Citation

## Material Information

Title:
Development of municipal land uses around hazardous waste sites
Creator:
Sam, Peter A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
148 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Hazardous wastes -- United States ( lcsh )
Land use -- Environmental aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Hazardous wastes ( fast )
Land use -- Environmental aspects ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

## Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban/Community Planning, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
submitted by Peter A. Sam.

## Record Information

Source Institution:
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
28141547 ( OCLC )
ocm28141547
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1986 .S365 ( lcc )

## Auraria Membership

Aggregations:
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver Theses and Dissertations

Full Text
Development of Municipal Land Use Around Hazardous
Waste
A Masters Degree Thesis College o< Design and Planning University of Colorado at Denver Author: Peter A. Sam Thesis Chairman: Dr. David Hill August 1986

1
DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL LAND USES AROUND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES.
A THESIS
SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF
THE COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING GRADUATE PROGRAM OF URBAN/COMMUNITY PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUBMITTED BY
PETER A. SAM
AUGUST 1986
ACCEPTED:
/
Dean of Faculty
Date

Preface.............................................................2
Introduction.......................................................5
CHAPTER ONE: HISTORY AND PRESENT PRACTICES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN AMERICA.
1-1.0 Historical Development........................................9
1-1.1 Disposal Practices..........................................10
1-1.2 Legislation and Government Agencies.........................13
1-2.0 System of Control/Regulations of Hazardous Waste...........^ (
1-2.1 Federal Regulation..........................................17
1-2.2 State Regulation............................................18
1-2.3 Local Regulation............................................18
1-3 Generation of Hazardous Wastes Facilities...................20
1-4 Sources of Hazardous Wastes.................................22
1-5 Types of Site...............................................28
1-6 Method of Disposal..........................................29
1-7 External effects of Hazardous Waste Sites.................72
1-8 Analysis of External Affects................................34
1-9 Hazardous Waste Siting Requirements/Regulations.............41
1- 10 Need fox* better Hazardous Waste Management.................45
CHAPTER TWO: CASE STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES IN COLORADO.
O
2- 1.0 Site Description of Lowry Landfill..........................9-7
2-1.1 Soil Profil.................................................48
2-1.2 Elevation...................................................48
2-1.3 Surface Water. .............................................48
2-2.0 History of Lowry Landfill...................................49

2-2.1 Present Site Condition of Lowry Landfill.....................56
2-2.2 Site Activities............................................56
2-2.3 External Impacts.......................................... 62
2-2.4 Future Impacts.............................................6^
2-2.5 Zoning and Subdivision Design Around Lowry Landfill. 65
2-2.6 Past and Present Zoning / Land Use.........................c5
2-2.7 Subdivision Design Around Lowry Landfill...................66
2-2.8 Analysis of Rationale by Planner for the Lowry
Landfill..................................................71
. . 72
2-2.9 Ma^or Issues to be resolved (Lowry Landfill)
2-3.0 Site Description of Lyons Landfill......................... '3
2-3.1 Site History (Lyons Landfill).............................. 7^
2-3.2 Site Design (Lyons Landfill)............................... 76
2-3.3 External Impacts of Lyons Landfill......................... 82
2-3.4 Zoning & Subdivision design Around Lyons Landfill.......... 86
2-3.5 Analysis of Planners Rationale behind Lyons Landfill location.............................................. 88
2- 3.6 Major Issues to be resolved................................ 89
CHAPTER THREE: HYPOTHESIS OF AND IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING
PROCESS.
3- 1.0 Introduction............................................... 90
o
3-2.0 Needed functions of Land Use Planning around Hazardous
Waste Sites............................................... ^
3-3.0 Factors to be considered in zoning a Hazardous Waste
Site...................................................... 95
3-4.0 Needed Authority and Legislation for effective/efficient

101
Hazardous Waste Site Planning.............
3-5.0 Evaluating Hazardous Waste Site Proposals..................104
3-6.0 Needed Budget..............................................
3-7.0 Needed Personnel & Expertise..............................1^-3
3- 9.0 Decision Making Process....................................121
CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT USING THE
IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS AS A REMEDIAL ACTION FOR LOWRY AND LYONS LANDFILLS.
4- 1.0 Introduction...............................................124
4-2.0 Important Consideration in Using the ideal hazardous
Waste planning process the major issues concerning
Land development around landfills.........................126
4-3.0 Remedial action using the framework of the ideal
Hazardous Waste Planning process for development
around Lowry Landfill.....................................1^7
4-3.1 Zoning ordinance for development around Lowry
Landfill..................................................131
4-3.2 Proposed guidelines for zoning and land-use
development around Lowry Landfill.........................133
4-4.0 Remedial action using the framework of the ideal
Waste Planning Process for development around
Lyons Landfill...?........................................135
4-4.1 Zoning ordinance for development around Lyons
Landfill..................................................13^
4- 4.2 Proposed guidelines for zoning and land-use
development around Lyons Landfill.........................^38
140
5- 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................

APPENDICES.................................................1^1
REFERENCES.................................................146
O

2
PREFACE
Hazardous waste planning and management is virtually a new field evoluting Urban/Community planning. This new area of Urban Planning is concerned with the generation, onsite storage, collection, transfer and transportation, and the disposal of the hazards from a technological society. The problem associated with hazardous wastes planning were virtually unknown a few years ago. In recent years it has been a major citizen public concern and also a problem in the urban planning profession.
The problems are associated with planning sites and minimizing environmental hazards. Long term effects and preservation of our natural habitat is the major question the planner has little answers for.
As man advances in technology and increases its industrial activities, mankind faces the problems of disposal of waste, by-products which consists of hazardous waste. This turns into a circle of activities, and at the end of the circle, mankind is caught up in an unsafe, unhealthy and unrestorable ecosystem. The problem of hazardous waste has never been as serious a problem as presently, yet the problem is on the rise and growing rapidly. In the field of planning profession, the major problems are utilization of land around hazardous wastes
o
sites, the effect of public health and safety caused by hazardous waste, the unavailability of land use categories and guidelines for evaluating development proposals around the hazardous waste sites, finally guidelines for planning sites which is unknown in the planning profession. What, where, when

and how are the major questions at stake.
The production of hazardous waste since World War II has virtually increased from one billion pounds annually to more than 300 billion pounds annually. One should realize that this is proportional to Industrial Chemical Production. One might think that civilization has lead us all to lose a sense of the future.
Technology in modern society have lead us to pillaged the past and pawned the future. It has also lead us to believe in mass production, easy and fast production and massive damage/effects to our ecosystem, health and our welfare. Presently, American people are yearning for help and demanding the Federal, State, and local government to do something about hazardous waste.
This situation has lead to the evolution of Superfund for cleaning up toxic sites, the initiation of E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) and a number of other legislations. In respect to the goals/objectives of planning profession, nothing has been done. Maybe one may conclude that, planners work for the political figures, so they may face problems of fully utilizing their expertise to attain the goal and objectives of the profession. On the other hand one may say (I support) that since this is a new area in planning the planning profession needs special qualify planners to function effectively in this prospective.
o
On the other hand one may say that the Federal Government including the Justice Department seems to have lost the painful lessons that most Americans learned at Love Canal and similar sites. Recently, in Adams County Colorado, a problem of drinking water contamination occurred.

4
We need a new system of hazardous waste planning, this thesis presents this issue in a style which may be a starting point of a new additive in planning offices, State Health Departments, and in private industries.

INTRODUCTION
-The purpose of the Thesis
-An overall view of Hazardous Waste Planning
-Methodology and Design of Thesis

5
INTRODUCTION
Today Urban planning is faced with the problem of hazardous waste planning. In order to achieve the goals and objectives of Urban Planning, the planning profession has to formulate a new process of managing and utilizing land in a fashion to reach it's goals. This new guidelines includes amendments in the following:
1. Zoning
2. Comprehensive plan
3. The planning process which comprises of;
a. Decision making process
The evolution of this new planning field brings about a multi-disciplinary activity that is based on engineering principles, biology principles, chemistry principles, but also Urban planning/regional planning principles. The traditional planners to handle the ever growing problem.
This thesis is divided into four parts. Chapter one deals with the history of hazardous waste. For planners to understand hazardous waste, it is important to know about the historical developments, system of control in terms of sites and facilities and finally regulations at federal, state, and local governments respectively.
In order for Municipal Planning Offices, State health departments who have not yet been faced with the problem of â€¢hazardous waste planning^ Chapter two studies cases in two regions within the State of Colorado. In both case studies, conclusions were drawn out of the major issues which need to be resolved. This chapter focuses on the important management

6
issues which the planner needs to be aware of.
Since this is a new field evolving in the planning profession, there is presently little theory or answers to the numerous planning questions. Chapter three tries to formulate an hypothesis for an ideal hazardous waste planning process. It tries to introduce the functions, administration, and process of this new hazardous waste planning field.
Chapter four was designed to apply the hypothesis formulated in Chapter three to remedy the situations in the case studies used in Chapter two. One should remember that the hypothesis is fully designed as a preventive theory to avoid the problems which arises in the future, for example the case studies in chapter two. But the planner should also remember that the hypothesis can be used in some instances as a remedial action in cases such as those described in Chapter two, where damage is already done. The evidence used for this thesis was based on the following:
1. Basic texts on Solid Waste Management
2. Existing federal and State regulation manual for
hazardous Waste Management.
3. Newspaper, Journal and Magazine documents of
hazardous waste problems.
4. Municipal Plans and Public documents regarding the
Lowry and Lyons Landfill problems.
5. Telephone and personal interviews with Federal,
State and Local public Officials
6. Interview with Citizens Groups.
7. Attended public meetings.
9
The methodology textual analysis of the above, and my Professional judgement. Others included creative innovation in drawing up an hypothesis for an ideal hazardous Waste planning process. Since this is a thesis for a Masters Degree, there are obvious limits:

7
1. There was no grants (money) for a full and adequate research.
2. The subject is so new that all the research had to
be original and exploratory making it very difficult to cover all the important issues.
3. The research was narrowed down to only two case studies in the State of Colorado.
Finally, since there is very little literature written about this topic, it was very difficult to be able to research into the many elements and sub-elements of the subject. The , following are my recommendations to further research:
1. The ideal local hazardous waste managing process
needs to be tested in a preventative situation to supplement this study, it may be used in a remedial situation.
2. More detailed studies need to be made on the topics explored in Chapter One and Two .
3. Other ideal process should be conceived and tested.
4. The ideal process conceived in this thesis should be polished and refined.
I would further recommend the Municipal leagues across the Country to apply for Federal grants to finish up the work I have started. To this end, I would also recommend that the Local,
State government planning agencies, open up a sub-department and/or hire planners with background and expertise to handle the problems, (refer to Chapter 3 section 3-7).
o
To the reader, I hope that from this thesis, your attention would be drawn to the problems that would be growing and would be the future determinant of our environmental safety health and welfare. Maybe it would lead you to write to your local political representative or the Local Planning Director,

8
City Mayor or the State Governor.
To the foreigner, or the foreign planning agencies, I hope you may take precautions as to the problems by either utilizing the hypothesis in this thesis, or by polishing it up for your benefit.
o

CHAPTER ONE
-HISTORY AND PRESENT PRACTICES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN
AMERICA

9
HISTORY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES CONTROL IN AMERICA 1-1.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The development of Hazardous Waste can be traced to the development of a Technological Society in the United States.
The development of a Technological Society benefited mankind, so did it also introduce the problems associated with the resultant Waste Materials.
The recognization of Waste Materials begun in the latter part of the nineteenth century when conditions were so bad England, in respect to Waste disposal. The English passed an Urban Sanitary Act in 1888 prohibiting the throwing of waste Materials into ditches, rivers and waters. This preceded by about 11 years the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 in the United States, the intention of this Act was to regulate the dumping of debris in navigable Waters and adjacent Lands.
The effects of technological advancement practices initiated the generation of Waste Materials which is diagrammatical shown on the next page. The technological practices lead to the adequate disposal mechanisms practices.
o

10
1-1.1 DISPOSAL PRACTICES
One of the first literature on Waste Disposal in American history was written by H. de B. Parsons in 1960 in his book entitled "The Disposal of Municipal Refuse". In reviewing this book, I noted the basic principles in the field of Waste Management.
The early disposal practices gave way to the beginnings of Waste Management.
A horse - drawn cart about 1900
Fig. 1-2 Evolution of Vehicles Used for the Collection of Solid Waste.

11
Fig. 1-3
Fig. 1-4 Modern Collection Vehicle equipped with Compaction Mechanism, 1976.

12
*)
Fig. 1-6 Open dump located in Flat Area.
Fig. 1-5 Open dump located in a ravine.

13
1-1.2 Legislation And Government Agencies
The evolution of Legislation and Government Agencies came about has the concerns of Waste Materials became an important issue in the minds of citizens, pressuring congress and the State Legislatures to take action. Federal Agencies took the lead in 1899.1
Initial regulations were placed in the hands of USPHS (U.S.) Public Health Service) to permit the Federal Government to regulate the interstate transport of Solid Wastes, Particularly food waste that was fed to hogs, in an attempt to control trichinosis.
The history of Solid Waste which includes Hazardous Waste Legislation dates from 1965 when the solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 39-272 was enacted by congress.
The intent of this Act was to:
1. Promote the demonstration, construction, and application of Solid Waste Management and resource recovery systems which preserve and enhance the quality of Air, Water, and Land resources.
2. Provide technical and financial assistance to States and Local Governments and interstate agencies in the planning and development of resource recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Programs.
a
3. Provide a national research and development program for improved management techniques, more effective organizational arrangements, and new and improved methods of collection, separation, recovery, and recycling of Solid Wastes, and the
1 The rivers and harbors act directed to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the dumping of debris in navigable Waters and adjacent lands.

environmentally safe disposal of non recoverable residues.
4. Provide for the promulgation of guidelines for Solid Wastf Collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal systems.
5. Provide for training grants in occupations involving the design, operation, and maintenance of Solid Waste disposal systems.
This enforcement act became the responsibility of the USPHS, which is an agency of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and the Bureau of Mines, an agency of the Department of the Interior. The USPHS had responsibility for most of municipal wastes generated in the United States.
The Bureau of Mines was charged with Supervision of Solid Waste from mining activities and the fossil-fuel Solid Wastes from power plants and industrial steam plants.
President Johnson and his Presidential Scientific Advisory Committee were not satisfied that legislation alone would accomplish the goals of regulation of Urban, Commercial, industrial, agricultural and Mineral Wastes, as specified in the 1965 Act. Therefore, in 1968, the president directed that a special study be made of the national problem of Solid Waste Management by the White House Staff with the assistance of representatives of the USPHS. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Interior.
The report that resulted was submitted by the Executive Office of the President to Congress with the demand which was â€¢subsequently met for adequate Staffing, Funding, and action by the responsible Federal Agencies and Congress.
The amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 by Public Law 95-512, the Resources Recovery Act of 1970. This Act

15
directed that the emphasis of the National Solid Waste Management Program should be shifted from disposal as its primary objective to that of recycling and reuse of recoverable materials in Solid Wastes, or to the Conversion of wastes to energy. The USPHS, through its National office of Solid Wastes Management, was directed to prepare a report on the recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste, which was completed in 1971. By this time the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had been formed by Presidential order under reorganizational Plan No. 3 of 1970, and all Solid Waste Management activities were transferred from the USPHS to the EPA. Many other reports on various phase of Solid Waste Management have been published since then, including the yearly reports to congress on resources recovery and the basic reference report Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management. Another episode of the 1970 act was the mandate of Congress to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a report on the treatment and disposal of Hazardous Wastes, including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and other wastes of significance to the public health and Welfare. Previously, the Atomic Energy Commission to manage all radioactive wastes generated by the commission and the nuclear Power Industry.
The report to Congress in response to the 1970 act was
9
prepared by the office of Solid Waste Management Programs of the EPA, and it was submitted on June 30, 1973.
This report, entitled Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, is a complete documentation on all aspects of the disposal of hazardous wastes.

16
The establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is an all encompassing Congressional Law. It affects all projects that have some federal funding or that come under the regulation of federal agencies. The act specified the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Offices of the President. This body has the authority to force every Federal agency to submit to the council an Environmental Impact Statement on every activity or project which it may sponsor or over which it has jurisdiction.

1?
1-2.0 SYSTEM OF CONTROL/REGULATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
The system of regulation and control is on International, Federal, State, and Local levels. These regulations deal mostly with generation and final disposal.
1-2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Majority of the regulations concerning hazardous materials are formulated at the federal level. The regulations are designed to control the packaging, storage and movements of hazardous materials.
The most comprehensive regulations for controlling hazardous waste at the federal level are related to water discharges allowable to either water or air are usually set after the ambient level of a particular compound known. In some cases, complete restrictions are set, and all discharges are prohibited. An example is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500).2
Federal Regulations is directed toward the elimination of the disposal of hazardous wastes in either the water or air environment. Consequently, the management of hazardous wastes that may occur as solids, liquids, or gases has become a solid
o
waste management problem by default.
2 The prohibitation of Ocean disposal suggested in that law could cause the county of Los Angeles to divert nearly 800,000 tons/yr or sewage surge (at 75 percent equivalent moisture content) from the ocean to local landfills.

18
1-2.2 STATE REGULATIONS
State regulations regarding the control of hazardous wastes follow federal regulations closely. In most states, the state set is own regulations which are a modifications of the federal regulations. The only difference is that the state laws are stricter.
1-2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
Local regulations by local governments are necessarily narrow in scope. When hazardous wastes are identified they are restricted by ordinance from local sewers and waste water treatment facilities of liquid hazardous wastes for delivery to an acceptable solid waste disposal site.
o

Type
j-,egal Form
Typical Contents
Impact on solid waste Management
international Treaties and Agreements
rederal
Directly legislated public laws and administrative procedures developed by
implementation agencie:
Deals mostly with the oceans and the atmosphere.
Primary emphasis is on the safe packaging, storage, and movement of hazardous compounds, not hazardous wastes; the ability of hazardous compounds to become hazardous wastes is of concern; secondary emphasis is on the protection of waterways and the atmosphere.
;ate
,ocal
Directly legislated state laws and administrative procedures deve-by implementation agencies .
Ordinances and administrative procedures developed by local agencies.
Primary emphasis-is on the protection of waterways and the atmosphere; some facility review to determine typee of hazardous wastes discharged; normally includes some designation of wates that are acceptable at designated disposal sites.
Frimary emphasis is on the protection of community v/ater and waste-water treatment facilities; large economic penalties are often specified to prevent violations.
Negligible to nonexistent
Moderate to extremely high economic impact associated with the land disposal of concentrated sludges.
Moderate to extremely high economic impact on transport and disposal; some operational impact caused by location of disposal sites.
Moderate economic impact on di posal site operation if the si can be used for hazardous wast moderate to high impact on administrative agencies caused by adverse community reaction to hazardous solid-wastes.
m -p Q>

20
1-3.0 GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FACILITIES
Generation of hazardous wastes was first traced from mining Industries and for centuries the most important, such wastes has been generated by virtually every advance
technological nation. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, t mining of fossil fuels became a major source of toxic wastes.
Since hazardous wastes are not useful to the industries producing them,3
they have typically, been disposed of in the easiest and cheapest way - by dumping them somewhere convenient. This convenient location is
o
3 or, at least, these wastes are seen as not useful. In many cases these "wastes" actually are useful materials with economic valve but unless the waste generators are aware of this valve, they will still view the wastes as useless and try to get rid of them as cheaply as possible, regardless of the problems that may result.

21-
Table 1-2
Sources of Hazardous Wastes, 1978
Generating Industry Pounds (billions)
Organic Chemicals 26
Primary metals 29
Electroplating 9
Inorganic chemical 9
Textiles, petroleum refining, rubber and plastics 3
TOTAL 76
SOURCES: EPA Journal vol.5, no.2 (February 1979), p. 12. what one would call a hazardous waste site. Table 1-2,
illustrates the sources of hazardous wastes generating Industrial Sector and the pounds (amount) generated.
o

22
1-4.0 SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Various Industries produce hazardous wastes, some of these wastes have not been controlled and are causing public health and environmental problems on their sites. 4
Some of the common hazardous wastes sources found in typical communities in the United States are shown in table 1-3.
4 To date, EPA has inventoried almost 16,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The National Priorities (NPL) identifies the targets for action under the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or "Superfund") . The laws sets up a Trust Fund to help pay for cleaning up hazardous waste sites that threaten public health or the environment.

23
TABLE
1-3
Waste category
Sources
and university laboratories, dentists offices, hospitals, nuclear power plants
Toxic Chemicals Agricultural chemical companies, battery
shops, car washes, chemical and paint storage warehouses, city and county equipment corporation yards, city police stations, college and university laboratories, construction companies, county sheriff stations, crop-dusting firms, dry cleaners, electric utilities, electronic and radio repair shops, fire departments, hospitals and clinics, industrial cooling towers, industrial plants too numerous to list, newspapers (photographic solutions), nuclear power plants pest control agencies, photographic processing facilities or shops, plating shops, service s tanker-truck cleaning stations
Biological Wastes Biomedical research facilities, drug
companies, hospitals, medical clinics
Flammable Wastes Dry cleaners, petroleum reclaiming
plants, petroleum refining and processing faci service stations, tanker-truck cleaning statio
Explosives Construction companies, dry cleaners,
munitions production facilities.
Source: Adapted from Solid Waste: Engineering Principles and
Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1977.
Other hazardous wastes are generated from the consumer of industrial products, for example, the production of
o
mildew-resistant paints requires the use of mercury. Paint companies discard some mercury as production wastes. However, consumer waste is produce from most mercury containing paints used in painting bathrooms and kitchens. The mercury becomes a waste (consumer waste) only when the paint is stripped and

discarded or when the house is demolished.
Some of the physical and chemical classification of hazardous wastes, which is based on a 1973 survey of 20 billion pounds is shown in table 1-4.

TABLE
1-4
Classification Pound (billions)
Liquid inorganic wastes 7.0
Copper and lead-bearing refinery wastes .8
Brine sludges from chlorine production .1
Steel plant wastes .5
Organic chemical 1.0
Gasoline-blending wastes .4
Solvent-reclaiming residues .3
Outdated or contaminated tear gas .3
Aqueous organic chemicals 10.0
Organic pesticide and herbicide wastes 1.0
Dilute drug manufacturing waste 5.0
Solids, slurries and sludges .7
Sodium dichromate wastes .3
Arsenic trioxide from smelters .02
Recovered arsenic from smelters .04
Battery manufacturing sludges .05
Refrigeration equipment wastes .2
9
TOTAL 20.0
SOURCES: EPA, Report to Congress on Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes (Washington, D.C., June 20, 1973), pp. 50-53.
For a listing of the relative quantities of wastes generated in all fifty states, see Appendix 11.

Note: Only major categories and sub-categories are listed, so
totals for both categories and sub-categories are less than overall totals. For a detailed characterization of waste streams, see Appendix 1. For an overall regional classification of major waste streams, see Appendix 1.
The EPA has up to date, inventoried almost 16,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. In regards to remedial action to clean-up, the superfund program has been born. There has been requirements as to setting each site on a priority list, this has lead to the current national priorities list(NPL). The priorities list in an order of ranking totals up to 406 sites. The major classes of chemicals found at theses hazardous waste disposal sites are shown below in Table 1-5.

