South) Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of Health has completed its review of the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . The review of the Amended Design and Operations Plan is performed under the authority of the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, " Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statues, as amended (the Statute) , and the "Regulations -Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. " The Regulations were adopted for the implementation of the Statute and are contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 5 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations) . The intent of the Amended Plan is to provide the revised site characterization, revised design and operations plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) expansion. The expansion area is contained wholly within the existing Certificate of Designation area. The Division views this application as a substantial change in operations, meaning a redesign or planned construction which would significantly change the planned design performance of the facility as originally designated. A substantial change of the planned design or construction of the solid waste facility necessitates the submittal of an amendment to the Design and Operations Plan, and a Division technical review. Based on the information contained within the Amended Plan and the subsequent amendment to the Plan, the Division finds that the site meets the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Statute and Regulations with the inclusion of the following recommendations. The Division requests that these recommendations be incorporated in 920638 ®puled o,recycled paper Rick Hoffman Denver Regional Landfill (South) April 28, 1992 page 2/3 the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . The recommendations are: 1. All health laws, standards, rules and regulations for the Department, Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commission and applicable zoning laws and ordinances shall be complied with. 2 . One or more faults may traverse the proposed site. The Division wishes to be kept apprised of fault location and conditions discovered during excavation. The Division may request permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring. 3 . If perched water conditions are encountered during excavation activities, the Division shall be notified within four working days. The Division may request that contingency plans be developed by the operator to mitigate perched conditions. 4. A certification report shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 5. Appendix A of the Amended Design and Operations Plan specifies that non-destructive seam testing will performed; however the testing method and frequency of testing was not defined. The testing method and frequency shall be specified for the site and submitted to the Division for review and approval. If during the excavation, ongoing activities and monitoring of the site, information is revealed that changes the currently held concept of the site, the Division may request modifications to the design and operations, and monitoring program. In addition, regulatory changes that the Division may implement in the future may also become binding and necessitate modifications to design and operations plans. The Division cannot specifically require closure and post-closure PLoki 9Z0633 Rick Hoffman Denver Regional Landfill (South) April 28, 1992 page 3/3 financial assurances. The inclusion of financial assurances as commitments for the owner and operator of the site is recommended. The Division requests written concurrence by the Applicant on all recommendations outlined above. Please contact Austin Buckingham at this office if you have any questions regarding the Divisions' recommendation for approval. Sincerely, Cn'J� 4"an Austin N. Buckingham Glenn Mallory Geologist Unit Leader Solid Waste and Incid t Solid Waste and In • - Management Section Management Sectio Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Waste Management Division cc: B. Doty, Doty and Associates S. Hahn, Town of Erie D. O'Sadnick, Golder Associates, Inc. J. Pickle, Weld County Health Department S. Schreiber, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. K. Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning Weld County Commissioners file: SW/WLD/LAI South 920638 Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Boulevard,Suite 100 Golder Lakewood,CO USA 80228 �® Associates Telephone(303)980-0540 Fax(303)985-2080 May 14, 1992 Our Ref: 923-2457 Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Attention: Ms. Austin Buckingham, Geologist RE: CONCURRENCE ON ALL RECOMMENDATIONS BY CDH REGARDING THE AMENDED DESIGN AND OPERATION PLAN, DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) Dear Ms. Buckingham: On behalf of our client, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., we concur and hereby commit to perform the five recommendations discussed in your letter dated April 28, 1992 regarding the Amended Design and Operations Plan for the Denver Regional Landfill (South). Specifically, the agreed upon conditions are as follows: 1. All health laws, standards, rules and regulations for the Department, Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commission and applicable zoning laws and ordinances will be complied with. 2. The Division will be kept appraised of any fault location and conditions discovered during excavation. We understand that the Division may request a permeability evaluation of any fault and\or additional monitoring. 3. If perched water conditions are encountered during the excavation activities, the Division will be notified within four working days. We understand that the Division may request that contingency plans be developed by Laidlaw to mitigate perched conditions. 