HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationJ a nu ary 7, 1991
EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 161
Silt, Colorado 8 16 52
(303) 876-2944
Mar k Bea n, Dir ector of Pla nning
Dep artme nt of Dev elopment/Plannin g
109 8t h Stree t, Suite 303
Gl e nwood Spri ngs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bea n:
En c losed i s the fourth quarter report for 199 0 as r equired by t he
Special Use Permit s tipulations of th e Ea s tsid e Min e.
Sincerely,
L'i nd a Limb ac h
Ea s t s ide Co a l Co mpa ny, In c .
Enc l os ur e
I 11
RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly
Monitoring Report
REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division
FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc.
DATE: January 7, 1991
0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to
or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any.
O Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any.
0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average.
0 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site.
0 The amount of coal shipped.
The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence:
Number Residence Length of Residence
2 Silt, Colorado 8, 31 years
August?, 1990
EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Bo x 161
Silt, Colorado 81652
(303) 876-2944
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street, Suite 300
~lenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Commissioners:
Eastside Coal Company has obtained a customer who is inte rested in
purchasing the remainder of the fine coal stockpile located at the
Eastside Mine.
The firm is Public Service, located at the Cameo Station, Color ado .
We have sold coa l to them in the past.
The coal will be transported by semi-tractor trailers grossing 80,000 lbs
or net weight of coal approximately 25 tons/load . Th e re will be a maximum
of 16 round t r ips per day, Monday through Friday between the hours of
7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Ther e will be a minimum of 15 minutes between
loaded trucks. Hauling is anticipated to begin Augu st 20 or August 27 ,
1990.
The removal of the stockpile from the property he lps to control the
possibility of spontaneous combustion and the fine coal blow ing during
periods of high winds.
Thank you for considering our request to allow the coal to be sold .
Sincerely,
~In/
, Stephen Z
General Manager
SS/11
5'; 000 16/)$
/J.00 ~ iJ«h-/) l'A/t~
~~v; ~s ?iJ/;.Sif.
October 1, 1990
EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC.
P.O. 13ox 161
Silt, Colorado 81652
(303) 876-2944
Mark Bean, Director of Planning
Department of Development/Planning
109 8th Street, Su ite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8160 1
Dear Mr. Bean:
Enc l osed is the third quarter report for 1990 as requ i red by the Specia l
Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine.
Sincerely,
Linda Li mbach
Ea sts ide Coal Company, Inc.
En cl osure 1
[>.:-.. · ..... , ·-···~,.-..,
L• . • . ':. ) ~/ n· i ~ . ·-• . ... I: ' . I . -.. ;, ;
. OCT ;; 1990 /f fi
,, i J r 0L ~· .. h r ii.:.Lu C0~1~TY ,
RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly
Monitoring Report
: i
REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division l
l
I FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. ' l
l
DATE: October 1, 1990
__ -~o~---Number of moving violation citations and accidents ·issued to
or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any.
-0-Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck drivfr, if any.
-~1~·~2~7-Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthJy average.
__ -_,0,_-__ The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mi~e site.
1.809.86 The amount of coal shipped. (tons)
The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence:
Number Residence Length of Residence
2 Silt, Colorado 7, 30years
TOWN of SILT
~u.( P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81M~h 2g(JJ1/f'JIJ-2J53
~ Y Toi Garfit.ld Cc,un~Y Commissioners,
01 ~ The Town of 0llt would like to withdraw its' support
for the •·astslrie J:.ncrgy/::>uperior Western Corporation
!\'<JI cogeneration/petro-chemicul plant 0pecial Use Permit.
\{ Some of the reasons we no longer support this v/ proposed project are listed below:
1. Lack of further information being provided to
the Town of Silt as requested.
2. Insufficient funds checks being issued to their
workers on a regular basis.
J. A lien of almost $15,000 being filed in Garfield
County against these companies.
4. Billing of almost $10,000 not being paid in a
timely manner.