27
TABLE
1-5 Major Classes of Chemicals Found at 350 Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites, 1980
1 Chemical Raw Sites Containing Materials Sites Containing Derivativies Total Sites
Petrochemical Acetylene 0 56 56
Benzene 19 113 132
Butane 0 8 8
Butylene 0 8 8
Ethylene 0 97 97
Methane 1 44 45
Naphthalene 2 0 2
Propylene 0 14 14
Toluene 23 30 53
Xylene 12 6 18
Waste Oil 35 0 35
Inorganics Ammonia 6 22 28
Antimony & Compounds 1 0 1
Arsenic & Compounds 10 0 10
Barium Sulfide 0 0 0
Beryllium & Compounds 0 0 0
Bromine 0 2 2
Chlorine & Compounds 5 197 202
Chromium & Comoounds 18 1 19
Cobalt 1 0 1
Copper 6 1 7
Hydrogen Fluoride 2 1 3
Lead & Compounds 11 0 11
Mercury 16 0 16
Nickel 4 0 4
Nitric Acid 1 0 1
Phosphorus & compounds 6 8 14
Potassium hydroxide 1 0 1
Selenium 1 0 1
Sodium hydroxide 0 39 39
Sulfuric Acid 3 35 38
Stannic(ous) chlorides 0 0 0
Zinc Â» 9 2 11
Source: EPA, Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Materials Sites (Washington, D.C., 1980), p. XV111.

2b
1-5.0 TYPES OF SITES
There are five basic types of hazardous wastes sites these are (1) Landfills (2) Surface Impoundments (3) Drums (4)
Files (5) Tanks.
The graph on the next page summarizes the percentage sum of ti types of sites in the United States.

28
>
i TYPES OF SITES
PERCENT)
LEGEND lT - LAHEnxS St - SURFACE impoundment;
SOURCE: NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (EPA)
Fig. 1-7

29
1-6.0 METHOD OF DISPOSAL
The Methodology in disposal practices is undertaken in two processes (1) A process where the recovery of useful materials are gained, and (2) A process in which to prepare the wastes for safety disposal.
There are two ways to accomplish the above, (1) by processing onsite and (2) by transferring the waste to an off site treatment facility. The processing site is selected according to characteristics of the wastes; the environmental aspects; quantity of the wastes; technical and economic aspects; and finally the availability of a feasible treatment site.
The treatment mechanism of hazardous wastes is mainly by physical, chemical, thermal, and biological means. The most often use is the physical, chemical, and thermal, with minimal usage of biological treatment. The various individual process in each category are reported in Table 1-6.
o

in
30
TABLE
Major Glasses of Chemicals Found at 350 Hazardous
Waste Disposal Cites, 1980
Chemical
O i fpo Q 1 p o
Containing Containing Total
Raw Materials Derivatives Sites
Petrochemical
'cetylene 0 56 56
Benzene 19 113 132
Butane 0 8 8
Butylene 0 8 8
Ethylene 0 97 97
Methane 1 44 45
Naphthalene 2 0 2
Propylene O' 14 14
Toluene 23 30 53
Xylene 12 6 18
Waste Oil 35 0 35
Inorganics
Ammonia 6 22 28
Antimony & Compounds 1 0 1
Arsenic & compounds 10 0 10
Barium sulfide 0 ;0 0
Beryllium & compounds 0 0 0
Bromine 0 2 2
Chlorine & compounds 5 197 202
Chromium & compounds 18 1 19
Cobalt 1 0 1
Copper 6 1 7
Hydrogen fluoride 2 : 1 3
Lead & compounds 11 0 11
Mercury 16 0 16
Nickel 4 0 4
Ilitric acid 1 0 1
Phosphorus & compounds 6 8 14
Potassium hydroxide 1 0 1
Selenium 1 0 1
Sodium Hydroxide 0 39 39
Sulfuric acid â€”. f 3 35 38
Stannic(ous)chloricfes 0 0 0
Zinc 9 2 11
Source:EDA, Damages and (threats Caused by Hazardous Materials Sites (Washington, D.C., 1980),p.XV111.

31
The three states or forms of hazardous wastes are solid, liquid, and gas, inspite of these state and forms, hazardous wastes are disposed of either near the surface of the earth or by deep underground burial. The operation process, the functions performed, the type of wastes and forms/state of waste are illustrated in the table below.
TABLE
1-7 Hazardous Wastes Disposal
Operation/ Functions Types Forms of
process performed of wastes waste
Deep-well injection Di 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 L
Detonation Di 6,8 S,L.G
Engineered storage St 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 S, L, G
Land burial Di 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 S,L
Ocean dumping Di 1,2,3,4,7,8 S, L, G
Functions: Di - disposal; St - storage;
Waste types: 1. Inorganic chemical without heavy metals
2. Inorganic chemical with heavy metals 4. organic chemical with heavy metals 5. radiological; 6. biological; 7. flammable and 8. explosive.
Waste forms; S - solid; L - liquid; and G - Gas.
Source/Ref: Report to congress: Disposal of Hazardous wastes, U.S. ERA, Publication SW-115, Washington, D.C., 1974.
o

32
1-7.0 EXTERNAL EFFECTS OF HAÂ£a8Â«BV|S WASTE SITES
The external effects of hazardous wastes sites have only recently been recognized. Indeed, this is only due to the after effects of sites and their negative impacts to the eco-system. Unfortunately, there is relatively scanty literature available.
The EPA survey of 350 hazardous waste disposal sites have revealed the damages to human, the environment and to the public health. This is shown in table 1-8.
I
0

Incidents: Damages to Environment and Public Health in 350 Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, "980
Groundwater/ Water Supply State Contamination Well Closures* Habitat Destruction Human Health Damage Soil Contamination Fish Kills Livestock Loss POTWSj-or Sewer Damage o'th Dam a
a 1cl o Sin St 3 3 3 1 1
Arizona 3 1
Arkansas 3
California 7 3 (34)
Connecticut 7 4 (21) 1 2 2
Delaware Â£
Florida 2 2 (6+) 1 1 1
Georgia 1 A !
Hawaii
Idaho 1
111inois 17 3 (11) 3 1 â€¢1 Â» 1 3 3
Indiana 4 2 (2+) 3 â– 1 1 -J 1 A i
Iowa 3 1 A I
/. an sas 1 1 * i 1
Kentucky 2 1 -j
' ouisiana 2 1 1 1 1 1
Maine 3 2 (16+) 1 1 l
Maryland 1 1
Massachusetts 4 2 (6) 2 1 1 1
', â€˜ 4 4 (7* pn 7 3 2 1 2
Minnesota 7 2 (4) 2 3 1 1
.-.ississ ippi
Missouri l 2 1 1
Montana
New Kamo shire A 1 1 (17)
New Jersey 9 3 (252) 3 5 1 1
New Mexico 1
New York 15 3 (41) 9 3 3 4
North Carolina 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
North Dakota
(M CD

34
â–  -8
C-roundwater/ V/ater Supply State Contamination Human Well Habitat Health Soil Pish Closures* Destruction Damage Contamination Kills livestock Loss PGTWS-J-or Selver Damage ether Damage
On io 3 A 1 6 1 3 1 1 1
Oklahoma
Oregon 1 1 1
Pennsyivan ia 35 2 (9) 11 11 5 2 i
Rhode Island 5 2 (15) 2 *7 J
South Carolina 2 1 1
South Dakota
Tennessee 5 3 (22 + ) 3 2 1 1
Texas 1 4 1 1 1
U \j doV) 1
Vermont 1
"irginia 3
Washington O 3 1 1 1
'..'est Virginia
'Wisconsin 4 111 (3) 3
V.'yom in g 1
Guam 1
'"rust Territor â€™ o -r a
-- - > /-* â€¢ CD 4- (468+) 74 <-\ â–  â€¢ r" j / 0 *T -X 12 7 6 'Q â€” -V
s :;ji . , _ â€¢?.0 uCGS r.DC 73-, J. ' rea ts Caused by Hazardous ! Waterial Sites (Washington, D.C. t I960,?.XV.
c itat - or ^ of the number of sites in eac: i o x a o e, followed by the number ( in parenthesis)
tual â– .â– ells closed in the stace.
-ro â–  Mi civ owned zre atm ent words.

35
The hazards and external damages are:
(1) Groundwater / Water Supply (2) Habitat Destruction (3) Human Health (4) Soil Contamination (5) Fish Kills (6) POTWS or Sewers (7) other
1. Groundwater / Water Supply
This is one of the damages that have resulted in contamination of Water supplies and also to ground waters. The frequency of kinds of problems surveyed by the EPA under the National Priorities List Sites.

'1 â€™PVÂ«! â€¢ Â»Â» â€¢*^â€™9' Â«r Â»Â»
KINDS OF PROBLEMS
CW SW AIR
OOGlRVrb RELEASE
GW - GROUND WATER GW - SURFACE WATER
iâ€™ig. 1-8 Source: L'PA, Hazardous Waste Sites (National Priorities List), office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Washington, D.C., Aug 1983)

37
2. Habitat Destruction
These are cases where natural habitat is destroyed and rendered unfit for habitation or development, while the present inhabitant species are endangered.
3. Human Health
These are instances of actual human health damages such as respiratory difficulties and death. Endangerment sites are not included in this category.
4. Soil Contamination
The sites where the major consideration is the hazard presented by the presence of contamination soil are included in the category, although most sites have some level of soil contamination. These are the sites rendered unfit for any planning and development.
5. Fish Kills
o
These are cases of documented fish kills caused by the release of hazardous substances from a site.
6. POTWS or Sewers

3b
These are instances of chronic discharge of hazardous materials into sewer systems or to publicly owned treatment work (POTWS)
7. Other
These sites include damages to Crops or Wildlife, air pollution, fire or explosion hazardous, and abandoned sites.
o

39
1-8.0 ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL EFFECTS
In order to analyze the potential hazardous effects of wastes materials is to their impacts in the environment and on the living organisms in the ecosystem. There are three groups of hazardous wastes, these are (1) Immortal (2) Semi-Mortal and (3) Mortal.
1. Immortal
These are waste with their toxic qualities intrinsic to their elemental structure. These comprises of the heavy metals and other groups of chemicals example asbestos.
Generally, these are elements and compound whose toxicity is a function their physical structure, which for practical purposes, are indestructible. Some radioactive elements which are waste attain stable properties for a long period of time that they are identified as immortal waste. Example is Uranium and Plutonium.
2. Semi-Mortal
These are waste materials which form a group identified by their slow degraduation in unit time. Example is chlorinated hydrocarbons.
3. Mortal
This group is identified by their short-life properties They are generally reactive compound, very volatile and includes strong acids, bases and compounds like cyanides, which are rapidly destroyed by their fast chemical reactions.
The general effect impose is the risk to the ecosystem and itâ€˜s inhabitants. In America, the population at large is exposed due. to traces of hazardous wastes. It has medically been determined that virtually the vast majority of the American population carr' PCBS, lead and other toxic waste products and their means of pollution, that is to say how the chemicals get transferred to human. The transfer linkage is through air pollution, agriculture and food stuff contamination, and other means like direct use of consumer products. Most of the hazards of toxic chemicals affects the environment in a slow process and also it has not been easily determined as to instant death to human. But, high concentration of hazardous wastes that produces clusters of disease or other adverse affects have been relatively easier to detect. These include the adverse health affects of

4.0
cattle, in wildlife, domestic animals and human beings.
Most communities in the United States have experience explosion due to PCB contamination in public utility transformers. Generally, most disposal sites have undergone unexpected incidents and natural catastrophes which have exposed toxic chemicals to the neighborhood inhabitants.
The hazards of hazardous wastes stems from its production site via its transportation mechanism to its disposal sites either be it on-site disposal or off-site disposal.
Any minimal exposure causes a great deal of harm and hazard to the environment and public health. Some of these cases are as follows (l) Spillage (2) Evaporation (3) others which include ever-present possible incidents.
o

1-9.0 HAZARDOUS WASTES SITING REQUIREMENTS/REGULATIONS
41.
There are two types of siting requirements and regulations in respect to permits, design and operations requirements for hazardous waste sites.
1. The interim permit, design and operation of hazardous waste sites.
2. Final and permanent permit, design and operation of hazardous wastes sites.
3. Others, example transportation of Hazardous Waste. As alreoc mentioned there are five main types of hazardous wastes types, and others, i.e. Incinerators.
The siting requirements and regulations are reflected in the Federal Code of Regulations, (40 CFR 264 and 265) and where the state government has the status power to regulate hazardous waste, it is reflected in the state's regulation which is closely and indirectly monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency.

.nks
r O 4. 190
r-' A_ 191
4! 192
6 4. 193
4. 194
264.133-264.195 264.197 264.193
25a.199
264.200
rface Impounds 264.220
264.221
264.222
264.223-264.225
' 264.226
264.227
264.228
264.229
264.230
264.231
264.232-264.249
Ae: ulotions
Applicability.
Design of far As.
General operating reeuirerr.eras (Reserved)
Inspections.
(Reserved)
Closure.
Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste. Special reeuirerects for incompatible wastes.
Special requirements for hazardous wastes F020, 102',
2, zjc-o, .ru _â–  .
Appli cab ili ty.
Design and operating requirements .
Double-lined surface impoundments: Exemption from sub-
part ? ground-water protection requirements.
(Reserved)
Monitoring and inspection. Emergency repairs; conti-gency plans.
Closure and post-closure care. Special requirements for ignitable or reactive v/aste. Special requirements for incompatible wastes.
Special requirements for hazardous v/astes F02G, F021 F022, F023, F026, and F027. (Reserved)
9

Type of Site 3. Waste File .fed. Code of Regulations (40 CPR) 264.250 264.251 264.252 264.253
Q 264.254 264.255 264.256 264.257 264.258 264.259
4. land Treatment 264.260-264.269 264.270 264.271 264.272 264.273 264.274-264.275 264.276 264.277 264.278 264.279 264.280 264.281 264.282 264.283
264.284-264.285
Site
Requirements/
Regulations
Applicability
Design and operating requirements. Double-lined piles: Exemption from subpart F ground-water protection requirements.
Inspection of linersexemption from subpart P ground-water protection requirements.
Monitoring and inspection. (Reserved)
Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste.
Special requirements for incompatible wastes.
Closure and post-closure care. Special retirements for hazardous wastes F020, F021, ?022, F023, P026, and F027.
(Reserved)
Applicability.
Treatment program Treatment demonstration.
Design and operating retirements. (Reserved)
Pood-chain crops.
(Reserved)
Unsaturatea zone monitoring. Recordkeeping.
Closure and post-closure care. Special requirements fcr ignitable
or reactive waste.
Special requirements fcr incompatible wastes.
Special recuirements for hazardous wastes P020, F021, P022, FC23, PC26, and F027.
(Reserved)

-â€¢ype of Site 5t Landfills
Fed. Code of Regulations (40 CFR)
264.300
264.301
264.302
264.503
264.504-264.308
264.309
264.310
264.311
264.312
264.313
264.314
264.315
264.316
264.317
264.318-264.339
6. Incinerators 264.340
264.341
264.342
264.343
264.344
264.345 264.546 264.347
264.348-264.350
264.351
Source: Code of Federal Regulations (SPA)., 40-CFR
Site
Requirements
_________Regulations____________________
Applicability
Design and operating requirements. Double-lined landfills: exemption from subpart F ground-water protection requirements.
Monitoring and Inspection. (Reserved;
Surveying and recordkeeping.
Closure and post-closure care. (Reserved)
Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste.
Special requirements for icompat-ible wastes.
Special requirements for bulk and containerized lieu ids.
Special requirements for containers Disposal of small containers of hazardous waste in overpacked drums (lab packs).
Special reculrements for hazardous wastes F02C, F021, F022, F023, F026 and F027.
(Reserved)
Applicability, haste Analysis
Principal organic hazardous constituents (PCHCs).
Performance standards
Hazardous waste incinerator permits
Operating requirements.
(Reserved)
Monitoring and inspections. (Reserved)
Closure.
264. 1985

45
1-10.0 NEED FOR BETTER HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
A better management of hazardous wastes lays in the hands of Legislation, efficient regulation/enforcement, and a more efficient administration.
Legislation
Since 1979, Congress has been debating on how to deal for hazardous waste in terms of financial resources to clean-up. Since the Muskie-Culver bill was passed, the problem has been inadequate funds authorized by congress for clean-up.
Efficient Regulation/Enforcement
The EPA and State governments should set up a more stricter laws, and the state government should have a more powerful tools to stop or even apprehend the illegal dumping of hazardous waste. The local governments has to work closely in hand with the state government and the EPA to enforce hazardous waste laws.
o
1. At the federal level (EPA), increase in number of personnel in waste management department is needed.

46
2. At the state level, the decision making process has to eradicate putting much weight on economics and weigh more on public health, environmental consequences of short and long-term effects.
3. The state and federal governments (EPA) has to work closely than they are presently doing.
4. Local or Municipal planning offices has to incorporate to their staff, environmental planners to deal and work closely with the state and federal governments (EPA) in the management of hazardous waste and not in the hands of public works department, or other department who do not have experts in the field.
5. All the above governments (state, local, and federal) should incorporate into the prospective offices expertise with combination of physical science background and urban planning to effectively manage hazardous waste.
o

CHAPTER TWO
-CASE STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES SITES IN COLORADO

^7
2-1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION OF LOWRY LANDFILL
The Lowry Landfill is located in Aurora and in the Arapahoe County and covers 250 acres. The site is specifically located near Quincy Avenue and State Highway 30, which is also known as the Gun Club Road. The site is approximately 16 miles Southeast of Denver, Colorado. The site comprises of part of Section 6, and part of Section 32.
The Lowry landfill contains various solid waste materials which includes active sanitary landfill that receives household garbage, construction material, the other state waste is hazardous waste which is termed co-disposal because of the uncontrolled depositing of both fluid wastes and solid wastes.
Wastes included alkaline, acid sludge, caustics, pesticides, industrial solvents, radioactive (Uranium Ore and medical) and sewage sludge deposited in trenches.
The results of this is groundwater and soil contamination of organic chemicals and some inorganic chemicals the major organic contaminants include phenols, monocyclic Aromatics, chlorinated aliphatics, and ketons.
o

kb
2-1.1 SOIL PROFILE
The soil formation is classified as the Dawson Formation, which is a series of claystones, siltstones, beneath the dawson formation is underlain by a series of claystones, siltstones, coals, and sandstons known as the Denver Formation.
2-1.2 ELEVATION
The land surface elevation at the site ranges from 5850 feet (mean sea level (MSL) datum) on the South to 5690 on the North.
2-1.3 SURFACE WATER
Located to the east of the landfill is the Murphy Creek to which a stream tributary on the site drains. The Murphy Creek flows to the north and then to Coal Creek, and finally flows into Sand Creek, which drains into the South Platte River.
o

49
2-2.0 HISTORY OF LOWRY LANDFILL
The site was initially owned by the U.S. Government. In 1966, the City and County of Denver took over ownership of the property and begun operating a municipal and industrial sanitary Landfill in part of Section 6. T5s, R65W. Wastes disposed at the facility were liquid and solid wastes in pits and radioactive wastes in trenches. The disposal of domestics sewage sludge were deposited in Section 31 and 31, T4S, R65W and Section 4 and 9, T5S, R65W. A large number of rubber tires have been deposited, and they cover most of the onsite disposal area. There are about 10 million rubber tires deposited on parts of Section 6.
The disposal practices on the landfill included co-disposal and hazardous wastes in excavated pits which were not lined causing Leachate in the groundwater.
The configuration of these pits range from 15 to 35 feet deep and vary in widths and lengths. The trenches extends to 30 feet in depth and were filled one-half to three-quarters with liquids wastes and then filled with refuse to absorb the liquids. The operations of the trenches brought about the spillage of liquids from the low point of the trench when refuse filling operations were carried out. The operations of the
o
landfill since 1966 shows no records of types of liquid waste deposited on the site. Generally, the categories of waste disposed at the site were known, these includes acid and alkaline sludges; Caustics and solids; plating wastes; brines and other organic compounds; water base sludges; and synthetic

50
including petroleum-based oils, grease and chlorinated solvents and sludges water oils, pesticides wastes and radioactive wastes. In 1977, Shell Chemical Company entered an agreement with the City and County of Denver allowing them to construct three brine evaporation ponds in Section 31. This began the operation of a salt bring wastes from Shell Manufacturing operations. The materials from the shell's operations at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal were placed and deposited on the site.
The operations two of the ponds continued till 1982, with the third pond remaining inactive.
Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1977 near the Lowry Landfill may have initiated the treatment and control of odors from the evaporation of liquids from the ponds. The brine are treated with hydrogen peroxide to central the odors.
In 1980, the ownership of the Landfill changed hands, the Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) took over control from the City and County of Denver in Section 6, 31, and 32. Colorado Disposal Inc. (CDI) and Chemical Waste Management (CWM) both subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. were responsible for the operations of the municipal sewage landfill in Section 6 and also the hazardous waste disposal deposit site in part of Section 31 and 32 respectively.
eÂ»
The major activities of Section 6 presently has been reduced to only municipal refuse disposal and deposits. In 1980, Chemical Waste Management expanded the facility operation by construction a hazardous waste disposal facility, in parts of Section 31 and 32 respectively. The operations mechanisms was

51
mainly burial cells in which drums containing hazardous wastes materials were buried. The hazardous substances were generally solid state and liquid state wastes. A layer of compacted clay lined the cell and fly ash "choke material" was used to cover drums as they were placed in the cell. In 1982, the facility was closed, due to problems with potential offsite contamination and water entering the cell led to a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that CWM had failed to obtain approval from the Arapahoe County Commissioners.
Sludge deposition was operated in Sections 4, 9, 6, and 31 by the Metropolitan Denver Sewage disposal District. The deposition of sewage sludge includes injection into the soil to a depth of about 24 inches by equipment similar to farm equipment.
Since the middle of 1980, various studies have ben done on the extent of contamination and the fate of the environment.
The studies concluded that there is contamination of alluvial and upper bedrock groundwater that appears to be migrating from the Landfill, mainly from parts of Section 6. The studies also concludes that there are nine compounds in concentrations greater than 1000 parts per billion. Other conclusions drawn indicates that there is partially no measurable volatile organics, indicating that contamination may have not yet crossed the site
o
boundary.

Table
YEAR
*1966
*1977
*1980
* Tune *1981
2-1 LOWRY LANDFILL HISTORICAL - SUMMARY CHART
Disposal Operation
Liquid & Solid industrial wastes and low-level radioactive wastes in excavated pits and trenches.
Salt Brine evaporation Pond
Sludges, Municipal sewage and burial cell.
1980
Activities on Landfill
*The City and County of Denver began operating a municipal and industrial sanitary landfill in Section 6, T53, R65W after acquisition of the property from the U.S. Government. Deposition of Vehical tires was a normal practice.
*Under an agreement with the City and County of Denver, Shell Chemical Company started operations in the northeast portion of Section 31. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study of the groundwater quality near the Lowry Landfill and concluded that the disposal activities a the site were polluting shallows alliuvial and upper bedrock ground-water in the area.
*Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) assumed control over the City and County of Denver's waste disposal operations in Sections 6, , and 32.
Colorado Disposal Inc. an<3 chemical waste Management a subsidiaries of waste management, inc, operated the municipal landfill in section 6 and the hazardous waste disposal site in section 31 and 32 respectively.
investigations and sampling from wells detected alluvial and upper bedrock groundwater contamination that appears to be migrating from landfill area Section 6, to the north and west.
*'Waste Management, Inc. conducted a study to ass the nature, extent, and danger of the mal odor problem.

LOWRY LANDFILL HISTORICAL
SUMMARY CHART
YEAR Disposal Operation Activities on Landfill
*1982 *Golder Association performed a geotechnical
and hydrogeologic studies. Studies concluded that groundwater containment by clay compact walls could be feasible in the upper alluvial and shallows bedrock aquifers.
*1983 ^Colorado Disposal Inc. Applied for a permit
with the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, to construct an active gas venting and flare system at the site.
EPA added Lowry Landfill to the superfund hazardous 0 waste cleanup list.
*1984 *EPA issued an Administrative order on (Dockett No.
CERCLA VIII-83-O6) requiring the city of Denver to construct operate a groundwater containment system.