4. A certification report will be prepared by Laidlaw and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing with landfilling in the lined portion of any cell. The report will provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with the design criteria, the project plans and specifications. OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES May 14, 1992 2- 923-2457 5. As requested by the Division, attached to this letter are procedures which will be used during non-destructive seam testing of the geomembrane liner material. Please note that all field seams will be non-destructively seam tested over their full length using vacuum testing or air pressure testing. Any seam in which neither of these test methods can be used (due to difficult geometric configurations) will be capped and seamed. We have appreciated your assistance and cooperation throughout this entire project. If you have any questions regarding the attached non-destructive testing procedures, please contact me. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES IN . nat./ °lc David L. 0'Sadnick, P.E. Associate Attachment: Non-Destructive Testing Procedures cc: Rick Hoffman Scott Schreiber Miles Stotts Ben Doty 920638 Golder Associates -Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Boulevard,Suite 100 — E Golder Lakewood,CO USA 80228 Associates Telephone(303)980-0540 Fax(303)985-2080 NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING PROCEDURES DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL (SOUTH) WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. 2340 South Arlington Heights Road, Suite 230 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005 Prepared by: Golder Associates Inc. 200 Union Blvd., Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Distribution: -May 1992 923-2457 1920638 OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES May 1992 -1- 923-2457 1.0 PROCEDURE FOR MR PRESSURE TESTING This test will provide a nondestructive evaluation of the integrity of geomembrane seams made by the double fusion weld technique. The presence of the unwelded channel between the two distinct seamed regions allows for inflation of the sealed channel with air to a predetermined pressure. The tightness of the pressurized air channel over time is noted and recorded. If air pressure cannot be maintained, a leak in the seam is found and corrective actions will be taken. Air pressure testing, repair procedures, and retesting will be recorded and made part of the CQA Report. The double fusion weld technique leaves an air channel between the two seam tracks. Both ends of the air channel will be sealed and then a hollow needle with attached pressure gage will be inserted into the air space. Air pressure will be applied and the gage monitored for excessive air pressure drop. The channel will be pressurized initially from 27 to 30 psi. Monitoring time will be a minimum of 5 minutes. Maximum allowable loss of air pressure will be 4 psi. Wide mouth vice grips will be used to lock-off the sealed ends. A hollow needle with a properly functioning pressure,gage will be used to insert air into the open channel and monitor air pressure. An air pump capable of generating and sustaining the required air pressures will be used. The pump will not be attached while the air pressure is being monitored. The procedure for conducting the non-destructive test on a double fusion seam will be as follows: 1. After making the desired dual track seam and deciding upon the length of seam that is to be evaluated, the two ends of the continuous air channel will be sealed off. 2. Both ends of the air channel will be clamped with wide-mouth vicegrips so as to form an air-tight seal at both ends of the channef. The wide- mouth vice grips can remain in place throughout the test or be removed as the installer sees fit. 3. Insert the air pressure needle into the air channel. 4. Connect an air pump to the pressure gage and pressurize the air channel. Tor 60 mil HDPE, the air channel can be pressurized between 27 and 30 psi. The pressure will be maintained with the air pump connected during 2 two minute stabilization period. 5. Disconnect the air pump. Observe the air pressure gage for a minimum of 5 minutes. Record the time and pressure of the beginning and end of the test. The maximum allowable pressure drop should not exceed 4 psi. S 623 Golder Associates May 1992 -2- 923-2457 6. If the pressure_does not drop below the above value after the minimum five minutes test period, the air channel will tie cut apen at the end away from the pressure gage. Air should rush out and the pressure gage should -register an immediate drop in pressure, indicating that the entire length of the seam has been tested. If this does not happen, the air channel is blocked. The seam will then be walked to look and feel for the location of the blockage. The channel will be inflated up to the point of blockage. The air channel on the gage side of the blockage will be cut and the pressure loss verified. The weld will then be inflated from the far side. If the pressure holds, the seam will be cut at just prior to the blockage and the pressure drop verified. All cuts and seal small holes will be patched with extrudate from a filet extrusion seam device. 7. For a pressure drop greater than the above value, the end of the seals will be checked and resealed. Leaks around the end seals and air pressure insertion needle will be located by putting moisture around the suspected area and looking for bubbles to occur. 8. If the problem is not located, peel tests will be performed at the beginning -and end of the seam to determine seam strength. -9. If the seam strength is inadequate, the edge of the loose flap of the upper sheet (which extends beyond the outer track) will be extrusion fillet welded to the bottom sheet. Thus the extrusion fillet weld becomes the primary seam. It will then be vacuum box tested until satisfactory performance is obtained. 