5. The current criminal investigation by the Garfield
County Sheriff as related to the miners paychecks.
I
The lack of credibility and the on-going financial
diffioulties make it quite evident that these companies
do not have the necesoary resources available to carry
out a project of this magnitude in a safe, timely and
envir~nmentally sound manner.
Therefore, we urge you to deny future time extensions
to the applicant, and to deny the Special Use Permit to
Easts1de Energy/::>uperior Western, at your scheduled April 16th
meeting.
i:>incerely ·~ '
•.·· .,. '", .···· ·'.' -·.··.·-''""'"'".) ./7 ~ c~ I •'' · :' . ;, \I( 11,. !I c;..t'/f!4't ""· ""/!?
it ~-. · · ::·,~ \'/ l!,...:.'.,~-'! Mayor Ann f'az 1P\,l--
r-.1 r,1··1:1 D
C',~ .' --':\:~f}~.r
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SANITATION AND PLANNING
April 16, 1990
J. B. Davis, Agent
Eastside Energy Corporation
P. O. Box 161
Silt, CO 81652
Dear Mr. Davis:
On Monday, April 16, 1990, the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners reviewed your request to move the hearing for the
Eastside Project to their May 7, 1990 meeting. The Board did not
approve this request due to a lack of diligence on your company's
part to provide information to supplement your application
submitted previously and the completion of the public notice
requirements contained in Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. As such, your application
for the Eastside Project Commercial Development in Garfield County,
Colorado, 15 November 1989, is no longer considered to be a valid
application and any reconsideration of this application will
require the submittal of a new application.
If you have any questions about the statements in this letter, you
may call or write to this office for clarification.
Vf~d,.~
Mark L. Bean, Director
Regulatory Of fices and Personnel
MLB/emh
XC: Superior Western Corporation
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 945-8212 / 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
APR 15 '90 07:58 SUPERIOR WESTERN 502 5717021
FAX COMMUNICATION
F N 303-945-2379 ax. o.:
To: Mark Beam
County Planner
From: Eastside Energy Corporation
Subject: Commissioners Meeting
Date: 16 Apr 90
This communication contains
page. Please direct this
as possible.
2 pages
communication
including this cover
to Mr. Beam as soon
RPR 16 '90 07:53 SUPERIOR WESTERN 602 5717021
16 Apr 90
EASTSIDE ENERGY CORPORATION
P. O. BOX 161
SILT, COLORADO 81652
County Board of Commissioners
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Re: Eastside Project
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the conversation with the County Planner, it
is requested that the hearing for the Eastside Project
P.2/2
be moved to the Commissioners meeting to be held on 7 May 90.
Thank your for your consideration.
Sincerely,
EASTSIDE ENERGY CORPORATION
.,. ........ __ .... " ,.._....,,,.. -~-----. -··· ~·'>--"'..~".'__ ---=------~ "----...._, <--·-·~·-----"'
------....J Jr.. & ~ WJ
Route
o Arnold Marc h 29, 1990 o Bu c k ev · . I
Garf i eld Co u nty Co mm ission ers
10 9 8t h S t reet
Gle n woo d Spr ings , CO 8 1 60 1
Dear Ga rf ie l d Coun ty Co mm ission e r s:
I r(./I i ·1
Richa r d L. Ch avez
1 0429 W. 1 1 6th Terrace , #143
Overland Park , Ks. 66210
~tf~~~'"':'1 Tf\\ !FQ r \S. r' •.... v,~ / ~ :· ,1 \\ ., ··"':.
APH 2 199 0
G1\Hf·ii~W
COUN TY COMM ISS IO NERS
I am writing to yo u as a concerned citizen. Although I do not
present l y li ve i n Gar f ie ld Co un ty , I do own p roperty i n Gl enwood
Spri n gs. I a m a 1 985 gradu ate of Colorad o Sc h ool of Mi n es with a
Bac h elors of Sc i ence d egree in Ch e mical a n d Petrole um Refining
engineerin g an d h ave spent t h e l ast five years worki n g in the
Petroleum Re f i ning i n d u st r y .