LEGEND
>. ) ,'id ((
v i * i f i
- V- ^4
â€¢ \ * â€œ,.\ i wi,n
. .-4^
,;Â»s^mLpQÂ£^
of# LOGARITHM OF SUM OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (EXCEPT METHYLBME CHLORIDE). IN MICRO-GRAMS PER LITER OCTOBER 1983
INTERPRETED AREA HAVING ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAMINATION IN UPPER AQUIFER
SOURCE:
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 FROM U S'G S COAL CHEEK QUAD
2-2
Preliminary Total Organic Pollutant Contamination of Upper Aquifer. October, 1983
CHaM - HIIi/ECOLOGy 4 envir
ONMEN'71

TTfca in

56
PRESENT SITE CONDITION
2-6 Site Activities
As a result of an estimated 100 million gallons of Liquid Chemical Wastes, including chlorinated solvents and oily wastes and municipal refuse which were disposed in unlined trenches excavated into surface soils and bedrock. This has presently brought about minimal dumping of waste and has lead to research into contamination and clean-up. Monitoring data collected by EPA, the state indicated that volatile organic compounds including benzene, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and chloroform have migrated from trenches into shallow and bedrock groundwater.
At present, EPA is planning a remedial investigation and feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action.
Landfill
Presently, the landfill is inactive and the City and
o
County of Denver have installed a clay barrier to catch water which is then filtered through activated carbon to remove contaminants. This was pursuant to an Administrative Order on consent under CERCLA 1.06 (superfund) issued in 1984.
The landfill has been added to the EPA's superfund to

57-
help pay for the cleanup of hazardous wastes sites. Approximately 230 potential responsible parties identified from landfill records who would be responsible for cleanup based on materials sent to section 6. The below schedule is expected:

5&
Table 2-2
Scope of work Site Survey and Map Geophysical Survey (locations, containment plumes monitoring wells)
Well Samplings Risk Assessment
Completion September, 1984
January, 1985
February, 1985
July, 1985
June, 1986
Remedial Report, Draft Remedial Report, Final Feasibility study and
June, 1986
January, 1987
September, 1986
Conceptual Design of Recommended Alternative (i.e. what is needed to conduct clean up will be known)
Begin Construction of Remedial February, 1987 Structures
Completion of Clean Up, "Cap 1992 (?) and Dedicate" Site
If Drilling work for the Geophysical survey identifies large fluid bodies that might be pumped as a remedy the clean up process can be accelerated. Remedies could include filtering material through activated carbon, placement of materials in drums if

59
they are toxic, deposit of materials on site and/or removal of materials of materials to some other location such as the proposed last chance disposal site.
Brine Ponds
There is presently evaporation of two of the three ponds and it is expected to continue till the end of 1986. The remainder of the liquids in the ponds are set for cleanup. This is underway and the liquids is being treated by solidification or removal. Finally, the site could then be covered.
Presently, the monitoring wells for the ponds have remained dry indicating no offsite moving of material. The brine would be treated with hydrogen peroxide to control odors which had been a source of complaints up to eight miles away.
Drum Burial Cell
Plans are being made to remove all the drums and ship material to an out of state location.

LEGEND
SUSPECTED WASTE Pi"
I LANDFILL AREA, 1975
SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY EfUNE POND
CHEMICAL WASTE â€”^MANAGEMENT INC., FACILITIES
S5KJ33J GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
[SOURCE!
COLDER &Â£Â«OCIATES, 1MJ
. com. itrt
WOOOWAAO-CLVOC COHlUt-TAMTt. 1MM1 BUTTON. !M4 ERTIC, INI
tÂ«a SOURCE: U.S.G.S. Coal creek Road
CH2M - Hill/Ecology & Environ- | ments I
CONTOUR INTERVAL TO FEET
Fig. ?

62
2-2.3 EXTERNAL IMPACTS
The major impacts the landfill has generated is the air quality and the groundwater. The problem associated with the groundwater is due to the toxic hazardous materials placed in section 6 and the spread of these materials through groundwater
movement.
The air quality has been affected up to eight miles away. This is due the Shell Company brine ponds from which the evaporation of liquids is causing air borne gases odors pollution.
Groundwater
The Lowry Landfill groundwater has been contaminated with varying concentrations of organic compounds between 1983 and 1984. The contamination is most apparent in areas adjacent and close to the unnamed intermittent stream draining section 6 and adjacent to the waste pits.
The groundwater has been contaminated with substances such as phenols, monocyclic aromatics, chlorinated aliphatics, and ketones. In Section 6, and 31, the upper region has organic contamination.
o
Air Quality
Residents adjacent to the landfill have been complaining to the County and State health departments that odors from the

Lowry Landfill wastes disposal operations are causing air pollution in the form of detectable odors in and around residential homes. Investigation conducted on the upwind and downwind from the landfill concludes that compounds of different constituents were detected at the downwinds. There was no compounds detected at the upwinds.

64
2-2.4 FUTURE IMPACTS
Future impacts is difficult to analyze because one cannot conclude what and how efficient the cleanup and remedial action would yield. But one may conclude that there is a short term future impacts.
Short Term Impacts
One could conclude that during the cleanup process the following could be weighed as a major impact to the surroundings;
1. Fire outbreak
2. Explosions
3. Emission of Toxic gas (odors)
4. Spillage causing leaching to under-groundwater.
Long Term Impacts
The long term effects/impacts from the lowry landfill is development restrictions as to land-use. This is a controversial situations, because modern day technology and "land-use/development as to a feasible, safe and health environment as v/hat is affected the most.

65
2-2.5 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL
The surrounding of the Landfill area was zoned Non-Urban Agricultural. The Aurora comprehensive plan state long term objectives as to land uses and also annexation. Although the comprehensive plans mentions a number of objectives to bring about a safe environment, it failed to take a careful look at long range impacts on the lands which it may incorporate in the future and also the impacts of facilities like landfills.
The past zoning was generally due to the uninhabitance of the area and also the likely-hood for not going to be inhibited for a long, but unfortunately it did no occur as viewed by the past planner as an area to be inhibited by citizens.
Present Zoning
The zoning at present remains the same with farming practices occurring scarcely and scattered.
The area at present is non-urban agricultural, and not
officially zoned.

66
2-2.6 SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL
Presently, the land use design around the landfill is basically nonresidential. The only immediate residence is to the north of the landfill in section 7, which is a single family house (ranch house). The other immediate house is to the southeast close to state highway 30 is section 25.
To the northeast is Arapahoe fairgrounds. To the west is the Denver Sludge Disposal. To the east is the plains Conservation Center.
Further away at the intersection of smoky Hill Road and Gun Club road, is a partially dense residential, which encomprises of about four ranch/farm houses.
o

YOSEMITE ST
POTOMAC ST
CHAMBERS RO
BOOKLET RO
TOWER RO
GUN CLUB RO
HARVEST RO
POWMATON RO
HAYE5MOUNT RO

68
Future Land Use
There has been a number of Land Use proposals around the Lowry Landfill. This is shown on the map.
This development proposals are pending. The delay is due solely because planning and health officials want to insure that the area is totally clean-up and present no environmental hazard to the Community and its citizens.
o

I'iXt U.-J. I!
i
Ownership boundary ..... 7one lot boundary Pnva,e Â°Pen space
All public land uses and open spaces are conceptual in nature Exact locutions are aub/ect to platting and site plan review.
The location ot State Hwy 30 is schematic only and subject to revision to coniorm to the City's Master Transportation Plan
ZONING AND LAND USE PLAN
Mom/eenvict
c-o
OfMLf/awtiNIM
MS
â–ºuswc o*r>ic*rioH
run Hr'*-
Soâ€™>0 01 8>l* *â–º* 9â€˜alion
DU ACRES DU/AC %
VICINITY MAP
Revised -Arty 8, 1085
t ?Â«
14 S2
2COO
u oo
>10411 75 #Â»
?Â«t 30 IS 77 I'll IMI IMS* 141 99 It* 0Â«
*77 04
I *0 00
TOTAL DU AND ACRES: 6570 1183.74

Coni'*' B>uoÂ»no A'**
Gun Club Partnership
'll
The Bill L. Walters Companies
Land Development Division
l'tÂ»''Â»\) CoeuiM
Ob
v_
Kng & Associates, Inc.
Owvw Con Mo 80206 â€˜â€œKT/"?â€”
0031-303 3834

(1) Dot-Sal (test (P)
(2) Dot-Sal East < P >
(3) Craig Trust 1 (P>
(4) Quail ftit(P)
(5) Airpark (P)
(6) tfsiled Eank(P)
(7) Eastern Hills(P)
(8) Canyon Assoc.(P)
(9) Senac (AlpertKP)
(10) Tr*iRBr|((P)
(11) Quincy(P)
(12) Calvin Quick (?)
(13) The Villas (P>
(14) freer Valley Ranch East(F)
(15) Century 21 (P)
(16) Craig South(P)
(17) teifer/Cavey
Jewell north and South (P
(18) (to Club Assoc. (P)
(19) Saith(P)
(20) Stage (to (?)
(21) Hiller (P)
(22) Hafer/Cavey
9un Clii> Estates (P)
(23) Viehwm/tertin (E)
(24) Sternterg/tegan (E)
(25) Aurora tAellfields < E)
(26) Crow land (E)
(27) Aurora Landfill (E)
(28) Southeast Plata (E)
(29) Halters Galleria (E) (CCSO)
(*! Little Budurco (E)
(31) Senac Reservoir (E)
(32) Behrens (P)
ONE MILS

71
2-2.7 ANALYSIS OF RATIONALE BY PLANNER FOR THE LOWRY LANDFILL LOCATION
The reasons behind locating Lowry Landfill at it's present location is as follows:
1. The need to dispose Waste generated by industries at a location far from the Community's residential areas.
2. Site was non-urban agricultural, and no land-use existed.
3. There was no negative short term effects.
Planners rationale at the time was that the location was feasible because of its remoteness and growth of the City would take a long time to expand to the vicinity of the landfill. Utilizing the comprehensive plan, that weigh much on economic development in terms of allocating industries who would need a landfill to dispose their wastes, but what the planners failed to take into consideration was; what would be the long-term effects and impacts to the health, safety and development of natural resources around the landfill.
o

72
2-2.8 MAJOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Management Issues
In this case, the city wants to find solution to land use for areas adjacent to waste disposal sites (Lowry Landfill). The principal issues are:
1. What are and what should the adjacent land use policies and guidelines be for land use development.
2. What is or would be the most adequate clean-up procedures.
3. What is the present level of contamination and also
what is the extent of impacts/permanent damage to the ecosystem
4. Where is the exposure of the hazardous wastes originating from specific areas of the landfill.
5. Who should bear responsibility as a leading
authority in mitigation process; should it be Aurora, Arapahoe County, City and County of Denver, the Tri-county health department or the E.P.A.?
Other Issues
1. Should the landfill be closed totally and refrain from any other landfill practices?
2. Should the landfill remain operational, and cleanup the hazardous chemical substances.
3. Should the adjacent land-use be restricted totally to light - heavy Industrial Activities?

73
2-2.9 SITE DESCRIPTION LYONS LANDFILL
The Lyons Landfill is located 25 miles of Colorado Highway 66 and 53rd Street at the head of Dowe Flats. The site is located in the upper end of a drainage basin formed by mountains located to the east and wast. To the West is the Indian Mountain; to the east Rabbit Mountain. To the north is Dowe Pass; to the South is Dowe Flats. (refer to figure 2-6).
o

?4
2-3.0 SITE HISTORY
The site has been remote and underdeveloped till 1962, when Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. conducted a geological evaluation of the site through Electronic Geophysics, Inc. Based on the studies, Arapahoe Chemicals purchased ten-acre tract of land in April, 1964. This began the Lyons Landfill disposal operations. In 1970, St. Vrain Canal was built to within 0.5 miles of the south boundary of the ten-acre site.
During the same period a causeway was constructed to carry heavy runoff from an unnamed intermittent stream which crosses the St. Vrain Canal. The Boulder County Planning Commission during the same year approved the development of the Indian Mountain Subdivision. There are several residential homes present to the north and northwest of the landfill site.
o

76
2-3.1 SITE DESIGN
Disposal of waste occurred at the site in different location within the landfill area. There are two major trenches excavated about 15 feet below the ground surface where majority of the waste disposal practices occurred.
The two trenches are oriental in a north south direction with one trench located adjacent to the western boundary (upper trench) and the other trench located about midway between the eastern and western site boundaries (lower trench).
The different types of waste deposited and disposed consist predominantly of sludges, solids, and liquids. These were placed in the trenches. There are also few pits about three in number which some waste was also disposed. The three small pits are located east of the lower trench and spread on the ground surface between the upper and lower trenches. See site design map. Unfortunately, limited information on the activities, types and quantities of wastes placed in the trenches are not available.
In 1980, Arapahoe Chemical, Inc. purchased an additional 96 acres of land adjacent to the ten-acres. The landfill was operated from 1964 through 1976. The wastes deposited was at the original ten-acre site in two trenches about 15 feet deep.
o
The additional 96 acres was intended to afford a significant buffer. The waste consisted of liquids, solids, and sludges.
The ownership changed name from Arapahoe Chemical Inc. to Syntex Chemical, Inc.
In July 1980, surface see page was observed, this lead

71
to the construction of groundwater interceptor trench and surface water diversions to isolate the landfill. This was generally initiated by Robert and Kathleen Moulton in March 1980, when they submitted a water well sample to a private lab to analyze for offensive odors. The Moulton's own a property within one-half mile southeast of the landfill. The laboratory report concluded that 0.063 mg/c toluene and traces of xylene were found in the sample. The Colorado Department of Health conducted a sample test and the results were a 6.6 pp6 diethyl ether and 3.0 ppb toluene.
o

\

C\i
t:

Topography of Site
The site area is sloping at about 10% to the southeast. The surface groundwater is crossed by several small surface drainage channels in the middle and eastern sector of the site. The elevation of the ground surface varies from about 5,760 to 5,600 feet.
Soil Profil
The soil profil indicates a cretaceous age sedimentary bedrock units which have folded and faulted extensively. Geological units consist of unconsolidated sediments of colluvial and alluvial soils about 5 to 35 feet thick which exist together with thick deposits occurring on the east side of the site, Underneath the surficial deposits is the Benton formation, which is a thick black shale unit. The Dakota group underlies the Benton at a depth of 100 to 300 feet. The constituent of the Dakota group is made up of several thick sandstone units and inter-bedded shales structurally, the site is located along the axis of a syncline which plunges or dips to
o
the south.
Groundwater
Groundwater can be traced in the surficial materials and

81
weathered Benton Shale. In the Dakota group sandstone units in the site groundwater is traced. Recharge for this shallow groundwater in the Benton Shale is primarily from surface runoff and this flows to the south. In regards to the Dakota group sandstones units recharge of the deep aquifer is primarily from outcrops of the units on the topographically higher areas around the site. Flow is generally to the south.
Site Activities
The limited information obtained indicates that wastes were placed in drums and deposited in the landfill. Some of the wastes were placed without containers, such as liquids. These free liquids were placed in the lower trench only. Drums were dumped into the trenches resulting in a chemical reaction of different chemicals because of random mixture of different drums. Finally, the deposits were covered with soil.
o

82

2-3.3 EXTERNAL IMPACTS OF LYONS LANDFILL
Background
In 1972, groundwater geologist Richard Pearl of the Colorado Geological Survey conducted a study on the geological condition of Lyons Landfill. In a conclusion report, he emphasized on the potential for escape of the liquid chemical wastes from the burial cell into the alluvium via the buried channel. Syntex Company then hired IT CORP to study the site, small amounts of organic contaminants were detected to be leaking from the dump two miles northeast of Lyons Chemical wastes discovered in to the test wells within 600 feet of the landfill were Toluene, benzene, tetrahydrofuran, diethyl, ether an styrene all measured in parts per million.
The former landfill cells at the northern end of the Syntex property have movements of contaminants in the groundwater moving in a southeasterly direction. This was confirmed through a ground water test.
Presently, the impacts of the Lyons Landfill to surrounding areas are as follow:
1. Undergroundwater contamination.
2. Migration of contamination
3. Leaking of hazardous wastes into drinking wells.

83
Future Impacts
Future impacts cannot be analyzed now, but likely future impacts could be generated depending heavily on the extent and efficiency in the cleanup process. One could classify the impacts into two categories.
1. short-term future impacts.
2. long-term future impacts.
Short Term Future Impacts
Short term future impacts is based on the cleanup of the landfill. The impacts includes the following:
1. Fire: May occur during cleanup process/operations
in respect to ignition of volatile organic compounds like benzene.
2. Explosion: May occur if high precautions are not taken in case of spillage, etc.
3. Odors: Removal of wastes from site may emit
gases which would cause air pollution and other forms of pollution.
Long Term Future Impacts
Long term future impacts are based on future issues concerning the landfill. .These are as follows:
1. Land use issues concerning land development of the Dowe Flats area and around the Lyons Landfill.
2. Water use issues concerning how safe and healthy to put a reservoir in the Dowe Flats Area.
3. The fate of St. Vrain Canal. Would it be a health

84
hazard? And how could the natural resources be utilized witho< fear? âœ“

85
ig. 2-8
Map shows well riles whore contaminated groundwater found
...at nas'.ive landfill site northeast of Lyons

86
2-3.4 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LANDFILL ZONING
The zoning of the surrounding area and the landfill has been revised. This was adopted an December 17, 1985. Prior to this revision, the zoning was non-urban and agricultural.
Presently, the area is an un-incorporated Boulder County and it is basically Agricultural with suburban residential areas to the north and northwest of the landfill site. The indian Mountain subdivision to the north is basically single family residential and was approved by the Boulder County Planning Commission in 1970. To the east of the landfill in section 5 is scattered residential houses. To the South is section 8, section 9 and section 16 is all vacant lands.
Proposed Development
There have been several proposal for land use development in the Dowe Flats Area. These have been discouraged by health officials and different active parties associated with the landfill.
On the next page is a map showing the latest land use proposal.
o

87
Below is a map
showing the latestland use
proposal.
Fig. 2-1
Map shows latest proposed development below Syntex Chemicals landfill northeast of Lyons
...development In the Dowe Flats area has been discouranÂ»rt hv *>â€¢â€¢Â»*>>
a
o

88
2-3.5 ANALYSIS OF PLANNERS RATIONALE BEHIND LYONS LANDFILL LOCATION
The location of Lyons landfill was heavily based
on two factors:
1. A master degree thesis on the "Structural \geology of Rabbit Mountain Dowe Pass Area".
2. The remoteness of the site.
In 1962, Arapahoe Chemicals Inc. (ACI) sort the
assistance of Dr. Walker to locate and perform a feasibility studies for a landfill site. With the studies performed by C.D. Master on "Structural Geology of the Rabbit Mountain Dowe Pass Area" for his master's degree.the Lyons landfill was viewed as an ideal location.
With this conclusive results from the above studies, the planners at that time weigh more, on the remoteness of the site and concluded that it was appropriate and feasible and bears no Public health, safety and environmental problem to the community.
0

2-3.6 MAJOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
S9
Present Issues
Presently, the major issue is recovery of the natural environment of the landfill, in order to recover and bring back the natural State of the ecosystem, and in turn bring about utilization of the natural resources for the benefit of City and its citizens without fear or safety and environment hazards.
Issues
1. Land use concerning the development of the Dowe Flats Area.
2. Water use issues concerning putting a reservoir in the Dowe Flats Area.
3. Longmont and Lyons future expansion to the Landfill.
4. Utilization and development of St. Vrain Canal.
5. Who should clean-up, should Syntex Corp. be solely responsible or should the Colorado department of Health (Waste Management Division) assist Syntex Corp. at this present time, since attempts by Syntex to control plume have not worked.
6. Proactive response deal with the site now.
A. By cleaning up all hazardous wastes materials and closing the landfill.
B. By cleaning up the hazardous wastes materials and monitoring the disposal practices to avoid off-site impacts.

CHAPTER THREE
HYPOTHESIS OF AND IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING

90
3-1.0 INTRODUCTION
The problem associated with hazardous waste and urban planning is that there is no theory and or standards in the planning profession to deal with directly in this issue. Ultimately, something must be done with the hazardous wastes sites that have a great deal of impact to the land use around it's vicinity. One may say that, the effect of a hazardous waste site would be a long-term effect, because of it's location, which is usually located at a remote, non-urban area. But, the issue presently is that, as population grows, the utilization of the natural resource increases and therefore an ultimate increase in land development to cater for the total population growth. This leads us to utilizing the natural resources close to the hazardous waste sites.
City Growth
Land development/utilization Fig. 3-1
o
The problem that arises is that, there is no theoretical land-use policies and urban planning framework presently available to deal with this situation. Seldom have the American people , that is to say citizen groups, neighborhood organization and non-profit organizations been so united in their determination to

Full Text

PAGE 2

DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL LAND USES AROUND HAZARDOUS W AST E SITES. A THESIS SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING GRADUATE PROGRAM OF URBAN/COMMUNITY PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUBMITTED BY PETER A . SAM AUGUST 1986 ACCEPTED: Ci1;J / Dean of ' /t??. 0 Date 1 Faculty

PAGE 3

TABLE Of_CONTENTS Preface ................ ........................ . . ................. 2 Introduction ............. ....... . ........... ....... . ....... . " .... . 5 CHAPTE R ONE: H ISTORY AND PRESENT PRACTICES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN AMERICA. 1-1.0 Historical D e velopment ..... . . . ................... . ........ 9 1-1.1 Disposal Pra ctices .... . . .......................... . . ...... 10 1-1.2 Legislation and Government Agencies . ...............â€¢.... . . lJ 1-2.0 System of Control/Regulations of Hazardous Waste ... ........ 17 1-2.1 Federa 1 Regulatio n . .... . . . . ....... ...... ......... . ....... . 1 7 1-2. 2 State Regulation ............. w â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ 18 1-2. 3 Local Re gulation .................. .... ...... ... ... ..... . . . 18 l-3 Generation of Hazardous Wastes Facilities ....... .. ..... ... 20 1-4 Sources of Hazardous Wastes ............................... 22 l-5 Types of Site ......... ... ............. .................... 28 1-6 Method o f Disposa1 . ........ ............. . ................. 2 9 1-7 External effects of Hazardous W aste sites .......... .â€¢â€¢... . J2 l-8 A nalysis o f External Affects ...â€¢...... .......... ... ... .... J4 1-9 Hazardous Waste Siting RequirementsjRegulation s . ...â€¢. ..... 41 1 -10 Need f o r better Hazardous Waste Management .... ..... . . .... . 45 CHAPTER TWO: CASE STUDY O F HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES IN COLORADO. 2-1.0 (I Lowry Landfill ........ . ...... . ... .. ... 47 Site D e scription of 2-1.1 Soil Profil . . . .................................. . .... . .... 48 2-1.2 Elevation ...... ...... ...................... ............ . . . 48 2 -1.3 Surface Water . . .. ............................... . ......... 48 2-2.0 H istory of L owry Landfill . .............. â€¢ ....... . .... . . â€¢ . . 49

PAGE 4

2-2.1 2-2.2 2-2.3 2-2.4 2 -2.5 2-2.6 2-2.7 2-2.8 2-2.9 2-3.0 2 3.1 2-3.2 2 -3.3 2-3.4 2-3.5 2-3.6 P resent Site Con diti o n of L o wry Landfill .............. .... 56 Site Activities . ........ ........................... ... .... 56 E xternal Imp acts ............ .......... ........... ........ 62 Future I 1npact s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Zoning and Subdivi s i o n Design Around Lowry Landfill. 65 Past and Present Zoning I Lan d Use ......... â€¢ . ............ 65 66 Subdivision Design A round Lowry Landfil l . ......â€¢..... â€¢... Analysis o f R ationale by Planner for the Lowry Landfill . .................. . .............................. 71 Major Issues to be resolved (Lowry Landfill) 72 Site Description of Lyons Landfill ........ â€¢.... .......... 73 Site History (Ly ons Landfill) ............................ 74 Site D esign (Lyons Landfill) . . â€¢â€¢....... â€¢..â€¢.... . â€¢ â€¢ . â€¢ â€¢ .â€¢â€¢. 7 6 External Impacts of Lyons Landfill ....................... 82 Zoning & Subdivision design Around Lyons Landfill . . . ..... 8 6 Analysis o f Planners Rationale behind Lyons Land-fill location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Maj o r Issues to be resolved ................â€¢. ............ 89 CHAPTER THREE: HYPOTH ESIS OF AND IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS. 3-1.0 Int roduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 3-2. 0 Needed functions of Land U s e P lanning around Hazardous Waste Sites .............................................. . 9 4 3-3. 0 Factors to be considered in zoning a Hazardous Waste Site .......................... ......... . ............ ..... 95 3-4.0 Need ed Authority and Leg islation f o r effective/effici e n t