10. If the seam passes the destructive tests, the leak is looked for by vacuum -box testing the outer track of the seam. If a leak is found, it will be -repaired by extrusion fillet welding. 11. If no leak is found in the track and all other leak location possibilities have been eliminated, the leak is assumed to be in the inner track. since this inner track is for the purpose of air channel testing only, it is _redundant and can be ignored. The single good outer track is adequate and will be accepted as such. 2.0 PROCEDURE FOR VACUUM TESTING In those locations where extrusion welding is used, all of the welding will be vacuum tested except in areas inaccessible to a vacuum box. Defects found will be repaired and tested. Vacuum testing, repair procedures, and retesting will be recorded and made part of the CQA Report. Areas that can not be vacuum box tested will be capped and extrusion welded. _Golder Associates 920638 May 1992 -3- 923-2457 The procedure that will-be followed for vacuum testing will conform to the procedure identified in ASTM Designation D4437-84 "Determining the Integrity of Field Seams Used in Joining Flexible Polymeric Sheet Geomembranes." This procedure will be followed with two exceptions. First, the vacuum pressure applied to the vacuum box will not be less than 5 psi which is accordance with the_current EPA specifications given in guidance memorandum, "Use of Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Programs and Control of Stress Cracking in-Flexible Membrane Liner's Seams," rather_than the 4 to 8 inches of mercury (approximately 2 psi to 4 psi) as indicated m the ASTM D4437-84 standard. Second, a dwell time of 15 seconds will be used in accordance with the EPA current guidance. There is no designated dwell time in the ASTM D4437-84 standard. The procedure will be as follows: All seams welded using the_extrusion process will be inspected for unbonded areas by applying a vacuum to a soaped section of the seam. The vacuum will be applied by a vacuum box equipped with a vacuum gage, a clear glass view panel in the top, and a soft rubber gasket on theperiphery of the open bottom. A section of the seam will be thoroughly soaped and the inspection box placed over the soaped seam section, and the gasket sealed to the liner. A vacuum of not less than 5 psi will be applied to the box by use of a vacuum pump. The vacuum will be applied for a minimum dwell time of fifteen (15) seconds. The applied vacuum will show bubbles over unbonded areas; the unbonded areas shall then be marked for repair. Golder Associates 92-0€-t a,. DOTY & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL, GROUND-WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERS 20011_GOLDEN GATETANYON ROAD SUITE 100 GOLDEN, COLORADO 80403-8125 TELEPHONE: (303) 279-9181 FAX: (303)279-9186 May -4 , 1992 1202-U5 Mr. Rick Hoffman Division S.Ianager/Landfill Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 320 Erie, Colorado 80516 Subject: Need for Amended Special Use Permit Denver Regional Landfill (South) Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. Dear Mr. Hoffman: This letter evaluatesthe need for an amended Special Use Permit (SUP) with Weld County for the Denver Regional Landfill (South) . HISTORICAL DESIGNS The south site has been operated under three Dper-ations plans; a fourth has recently been approved by the Colorado Department of Health. The Various plans are described below and, in summary, are as follows. Design 1197-9 1982 1988 1991 Fill Area (acres) 107 148 148 114 Maximum El. (ft) 5220 5240 5240 5334 Est. Volume (M yd3) 1 4 .2 1b. 3 16. 3 23 .2 Liner Thickness (ft) 1. 0 1. 0 0. 5 3 . 02 Leachate System None 3 wells 4 wells Fulls Cover Thickness (ft) 2 . 0 2 . 0 3 . 5 11 . 0 Env. Monitoring None Yes Yes Yes - Hours (hrs/days)4 8/6 -8/6 16/7 15/6 Amended SUP req'd. Original No No Mr. _Rick Hoffman Page 2 May 4 , 1932 Doty & Associates 1373 Operations Plan The 1979 ,design (Nelson, 1979) was permitted with Weld County under SUP #400. The fill was designed as a ring which excluded the severe subsidence hazard area in the center of the property. The north and south portions of the fill rose to an elevation of 5220 feet; the western edge was sixty feet Lower (elevation 5160 feet) . To the best of -my knowledge, an -excavation plan was never developed; however, sufficient soil -was to be excavated for daily and intermediate cover as well as two feet of final cover. Prior to filling, the native soils were to be scarified and recompacted to provi-de a one-foot thick liner. Hours of operation were sight hours per day, six nays per week. 1982 Design The 1982 design (Nelson, 1982) was permitted with Weld County under SUP 534 : 82 : 49 . The intent of the 1982 design-was to close the Pratt property in order to promote long-term stability and minimize infiltration of incident precipitation. As part of the new design, the geometry of the south site fill was also changed so that the two fills would join smoothly. The -major design changes consisted of increasing the total area on the south site to be covered by refuse to 1-48 acres (from 107 acres) and increasing the highest elevation to 5240 feet (from 5220) . Refuse was to be placed over the entire 148 acres as a single fill . an excavation plan was prepared in order to provide for daily and intermediate cover as well as two feet of Notes to table on page 1: 1. Volume is in million cubic yards and is estimated because the 1979 excavation plan is not available and as built records were not kept prior to 1988 . Volume includes final cover. 2 . 1991 liner consists of three feet of compacted clay overlain by a 60 mil HDPE geosynthetic membrane. 3 . 1991 leachate collection system consists of a complete sand drainage layer (12" thick) with laterals and headers leading to four 1-eachate collection sumps. 4 . Anticipated hours of operation are given above as hours per days/days per week. She 1991 design allows for 24 hour per day, 7 -day per week operation. 820829 Hello