Du ring t h e Plann i ng Co mm iss i o n meet ing wi th Su perior West e rn , I
was appal l ed wit h the l ack of preparation a n d q u ality of their
prese n tatio n.
I hav e s ince spe n t ti me r ev i ewi n g literatu re a n d speaking with
i n dustry peop l e on coal gas i fication . Du e to t h e lack of quality
o f S u pP.r i or Wes t e rn 's prese n tatio n, as wel l as t h eir n otebook , it
was difficu l t to f u l l y understand the scope of t he proposed
project . I apo l ogize for any ge n eralizations I may make or for
in for matio n I may prese n t t h a t may n ot b e specif i c for this
p r oposed projec t.
Th ere are ma n y co n cerns t h at mus t b e add r essed when i n stallation
of a ma j or indu strial plan t is b ei n g considered . Ma n y of t h e
e n v i ro nm e n ta l co n cer n s can b e a ddresse d in an enviro nm ental
impact statement . However , in t h e state of Co l orado a n
e n viro nm e n tal i mpact statement is n ot requ ired unless the project
is governm e n t s ub sid i ze d o r is b e ing co n st r ucted o n BLM Land .
Witho u t a n e n v iro nm e nt a l impact s t ate me nt ma n y e n viron menta l
concerns can n ot be f ull y a d dresse d. I would h ope that if the
cou n ty of Ga r f i e l d is goi n g to se ri o u sly co n sider this project
t h ey w i ll req ui re a n e n viro nm e n tal i mpact statement from the
pe t itioner . Thi s wi ll aid in h e lping everyone f u ll y u nderstand
t h e consequ e n ces of t h is type of project on Garfield County .
T h e attac h e d in for mat i o n covers a wi d e ran ge of i ss u es (concerns)
s ur ro und i ng the coa l gas ifi catio n processes . After a brief
sect i on o n cur r e n t hi g h -BTU coa l gas i fication technologies a few
major concerns are dealt wit h i n turn : water availability , wat e r
qua l ity , ai r q u ali t y , an d hum a n h ea l t h a n d safety . Th ese iss u es
wo u ld b e disc u ssed in detail thro u gh an e n viron mental impact
state me n t .
I h ope th e following i n for mat i on will h elp in preparing q u est i ons
for S up er i or Western so all of u s ca n better und erstan d the
ef f ec t s coal gas ifi cation will h ave o n Gar fie ld Co un ty .
Than k you for yo ur t ime a nd if you have any questions co n cer n ing
t h e i nformation p rov ide d p l ease do n o t he s i tate to co n ta c t me at
(913) 338-2559 .
Ri c hard L . Chavez
RLC: j h
ATTACHMENT
Technology
Current coal gasification technologies differ from each other in
such respects as the structure of reaction vessels, gas
purification and methods of supplying heat. The reaction vessels
may be pressurized or operated at atmospheric pressure. Tar and
soot formation may be avoided by system design or formed and
managed by collection and recycling.
Nearly all proposed facilities for production of high-Btu gas
employ a lurgi gasifier and gas purification systems to produce
medium Btu-gas. (See Table 1)
The lurgi process originated in Germany in the 1930's and has
been used to produce ''city gas'' for local distribution and a
''synthesis gas'' for the manufacture of ammonia, methanol and
various liquid fuels and petrochemical products.
More advanced "second generation" processes based on modified
versions of the older technology originally used in Europe or on
new technology developed in the United States have only been
tested at the pilot or demonstration plant level. A 1979 report
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources listed
the status of active coal conversion projects as found in Table
2. The report noted that the estimated demonstration plant
completion dates are "optimistic", not allowing for "unt1st1aln
delays to obtain environmental or regulatory permits.1
The three fluidized-bed process for ''second generation'' coal
gasification are HTW, U-Gas and Westinghouse. Both American
processes, U-Gas and Westinghouse, have as yet only been tested
on small pilot scale, but, so far, all attempts at industrial
scale pilot plants have failed.2
From this information and the review of Table 2, the obvious
question arises: does Westinghouse have an industrial size pilot
plant for its process or is this project it?