PAGE 5

Hazardous Waste Site Planning .... . . ................. ..... 101 3-5.0 Evaluating Hazardous Waste Site Proposals ......â€¢....â€¢â€¢... 104 3-6.0 Needed Budge t . ......... .... ....................â€¢..â€¢.â€¢.... 1 07 3-7.0 Needed Personnel & Expertise . . . ..............â€¢........... 11 J 3-8.0 Administrativ e Structure .....â€¢..................â€¢....â€¢... 117 3-9. 0 Decision Making Process ....â€¢.............â€¢ .â€¢... ........â€¢ . 1 2 1 CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT USING THE IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS AS A REMEDIAL ACTION FOR LOWRY AND LYONS LANDFILLS. 4-1.0 4-2.0 4-3.0 4-3.1 4-3. 2 4-4.0 4-4.1 4-4.2 5-1.0 Introduction ............................................ 124 Important Consideration in Using the ideal hazardous Waste planning process the major issues concerning Land development around landfills .......â€¢..â€¢â€¢....â€¢...â€¢â€¢.. 126 Remedial action using the framework of the ideal Hazardous Waste Planning process for development around Lowr y Landfill ....â€¢.â€¢.....â€¢â€¢......â€¢â€¢.....â€¢..â€¢.... }27 Zoning ordinance for development around Lowry Landfill ....... .......... ; ............ . .................. l J l Proposed guidelines for zoning and land-use development around Lowry Landfill ........ ; .......â€¢â€¢....â€¢â€¢ lJJ Remedial action u sing the framework of the ideal Waste Planning Process for development around Lyons Land f i 11 . . . . ...................................... 1 3 5 Zoning ordinance for development aroun d Lyons Landfill ................................................. 13 8 Propose d guidelines for zoning and land-use development around Lyo n s Landfill ..........â€¢.....â€¢....â€¢.. 13 8 140 EXECUTIVE SUMM.ARY .....â€¢â€¢â€¢....â€¢.â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢......â€¢..â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢

PAGE 6

APPENDICES . . . ...... . REFERENCES ...... ... . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 1 146

PAGE 7

2 PREFACE Hazardous waste planning and mana gemen t i s virtually a new field e eluting Urban/Commu nity planning. This new area of Urban P l anning is concerned with the generation, onsite storage, collection, transfer and transportation, and the disposal of the hazards from a technological society. The problem associated with hazardous wastes planning were virtually unknown a few years ago. In recen t years it has been a major citizen public concern and also a problem in the urban planning profession. The problems are associated with planning sites and minimizing environmental hazards. Long term effects and preservation of our natural habitat is the major questio n the planner has little answers for. A s man advances in technology and increases its industrial activities, mankind faces the problems of disposal of waste, by-products which consists of hazardous waste. This t u rns into a circle of activities, .and at the end of the circle, mankind is caught up in an unsafe, unhealthy and unrestorable ecosystem. The problem of hazardous waste has never been as serious a pro blem as presentl y , yet the problem is on the rise and growing In the field of planning profession, the major problems are utilization of land around hazardous wastes 0 sites, the effect of public health a n d safety caused by hazardous waste, the unavailability of land use categories and guideline s for evaluating development proposals around the hazardous waste sites, finally guidelines for planning sites which is u nknown in the planning profession. What, where, when

PAGE 8

3 and how are the major questions at stake. The production of hazardous waste since World War I I has virtually increased from one billion po nds annually to more than 300 billion pounds annually. One should realiz e that this is proportional to Industrial Chemical Prod ction. One might think that civilization has lead us all to lose a sense of the future. Technology in modern s ociety have lead us to pillage d the past and pawned the future. It has also lead us to believe i n mass production, easy and fast production and mas sive damage/effects to our ecosystem, health and our welfare. Presently, Americ a n people are yearning for h elp and demanding the Federal, State, and local government to do something about hazardous waste. This situation has lead to the evolution of Superfun d for cle ning up toxic sites, the initiation of E. P . A . (Environmental Protection Agency) and a number of othe r legislations. In respect to the goals/objectives of planning profession, nothing has been done. Maybe one may conclude that, p lanners w ork for the political figures, so they may face problems o f fully utilizing their expertise to attain the goal and objectives of the profession. On the other hand one may say (I support) that since thi s is a new area in planning the planning profession needs special qualify planners to function effectively in this prospective. On the other hand one may say that the Federal Government including the Justice Department seems to have lost the painful lesson s that most Americans learned at Love Canal and similar sites. Recently, in Adams c ounty C o lorado, a problem of drinking water contamination occurred.

PAGE 9

We need a new system of hazardous waste planning, this thesis present s this issue in a style which may be a starting point of a new additive in planning offices, state Health Departments, and in private industries. 0 4

PAGE 10

INTRODUCTION --The purpose of the Thesis --An overall view of Hazardous Waste Planning . --Methodology and Design of Thesis 0

PAGE 11

INTRODUCTION Today Urban planning is faced with the problem of hazardous waste planning. I n o rder to achieve the goals and objectives of Urban Planning, the planning profession has to formulate a new process of managing and utilizing land in a fashion to reach it's goals . This new guideline s includes amendments in the following: 1. Zoning 2. Comprehensive plan 3. T h e planning process which comprises of; a . Decision making process b. Planning personnel/Administration The evolution of this new planning field brings about a multi-disciplinary activity that is based on engineering principles, biology principles, chemistry principles, but also Urban planning/regional p lanning principles. The traditional planners to handle the ever g rowing problem. 5 This thesis is d ivided into four parts. Chapter one deals with the history of hazardous waste. For planners to understand hazardous waste, it is important to know about the historica l developments, system of contro l i n terms of sites and f acilities and finally regulations at federal, state, and local government s respectively. In order for Planning Offices, State health departments who have not yet been faced with the problem of .hazardous waste planning; Chapter two studies cases in two regions within the State of Colorado. In both case studies, conclusions were drawn out of the majo r issues which need to be resolved. This chapter focuses on the important management

PAGE 12

6 issues which the planner needs t o be aware of. Since this is a new field evolving in the planning profession, there is presently little theo r y or answers to the numerous planning questions. Chapter three tries to formulate an hypothesis for an ideal hazardous waste planning process. It tries to introduce the functions, administration, and proces s of this new hazardous waste p lanning field. Chapter four was designed to apply the hypothesis formulated in Chapter three to remedy the situations in the case studies used in Chapter t wo. One should remember that the hypothesis is fully designed as a preventive theory to avoid the problems which arises in the future, for example the case studies in chapter two. But the planner should also remember that the hypothesis can be used in some instances a s a remedial action i n cases such as those described in Chapter two, where damage is already done. The evidence used for this thesis was based on the following : 1 . Basic texts on Solid Wast e Management 2 . Exist i ng federal and State regulation manual for hazardous Wast e Management. 3 . Newspaper, Journal and Magazine documents of hazardous waste probl ems. 4. Municipal Plans and Public documents regarding the Lowry and Lyons Landfill problems. 5. Tele phone a nd personal interviews with Fed eral, State a n d Local public Officials 6. Interview with Citizens Groups. 7. Attended public mee tings. The methodology textual analysis of the above, and .my Profes sional judgement. Others included creative innovation in drawing up an hypothesis for a n idea l hazardous Waste planning proces s . Since this i s a thesis for a Masters Deg ree, there are obvious limits:

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

City Mayor or the state Governor. To the foreigner, or the foreign planning agencies, I hop e you may take precautions as to the problems by either utilizing the hypothesis in this thesis, or by polishing i t up for your benefit. 0 8

PAGE 15

CHAPTER ONE: --HISTORY AND PRESENT PRACTICES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN AMERICA â€¢ â€¢ 0

PAGE 16

9 HISTORY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES CONTROL IN AMERICA 1-1.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The development o f Hazardous Waste can be traced to the development of a Technological So c iety in the United States. The development of a Technologica l Society benefited mankind, s o did it also introduce the problems associate d with the resultant Waste Materials. The recognization of W aste Materials begun in the latter part of the nineteenth century when conditions w e r e so bad E ngland, in respect to Wast e disposal. The English passed an Urban Sanitary Act i n 1888 prohibiting the throwing o f waste Materials into ditches, rivers and waters . This preceded by about 11 years the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 i n the United States, the intention o f this Act was to regulate the d umping of debris in navigable Waters and adjacent Land s . The eff e cts of technological advancemen t practices initi ated the generation of Waste Materials which is diagrammatical s how n on the next page. The technological practices lead to the adequate disposa l mechanisms practices. ' 0

PAGE 17

10 1-1.1 DISPOSAL PRACTICES One of the first literature on Waste Disposal in American history wa s written by H. de B. Pasons in 1960 in his book entitled "The Disposal of Municipal Refuse". In reviewing this book, I noted the basic principles in the field of Waste Management. The early disposal practices gave way to the beginnings of Waste Management. A horse -drawn cart about 1900 Fig. 1-2 Evolution of Vehicles Used for the Collection of Solid Waste.

PAGE 18

Fig. 1-3 Solid-tire motor truck about 1925 Fig. 1-4 Modern Collection Vehicle equipped with C ompaction Mechanism, 1976. (c)

PAGE 19

12 Fig. 1-5 Open dump located in a ravine . .. , ... , Fig. 1-6 Open dump located in Flat Area.

PAGE 20

1-1.2 Legislation And Government Agencies The evolution of Legislation and Government Agencies came about has the concerns of Waste Materials became an important issue in the of citizens, pressuring congress and the State Leg'slatures to take action. Federal Agencies took the lead in 1899 . 1 Initial regulations were placed in the hands of USPHS (U.S.) Public Health Service) to permit the Federal Government t o regulate the interstate transport o f S olid Wastes, Particularly food waste that was fed to hogs, in an attempt to control trichinosis. The history of Solid Waste which includes Hazardous Waste Legislation dates from 1965 when the solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 89-272 was enacted b y congress. The intent of thi s Act was to: 1. Promote the demonstration, construction, and J application of Solid Waste Management and resource recovery systems which preserve and enhance the quality of Air, Water, and Land resources. 2. Provide technical and financial assistance to States and Local Governments and interstate agencies in the plannin g and development of resource recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Programs. " 3. Provide a national research and develop men t program for improved management techniques, more effective organizational arrangements, and new and improved methods of collection, separation, recovery, and recycling of Solid Wastes, and the 1 The rivers and harbors act directed to U.s. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the dumping of debris in navigable Waters and adjacent lands.

PAGE 21

14 environmentally safe disposal of non recoverable residues. 4 . Provide for the promulgation of guidelines for Solid Wast f Collection, transport, separation, recovery , and d isposal systems. 5. Provide for training grants in occupa tions involving the design, operation, and m aintenance of Solid Waste disposal systems. This enforcement act became the responsibility of the USPHS, which is an agency of the Department of Health, Edu cation, and Welfare, and the Bureau o f Mines, an agency of the Department o f the Interior. The USPHS had responsibility f o r most o f municipal wastes generated in the United States. The Bureau of Mines was charged with Supervision of Solid Waste f rom mining activities and the fossil-fuel Solid Wastes from power plants and industrial steam plants. P r esident Johnson and his Presidential Scientific Advisory committee were no t satisfied that legislation alone would accomplish the goals of regulatio n of Urban, Commercial, industrial, agricultural and Mineral Wastes, as specified in the 1965 Act. Therefore, in 1968, the president directed that a special study be made of the national problem of Solid Waste Management b y the White House Staff with the assistance of representatives o f the USPHS. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Interior. Th e report that resulted was submitted by the Executive Office of the President t o Congress with the demand which was .subsequently met for adequate Staffing, Funding, and action b y the responsible Federa l Agencies and Congress. The amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 by Public La w 9 5 -512, the Resources Recovery Act of 1 970 . This Act

PAGE 22

1 5 directed that the emphasis of the National Solid Waste Management Prog ram should be shifted from disposal as its primary ob'ective to that of recycling and reuse of recoverable materials in Solid Wastes, o r to the Conversion of wastes to energy. The USPHS, through its National office of Solid Wastes Management, was directed to prepare a report on the recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste, which was completed in 1971. By this time the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had been formed by Presidential order u nder reorganizational Plan No. 3 of 1970, and all Solid Waste Management activities were transferred from the USPHS to the EPA . Many other reports on various phase of Solid Waste Management have been published since then, including the yearly reports to con gress on resources recovery and the basic reference report Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management. Another episode o f the 1970 act as the mandate of Congress to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a repor t on the treatment and dis osal of Haz ardous Wastes, including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and other wastes of significance to the public health and Welfare. Previously, the Atomic Energy Commission to manage all radioactive wastes generated by the commission and the nuclear P ower Industry. The report to Congress in response to the 197 0 act was 0 ' prepared by the office of Solid Waste Management Progr ams of the EPA, an it was submitted on June 30, 1973. This report, entitled Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, is a comp ete documentation on all aspects of the disposa l of hazardous wastes.

PAGE 23

16 The establishment of the National Environmental Policy A c t (NEPA) of 1969 is an all encompassing Congressional Law. It affects all projects that have som e federal funding or that come u nder the regulation of f ederal agencies. The act specified the c reatio n of the Council on Environ m ental Quality in the Executive Offices of the President. This body has the authority to forc e every Federal agenc y to submit to the council an Environmental Impact Statement on every activity or project which it may sponsor o r over which it has jurisdiction. 0

PAGE 24

.. 1? 1-2.0 SYSTEM OE_CONTROL/REGULATIONS OE_HAZARDOUS WASTES The system of regulation and control is on International, Federal, State, and Local levels. These regulations deal mostly with generation and final disposal. 1-2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS Majority of the regulations concerning hazardous materials are formulated at the federal level. The regulations are designed to control the packaging, storage and movements of hazardous materials. The most comprehensive regulations for controlling hazardous waste at the federal level are r e lated to water discharges allowable to either water or air are usually set after the ambient level of a particular compound knpwn. In some cases, complete restrictions are set, and all discharges are prohibited. An example is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) .2 Federal Regulations is directed toward the elimination o f the disposal of hazardous wastes in either the water or air environment. consequently, the management of hazardous wastes that may occur as solids, liquids, or gases has become a soli d â€¢ waste management problem by default. 2 The prohibi tat ion of Ocean disposal suggested in that law could cause the county of Los Angeles to divert nearly 800,000 tonsjyr o r sewage surge (at 75 percent equivale t moisture content) from the ocean to local landfills.

PAGE 25

1 8 1-2.2 STATE REGULATIONS State regulations regarding the control of hazardous wastes follow federal regulations closely. In most states, the state set is own regulations which are a modifications of the federal regulations. The only difference is that the state laws are stricter. 1-2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS Local regulations by local governments are necessarily narrow in scope. When hazardous wastes are identified they are restricted by ordinance f rom local sewers and waste water treatment facilities of liquid hazardous wastes for delivery to an acceptable solid waste disposal site. 0

PAGE 26

ional J...,egal Form Treaties and Agree me nts Directly legi s lated p ublic laws and administrative u r oce dures developedby im plementa t ion agencie s . le0islated state 2.nd adm 'nis tr2.tive procedures deveby implemen t a t i o cie s . Orci.inances and ad nrocedures developed b y ioc a l ae;encie s . Ty pical Contents Dea s mostly with the oceans and the atmosphere. emphasis is on the safe packaging, storage, and . ovemen t of hazardous comp ounds, not hazardous wastes; the ability of hazardous com pound s to beco me hazardous \1Jastes is of concern; secondar y e m _hasis is on t h e p r o tection of w a terways a n d the a tmosphere. Primary on t h e p r otection o f wc..terw ays and the 2tmospbere; soBe facility review to determine of wastes dis char g e d ; normally in cludes some designation of wates that are acceu t able a t designated disuosal ites. Primary emp h a sis is on t e protection of community wate and wast e treatment f acilities ; large economic penalties are often specified to revent violations. Impac t on solidwaste tfJanagement N egligible to nonexistent Moderate to extr emely economic wit h the l a n d dis osal of concentrated sludg e s . Moderate to economic irnpact on transp ::>rt and dis?osal; some imnact by location of dis_osa.l site s . economic o n disposal site operation if can b e used for hazar dous w astes; moderate to high impact on administrative age ncie s caused y adverse community reaction to hazardous solid w astes.

PAGE 27

1-3.0 GENERATION OE_HAZARDOUS WASTES FACILITIES Generation of hazardous wastes was first traced from mining Industries and for centurie s the most important, such wastes has been generated by virtual l y every advance 20 technological nati on. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, t m 'ning of fossil fuels became a major source of toxic wastes. Since hazardous wastes are not useful to the industries producing them, 3 they have typically, been disposed of in the easiest and cheapest way b y dumping them somewhere convenient. This convenient location is 0 3 or, at least, these wastes are seen as not useful. In many cases these "wastes" actually are useful materials w ith economic valve but unless the waste generators are aware o f this valve, they will still view the wastes as useless and try to get rid of them as .cheaply as possible, regardless of the problems that may result.

PAGE 28

Table Sources of Hazardous Wastes, 1978 Generating Industry Organic Chemicals Primary metals Electroplating Inorganic chemical Textiles, petroleum refining, rubber and plastics TOTAL Pounds (billions) 26 29 9 9 3 76 SOURC ES: EPA Journal vol.5, no.2 (February 1979), p. 12. what one woul d call a hazardous waste site. Table 1-2, illustrates the sources of hazardous wastes generating Industrial S ector and the pounds (amount) generated. 0 zt

PAGE 29

1-4.0 SOURCES Of_HAZARDOUS WASTES Various Industries produce hazardou s wastes, some of these wastes have not been controlled and are causing public heal t h and environmental problems o n their sites. 4 Some of the com mon hazardous wastes sources found in 22 typical communities in the United Stat e s are shown in table 1-3. 0 4 To date, EPA has inventoried almost 16,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The National Priorities (NPL) identifies the targets for action under the comprehensive Env ironm ental Response, Compensation, and liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA or "Superfund") . The laws sets up a Trus t Fun to help pay for cleaning up hazardous waste sites that threaten public health or the environment.

PAGE 30

TABLE 1-3 Waste category Sources 2J Radioactive Biomedical research facilities, college and university laboratories, dentists offices, hospitals, nuclear power plants Toxic Chemicals Agricultural c hem ical companies, battery shops, car washes, chemical and paint storage warehouses, city and county equipment corporation yards, city police stations, college and university laboratories, construction companies, county sheriff stations, crop-dusting firms, dry cleaners, e lectric utilities, electronic and radio repair shops, fire departments, hospitals and clinics, industrial cooling towers, industrial plants too numerous to list, newspapers (photographic solutions) , nuclear power plants pest control agencies, photographic processin facilities or shops, plating shops, service s tanker-truck cleaning stations Biological Wastes Biomedical research facilities, drug companies, hospitals, medical clinics Flammable Wastes Dry cleaners, petroleum reclaiming plants, petroleum refining and processing faci service stations, tanker-truck cleaning statio Explosives Construction companies, dry cleaners, munitions production facilities. Source: Adapted from Solid Waste : Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1977. Other hazardous wastes are generated from the consumer of industrial products, for example, the production of 0 mildew-resistant paints requires the use of mercury. Paint companies discard some mercury as production wastes. However , consumer waste is produce from most mercury containing paints used in painting bathrooms and kitchens . The mercury becomes a waste (consumer waste) only when the paint is stripped and

PAGE 31

discarded or when the house is demolished. Some of the physical and chemical classification of hazardou s wastes, which is based on a 1973 survey of 20 billion pounds is shown in table 1-4. 0

PAGE 32

TABLE 1-4 Classification Pound (billions) Liquid inorganic wastes 7.0 Copper and lead-bearing refinery wastes .8 Brin e sludges from chlorine production .1 Steel plant w astes .5 Organic chemical 1.0 Gasoline-blending wastes .4 Solvent-reclaiming residues .3 Outdated or contaminated tear gas . 3 Aqueous organic chemicals 10.0 Organic pesticide and herbicide wastes 1.0 Dilute drug manufacturing waste 5.0 Solids, s lurries and sludges .7 Sodium dichromate wastes .3 Arsenic t rioxide from smelters .02 Recovered arsenic fro m smelters .04 Battery manufacturing sludges .05 Refrigeration equipment wastes .2 u TOTAL 20.0 SOURCES: EPA, Report to Congress on of H azardous Waste s (Washington, D.C., June 20, 1973), pp. 50 53 . For a listing of the relative quantities of wastes generated n 11 fifty states, see Appendix 11.