Water Availability
Water availability is a serious problem, coal conversion requires
large quantities of water. Water is especially scarce in the
Colorado river basin. These are semi-arid lands were rainfall is
one-fourth or less that of coal and oil shale regions in the
East. Additionally, stream flows often exhibit much larger
seasonal fluctuations, which leads to water availability
problems, especially during low flow conditions. Even in the
relatively water rich areas of Illinois and Appalachia in the
East, one can expect local and temporary water shortages which
extensive coal development would worsen.
I
I
I
• • •
•
•
TABLE :c:' J .1.
STATUS OF COMMERCIAL AND DEMONSTRATION HIGH
A.. HIGH-Btu GAS PROJECTS
El Paso Natural Gu Co.
WESCO: Texas Easttm
Transmiuion Corp. and
Pacific Ughting Corp.
Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Co. (Peabocfy Coal
Co.)
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of
America
Amenean Natural
Aesoure1s Co. (North
Amtriean Coal Ga.sio
ficallOn Corp.)
BTU COAL GASIFICATION PROJECTS
(as of December 1976)
...
FCM Comers AreL
N.M.
Fcur Corners Area.
N,M.
Eastern Wyoming
Dunn County, N.O.
Beulah·Hazen Area,
N.O.
.......
-28.250 288
25.825 250 (1 plant)
____ ExpansiOn __ _
78.875 750 (3 plants)
27,700 270
30.000 2SO
m
Source: American Gas Association, Gas Supply
Review, December 1976.
XIV-15
El Puo Natural Gas Co. plan• to construct
anO operate in. SurMam Coal Gurication
Complp gn the Nava,o Indian ~rvaton.
~ COStS (1975 basis) will be 5225 milliOn
fOf lhe miing operation and $1 billion !Or the
gasifiClliOn plV!t. The average unrt colt of the
syrrtl'letic gas ewer a 25-year ~ He iS nu.
maltd 11 $2.90/1000 CF. El Pa.so has r•
quested deferral of the Federal Power Com-
misSion (FPC) GtOSion.
The fifTl'IS plan to c:onstn.rc:t and OPtf1.le one
plant on lhe NavaJQ Indian Reservation near
Farm1n9ton. N.M. NegotiabOns for srte lease
have not y.I ~ completed. Utah lnterna-
liOna:J Corp. wrn supply the coal and waler for
ll'le planl Water and coal are also 1vaifa.ble.lor
tl'lrH additiOnal pl8ntS. Estimated projeet oott
f0t the firsi plant iS S10S7 rnillon (1976 OOI·
lats). The FPC hU revised its initial ruling on
the start·up gas price. The start-up gu prQ iS
aet at $2.50/1000 CF wilt! a minmum·b~I pro-
vision IO sat rates. after operabon, to caver
base eosm.
P!antoperat.on iS an-JC1pa1td in th• 1981 ·1983
period. lnvestmen1COsts are es11mated at$1.3
bllion (earty 1976 dOUars). No fiung ha.s ~1
be-enc made t0 !he Fedtral Power Commis-
''°"·
Plans call !Or construct ion of one (and possibly
101.t or morel plants. The coal supply would be
rntned from depa11ts w1tr1n a 110,000·aete
area. Ca;ntal investments lor th• inibal plant
wdl be aoprox1matefy $950 m1lion (1976 OOI·
larsl. and for it. associated mine, •P!'ro.:i-
mately $260 m1IUon (1978.dollars). The first
plant iS sched~ 10 go on-line in 1985 .