PAGE 33

26 Note: Onl y major categories and sub-categories are listed, so totals for both categories and sub-categories are less than overall totals. For a detailed characterization of waste streams, see Appendix 1. For an overall regional classification of major waste streams, see Appendix 1. Th e EPA has up to date, inventoried almos t 16,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste site s . In regards to remedial action to clean-up, the superfund program has been born. There has been requirem ents as to setting eac h site on a p riorit y list, this has lead to the current national priorities list(NPL). The priorities list in an order of ranking totals up t o 40 6 sites. The major classes of chemicals found at theses hazardous waste dispo sal sites are s hown below i n Table 1-5. 0

PAGE 34

TABLE 1-5 M ajor Classes of Chemicals Found at 350 Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, 1980 Che mi cal S1tes Containing Raw Materials Petrochem1cal Acetylene Benzene Butane Butylene Butadiene Ethylene Methane Naphthalene Propyl ene Toluene Xylene Waste Oil Inorganics Ammonia Antimony & Compou nds Arsenic & Compounds Barium Sulfide Beryllium & Compounds Bromine Cadmium Chlorine & Com pounds Chromium & Compounds Cobalt C opper Hydrogen Fluorid e Lead & Compounds Mercury Nickel Nitric Acid Phosphoru s & compound s Potass ium hydroxide Selen ium Sodium h ydroxide Sulfuric Acid Stannic(ous) chlorides Zinc () 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 23 12 35 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 8 1 6 2 11 16 4 1 6 1 1 0 3 0 9 S1tes Containing Derivativies 56 113 8 8 0 97 44 0 1 4 30 6 0 22 0 0 0 0 2 0 197 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 39 35 0 2 Total Sites 56 132 8 8 0 97 45 2 14 53 1 8 35 28 1 10 0 0 2 5 202 19 1 7 3 1 1 1 6 4 1 14 1 1 39 38 0 11 Source: EPA, Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous M aterials Site s D.C. 1 1980) 1 p . XVlll. ' 2 7

PAGE 35

â€¢ 1-5.0 TYPES OF SITES There are five basic types of hazardous waste s sites these are (1) Landfills (2) Surface Impoundments (3) Dr ums (4) Files (5 ) Tan ks. 2 8 The graph on the next page summarizes the percentage sum o f t r types of sites i n the United States. Q

PAGE 36

28 TYPES OF SITES l .. :l:i ' 1 ., I t ' 'ILl'. IPERCEIITI L.ti::UIO LJ'. -l.MClnL$5I SVRFACf. SOURCE: NATIONAL PRIORITIES UST (EPA ) 0 Fig. 1-7 PAGE 37 29 1-6.0 METHOD Of_DISPOSAL The Methodology in disposal practices is undertaken in two processes (1) A process where the recovery of useful materials are gained. and {2) A process in which to prepare the wastes for safety disposal. There are two ways to accomplish the above, {1) by processing onsite and {2) by transferring the waste to an off site treatment facility. The processing site is selected accor ding to characteristics of the wastes; the environmental a spects; quantity of the wastes; technical and economi c aspects; and finally the availability of a feasible treatment site. The treatment mechanism of hazardous wastes is m ainly by physical, chemical, thermal, and biological means. The most often use is the physical, chemical, and thermal, with minimal usage of biological treatment. The various individual process in each category are reported in Table 1-6. 0 PAGE 38 TABJ,L 1-5 i-1ajor of Chemic als 'ound a t 350 Hazardous ':/asto 'ltes, 1980 vhe mical lJe tro c hem ic2.1 'ce yJ.ene J'en zen e Lutane 3uty1ene Butadiene Ethy1ene i ethane Japhtha1enc J)ropylenc 'Ioluene Xylene \"/aste O i l In o rganics Containing na.w 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 2 o-23 12 35 6 hntimony & compounds 1 & compounds 10 narium sulfide 0 Beryllium & compounds 0 Er omine 0 5 Chlorine & compo unds 5 Jhromium & 18 Cobalt 1 Coppe r 6 Hydrogen fluoride 2 lead & compounds 11 Mercury 1 6 H i e I< e1 4 itric acid 1 Phosph orus & compounds 6 Potassium hyd r o xide 1 Selenium 1 Sodium Hydroxide 0 Sulfuric acid 3 S t annic(ous)chlorfde s 0 Z i n c 9 Sites Containing Derivatives 56 113 8 8 0 97 44 0 1 4 30 6 0 22 0 0 , 0 0 2 0 197 1 0 1 : 1 0 0 o 0 8 0 0 39 35 0 2 30 Tota l Sites 56 132 8 8 0 97 45 2 14 5 3 1 8 35 28 1 1 0 0 0 2 5 202 1 9 1 7 3 1 1 16 4 1 14 1 1 39 3 8 0 1 1 S ource:EPA, Dam ges and Threats Caused by Hazardous Mat erials Sites ( \'/ashington, D.C., 1 980),p.XV111. PAGE 39 Jl The three states or forms of hazardous wastes are solid, liquid, a nd gas, inspite of these state and f orm s , hazardous wastes are disposed of either near the surface o f the earth or by deep underground burial. The operation process, the functions performe d , the type of wastes and formsjstate of waste are illustrated in the table below. TABLE 1-7 Hazardous Wastes Disposal Operat1on; process Funct1ons performed Types of wastes Deep-well 1n)ect1on Detonation Engineered storage Land burial Ocean dumping D1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Di 6,8 S t 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Di 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Di 1,2,3,4,7,8 Functions: Di -disposal; st -sto r age; Waste types: 1. Inorganic chemical without heavy metals Forms o f waste L S,L.G S,L,G S,L S,L,G 2. Inorganic chemical with heavy metals 4 . organic c h emical with heavy metals 5. radiological; 6. biological; 7 . f l a mmable and a. explosive. Waste forms; S -solid; L -liquid; and G Gas. Source/Ref: Report t o congress: Disposal of Hazardous was tes, u .s. EPA, Publication SW-115, Washington, D.C., 1974. 0 PAGE 40 1-7 . 0 EXTERNAL EFFECTS SITES The externa l effects of hazardous waste s sites have only recently been recognized. Indeed, this is only due to the after effects of sites and their negative impacts to the eco-syst em. Unfort unately, there is relatively scanty literature available. The EPA survey of 350 hazardous waste disposal sites have revealed the damages t o human, the environment and to the public health. This is shown in table 1-8 . â€¢ 32 PAGE 41 Inciden s: :Jama[es to and Public !-iealth in 35 0 Hazardo s Waste Sites, 1980 Groundwater/ Human \'la t e r Supply ;,Jell H abitat Health .;).Oil Eish Livestock or othe r State C ontamination Closures* Destruction Damage C o ta.11 in at ion Y-ills Loss Damage DCJ:'lage _:;.l a 3 3 3 1 ' 1 am a A lasl a 1 ;_r izona 3 1 " _ r l ' -?.n sas 3 California 7 ( 34) / C olorado 2 2 2 Con:;ecti ut 7 4 (21) 1 ?. 2 :Jelaware ,... c. :?lor d a 2 2 (6+ , 1 1 1 Georgia 1 . awaii 0 de.h o 1 inois 17 3 1 1 ) 3 1 1 1 3 3 Int4 ian a 2 2+) 1 3 1 1 1 1 Iov:a 3 1 I i :an sas 1 1 'j 1 y 2 1 1 -:-o is c:.r.a 2 1 1 1 1 : .:a2.:1 e 3 2 ( 16+) 1 1 1 :-:a:::,rlo.r:,... 1 1 PAGE 42 Groundwater/ 1.ater Supply Cont21Tlinati on C:JiO C;'er ether Damage :Jamag e 2 1 1 1 6 -, Cl -/ .:..::::'ce3;..:-.l., .. ges .:=!1C. :r :::::-eats Caused by :Ic:.zardous :-:ater ia::.. Si e s (':iasbington, D. v., .X.V. the number site s in followed by tbe number (in esis) e:..:.: u 2.1 .' e ::... ::.. s c ::.. o s e d :.. n t h e t a ;:; e â€¢ T-, .. '.:orcs. PAGE 43 35 The hazards and external damages are: (1) Gro undwater 1 Water S upply (2) Habitat Destruction (3) Human Health (4) Soil Contamination ( 5 ) Fish Kills (6) POTWS or Sewers (7) other 1 . Groundwater 1 Water S upply This is one of the damages that have resulted in contamination of Water supplies and also to ground waters. The frequency of kinds of problems surveyed by the EPA under the National Priorities List Sites. 0 PAGE 44 KINDS O F PROBLEMS U lkCY o;oo ',oo â€¢:Jc )00 200 1 0 0 c w s w f. W C.ROUN,flR S l'l (R ' , I'ie. 1 8 ource: :P..,, H a zardous Was e Sites ( Nationa l 11riori t ies L ist) , office o f S o l i d V /aste and F.rner g ency Response (Washineton , D . C . , A g 1983) (J PAGE 45 2. Habitat Destruction These are cases where natural habitat is destroyed and rendered unfit for habitation or development, while the present inhabitant species are endangered. 3. Human Health These are instances of actual human health damages such J?. as respiratory difficulties and death. Endangerment sites are not included in this category. 4. Soil Contamination The sites where the major consideration is the hazard presented by the presence of contamination soil are included in the category, although most sites have some level of soil contamination. These are the sites rendered unfit for any planning and development. 5. Fish Kills These are cases of docume nted fish kills caused by the release of hazardous substances from a site. 6. POTWS or Sewers PAGE 46 The s e are instances of chronic discharge of hazardous materials into sewer systems or to publicly own e d treatment work (POTWS) 7. Other These sites include damages to Crops or Wildlife, air pollution, f ire or explosion hazardous, and abandoned sites. PAGE 47 J9 1-8.0 ANALYSIS OE_EXTERNAL EFFECTS In order to analyze the potential hazardous effects o f wastes materials is to their impacts in the environment and on the living organisms in the ecosystem. There are three groups of hazardous wastes, these are (1) Immortal (2) Semi-Mortal and ( 3) Mortal. 1. Immortal These are waste with their toxic qualities intrinsic to their elemental structure. These comprises o f t h e heavy metals and other groups of chemicals example asbestos . Generally, these are elements and compound whose toxicity is a function their physical structure, which for practical purposes, are indestructible. Some radioactive elements which are waste attain stable properties for a long p eriod of time that they are identifie d as immortal waste. Exampl e i s Uranium and Plutonium. 2. Semi -Mortal These are waste materials which,form a gro u p identified by their slow degraduation in unit time. Example is c hlorinated hydrocarbons . 3. Mor tal This group is identified by their short-life properties They are generally reactive compound, very volatile and includes strong acids, base s and compounds like cyanides, which are rapidly destroyed by their fast chemical reactions. The general effect im pose is t h e risk to the ecosystem a nd its inhabitants. In America, the population at large is exposed to traces of h azardous wastes. It has medically been that virtually the vast major ity o f the Americ a n population carr PCBS, lead and other toxic waste products and their means of pollution, that is to say how t h e chemicals get transferred to human. The transfer linkage is through air pollution, a griculture and food stuff contamination, and other mean s like direct use of consumer products . Most of the hazards of toxic chemicals affects the environmen t i n a slow process and also it has not been easily determined as to instan t death to human. But, high concentration of hazardous wastes that produces clusters o f d isease or o ther adverse affe cts have been relatively easier to detect . These include the adverse health affects of PAGE 48 cattle, in wildlife, domestic animals and human beings. Most communities in the United States have experience e xplosion due to PCB contamination in public utility t ransformers. Generally, most disposal sites have undergone unexpected incidents and natural catastro phes w hich have exposed toxi c chemicals to the neighborhood inhabitants. The hazards of hazar dous wastes stems from its production site via its transportation mechanism to its disposal sites either be it on-site disposal or off-site disposal. Any minimal exposure causes a great deal of harm and hazard to the environment and public health. Some of these cases are as follows (1) Spillage (2) Evaporation ( 3) others which include everpresent possible incidents. 0 PAGE 49 1-9.0 There are two types of siting requirements and regulations in respect to permits, design and operations requirements for hazardous waste sites. 1. The interim permit, design and operation of hazardous waste sites. 2. Final and permanent permit, design and operation of hazardous wastes sites. 3. Others, example transportation of Hazardous Waste. As mentioned there are five main types of hazardous wastes types , and others. i.e. Incinerators. The siting requirements and regulations are reflected in the Federal Code of Regulations, (40 CFR 264 and 265 ) and where the state government has the status power to regulate hazardous waste, i t is reflected in the state's regulation which is closely and indirectly monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. PAGE 50 '}".-::> e o:: Sit.e 1 . 'J:'ank s " 2 . s-..:rface ' . -____ ._. / 26tt . 19 G 2 6 4 . 19 ! 2SL1.1 92 2G4. i93 26..f_. 1 ...,. 2 o4.1S:;26 4 . ,... , '.JG 264. JO'i .t 2 6 4 . 19: 2 6.!1. 199 264-. 2 0 0 264. 22 0 2 6 4 . 221 264. 222 264 . 22 3 264. 22 5 264. 226 264. 227 26 4 .228 26 4 . 229 264. 230 2 6 4 . 23 1 264. 2 3 2 -264. 2 49 _ ' _p;lica "l.:ili t: . of uenera l o. ( 1 eser e d ) Insuect:..or.-3 . (J.eserve:l) Closi..:.re . iG or pec:.. a l Spec:.. a l F:2C, FC2 3 , _ . _:_p:;:;lica'::.:..li ty. ments. D ou le-lined surface ments: 3xenption sut p art ? protec-;,;ion recuirements. ( Re served) ;oni taring and inspection. Emer gency repairs ; conti gency plans . Closure a n d post-closure care. Special re_uiremen s for i gn itable or reactive w aste . S p ecia l for incompatible wastes. Speci a l reQuirements hazardbus wastes FJ20, ?021, F022 , F02 3 , F026 , & n d F027. (Reser ved) PAGE 51 T ype o_ Site 3 . Q 4 . Fe â€¢ Code of Regulations (40 CP:i.) 264.250 264. 25 264.252 264.253 264.254 26 4 . 255 264.256 26 4 .257 264.25 8 264 .259 264. 26 0 -264. 269 2'""4.270 264. 271 2 6 4 . 2 7 2 264. 2 73 26 4 .274-264. 2 75 2 6 4 . 2 7 6 264. 27 7 264. 2 7 8 264 . 2 7 9 264. 280 264.281 6 4 .282 264.283 Site Recuirements/ :i.egulation s Applicabilit y Design a.d operating requirements. Double-line d piles: from subpart ground-water protection reouirement s . Inspection o f liners; from subpart F protection reo iremen s . fâ€¢loni tori n g -and inspecti::;n. ( Reserved) Special ienitet:e o r reactive waste. Spe cial fc= ible v mste s . Closure and post c losure 3pecial fc= h a z ardou s wastes ?020, P02 1 , ?022, :5'023, ?026, and ?027. (Reserved) ;..ppl icabil i ty. Treatment Treatment .:Jesi[TI anC. operating re-ire!:lerns. ( Eeserved) ?oodchain crops. ( Reserved) Unsaturated zone :.i.ecordkeep ing. Closure and postclosure c are. Special requiremen t s for ignita':J e or reactive waste. Specia l requirements fer incompa t ibl e wastes. Special for hazardous waste s :'?020, F021 , F022 , F023, ::.;026, and F-02'7. (Heserve ...... ) PAGE 52 . e of Site 5 , :::..andfills 0 ,... ' . Incinerators Code of Federal Fed. Code of (40 264 . 300 264 .301 264 . 302 264.303 2 64 . 304-264.308 264 . 309 26 4 . 3.0 264 .311 2 4 . 3 2 264 . 313 264 . 314 26 . 315 264 . 316 264 .317 2 64 . 318 264 . 339 264 . 34 0 264 . 3 1 26 4 . 342 26 . â€¢ 343 264 . 344 264 . 34 5 264 . 346 264 . 347 264 . 34 8 264 . 350 2 64 .351 Regu l ation s ( .G.PA) â€¢ , 4 0 -CFR 264 . Site Requirements Regulations Applicability Design and operating Double -lined landfills: from subpart P ground-\vater }:'ro tection reouirements. Inspection. (Reserved) Surveying an Closure and postc losure care . ( R eserved) Special s for ignitatle or waste. Special rer:uire1. en-: s for icor:rp.,-'..: ible vmstes. ecial rec:uire ... ents for bulk and Jpecial for containers . Dis csal sma _ l containers of in overnacked d r ms ( l b 1 nacKs) . recu1rements for haz ardous w& tes FOl:.O, ?021 , ?023, ?026, a nd. -sV27. (J.eserved) Applicability . :iaste ; "nalysis _ rincipal organic hazardous cons-:; i tuents ( Po: -cs) o Performance s tandards Hazardous v:aste inc in era tor e r .. its. Operating req irements . (Reserve ) and inspections. ( Reserved ) C losure . 198 5 PAGE 53 1-10.0 NEED FOR BETTER HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT A better management of hazardous wastes lays in the hands of Legislation. efficient regulation/enforcement, and a more efficient administration. Legislation Since 1979, Congress has been debating on how t o deal for hazardous waste in terms of financial resources to clean-up. Sinc e the Muskie-Culver bill was passed, the problem has been inadequate funds authorized by congress for clean-up. E fficient Regulation/Enforcement The EPA and State governments should set up a more stricter laws, the state government should have a more powerful tools to stop or even apprehend the illegal dumping of hazardous waste. The local governments has to work closely in hand with the state government and the EPA to enforce hazardous waste laws. Effective Administration 0 The administration o f hazardous waste has to be made more effective in administrating the following: 1. At the federal level (EPA), increase in number of personnel in waste management department is needed. PAGE 54 4 6 2. At the state level, the decision making process has to eradicate putting much weignt on economics and weigh more on public health, environmental consequences of short and long-term effects. 3. The state and federal governments (EPA) has to work closely than they are presently doing. 4. Local or Municipal planning offices has to incorporate to their staff, environmental planners to deal and work closely with the state and federal governments (EPA) in the management of hazardous waste and not in the hands of public works department, or other department who do not have experts in the field. 5. All the above governments (state, local, and federal) should incorporate into the prospective offices expertise with combination of physical science background and urban planning to effectively manage hazardous waste. PAGE 55 CHAPTER TWO: --CAS E STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES SITES IN COLORADO " PAGE 56 4 7 2-1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Of_LOWRY LANDFILL The Lowry Landfill is located in Aurora and in the A rapahoe County and covers 250 acres. The site is specifically located near Quincy Avenue and state Highway 30, which is also known as the Gun Club Roa d . The site is approximately 16 miles Southeast of Denver, Colorado. The site comprises of part of S ection 6, and part o f Section 32. The Lowry landfill contains various solid waste materials which includes active sanitary landfill that receives househ old garbage, construction material, the other state waste is hazardous waste which is termed co-disposal because of the uncontrolled depositing of both fluid wastes and solid wastes. Wastes included alkaline, acid sludge, caustics, pesticides, industrial solvents , radioactive (Uranium Ore and medical) and sewage sludge deposited in trenches. Th e results o f this is groundwater and soil contamination of organic chemicals and some inorganic chemicals the major organic contaminants include phenols, monocyclic Aromatics , c h lorinated aliphatics, and ketons. 0 PAGE 57 48 2-1.1 SOIL PROFILE The soil formation is classified as the Dawson Formation, whic h is a series o f claystones, siltstones, beneath the dawson formation is underlain by a series o f claystones, siltstones , coals, and sandstons known as the Denv e r Formation. 2-1.2 ELEVATION The l and surface elevation at the site ranges from 5850 feet (mean sea level (MSL) datum) on the South to 5690 on the North. 2-1.3 SURFACE WATER Located to the east of t h e landfill is the Murphy Creek to which a stream tributary on the site drains. The Murphy Creek flows to the north and then to Coal C reek, and finally flows into Sand Creek, which drains into the Sout h Platte River. 0 PAGE 58 2-2.0 HISTORY LANDFILL The site was initially owned by the u.s. Government. In 1966, the City and County of Denver took over ownership of the p roperty and begun operating a municipal and industrial sanitary Landfill in part of Section 6. T5s, R65W. Wastes disposed at the. facility were liquid and solid wastes in pits and r adioactive wastes in trenches. The disposal of domestics sewage sludge were deposited in Section 31 and 31, T4S, R65W and Section 4 and 9, T5S, R65W. A large numbe r of rubber tires have been deposited, and they cover most o f the onsite disposal area. There are about 10 million rubber tires deposited on parts of Section 6 . The disposal practices on the landfill included co-disposal and hazardous wastes in excavated p its which were not lined causing Leachate i n the groundwater. The configuration of these pits range from 15 to 35 feet deep and vary in width s and lengths. The trenches extends to 30 feet i n depth and were filled one-half to three-quarters with liquids wastes and then filled with refuse to absorb the liquids. The operations of the trenches brought about the spillage of liquids from the low point of the trench when refuse filling operations carried out. The operations o f the landfill since 1966 shows no records of types of liquid waste d eposited on the site. Generally, the categories of waste disposed at the site were known, these includes acid and 49 alkaline sludges; Cau stics and solids; plating wastes; brines and other organic compounds; water.base sludges; and synthetic PAGE 59 50 including petroleum-based oils, grease and chlorinated solvents and sludges water oils, pesticides wastes and radioactive wastes. In 1977, Shell Chemical Company entered an agreement with the City and County o f Denver allowing them to construct three brine evaporation ponds in Section 31. This began the of a salt bring wastes from Shell Manufacturing operations. The materials from the shell's operations at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal were placed and deposited on the site. The operations two of the ponds continued till 1982, with the third pond remaining inactive. Studies conducted by the u.s. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1977 near the Lowry Landfill may have initiated the treatment and control of odors from the evaporation of liquids from the ponds. The brine are treated with hydrogen peroxide to central the odors. In 1980, the ownership of the Landfill changed hands, the Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) took over control from the City and County of Denver in Section 6, 31, and 32. Colorado Disposal Inc. (CDI ) and Chemical Waste Management (CWM) both subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. were responsible for the operations of the municipal sewage landfill in Section 6 and also the hazardous was t e disposal deposit site in part of Section 31 and 32 respectively. 0 The major activities of Section 6 presently has been reduced to only municipal refuse disposal and deposits. In 1980, Chemical Waste Management expanded the facility operation by construction a hazardous waste disposal facility, in parts of Section 3 and 32 respectively, The operations mechanisms was PAGE 60 mainly burial cells in which drums containing hazardous wastes materials were buried. The hazardous substances were generally solid state and liquid state wastes. A layer of compacted clay lined the cell and fly ash "choke material" was used to cover drums as they were placed in the cell . In 1982, the facility was closed, due to problems with potential offsite contamination and water entering the cell led to a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that CWM had failed to obtain approval from the Arapahoe County Commissioners. Sludge deposition was operated in Sections 4, 9, 6, and 3 1 by the Metropolitian Denver Sewage disposal District. The deposition of sewage sludge includes injection into the soil to a depth of about 24 inches by equipment similar to farm equipment. Since the middle of 1980, various studies have ben done on the extent of contamination and the fate of the environment . . The studies concluded that there is contamination of alluvial and upper bedrock groundwater that appears to be migrating from the Landfill, mainly from parts of Section 6. The studies also .51 concludes that there are nine compounds in concentrations greater than 1000 parts per billion. Other conclusions drawn indicates that there is partially no measurable volatile organics, indicating that contamination may have not yet crossed the site 0 boundary. PAGE 61 Table 2 1 :EAR *1966 * 977 LOWRY LANDFIL L HISTO RICAL SUMMARY CHART Disposa l Ope ration Liqu i d & Solid industrial wastes and low-leve l radioactive wastes in pits and trenches. Salt Brine evaporation Pond S udges, Municipal sewage and burial cell. Activities on *The City and County of Denver bega n operating a m unicipa l and industrial sanitar landfill in Section 6, T5S , R65W after acquisition of the property from the U.S. Government . Deposition of Vehical tires was a normal practice. *Under an agreement with the Ci y and County of Denver, Shell Chemical Compan y started operations in the northeast portion of Sect ion Jl. U . S . Geological Survey conducted a study of the groundwater quality near the Lowry Landfill and concluded that the disposal activities a the site were polluting shallows alliuvial and upper bedrock grou d water in the area. *Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) assumed control over the City and County of Denver' s waste disposal ope rations in Sections 6 , J l , and J2. Colorado Disposal Inc . ang chemical w a te Management a subsidiarie s of waste management , inc, operated the 11unicipal landfill in section 6 and the hazardous waste disposal site in section Jl and J2 respectively. *Investigations and sampl"ng from well s detected alluvial and upper bedrock groundwater contamination that appears to be migrating from landfill area Section 6 , to t e north and w est. *Waste Management, Inc. conducted a study to assess the nature , extent, and danger of the mal odor p roblem. PAGE 62 Disposal Operation * 1983 *1934 SUMl'VIARY CHART Activities on Landfill *Golder Association performed a geotech .ical and hydrogeologic studies. Studies concluded that groundwater containment by clay compact walls c ould be feasible in the upper alluvial and shallows bed rock aquifers. *Colorado Disposal Inc. Applied for a permit with the Air Pollution Contro l Colorado Department of Health , to construct an a t ive ga venting and flare system a t the site. EPA added Lowry La ndfil l t o the superfund hazardous waste cleanup list. *EPA issued an Administrative order on (Dockett No . CERCLA VIII-BJ-06) requiring the city of Denver to construct operate a groundwater containme .. t s ystem. 0 PAGE 63 ' . S OURCE : A61 [ / \ . ' lEGE ND ue LOGARITHM O F SUU O F ORGANIC PRIORITY POLL UTANT CONCENTRATIO NS ( EXCEPT . , â€¢ . CHLORIDE) , IN MICRO' 1 f G RAMS PER LIT ER OCT-)1 1 . ' OBER 19 83 'j ... , I NTERPRETEOAREAHAVING 7f.'t: O RGANIC PR IORITY 1.d91 ; POLLUTANTCONTAMINATION ) 11, 1 I N UPPER AQUIFER C ONTO U R I N TERVAL 10 fEET NAliONAL GfOD TrC V [ kTIC A L DAT U M Of 1529 FROM U . S ' G . S . COAL CREE K QUAD HILL/ECO L OGY & ' I F i g 2-2 Pr eliminary T o tal Organic Pollutan t Contamination of Upper Aquife r, O ctober, 198 3 PAGE 64 CONTOUR 10 FEET HATIQ N AL G E O D E TIC V E RTIC A L OATUM Of 1929 F R O M U . S . G . S . COAL CREEK QUAD 8 303 W W1 â€¢ 8 22 4 â€¢ Fig. 2-JU PP E R AQUIFER MONITORING WEll COMBINED UPPER/ DAWSON AQUIFERS UONITORING WELL DAWSON AQUIFER MONIT O RING WELL DENVER AQUIFER MONITORING WELL (TOTAL DEPTH = !Xl2 F E!:T LIQUID WASTE PIT, 1 9 75 Existing Groundwater Monitoring Wells PAGE 65 PRESENT SITE CONDITION 2-6_Site Activities As a result o f an estimated 100 million gallons of Liquid Chemical Wastes, including chlorinated solvents and oily wastes and municipal refuse which were disposed in unlined trenches excavated into surface soils and bedrock. This has presently brought about minimal dumping of waste and has lead t o research into contamination and clean-up. Monitoring data collected by EPA, the state indicated that volatile organic compounds including benzene, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and chloroform have migrated from trenches into shallow and bedrock groundwater. At present, EPA i s planning a r emedia l investigation and feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. Landfill Presently, the landfill is inactive and the City and 0 County of Denver have installed a clay barrier to catch water which is t h e n filtered through activated carbon t o remove contaminants. This was pursuant to an Order on consent under CERCLA 106 (superfund) issued in 1984. The landfill has been added to the EPA's superfund to PAGE 66 help pay for the cleanup of hazardous wastes sites. Approximately 230 potential responsible parties identified from landfill records who would be responsible for cleanup based on materials sent to section 6. The below schedule is expected: 0 PAGE 67 Table 2-2 Task Scope of work site Survey and Map Geophysical Survey (locations, containment plumes monitoring wells) Well Samplings Risk Assessment Remedial Report, Draft Remedial Report, Final Feasibility study and Conceptual Design of Recommended Alternative (i.e. wha t is needed to conduct clean up will be known) Completion September, 1984 January, 1985 February, 1985 July, 1985 June, 1 9 86 June, 19 86 September , 1986 January, 1987 Begin Construction of Remedial February, 1987 Structures Completion of Clean Up, "Cap 1992 (?) and Dedicate" site a If Drilling work for the Geophysical survey identifies large fluid bodies that might be pumped as a r e medy the clean up process can be accelerated. Remedies could include filtering material through activated carbon, placement of materials in drums if PAGE 68 59 they are toxic, deposit of materials on site and/or removal of materials of materials to some other location such as the proposed last chance disposal site. Brine Ponds There is presently evaporation of two of the three ponds and it is expected to continue till the end of 1986. The remainder of the liquids in the ponds are set for cleanup. This is underway and the liquids is being treated by solidification or removal. Finally, the site could then be covered. Presently, the monitoring wells for the ponds have remained dry indicating no offsite moving of material. The brine would be treated with hydrogen peroxide to control odors which had been a source o f complaints up to eight miles away. Drum Burial Cell Plans are being made to remove all the drums and ship material to an out of state location. 0 PAGE 69 SOURCE: â€¢ . .,..-' \ CONTOU R INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODE TIC V ERTICAL OATUM OF 1 9 2 9 FROM U . S . G . S . COAL C R EEK QUAD LEGEND 6. UPPER AQUIFER MONITORING WELL ;;' COMBINED UPPER/ DAWSON AQUIFERS YONITORING WELL .. w 1 OAWSOt4 AQUIFER MONITORING WELL â€¢ 2l4 DENVER AQUIFER MONITORING WEll (TOTAL DEPTH= !!'02 FEET t .:::::;;> LIQUID WASTE PIT, 1975 Fig . 2-J-Existing Groundwater Monitoring Wells PAGE 70 SOURCE: Fig. ? ' ' l..fGEN&J W ASTE PI-AREA, 1 7 5 f'77A SHEll C H E:JlCA.l. f.G(Lj COMPANY !5R1Nf ltONO @CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT I C . , f ACILITIES CD SURIAL CELLI PAGE 71 62 2-2.3 EXTERNAL IMPACTS The major impacts the landfill has generated is the air quality and the groundwater. Th e problem associated with the groundwater is due to the toxic hazardous materials placed in section 6 and the spread of these materials through groundwater movement. The air quality has been affected up to eight miles away. This is due the Shell Company brine ponds from which the evaporation of liquids is causing air borne gases odors pollution. Groundwater The Lowry Landfill groundwater has been contaminated with varying concentrations of organic compounds between 1983 and 1984. The contamination is most apparent in areas adjacent and close to the unnamed intermittent stream draining section 6 and adjacent to the waste pits. The groundwater has been contaminated with substances such as phenols, monocyclic aromatics, chlorinated aliphatics, and ketones. In Section 6, and 31, the upper region has organic contamination. a Air Quality Residents adjacent to the landfill have been complaining to the County and state health departments that odors.from the PAGE 72 6 J Lowry Landfill wastes disposal operation s are causing air pollution i n the form of detectable odors in and around residential home s . Investigation conducted on the upwind and d ownwin d f rom the landfill concludes t h a t compounds of different constituen t s were detected at the downwinds. There was no c ompounds detected a t the upwinds. 0 PAGE 73 2-2.4 FUTURE IMPACTS Future impacts is difficult to analyze because one cannot conclude w hat and how efficient the cleanup and remedial action would yield. But one may conclude that there is a short term future impacts. Short Term Impacts One could conclude that during the cleanup process the following could be weighed as a major impact to the surroundings; 1. Fire outbreak 2. Explosions 3 . Emission of Toxic gas (odors) 4 . Spillage causing leaching to under-groundwater. Long Term Impacts 6 4 The long term effects/impacts from the lowry landfill is development restrictions as to land-use. This is a controversial situations, because modern day technology and as to a feasible, safe and health environment as what is affected the most. PAGE 74 2-2.5 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL The surrounding of the Landfill area was zoned Non-Urban Agricultural. The Aurora comprehensive plan state long term objectives as to land uses and also annexation. Although the comprehensive plans mentions a number of objectives to bring about a safe environment, i t failed to take a careful look at long range impacts on the lands which it may incorporate in the future and also the impacts of facilities like landfills . The past zoning was generally due to the uninhabitance of the area and also the likely-hood for not going to be inhibited for a long, but unfortunately it did no occur as viewed by the past planner as an area to be inhibited by citizens. Present Zoning The zoning at present remains the same with farming practices occurrin g scarcely and scattered. The area at present is non-urban agricultural, and not officially zoned. u PAGE 75 6 6 2-2.6 SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL Presently, the land use design around the landfill is basically nonresidential. The only immediate residence is to the north of the landfill in section 7, which is a single family house (ranch house) . The other immediate house i s to the southeast close to state highway 30 is section 25. To the northeast is Arapahoe fairgrounds. To the west is the Denver Sludge Disposal. To the east is the plains Conservation Center. Further away at the intersection of smoky Hill Road and Gun Club road, is a partially dense residential, which encomprises of a bout four ranch/farm houses. a PAGE 76 , ... " },1: \. I I' &4th I ;: . 411h AVl 1:â€¢r ' ! . t':'\''â€¢ . . '' â€¢onv MOUNTAIN AR5 t N A l :;; "' z .. ;! .. .. X ....... . LAND USE FORECAST :;; g z 0 "' "' X X z lt 0 "' X 11 PAGE 77 Future Land Use There has been a numbe r o f Land Us e proposals around the Lowry Landfill. This is shown on the map. This development proposal s are pending. Th e delay is due solely because planning and health officials wan t to insure that the area is totally clean-up and present no environmental hazard to the Community and its citizens. 6 8 PAGE 78 ' I ' y_-_ I ' .... ... . .._ .... â€¢-â€¢ Ownerah1p b.Oun tJtHy ----Zone lot bo1Jndary Pnvate open space A ll pobhc land UAfll and upl! n Slll " ' are co nc n;Jtua! 1n n etUf e Eâ€¢act locuttons are aub,ect t o p latting and site p la n revâ€¢ew. The local ton of S tAte Hwy 30 11 s rhemf\tâ€¢ c Onlv an d &UOJeCI to re vrs ton to conform t o the Ctty' a "-'tas t e r P lan ZONI N G AND LAND USE PLAN 0 0 LAND USE 0 U . A CRES 0 / A "" N IO(Jif f tt.L ... , . . ,.. KCHil/ CIIIt'IICl ,.., ,. ... . ,,.,u .... ... k ..... ,.,. TOTAl DU AND ACRES: eâ€¢IO ... 1060 â€¢â€¢u 1on 'tUtJ .. t ... 1l , .. IOtt ,,, . } 1 0 1 1 Uti ... . ) 0 lt7;"1 â€¢â€¢!ol ... , "â€¢' " Ill Ill 0 " .... 171 0 â€¢ . . .. , ... . .... ' .. Reviled 8 , t 086 Gun Club Partnership ... , The Bill â€¢â€¢ C o mpames Lâ€¢nd Development Olvlalon 69 I I , I I I PAGE 79 ---_.,CMB. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ I j â€¢ ONE MILe ...... I i .. z a p (p) -P ENDING EFFECTIVE (f) FINALED, BUT NOT EFFECTIVE 2-5-86 ,. "' " (1) ll!st ( p ) ( 2 ) East ( P ) (J) craig Trust 1 ( P ) (4) (5) Airpark (P) (6) lhited Bri(P) (7) Eastern Hi lis ( P ) (8) !:anym Assoc. (p) (9) (Aipert)(P) Ool Traaark( P ) (11) (12) Calvin Cl!ick ( P ) (13) The V illas (p) (U) Yaller Rnh East(F) ( 15) (Hltury 21 ( P ) (16) Craig Sooth ( P) (17) ldlfer/Cawy Jew 11 lb' th .ld Sill ttl ( P ( 19) Qrl CJIAI Assoc. (p) (19) Stith (p) (20) Stag! lUI (p) (21) ffiller (p) (22) lUI Estates ( P ) (23) Viet.ri/PIIrtin ( E ) (24) (E) (25) '-en li!UfieJds (E) er. lMld < E ) (V) I..Mdfill (E) (2B) Swtfwst Plaza (E) (29) llllters GaJleria (E) (a:sD) (JJ ) little Bocwoo (E) (Jl) Senac Reservoir (E) (32) Sehrens (p) PAGE 80 2-2.7 71 ANALYSIS OE_RATIONALE B!_PLANNER FOR THE LOWRY LANDFILL LOCATION The reasons behind locating Lowry Landfill at it's present location is as follows: 1. The need to dispose Waste generated by industries at a location far from the Community's residential areas. 2 . Site was non-urba n agricultural, and no land-use existed. 3. Th ere was no negative short term effects. Planners rationale at the time was that the location was feasible because of its remoteness and growth of the City would take a long time to expand to the vicinity of the landfill. Utilizing the comprehensiv e plan, that weigh much on economic development in terms of allocating industries who would need a landfill to dispose their wastes, but what the planners failed to take into consideration was; what would be the long-term effects and impacts to the health, safety and of natural resources around the landfill. 0 PAGE 81 72 2-2.8 MAJOR ISSUES Management Issues In t h i s case, the city wants to find solution to land use for areas adjacent to waste disposal sites ( Lowry Landfill). The principal issues are: 1. What are a n d what should the adjacent land use policies and guidelines be for land use development. 2. What is or wou l d be the most adequate clean-up procedures. 3 . What is the present level of contamination and also what is the extent of impacts/permanent damage to the 4. Where is the exposure of the hazardous wastes originating from specific areas of the landfill. 5 . Who should bear responsibility as a leading authority in mitigation process; should it be Aurora, Arapahoe County, City and County of Denver, the Tri-county health department or the E.P.A . ? Other Issues 1. Should the landfill be closed totally and refrain from any other landfill practices? 2. Should the landfill remain operational, and cleanup the hazardous chemical substances. 3. Should the adjacent land-use be restricted totally to light -heavy Industrial Activities? 0 PAGE 82 73 2 -2.9 SITE DESCRIPTION LYONS LANDFILL The Lyons Landfill is located 25 miles of Colorado Highway 66 and 53rd Street at the head of Dowe Flats. The site is located in the upper end of a drainage basin formed by mountains located to the east and wast. To the West is the Indian Mountain; to the east Rabbit Mountain. T o the north is Dowe Pass; to the South is Dowe Flats. (refer to figure 2-6). 0 PAGE 83 74 2-3.0 SITE HISTORY The site has been remote and underdeveloped till 1962, when Arapahoe Chemicals, Inc. conducted a geological evaluation of the site through Electronic Geophysics, Inc. Based on the studies, Arapahoe Chemicals purchased ten-acre tract of land in April, 1964. This began the Lyons Landfill disposal operations. In 19 70 , st. Vrain Canal was buil t to within 0.5 miles of the south boundary of the ten-acre site. During the same period a causeway was constructed to carry heavy runoff from an unnamed intermittent stream which crosses the st. Vrain Canal. The Boulder County Planning Commission during the same year approved the development of the Indian Mountain Subdivision. There are several residential homes present to the north and northwest of the landfill site. 0 PAGE 84 75 __ I__ . I . I I . , 8 I I PAGE 85 76 2-3.1 SITE DESIGN Disposal of waste occurred at the site in different location within t h e landfill area. There are two major trenches excavated about 15 feet below the ground surface wher e majority o f the waste disposal prac tices occurred. The two trenches are oriental in a north south direction with one t r e nch located adjacent to the wester n boundary (upper trench) and the other trench located about midway between the eastern and western site boundaries (lower trench). The different types of waste deposited and disposed consist predominantly of sludges, solids, and liquids. These were placed in the trenches. T here are also f e w pits about three in number which s o m e waste was also disposed. The three small pits are located east of the lower trench and spread on the ground surface between the uppe r and lower trenches. See site design map. Unfortunately, limited information on the activities, types and quantities o f wastes placed in the trenches are not available. In 1980, Arapahoe Chemical, Inc. purchased an additional 96 acres o f land ad]acent to the ten-acres. The landfill was opera ted from 1964 through 1976. The wastes dep osited was at the original tena cre sit e in two trenches about 15 feet deep. a The additional 96 acres was intended to afford a significant buffer. The waste consisted of liquids, and sludges. The ownership changed name from A rapahoe Chemical Inc. to Syntex Chemical, Inc. In July 1980, surface see page was observed, thi s lead PAGE 86 11 to the construction of groundwater interceptor trench and surface water diversions to isolate the landfill. This was generally initiated by Robert and Kathleen Moulton in March 1980, when they submitted a water well sample to a private lab to analyze for offensive odors. The Moulton's own a property within one-half mile southeast of the landfill. The laboratory report concluded that 0.063 mgjc and traces of xylene were found i n the sample. The Colorado Department of Health conducted a sample test and the results were a 6.6 pp6 diethyl ether and 3 . 0 ppb toluene. 0 PAGE 87 2000 0 2000 FT FIGURE 2-6 LYONS LANDFILL LOCATION MAP SOURCE : IT CORP PAGE 88 h â€¢ . , -. J â€¢' ; ;r 'I . . T , ;_,. \ â€¢ / ---. , . . . -'j / \ \ I ,,. I I ' ..... ..... , . riGURE . SITE MAP 'i1 C O R } PAGE 89 Topography of Site The site area is sloping at about 1 0 % to the southeast. The surface groundwater is crossed by several small surface drainage channels in the middle and eastern sector of the site. The elevation of the ground surface varies from about 5,760 to 5,600 feet. Soil Profil The soil profil indicates a cretaceous age sedimentary bedrock units w h ich have folded and faulted extensively. Geological units consist of unconsolidated sediments of colluvial and alluvial soils abou t 5 to 35 feet thick which exist together with thick deposits occurring on the east side of the site, Underneath the surficial deposits is the Benton formation, which is a thick black shale unit. The Dakota group underlies the Benton at a depth of 100 to 300 feet. The constituent of the Dakota group is made up of several thick sandstone units and inter-bedded shales structurally, the site is located along the a xis of a syncline which plunges or dips to 0 t h e south. GroundWater Groundwater can be traced in the surficial materials and PAGE 90 81 weathered Benton Shale. In the Dakota group sandstone units in the site groundwater is traced. Recharge for this shallow groundwater in the Benton Shale is primarily from surface runoff and this flows to the south. In regards to the Dakota group sandstones units recharge of the deep aquifer is primarily from outcrops of the units on the topographically higher areas around the site. Flow is generally to the south. Site Activities The limited information obtained indicates that wastes were placed in drums and deposited in the landfill. Some of the wastes were placed without containers, such as liquids. These free liquids were placed in the lower trench only. Drums were dumped into the trenches resulting in a chemical reaction of different chemicals because of random mixture of different drums. Finally, the deposits were covered with soil. 0 PAGE 91 82 2-3.3 EXTERNAL IMPACTS OK_LYONS LANDFILL Background In 1972, groundwater geologist Richard Pearl of the Colorado Geological Survey conducted a study o n the geological condition of Lyons Landfill. In a conclusion report, he emphasized on the potential for escape of the liquid chemical wastes from the burial cell into the alluvium via the buried channel. Syntex Company then hire d IT CORP to study the site, small amounts o f organic contaminants were detected to be leaking from the dump two miles northeast of Lyons Chemical wastes discovered in to the test wells within 600 feet of the .. â€¢ "'-landfill were Toluene, benzene, tetrahydrofuran, diethyl, ether an styrene all measured in parts per million. The former landfill cells at the northern end of the Syntex property have movements of contaminants in the groundwater moving in a southeasterly direction. This was confirmed through a ground water test. Presently, the impacts of the Lyon s Landfill to sur rounding areas are as follow: a 1. Undergroundwater contamination. 2. Migration of contamination 3. Leaking o f hazardous wastes into drinking wells. PAGE 92 8J Future Impacts Future impacts cannot be analyzed now, but likely future impacts could be generated depending heavily on the extent and efficiency in the cleanup process. One could classify the impacts into two categories. 1. short-term future impacts. 2 . long-term future impacts. Short Term Future Impacts Short term future impacts is based on the cleanup of the landfill. The impacts includes the following: 1. Fire: May occur during cleanup process/operations in respect to ignition of volatile organic compounds like benzene. 2. Explosion: May occur if high precautions are not taken in case of spillage. etc. 3. Odors: Removal of wastes from site may emit gases which would cause air pollution and other forms of pollution. Long Term F uture Impacts Long term future impacts are based on future issues concerning the landfill. are as follows: 1. Land use issues concerning land development of the Dowe Flats area and around the Lyons Landfill. 2 . Water use issues concerning how safe and healthy to put a reservoir in the Dowe Flats Area. 3. The fate of st. Vrain Canal. Would it be a health PAGE 93 hazard? fear? 8 4 And how could the natural resources be utilized / (J PAGE 94 ig. 2 8 .. ':' "''lt'f! N)' " ' .. ,.11:: l it' : J . Crl", , ' 'tâ€¢ A; v.f"l 1s ac Fig . 2 H P r operty li ne ' \ I I ' S 0 U RCE : o v CYN l t.O AM sr.o w s '':el l whc-re contam: n ? t c d aroDndwa : o r fou n d ... <'! .:w:!ove ILlndflll slto n o r l h!! l5! o f Lyo:1:; 0 0 PAGE 95 86 2-3.4 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN AROUND LANDFILL ZONING The zoning o f the surrounding area and the landfill has been revised. This was adopted an December 17, 1985. Prior to this revision, the zoning was non-urban and agricultural. Presently , the area is an un-incorporated Boulder County and i t is basically Agricultural with suburban residential areas to the north and northwest of the landfill site. The indian Mountain subdivision to the north is basically single family residential and was approved by the Boulder County Planning Commission in 1970. To the east of the landfill in section 5 is scattered residential houses. T o the South is section 8, section 9 and section 16 is all vacant lands. Proposed Development There have bee n several proposal for land use development in the Dowe Flats Area. These have been discouraged by health officials and different active parties associated with the landfill. On the next page is a map showing the latest land use proposal. c PAGE 96 87 B e low is a mop sho wi ng the l ntestland use proposal. !' ig. 2-10 [SJ HOUSING r:J C M UtRCI A L [] RESEVOIR 0 RESORT (]] ----, ! I i I '-...-... Dy A DAM t.1Jp showalateat propoaed development below Synt e x Chemicals tend fill northeast of Lyons .â€¢. dovelo;>mentln the Dowe FlaU area has be en dlacouran..n tw 0 0 PAGE 97 2-3.5 ANALYSIS RATIONALE BEHIND LYONS LANDFILL LOCATION 88 The location of Lyons landfill was heavily based on two factors: 1. A master degree thesis on the "Structural \geology of Rabbit Mountain Dowe Pass Area". 2. The remoteness of the site. In 1962, Arapahoe Chemicals Inc. (ACI) sort the assistance of Dr. Walker to locate and perform a feasibility studies for a landfill site. With the studies performed by C.D. Master on "Structural Geology of the Rabbit Mountain Dowe Pass Area" for his master's degree.the Lyons landfill was viewed as an ideal location. I With this conclusive results from the above studies, the planners at that time weigh more, on the remoteness of the site and concluded that it was appropriate and feasible and bears no Public health, safety and environmental problem to the community. " PAGE 98 2-3.6 MAJOR I SSUES Present Issues Presently, the major issue is recovery of the natural e nvironment of the landfill, in order to recover and bring back t h e natural State of the ecosystem, and in turn bring about utilization of the natural resources for the benefit of City and its citizens without fear or safety and environment hazards. Issues 1 . L and use concerning the developmen t o f the Dowe Flats Area . 2 . Water use issue s concerning puttin g a reservoir in the D owe Flats Area. 3. Longmont and L yons future expansion t o the Landfill. 4. Utilization and development o f St. Vrain Canal. 5. Who should clean-up, sho u l d Syntex Corp. be solely responsible or s hould the Colorado d e partment of Health (Waste Management Division) assist Syntex Corp. at this present time. since attempts by Syntex t o control plume have not worked. 6. Proactive response deal with the site now. A. By cleaning up all hazardous wastes mate rials and closing the landfill. B. By cleaning up the hazardous wastes materials and monitoring the_disposal practices to avoid off-site impacts. .. . PAGE 99 CHAPTER THREE: --HYPOTHESIS O F AND IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PAGE 100 90 3-1.0 INTRODUCTION The problem associated with hazardous waste and urban planning is that there is no theory and or standards in the planning profession to deal with directly in this issue' . Ul timately, something must be done with t h e hazardous wastes sites that have a great deal of impact to the land use around it's vicinity. One may say that, the effect of a hazardous waste site would be a long-term effect, because of i t's location, which is usually located a t a remote, non-urban area. But, the i ssue p resently is that, as population grows, the utilization of the natural resource increases and therefore an ultimate increase in land development to cater for the total population growth. This leads us to utiliz ing the natural resources close to the hazardous waste sites. City Growth Land development/utilization Fig. 3-1 0 The problem that arises is that, there is n o theoretical .land-use policies and urban planning framework presently available t o deal with this situation. Seldom have the America n people , that is t o say cit izen groups, neighborhood organization and non-profit organizations been s o united in their determination to PAGE 101 9 t see this environmental problem solved. The lack of planning theory and framework to this end has made it difficult and complex to deal with the situation. The Causes Of Complexity The question one may ask is; what are the factors leading to the reality of this complex situation? Lack of Procerdure Guidelines The lack of a define urban planning guidelines/procedure in the development of land-use around hazardous wastes sites is the primary factor. The lack of this planning theory is basically due to the evolution of the new aspect of planning which has not been an element of planning. Presently, this is becoming a major issue and a new evolution in urban planning -because of the effects of high industrial technology and its negative effects to man and its environment. Fiscal Factors The complexity which exist in this aspects is to be found in the inability of local government, (Cities, County and 0 state government) to establish a define, feasible and adequate intergovernment relationship. The inadequacy exist because of two important factors: 1. Revenue source to cleanup and manage hazardous was t e sites. This includes remedial and preventive actions. PAGE 102 2 . The intergovernment structure and the full desisnation of p owe r to e ither the Cities, Counties, State or the Federal Government agencies. Economic Factors 92 Local governmen t in the present age and time are focusing much on economic development. One may attribute this to the fact that every goverment wants to provide the basic ideal goods that the citizens would want and thereby elect the political officials back into the office. These basic ideal goods are most of the t ime jobs creations, tax base for the locality. This lead most o f the local governments toweigh more on economic growth and in so doing increasing industria l development which leads to the disposition of hazardous waste materials. Political Factors The absence of environmental health consensus, is a fundamental obstacle faced by t h e present day planner, in understanding and coping with the hazardous waste problems. This issue partly arises from the obvious fact that planning sessions are political decisions and are by nature, not susceptible to unanimous views. Another factor is attributable to the present day political malpractices, to the relative weakness of the elected political officials. The other factor a i s the legislative procedures to settle planning associated issues, which is seen to be a demeriting factor to the plann e r and there is e very reason to expect that this f orm of carrot-and stick politics would persist and intensify . The intention of t his chapter is to focus o n the PAGE 103 complexity of dealing with land-uses around hazardous waste site and to tentatively propose an hypothetical planning guildlines a s a step in solving the problem. 0 PAGE 104 94 -3-2.0 NEEDED FUNCTIONS OF LAND USE PLANNING AROUND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. One of the major tasks faced by planners is what, when and how do we utilize lands around hazardous wastes sites. Although this problem only recently captured the attention of planners, i t has resulted from decades of negligence and lack of foresight b y the planning profession. The principles and practices of land-use until this day has failed to address the issue andjor incorporate land use planning around hazardous waste sites as a major aspects of urban planning . Recently, few planning offices across the country are incorporating new staffsjpersonels entitled Environmental Planners to deal with the issue. But still, the much needed functions, principles and practice of this new area of planning is yet to be developed in tacklin g the problem, one has to view the development of lands around hazardous waste sites as a multi-disciplinary process. These are: 1. Urban Planning 2. Physical Sciences 0 The principles involved here is urban planning principles, analysis of physical sciences entites involved, economic principles and finally legislative principle s . PAGE 105 95 3-3.0 FACTORS IN_ZONING AH_HAZARDOUS WASTES SITE Zoning can provide municipalities the opportunity to prevent any future mistakes i n terms of land use planning and also to perserve all aspects of existing planning/developments. Since good planning is a results of a good zoning, which in turn is preceded by the comprehensive plan, one has to take zoning of hazardous waste site as a first and foremost step in w hat I wou l d call principles and practices of land use planning around hazardous waste.sites. Factors that the planner must consider in zoning an area of hazardous waste facility includes: 1. site selection 2. Land Area Availability 3. Feasibility study which should include a. Topograph and Soil Condition b . Hydrological and Geological Conditions c. Climatological Conditions 4. Encouragement of citizens p articipation and education. SITE S E LECTION In selecting a site, the planner must first and fore-most study the comprehensive plan (master plan). In so doing, the planner J is analyzing the future growth of the municipality. In light of this, the planner could visulize the development of land to a PAGE 106 96 hig h opt i mi s tic degree. The site selection can now proceed followi ng u nd ermentioned steps: 0 PAGE 107 97 Analysis of Master Plan Identify non-urban areas which would remain undeveloped for 20 years. t Analysis of Land Availability t Feasibility Stud y ----Climatolic Cond itions Conditions Geologicals Conditions Topograph & Soil Conditions Presentation of Data to citizens/Community . Approval of Zond ,ng the site (*Planning process should be followed here.) t Regulations/enforcement of Site Facilities Land Area Availability The size of the site in terms of acreage or square miles is very important, the planner should beware that the city is only going to have one area zoned hazardous waste site and sufficient land area should be available to cater for the disposal of waste for a very long period of time until new . technology of disposal maybe, one day may save us the headaches of waste disposal. It i s very desirable to have one area zoned was t e site than to have patches of areas in the city. Also, it i s economically feasible, w i t h r espect to site preparation, PAGE 108 provision o f a u x illiary facilities and management of the facility . Soil Con ditions and Topography Because hazardous waste materials are very mobile in ground water, runoff and through any media of the natural system, the soil condition and topograaphic data should be obtained by the planner to ensure preventive measures in the interest of public h ealt h and safety and also to minimize contamination of groun d wate r supply, containment of the hazardous waste materials in the zoned area alone. Some other important aspects of this is that the loca l topography affects the type of landfill operations, the requirement, and finally the necessity of the type of soil to provide cover for the waste materials. Hydrologic and Geological Conditions Geologic and hydrologic factors are the most important assesment the planner should take into consideration. It is the most important factor in analyzin g the site suitability a n d analyzing the adverse impacts to the surrounding land uses. a The planner therefore should obtain data on these to assess the air pollution, water pollution and other hazard pollutants o f the site and its vicinity. This wou l d assist in managing the site so that adjacent land can be developed for appropiate land use, which I would PAGE 109 9 9 discuss in the next chapter. In light of management of the site, this analysis would , provid e answer s to quality of local groundwater or the rate if any of cantamination of subsurface and bedrock aquifers. Th e planner could basically utilize the United states Geological Survey maps and state geologic information or logs of nearby wells can be used. Climatologic Conditions Climate is an imoportant factor since local weather conditions can affect the site thereby creating hazard environment conditions. The planner shoul d obtain professional assistance to ensure the feasibility of the site in regards to the micro-climate seasonal conditions. Other C onditions There are other factors the planner should consider, these are transportation of hazardous substances to the zoned site and it's impact to the land uses closest to the site, danger. noise, ordor, dust effects to future adjacent land uses. Citizens Education/Mass Production The community (citizens) should be informed about the processes, in zoning the site. The key word is to mass educate the citizens on all aspects of hazardous waste including the PAGE 110 lQO i mpacts to be generated. This would allow the citizens to understand wha t the issues are and what issues would be generated in the futue. Feed backs from the citizens should be formated i n senerios a nd then the planner should follow the traditional planning decision process. 0 PAGE 111 3-4.0 NEEDED AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION FOR EFFECTIVE/EFFICIENT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES PLANNING Setting standards (Regulation & Enforcement) Presently, there are set regulations administered by the 101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and local State Governments in setting guidelines in management of hazardous waste. There are some States which administer the program and have been designated the power to do so. The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is presently the only powerful tool in hazardous wastes management. At the local level the planner should set certain standards, and jointly work closely with the other agencies,including the E.P.A. to achieve optimum results. Local Ordinanc e And Guidelines Since the planner has now zoned an area (hazardous waste site) he has to develop effective ordinances and guidelines for the system. Zoning is a measure o f dividing the entire community into 0 disticts of zones, this is followed by regulating and enforcement of zone/districts. This means regulating, the use of the land. Since the zoning of hazardous waste site may be a new thing in planning, the authority to do this has to be granted by the PAGE 112 10Z State legislature. This is p ractically based on the state enabling Acts most of which are based upon the standard enabling acts prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce in the 1920's. Hypothetical Local R egulations O f Ar eas Zone d A round Hazardous Waste Site Since E.P.A or the state department of waste management have already esablished standards for r egulating hazardous waste s ites, the only effective regulations should be as follows: 1. Established of routes, for the transportation of hazardous wastes t o the z oned site (facility) within the City. 2. Concrete structure should be built around the s i t e by t h e owners of the disposal faci l i t y . 3. W eekly reports preparation of manag ement operations o f t h e facilities by the owner. This should be submitted to the environemtal planner in the m unicipal planning office. 4. Local industries which produce hazardous waste should locate close to the site. 5. O ffsite industries should pay annual revenue to the planning office. AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION The authority to enforce the man a gememt of hazardous waste .as a lways been in the hands of the Federal Government. My suggestions her e is one which is not a i med at dismantling the beaucratic system, but to incorporate a l ocal a uthority to have a more efficient management proces s . This loca l authority i s PAGE 113 lOJ the City or Municipal planning office. Since City government and Municipal government have the police power {The power, or right, pertaining to land use, property for the public good and in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare) . The local government has to adopt a legistature to regulate hazardous waste site in their juridication. The legislation should follow closely the RCRA regualtions of both the State and the Federal government, Intergovernmental relationship in regards to authority and enforcement of regualtions would be discussed in chapter Four. PAGE 114 104 3-5.0 EVALUATING HAZADOUS WASTE SITE PROPOSALS The next step in the hypothetic hazardous waste planning process involves evaluating proposals. The evaluation processes has to take the following as a frame work for the evaluation. 1. The Land Use Design plan (Master plan & Zoning) 2. Intergovernmental policies and guidelines. 3. Environmental feasibility studies (H.W. Facility) 4. Enivornmental Impact Analysis. Other alternative paths could be used in the evaluation process. But the planner should be aware of the importants of the above mentioned criteria. Requisites Evaluation Methodology The requisites of the evaluation system has to be assessed on the basis of : 0 1. Its effective as a method 2 . Its feasibility in operation 3. its resultant yield obtain PAGE 115 ---,. 1 05 ! . Hazardous Waste Studies Hazardou s Waste Site Plannin g forecast _ 1. Design/Indu strial mar ket growth. a. Establishing a Data base on H . W . I ndust ries Produci ng H . W . L and U s c Transportatio n of H. W. b. Cali b ratin g La nduse Plannin g&. H . W . Site Model s c. Setting Po licies &. Inter-active with other authoritorive agencies. d. Formulating Objective and Standards E_valuatton 1. Zoni ng Ordi nance 2. Impact A naly sis 3. Suitabii t y Studies 4 . Feasibility Studies 5. C omprehensive P la n 6. Po l' c y guidelines 2. Economic Ac tivities 3 Popula ion growth. P ian Preparatwn 1. Zoning 2. Master Plan ' 3 . Policy Guida nce 4. Establis hm ent of Planning Personnel s Pl an Testing 1. Safety ... 2. P ublic Health ' 3. Conv ience 4. Soun d Envisions 5. H. W. Sites Operation/Management S ys tems ""!..'Z-b r vc....ANHlNU. ANt:' L.AKt> vSE D GvALAJAT t'Ot--\ â€¢ PAGE 116 .. -â€¢â€¢#--CONS EOU ENCE.S OF PUBLIC INTEREST I ( t ha rahonate for 'no.3o..rd.ot.t!. WC\!.tr. Hea lth a nd Safety Convenience Effu..:i enc y and Enorgy Conservation Env PAGE 117 3-6 NEEDED BUDGET The purpose of this section is to provide a general financial resource f o r the fuction of hazardous wastes, management and planning of local government and State Governmeent. This section contains discussions o f where local and State Governments would obtain funds, and how the budgeting process should be formulated to meet to meet this ends.W So urces Of Revenue Whenev e r a new department/personnels are generated, local public officials and public finance officials question and worry abou t how revenue will be found or generated to pay fo the department and i t personnels . Well, I think planning directors and city managers etc. need to worry in this regard. Hazardous waste planning is an important issue of this presen t age in planning. Not only is it a new area with minimal remedial answers but an issue which everyone questions, how are we going to plan and manage this? Well the answer to me is creation of a sub-planning department with two expertise to do the work. How we are going to pay for thi s is what I am going to formulate. There is a legal foundation to the raising of revenue. 0 Local governments derive power to tax from state constituations and state statue s and also the home rule provides manicipalities some flexibility in revenue policy and here i t is not feasible to obtain specific authorization from the s tate. On the other hand the state constitution have provisions concerning PAGE 118 108 governmental autho rity to raise revenues. With the above information in mind, my formulation for financing the hazardous waste planning staff an management are as follows: 1. Special taxes at the local level imposed on industries and companies producing solid waste materials. 2. Cutting back on certain departments, and ineffective perso dealing with hazardous waste and utilizing the funds for the new H.W. planning staff. 3. Application for grants f rom Federal government. 4 . Utilization of revenue from the general funds. Special Revenues F rom Industries/Companies Producing Hazardou s Waste Material Th e equity and fairness of this special tax depends on the relationship between the tax depends on the relationship between the tax base amd the tax rate. The tax base is based on the amount in tons of the hazardous Waste substance s produced by the industry or the company , the amount of gross profit of the Company/industry. The tax rate is a progressive rate as sta ndard of living rises. 0 PAGE 119 1 09 TABLE 3-l Hyp othe tical Fun ds from Cutback s Municipal G o vernment D e partment S o urces of fund s Amount in do llars cutback Generated Pl an ning Dep t . Pl a nn e r 1$20,000 Code e nf o r cement Cod e enforcement $17,000 De p artment agent --------TOTAL$37, 000 Sta t Gov ernment Department Source of funds Amount in dollars funds cutback generated Dept. of Health Permit Officet" $18,00 0 Waste Management Researc h 1$21,000 TOT A L $39,000 PAGE 120 F ORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT X = b = y = amount of waste produce b y industry coeffici ent facto r gross annual p rofi t of industry 1 1 0 z = not multiplier (Industries depositing waste at waste site but l o cate d i n the munici pality where z = 2.0 b = 0.25 Equation: H .W. Tax =X/b (y X z ) Cutbacks On Certain Depar t ments/Ineffective Personnels Presently, there are certai n departments within the state g overnment and minicipal government w h o handle land use problems a ssociated with hazardous waste. The problem here is that most of these departments are specialized in the scientific aspects whic h included engineering, sanitation and enforcement of regualtions. Hazardous waste planning is a new field which incorporated urban planning and physical sciences. In order to effectively plan and m anage hazardous waste, expertise with the combination of urban planning and physical sciences background is neeeded. The present fragments of expertise and departments in the local and state level has to be reduced and the formation of a department in this regards should be established. The cutbacks should not be a major task since the funds needed is minimal. In the state Government, the department of Waste management has to cut on one personnel in the permitting and enforcement department. In the Municipal government the planning office has to cutback one of the planners in current planning and also in the Code enforcement department. PAGE 121 Application For Grants From Federal Government Federal government provides financial assistances in the form of grants to Local governments . There are categorized grants allocated to local government to use in different programs. This financial source is importan t because at the local level, local government may turn down certain proposals and funds as to be sort f rom elsewhere. This leads to the "Multipocket" budgeting by departments to seek opportunutes for funds to by-pass and ignore the intent of legislatives adopted appropiations. The idea here is to allow the local government to manage the creation of this new field also the various affected and department at the local level. The money should be distributed, for the most part, on the basis of need; tax effort and the generally according to the formula and rules for grants allocation. Hypothetically, the maximum grant allocated should be between$50,000 to $80,000 annually. Urbanization Of Revenue From The General Funds 0 In order to utilize funds from the general funds process of local government budgeting as to be followed. Since the money i s needed in the municipal planning office, or t h e State department of Health, the normal process has to be followed to justify the need. In som e cases, the public may need to vote on PAGE 122 112 the issue. Funds from the general funds has to depend on the number of personnels needed, the number and size of industries and company producing hazardous waste. PAGE 123 113 . ' . 3-7.0 NEEDED PERSONNEL AND EXPERTISE As I have mentione d over and over again, the ever-increasing emphasis on environmental issues in our society, in our government and the most important, in our planning department, where this new field is penetrating in the planning profession with not many answers f rom both planners and planning theories. The needed planning personnels in this respect has t o be a combination of professions. These professions and education backgroun d are as follows: 1 . Undergrduat e degree in any one of the physical sciences (Biology, Che mistry or Engineering) 2 . Graduate degree in Urban/Community Planning Th e combination of the above profession provides all the necessary tools and knowledge i n hazardous waste planning. The planning office s hould designate the title environmental planner for this job task. The functions of the personnel is both performing the duties of a City planner, environmental Analyst/Environment engineering . PAGE 124 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE NO OF PERSONNEL SALARY Environmental 2$24 ,000.00 Planner D 114 DUTIES JOB FUNCTION Research duties in environmental impacts Enforcement of r-u es an1 regulations. Function . with E.P.A., the State dept. of Waste managmen County heath depts, and Industries; company producing hazardous Waste materials. Review it's plans o f hazardous waste Materials. Review site plans of hazardous Waste facilities, adjacent Land development and proposals for Land Use development around hazardous waste sites.