AmetiCan Natural Re-sources Co. has ltl•
nounced ll'lat ii will build the ~ant 1t1 iwo
pt\aMs. The first phue WiU be construetiOn ol
a guiftcttiOn train capaOle ol produeinQ 137
milion CFiday. Construction iS to begin lf'I
1977, with coAip1eti0n sCl'ledl.lled /or 1981 .
uni:;1., the second phase, a second train. also
wiri a capaciry ot 137 mdlion CFiday, would
be bu.lit atler 1961, The expected plant ou1cu1
ol 250 milion CF.'day is based on an anticr
paltd operatiOnal factOr of 91,-•. Cost of tl'le
n1Da1 prtua IS estimated II apptOXllMltly
S600 mslion. Total facility cosc is estmaled al
0\191' $1 billion. "'"'-"can 11 Sffll:tng a cartl'ler
IO mall;• ll'lrl pt'Ofecl a jo1n1 venture. The
Blnau al ReciamatiOn has completed ·ts
911WQnrNnW impact statement
I
.1.
TABLE UIU 3 (continued) I
STATUS OF COMMERCIAL AND DEMONSTRATION HIGH
--
-.. ......... a..eo ..
Cities -a.. Co.
Colotldo lnlerael Gu Co. (W--Cool Co.)
._ .......
Pipeff!e Co. and
Cify ot Vt1chita. Karma
ConlOlid&led Natur .. a ...
Co.
Ptcmarh•lla a.. and
W111f'Co.
Panhlndte Ear.m P!oe
Urt9 Co. !PtlOOdY ~I
Co.I
BTU COAL GASIFICATION PROJECTS
(as of December 1976) -
Powder Rivet S.n. .......
-
L.utgi guilcatiOn
with mtll\MltiOn
l."'9----
l."'9----
Cool--""-,...,.., -CF/uy
30,000 '!oo12 .... •1 -.... 50012 .... •I
..
...... t •
Prcf«I deftn'td. i·'I ,,
ii
1ilfl ,, ..
Colorlldo lnterstat• ha an ootiOn on 300 milf.
iOntonsof coat and 10,000 acre-It ofwa1er pet
yt# IO be supplied by Wes6'n0fellnd for po\-.
t9l'\tilt de\o~ ot a coal qUtlleation Pfoj I
j..:t.
~~has agreed to •ach.arlg• a sJ'I
i'li.r.st i'l <43..400 acrH of its :J00,000 acres or
w..i Vlrgi'ria co8' lands tor a 50% in'MrtSl3 i
35,000 acr9I ot Dlnois coll lands l'leld b i
Exxon's C111., Oil Co. The nino. eoai will
hekt by Cofu'nOia tot com ga1ftcat1on ~· :!n== :W"'=~· Pr9iminaty caprtal cost estlrnatH ate in
PCa1 ot s1 billon for 11'1• pl.nt. and tne
l$ated ~tments in minel WOY.Id approx~.
mat• $100 n!lfliOn. '
A feu1t11ity study iS undetway to construct ar
pram 10 be II~ tl'lrough tne sale of rnunie:·;·
;pm ,..,.,,,ue bonda. P11111 OUlput w~I be deai·'
cated to bond purchasers in ,OtOPOrti::ln to !fie
amot.n1 01 tionos putd'laed. Esrimaled plant-·
eoatis1c.MS1.2Sb~lon. CO&lw1tlbesuppH1d -
fft)nl coal rnetVes dl!llllcat9d to Panl'landle in
Wyoming. Th• study will 1110 consider
whielhet to tranSPOrt tt'I• coal by unit·tran ..
wry pipeline.
TM mnpMy hM PtoPOsecl IO ERCA a. ~
lot hncn9 and Qp«aUl'lq a dlmOnS~;,Jlll
ptMt. The proposal WU rej.aed. Clut tne P°O"
'
•
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
TABLE HI'J 3 (continued)
STATUS OF COMMERCIAL AND DEMONSTRATION HIGH
BTU COAL GASIFICATION PROJECTS
(as of December 1976 ~-
Controlling: Company-
Cameron Engineers
Mono i>ow.r Co ..