PAGE 125

ll.5 STATE GOVERNMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE NO OF PERSONNEL Waste management planning 2 engineer Table 3 . 2 SALARY $26,000.00 DUTIES/JOB FUNCTION Review permits Proposals, Work closely with E.P.A. Local Municipalities in reveiwing their standards in regulations and enforcement. Using the State RCRA regulations/rules. Attend and assist in review process of hazardous Waste proposals, site plans, facilities and periodical site inspections with local environment planners. Review and attend planning meetings. At the local level and the State level, the number of the new personnels should be two. The annual starting income should range$24,000 $26,000. The job task would vary at the local and state level. On the previous page, is a summary chart showing the job salary and functions. â€¢ PAGE 126 .'1-16 In the industries/companies , environmental safety planners are needed. This personnels should be incorporated into the department of industrial hygiene or the department of facility maintenance. Their job task should be a combination of industrial safety, environmental impact analysis and working closely with the municipal environmental planner to achieve the goals and objectives sorted. The starting salary should range between$26,000 and $30,000. The number of personnels should be 1 to 2 depending on the size of the company/industry. At the Federal Level, at least one person with similar background and expertise, as discussed previously is needed in the Waste management department and their functions should be a combination of Environmental engineer and Land Management. The personnel selected should have a Physical science background at the undergraduated level and a graduate degree in urban planning or environmental Planning. The starting grade level should be equivalent to$24,000 \$28,000. ()

PAGE 127

3-8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Environmental planning in this context is a new component of urban planning, industries management, socio-economic planning and finally Waste management. With different agencies and organizations concurrently conducting environmental planning with emphasis on hazardous waste management, activities in an urban area, the requirement of these planning efforts will vary from one organization to the next. However, a primary purpose of each planning effort i s the same in each case to generate information useful to decision makers on consequence of alternative hazardous waste planning actions. 0

PAGE 128

ADMISTRATIVE STRUCTUR E IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT (Waste Managemen t Division) I. OFFICE I I . .. I I I ' H e=-wltSTE ..So,.,p j A orr. rrJ rsr RJr 7iot-l ... ( 0 y ) ,... \. L ' r

PAGE 129

Governing body . Ch1ef administrator Planning I â€¢ ------..... Q I Researc h Analys is Data base Progr am p l ann1ng and budgeting Library I Aavance p lanni ng Policy ana lysis Regâ€¢o nal studi e s ener al p lans dire c tor Current planning .l Env ir onmenta i/H.'w. planning Special projects Small area s tu d i es Redeve lopment planning Capi tal programmmg F ' g ure 3--5 Typ1 c I organâ€¢zauon of a câ€¢ty p l annmg agency show ing divis1c n s that are c o:nmon t o m n\ ag e n c 1es . ': . ... â€¢ â€¢ ;. .. Pub li c information l Land use con trols Zonâ€¢ng amendments Subdi v i sion re view Appl icat ions f or board o f zonmg ap p ea l s I Admini strat i ve services OHice serv ic es Boo kkeepi ng Ca rtography Compu ter serv ices

PAGE 130

I intend to introduce a layout of the administative structure of applicable and organizations in this section. This is intended to i nter-link other sub-departments and intergovernmental agencies to function effectively. Before I formulate the structural systems, it would be more useful for one to know the definition of environmetal planning (Hazardou s Waste Planning. ) Given the goals and objective of planning, hazardous Waste planning can be defined in the f ollowing manner: It is the process of: 1. Understanding the linkage between Public health, Community Planning, Land Use and hazardous Waste Management. 2. Understanding the types of decisions that need to be made. 3. Assessing the land-use, natural resources and the opportunities and limitations of the future. 4. Relating alternative decisions to the foals and objectives established for Urban Area, Agency or Company. 5. Indentify the short and long term consequences of alternative choices designed to take advantage of opportunities or responds to limitations in 3. 6 . Presenting this information to decision makers citizens in a readily understandable and useful form. The hazardous Waste planning section in State .government agencies would basically assist in the functions of the compliance and enforcement, solid waste department respectively and finally review and assist Municipal planning department (Environmental Planners ) in their task.

PAGE 131

Decision Making Process The underlying premise of the s ection is the planning methodology and the analysis tools used within the planning process be adapted and consistant with the substances and form of Urban/Community Planning decision making process. Th e basic principle in decision-making which should be taken i nto consideration by the environmental planner: 1. Understanding the nature of alternative decision-making processes. 2 . Needs and capabilities of those who are responsible. The rational approach is that, which I would recommend. Below is a flow chart of the rational mode l . 0

PAGE 132

Define goi:s and objectives Identify Problems t Generate Alternative t Evaluate Alternatives Select optional alternative The other recommended processess are: 1. Political bargaining approach 2. Organizational Process Approach 3. Incrementalist approach 4. Satisficing approach Political Bargaining Approach a 1 22 This states that decisions results from bargaining and search for consensus among the many participants in a decision approach.

PAGE 133

Organizational Process Approach Places decision making within a organizational context and identifies the organizational characteristics which l i mi t or constrain decision-makers choice. Incrementalist Approach Argues tha t decision makers focus only on these policies which differ incrementally from existing policies. Approach Although it i s based on the Concept of rational Choice, Sugg ests that decision mak ers choose alternatives which satisfy some mi nimal l e vel of acceptability of which induce the least harm or disturbance. The environmental planner should conside r which of these models is suitable and feasible to use in the decision-making process. The proposal presented by Syntex Inc. for clean-up of the Landfillis presented in Table 4-2 and should be used as part of the ideal hazardous waste planning process. Also, the planner should use figure 4-1 a s a guiding tool. 0

PAGE 134

CHAPTER FOUR: --PLANNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT USING AND HYPOTHESIS AS A REMEDIAL ACTION FOR LOWRY LANDFILLS.

PAGE 135

124 4-1.0 Introduction My ideal hazardous waste planning process (Chapter 3) in the field of management is defined as a combination of community planning and physical science. The process of evaluating scientific factors is combined with the community planning process. They are then measured and evaluated, and workable alternatives are developed and utilized in the decision making process. In utilizing my ideal planning process (IHWPP) at the local level, i s accomplished by applying basic biological, chemical and engineering principles (presented in Chapter 3, Section 3-3) to the goals and objectives of community planning. This new planning evolution is unique and might mark the beginning of a new era of in local hazardous waste planning . it brings together an exciting and challenging task for planners, because it is a formation of technical, environmental sciences, economics, social and political factors. Also, the interrelationship between different governmental agencies, citizen,groups, and professions to evolve as a new system. The applicatio n of my ideal not only acts as a preventive measure before the site is located and designed as discussed in Chapter Two. This can be used in resolvin g major issues concerning 0 developments around existing hazardous waste sites, including development of remedial actions. The purpose of this chapter is 1. To use my ideal Hazardous Waste Planning Process in proposed remedial actions for Lowry Landfill and Lyons Landfill.

PAGE 136

2. To define a g eneral methodology for designing a zoning and development plans for surrounding areas o f the Lyons and Lowry Landfill respectively. '

PAGE 137

1 26 4.2.0 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN_USING THE IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS. THE MAJOR ISSUES CONCERNING LAND DEVELOPMENT AROUND LANDFILLS. Introduction to considerations in using my ideal hazardous planning hypothesis (IHWPP) to resolve the major issues of development around Lowry and Lyons Landfill. In using my ideal hazardous planning hypothesis to resolve the present situation at Lowry Landfill and Lyons Landfill, three basic steps are necessary. l. Functions of land use development around hazardous waste site. Authority and legislation for effective/efficient hazardous waste site planning. 3. Evaluating development proposals. These steps were discussed in Chapter three. Since Sam's hypothesis is basically design for siting hazardous waste site, zoning around hazardous waste site, planning process to be taken and authority/legislation, there are a couple of functions as outlined above, which could be used to mitigate the major issues at stake at the planning level. Section 4-3 and 4-4 describe some functions of Sam's hypothesis to be used in solving the problems concerning development around Lowry and Lyons Landfills. "

PAGE 138

4-3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION USING THE FRAMEWORK OE_AH_IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL . Remedial Action using the framework of Sam's planning hypothesis for development around Lowry Landfill. The remedial investigation is being performed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The planning Process is as follows; (a modification of Sam's hypothesis). 122 The remedial investigation in Sam's planning hypothesis is the scientific evaluation of geological conditions, hydrology, soil etc. The initial steps in utilizing Sam's hypothesis are as follows: Establish goals/objectives (City Planning Department State Department of Health) Undertake remedial investigation data collection/research (EPA with the aid of the new HW planner in the C ity Planning Department) Analyze remedial investigation Research (EPA and HW. planner in the City Planning Department) Land use development feasibility studies for areas surrounding the landfill (City Planning Department)Land use constraints defined and applied to the land-use feasibility studies (City Planning Department) Development of alternatives for land-use design (City Planning Department) Evaluation of results options by local public officials with the community and wit h State Health and EPA (City Plannin3 Department) . Development refined concept of land-use designjzoning (City Planning Department) Implementation of concept/design (City Planning Department) In this case, the,detailed remedia l investigation research is performed by the Environmental Protection Agency . . Table 4-1 illustrates its study schedule.

PAGE 139

REâ€¢,.EQz ,t.L INVI!STIGA ii'?N T .&.S I( I I ! J : ' I s I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I ,, r,., I IS I I ( I I I , ' _, tHVEs ncâ€¢ noN SUP"P O A r ; J I I J j I I 11 I 1 . 1 E..â€¢ u 0.,. Couewon ano E â€¢ alua uon _...j. _____ -''===-Plan : I I ! f I : i I : : Pâ€¢ocu.,menr Pl a n I I I I -T , , I 1.6 Slâ€¢ ano Poootny Actou I I I r ,1 I I 1 1 Clou s .... opon L a b I ' I w DEVElO P POTHT1Al REWEOIAL ACTION S I I I I I I _;_I _ , __ 11 ' I l:SITEINVESTICATIO N S ! I : _ , 1 --r . ! -,---,-----1---, ---) 1 râ€¢el d O :>er.J.IIOOt ' I _ I .!..__ I I l I J 2 ; .. a lu.a::-?l.erno:e Sens â€¢"; Oat' 1 I ' I I 1 â€¢ 1 J J ""'= S\.t1 â€¢ C â€¢!II G eoiOQY' -----+---+1--i-1 --------.:::::......; I I J â€¢ .. ,â€¢c.al I / 1 1 i , I I 5 -u.uroous Svcs a., ces ,,.. . 1u1e Pâ€¢u 1 : I 1 j j )6 I I I I 3 7 Sun ace Wat er SluOy ------1----'-l __ .;..l __ _:__--., _ _ --------'---.:.' ---'-1--.;_--1,__.; I I I .) ! Cir?u,'= -attr Monllorznt; -------t--"f l _ _ .:_; ____ :-: __ --i-l-------;---â€¢1 --..:.; _.._,;..'---i---i-l i1 ---1'----r-..,;:__-+ __ .:.__..,i J 9 v ooHc'â€¢'9 Sool __ .,;1_.._,;.1--_!_ll __ .:.__,.,. I j I I I u fHOAHGERW EHT ASSESS W f N T I ' I I I I I I I I u A H A LYl !SITNVESTICATI0"0ATA ---+--'1 __ ..;1 __ ..,... __ :_1 __ .;...1 ed----.--.. -1-::;J:::d I I 1 I I . . I .1-I t...: ----+-A ) I --'---"---.C.--32.,3 )SA_!.__ .)58 ... ... CEMEHTACTIVITIES 1 l I 1 â€¢ l 6j-9--6J ; I I i 1 I L â€¢ â€¢ i I I FE .. S I31l â€¢ v STUDY T> 5< I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1...J ESTABLISH 01-JECTIVES -------f--....!.---j--+--f---t-+l---7---!----+---i!---...!.--+---+--+--+ l--:---l--+---7---+--7---.01 1.' EVALUA OE R EWEOIAL INYESTICA TIC S OAT .. -+----+1 __ ..!._1_--;1 __ _,1.;__ ,...:..1! __ :_I __ _!l __ _!l __ _cl:..._ _ __:_l __ .:_i __ ..JI __ ...;...I I I I I I L; __ ___ ..;l ____ _!l ____ â€¢ < S CREEN .. LrERHATIVE S I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ' I 1. < COHCEPTOESIG H __________ ____ .,:.l ____ ,_l ____ __ ' ' IVITifS ________ ... . !.. â€¢ As u.,"T\eJ 60 c h y s IOâ€¢ 01 t a nâ€¢IY"' Ct. D l2 .& T .,., Memorandum '!) â€¢Vc" P!â€¢t'l UOdllt t ;,r Stocon!l P"'IIH s ... :uan __ 1....;:: z. M -H t 1.-L.. j I? . p 0 u A 1-11 '-f /t&sl-1 M ..\c&T f?At.J Fc R OFit...l-M!tRctt I'TB"5'"]

PAGE 140

1 29 : , el,.'f_Mll .-.. ... . ------.... .. LAND GUI A:--ll.Ef..---PROJ C. TION OF -,._...,. USE SY S TE M DESIG :;.I .. r---., r---, I l--01 L _ _ _j l ' \ ' Items) -) /J.r:hv1!y (actâ€¢"'ifV . . . . ) 11 ..... (envoronmen :;1 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ ) o mpac ts ) .. ....... .........â€¢........ cnnsequoenc es .... :> e g . . COSI!' :o local . . â€¢ ... â€¢.... . g ov rnrnent , lega ltry) â€¢ â€¢ ) __ _,lP:"hiiCill M odels l. GEIJO l 0r IJ :I'"lr.r dtâ€¢Stg n rcnntng ---7 fer pr o , ec:icn of CC>nse queâ€¢'ces ........ ) l)r cnluatio n Process o t Cc::"gn1:1g and n ly ztng Land U sc a d Guid?.nce Sy s t em Plans . CfrAPu-l u ll\t-1 Ust:: . o Evaluallon Methods Achievabol ity (co mpanson w ith lan d use desogn ) 2 . E v aluation Test (com parison w ith evalua t ion critena) J Feasib ili ty "-natysâ€¢s

PAGE 141

lJO After the remedial action report is presented to the city planner, he reviews the impact tha t might exist with land use development and create a concept design of land use. On the previous page, is figure 4.1, i s the proces s of designing and analyzin g the land uses that he or she might use(The Planner). The relatio nship between Chapin & Kaise (figure 4-1 ) and the ideal hazardous W process is that it clearly defines strict s tages i n terms o f p o licy framework , Land Development Plans, P r o gram of and lastly implementation. But with hazardous Waste Planning Process, it is specifies strictly the Land Use Planning Process without monitoring the guidance system p lans. 0

PAGE 142

lJ1 4.3.1 ZONING ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL After the process of designing and analyzing the land use has been developed, the planner now enforces specific types of useage around the lanfill. The process is called zoning around the surrounding area. On the next page is the process to be followed.

PAGE 143

:TIONAL NNING ::N-BASE D Prot.Jierr.stN e"!ds Identifying Goals/ObJec t ives Dehn1n ; Sce narios tA s sum puons 1 1 EXCHANGE PROCESS "1'-IT' -1' I I I w ' V w Analyz ing I I r --l I Problems/ f--i lden11 f ymg f--i Programm1ng 1 L Needs Goa iMObJec:1ves So lutions r-__ j L_ __j L _j 1' Dec i s i on App ly Mo de l lJ2 Des1t Pla ns De vel op Plan E valuation Cnte r ---, I Dec iSIOn -J.,. r--I Act io n on Sho 1 Term Problem L:::e_:. Specia l Interest Groups Nelgh!;)o rhood Org an lzotions .C.;eawide Organizations igure 't-e 0 0

PAGE 144

4-3.2 PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR ZONING AROUND LOWRY LANDFILL The following proposed restrictions by the Tri-County Health Department i n this case is sound and valid. I have lJJ reviewed the following proposed restrictions and I agree with the proposal. I feel that this is a necessary and integral part of the zoning process. The proposed development restrictions was adopted from Tri-County Health Department in Colorado and with the assistance of the Director. 1. For any property on a section of land immediately adjacent to Section 6 of Lowry Landfill, the annexation agreement between the City and developers should contain a stipulation that the zoning of the property could be re-evaluated and subsequently, if necessary, changed based on Record of Decision of the u.s. EPA regarding Section 6. It should be made clear to developers that zoning could become more restrictive , or less restrictive depending on study results. 2. The final planning phase of any development should follow the Record of Decision and any required clean-up on the developers's property. 3. Future plans for activity on the landfill property should be disclosed to the developer and considered during initial annexation agreement negotiations for property on section adjacent to Section 6 , 31, and 32. The developers should be required to disclose such future plans to subsequent landowners. 4. Property on sections of land not immediately adjacent to Sect1on 6, but within 1 mile of Sections 31, 32, should be evaluated based on the Record of Decision of the Section 6 studies or other activity that has taken place on the landfill property. At a minimum, the annexation agreement should contain a phasing schedule for development that will provide maximum assurance that studies will be completed which will identify existing off-site contamination. If contamination is found, construction should not take place until clean-up is completed

PAGE 145

5. If results of the EPA studies identify an unstable situation in Section 6. then a defined safety zone should be established within which no construction should b e permitted until the risk o f a serious incident is minimized. 6. Before any occupancy-of a structure occurs within 2 mile s of the boundary of Section 6 prior to the completion of Lowry clean-up, an emergency plan must be prepared and integrated with the site safety plan developed by u.s. EPA. 7 . Based on EPA finding assessing off-site contamination, the developer may be required to perform monitoring of air, soil o r water prior to construction to ensu that the property is not contaminated with toxic chemicals. A plans for monitoring would be approved by the Colorado Department of Health i n advance. 8 . Developments proposing to use water wells from the Dawson and Denver aquifers for a long-term potable water supply should not be approved, a t least until EPA studies are completed. Following the Record of Decision, any development plan for use of groundwater as a potable water supply should require approval by the Colorado Department of Health. The proposed restrictions for Land development around the Lowry Landfill, a s mentioned above (lthrough 8) generally relates to the ideal hazardous Waste Planning Process as p art of t h e methodology to be followed and one must remember that th4 usually planning process has to be incorporated . . (o

PAGE 146

4-4.0 REMEDIAL ACTION USING THE FRAMEWORK IDEAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AROUND LYONS LANDFILL. Since Lyons Landfill is not yet listed on the EPA Superfund Priority List, the first phase of the planning is remedial investigation/actions to be performed by Syntex Inc. (owners of the Landfill). The cleanup should be supervised by the EPA, Boulder, Health Department and the Colorado Department of Health. 0

PAGE 147

1J6 The planning process is as follows: Goal/objective (Municipal Planning Department and State Department of Health) Remedial action (Syntax, Inc.) Analysis of remedial action (Boulder Health Department, State Department of Health, EPA and City Planning Department) Land-use development feasibility studies (City Planning Development of alternatives for land use design (City Planning Department) Evaluation of results with the community (City Planning Department) Develop concept designjzoning (City Planning Department) Implementation of concept designjzoning (city planning Department) The proposal presented by Syntex Inc. for clean-up of the Landfill is presented in Table 4-2 and should be used as part of the ideal hazardous waste planning process. Also, the planner should use Figure 4-1 as a guiding tool. 0

PAGE 148

COI+IUN ITY RLAT IONS TECHN I QIJES Persona l contact with residents Briefing o f local officials ubi lc meetings Briefing of state legislators water district officials sheets and updates 'ress 'ress conferences/conference cal Is es-1 gnated SCI contact REMEDIAL INVES TIGATIONS REPOP.T (2/85) X RISK ASSESSHNT (5/85) X X IV. 'IQRKPLAN AND Sa-tEOULE â€¢ EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES X X SELECTION Of REMEDIAL ACTION PlAN X X SELECT I ON Of CONTRACTOR X X PROJECT Sa-tEOULE ESTABLISHED X X PROJECT I MPLEHENTA T I ON x X PROJECT CCM'lT!OO X X --------(as app ropriate) ---------X X X X X X X X X X X X â€¢ X X X X X X X X X X X X ----(ongoing) --fhls schedule I ncludes tech nical milestones d ating from Issuance of the Remedial Investigations Report. Actual timing (dates) for future activities can ! specified after the technica l work schedule has been finalized.

PAGE 149

lJ8 4-4.1 Z oning Ordinance for Development Around Lyons Landfill Using the process in figure 4-2 and incorporating the various be able to use the process below as a guideline to zoning land around the Lyons Landfill. Emphasis should be laid on the neighborhood/citizens participation in this regard. 4-4.2 Proposed Guidelines for Zoning Around Lyons Landfill In setting proposals for zoning and land development a round Lyons L andfil l the issues being faced presently at Lyons Landfill must be taken into consideration. Before the utilization of the ideal hazardous waste planning methodology. One should remember that these questions/issues were acquired from citizens concern groups, the Boulder Health Department, the Colorado State health department and finally editorial from local newspapers. Major: Questions And Issues About Land Development Around Lyons 0 Land fill 1. Land use concerning the development of the Dowe Flats Area. 2. water use concerning putting a reservoir in the Dove Flats Area, Longmont future expansion and the st. Vrain Cana l .

PAGE 150

1J9 . With these issues in mind, the following primary goals of planning m ust be implementated, as stated in the ideal hazardous waste planning process. 1 . Public safety 2. Public h ealth 3. Welfare of citizens Propose d Restrictions And Recommendations Utilizing The Ideal Hazardous Waste Planning Process. Since the st. Vrain Cana l is the main source of water supply to the n e ighboring cities and Lyons, the following guidelines are necessary: 1. A reservoir area for storage of st. Vrain water. 2 . Mining of limestone 3. Based on the clean-up, zoning of the areas must be urban/agricultural open space. 0

PAGE 151

140 5-1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER CHAPTER l CHAPTER ! The management o f Hazardous Waste at the Federal, State and particulary the Local levels is weak and in need of a new type planner to improve the situation. Both the Lowry and Lyons Hazardous Waste disposal site had serious interna l and external problems that better local Haz ardous Waste Planning might have been able to prevent. It is possible to design an ideal local Hazardous Waste planning functions, a d ministration, and functional processes. 0 Th e ideal local hazardous waste planning process could be used as a remedial process for existing hazardous waste planning problems, (Lowry and Lyons.)

PAGE 152

APPENDIX I 0

PAGE 153

R egionâ€¢ :--:ew E ngland !>.t id :\t iAntic E.t sr 'or:!l Cc ,;ra: We. t :\tl nu East Sou:.h Central \\" c s t Souc h Cencral T O T .\L> Inorganics i n aqu e o us (l b s.) 1.9 X 101 x 1nâ€¢ 2.f> X l(l' 1.3 10' 4.6 X 101 1.8 X JOI 6 .4 10' ' ' X 101 _ _ .. _ _ j X 1\1 ' ::. _, x wâ€¢ . -APPENDIX 1 Estimated Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by Region Organics in Sludg e s, t slurries . aqueous (lbs. ) Organics (l bs.l soli ds, ( lbs . ) _,_4 X 101 6.6 X 107 1.2 X JQ" 2.2 X !09 __ l X 101 Llxl01 I. > . 10" 2 . 9 10' !. li)' '\_2 ,._ !f" 9 . 9 X 1(}' _-; X J()" 1.2 x w -1.5 J( 10' I 6 X 10' -;_7 X iOâ€¢ X 101 1.9 x w 1.9 X 1 0 ' 1.5 xlf) --u ; \\'3'!<"">. hingtOn, D .C. Jun .20. 1 -3. \ Toca l ( lbs. ) 6.08 X ! I -U2 X JO' 4.77 x 10 ' . 86 xI . ).9-X i()â€¢ i.056 X 1 , 3.q-. )o. jQâ€¢ 1.6 2-; X! â€¢ 3. 3 "10' I. 'ili99 )( 10" Percent o f c ot:ti 3 . 1 ' 0 24. 2 4 .tt !U.P { . .-. â€¢New England: onm.:tit:ut , M::11ne,l\tass:1Ch useus . :--:cw H .J, , :\l ;n,.. e ota. Mt> o u n . l-..t. Sorrh ot.z .wd )ourh Dakota; South A rbnuc: Oei J \ a re , Di>rrict o f C olur:-:!-.id, F l orid.1, Gc-nrg1:1. , rth Caro! i;:;. C::.roh .1. V::-g.nu, dnd ' ' i r g imd; EJ t South C.c 'l t L.:!: Ala bama. Kcnrucky.; anJ Ter nc.-ssce; \X"cst 5.lu:h Arkd n'.

PAGE 154

APPENDIX II <.

PAGE 155

1\it ' Jcr\t:)' Ohi11 llltlllll\ ( 'a! tfut 1 1.1 Tcx.l' 1nv Ymk ' lit hi!',.lll ' l rlloll \l't: ln d:.ma North C:an1 l i n . a 'â€¢r g n11: 1 MiS\ 7 X l) ] ( 1 II 1 2 I I 1 ' 4 " l .'i" I ( , 1 7 l llJ 20 2 1 u l . l 24 1 \ !.6 (N.ll ional \X'ildlifc h:Jaation) R,111king of W,,qe l'togr .un Qualit y ll. 10 I 15 l.l 111 2R J 25 14 l.J 39 IH 4 . l l y .lil l.l 4X 8 2 I'J 2 .5 ..

PAGE 156

t\fll' odi., 1 1 In\ " '"'" I 1 ,! 1 . â€¢ .11 â€¢ . \ 1 1 , I'"I'P' :'If ( Ill' ... " { ,,,,., .hift lit â€¢ â€¢111.1 ( ht gâ€¢ II R!ii )Lk lâ€¢l.lih l ld. lhto 1.111ll' ( i-t !'.\ ... t /\rillln, l t:\\ ' l l.llil l '' "lll' l1t:th Nc" .\11â€¢"" , \1 :1111.111.1 Vermont N n . 1 d. 1 J)(. !Ia\' .111 onh I 1a \o111h I ' . 1k11t.1 \),l ylllltl.llllll\ , n. 'lil\'h' . â€¢ /'( /):/r "/1111 , II' l', l . llll * I '1()()'111\ 01. \\.i-..11111)' . '"" I I ( ... l 'lhll. r llln: ' 1 ht â€¢J.J'A Sllldv l ''.',d ll. lllii< Jil i )' t ht p l u s t he D i .. tri c t uf Columbia; t h e N\.1'1 <,llnt v "11â€¢.\.r. l '" ... l,illl "ll.d l 1nritn1i<' I ' r. , 1.11 .1111 \ 1q:lll J,l.nlll ' , .111d l'nt :l" 1\1 111 }. 1 . 1\J) lh<' \ J "\lilt'" !IIII III IUIIIII J. 1 1 h \tlldlL' \ Jrt: IIIL.hltlcd 10 r.d k . 143 . .

PAGE 157

APPENDIX II! CJ

PAGE 158

APPENDIX III LIST OE_AGENCIES AND PER SONS INTERVIEWED 1) George Mathews , Environmental Health Coordinator Boulder County Health Department 3450 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 2) Ken Ziebarth, Planner Land Use Department Planning Division Boulder County 14th and Spruce Street P.O. Box 471, Boulder, Colorado 80306 3) Chris J. Wiant, M.A. M .P.H. (Director Environmental Health) Tri-County Health Department 4857 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 4) LaVern M . Johnson (President) Citizen Group (Lyons Dam & Dump Concerned Citizen) Box 9 Lyons, Colorado 80540 5) David McCord, Planner Aurora City Planning Department Aurora, Colorado

PAGE 159

6) Debra Schultz, Planner Arapahoe County Planning Department Littleton, Colorado 7) Ken Mesch Waste Management Division Colorado Health Department 4210 E. 11th Avenue De nver, Colorado 80220 8 ) Ken Waesche Waste Management Division Colorado Health Department 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, C olorado 9) Kenny Norman, Environmental Engineer Environm ental Protection Agency D enver, Colorado 10) Dr. Hancork T oronto M inistry Of He a lth Ontario, Canada 11) Gwenda Borchway Toronta, Canada

PAGE 160

REFERENCES (}

PAGE 161

146 REFERENCES 1. Brobny, M.L., H.E. Hull, and R.F. Testin: Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-lOc, Washington, D.C. 1971 2 . Resource Recovery and Source Reduction, First Report, 1978 Second Report 1974, Third Report 1975. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. Publications SW-118, SW-12 and SW-161 Washington D.C. 3 â€¢ Colonna, R . A. and c. Mclaren: in Solid Waste Management u.s. Protection Agency, Publication 1974. Decision-Makers Guide Environmental SW-127, Washington D.C. 4. Report to Congress: Disposal o f Hazardous Wastes, U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-115 Washington D.C. 1974. 5. CH2M -Hill & Ecology & Environment, Contract No. 68-01-6692 EPA No. 72-8L08-0 Quality ASSURANCE Project Plan Lowry Landfill Site March. 1985 6. Syntex Chemicals, Inc., Post-Closure Management of Lyons Landfill. Revised November 23, 1982. 7 . u.s. EPA, RCRA Orientation Manual Documents u.s. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Jan. 1986. 8. City of Aurora Planning Department . 1984 Comprehensive Plan. 9. Camera newspaper (Boulder Colorado) Dec. 2, 1984. 10. Camera newspaper (Boulder Colorado) Nov. 14, 1984. 11. Camera newspaper (Boulder Colorado) Nov. 28, 1984. 12. Camera newspaper (Boulder Colorado) Nov. 08, 1984. 13. Jim Antonion, Environmental Management, McGraw-Hill (UK) 1971. u 14 . Internation City Management Association, APA 1979. . 15. Chapin F.S., and Kaiser J.E. Urban Land Use Ping Third Edition, Univ. of Illinois 1979. 16. Principles ahd practice of Urban Planning. Institute for training in Municipal Administration by International City Manager's Association 1968.

PAGE 162

1 4 7 , r 17. Principles and practice of Urban Planning, Institute for Training in Municipal Administration by International City Manager's Association 1968. 18. Webber, Melvin N. ( 1 6964) "The Urban Place and the nonplace Urban Realm." In M.M. Webber, ed., Explorations into Urban Structure, Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. 19. The American Law Institute (1976) A model land Development Code, Philadelphia. 20. Baker, Janet K., Herbert Dee, NeilL. Drobny, and Kenneth N. Duke (1973) Lands Use Planning: A key to effective Environmetal Control: Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Columbus Laboratories April. 21. Gold, Andrew (1974) "Design with Nature: A Critique," review article, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(4): 284-86. 22. Meyer M . D. and Miller E.J., Urban Transportation Planning: A decision Oriented Approach. McGraw-Hill Book Company 1984. 23. Federal Register 46 (Feb. 26, 1980) :33119. 24. u .s. Environmental protection Agency, Office of Water Quality Management, Groundwater Protection, Document No. WH-554 (Washington, D.C., 1980) .p.4. 25. R . D. Lipschutz, Radioactive Waste: Politics, Technology, and Risk: A report of the Union of Concerned Scientists (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1980.) 26. M. Brown, laying Waste: The poisoning of America by Toxic Chemicals. (New York: Pantheon), 1980. 27. D.R. Rima et al.; Potential Contamination of the Hydrolic Environment from Pesticide Waste Dump in Hardman Country, Tennessee (U.S. Geologocal Survey, Water Resources Division, Aug. 1967), p.2. 28. C. S. Clark at al., "Evaluation of the Health Risks Associated with the Treatment and Disposal of Municipal Wastewaters and SJ.udge." Grant Report Number R-805445 to the Health Effects Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency (Cincinati, Ohio, 1981) .29. New York State Department o f Health, Love Canal: Public Health Time Bomb . Special Report to the Govenor and Legislature, Sept., 1978, p.2. 30. u.s. Environmedntal Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Report to the Congress on Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water. Document No. W554 (Washington

PAGE 163

148 D.C.,l977), p. 322. Business Review, Nov. -Dec. 1980, pp. 6 31. GAO Report, Waste Disposal Practices. 32. Idem., How to Dispose of Hazardous Waste 33 . Idem., Hazardous Waste Management Programs. 34. Idem., Waste Disposal Practices. 35. Idem., Hazardous Waste Managment Programs 36. Chemical Manufactures Association, "A Statute for Siting, Construction and Financing of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Disposal and Storage Facilities," monograph (Washington, D.C. 37. K. Kamlet, Toxic Substances Programs in u.s. States and Territories: How Well Do They Work? (Washington, D.C. National Wildlife Federation, 1980), p. 8.