~ce1Co .. anc:1
New Albion Resources Co.
Ka.iJarowitl
Plateau, Utai't
B. COMBINATION QAS AND UQUIO PAOJ!CTS
Euon Corp. (Cattet 011)
El Paso Narutal Gas Co.
CoaJeon Oept., UniQn
CIJ'Otde Corp.
"Mining PMfT!•rs in ~ns.
New Athens. Ill'.
tR•ported costs may not r&ftect recent n.
aea.s.s caused by inftatiOn..
Lurvi gasiftcatiOn
with rneltlanaton
lurgi guiblion
with melhanation
Union Carbide
--.. ,,., ...
32.900
'""'
..... o.,...,,
mKllOn CF/d.ty
22 (plus 2900
bbl ot syncn.ide
per day)
The company his llled platll wiU'I !ht U.S.
B11e1u of Land ManagetMnl which iS review-
ing tentali\'e eo&I lease1. Pfanl c»erations
could beogi'I in 1991.
The 11'1ree companies t\.IYe ~pleleid a r;on.
etptual study !or a coal gasifiealJOn project
which will use tne coal and watet tights of the
abandoned 3000·Mw Kaiparowils power
plant. ThrMplants of 120 Mc&"d are enviSIOl'led
with the ~rst plant opera tonal by 1985. Annual
waier use would be aoout 30.000 acnHeeL
Total plant. mnto and pipe.line costs would be
a?P'GXimaltly $2 billion (1971! aollats) witl'I
gu cost about $4/Mcf. 3600 ~rmanenl
emplOyees W01Jld ~ neces.ury and L400 indi·
red and sul)pOttiY• jot>s would be er.ated.
Project del91Ted.
Rtsef'VM of 2 billion tons of coal are under
~--
A 2000 ac:,.. site haS bffn seJecled. Plan! cost
is estimated atS237 mrlion. The Ulinoss Energy
ResourC8 Council agreed to ptO'lrde up 10 $25
millon tor tl'le projea. ERDA is expect.ct to
provide about $130 m~ion. Ptans lr:r t>eq1n
constr\.ICtion in 1977 With Start•Up seheClui.d
!or 1979-iO are being revMtWed by ERDA.
Source: American Gas Association, Gas Supply Review, December 1976.
XIV-17
'
f
I
!
Fl GURE 1 Z.
STATUS OF ACTIVE COAL CONVERSION PROJECTS
Process status
{key to numbers Is below)
GASIFICATION, PIPELINE QUALITY GAS
Lurgi/Methanation
Conoco (Slagging Lurgi)
Cogas
Hygas
Bigas
GASIFICATION, INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Texaco Gasifier
Exxon Catalytic Gasification
Rockgas
COMBINED CYCLE: TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY
1/1 Westinghouse
Combustion Engineering
CLEAN SOLID
SRC-1 -Solvent Refined Coal
LIQUEFACTION
Fi scher-Tropsch
Methanol
SRC-1 I -Solvent refined Coal
Cresap {LC-Fining)
M-Gasoli ne
EDS -Exxon Donor Solvent
H-Coal
ZnCI
CO-Steam
Synthoi I
9
7
7
6
5
5
3
2
4
4
7
9
9
7
6
6
4
4
I
l
l
PROCESS STATUS
(roughly I inear with time)
0 Proposed Process
I Successful Process Demonstration Unit Operation
2 Economic Studies Done
3 Competitive Cost Established * 4 Pilot Plant Designed
5 Pilot Plant Operating
6 Successful Series of Pilot Runs
7 Demo Plant Design Begun
8 Demo Plant Operating
9 Proven Demonstration Plant
Year of
demonstration
plant
1983
1983
1983
1986
1984
1987
1988
1986
1986
1983
1983
1983
1983
1985
1985
1985
1984
1988
1988
1995
{S nthetic Fuels from Coal: Status and Outlook of Coal Gasification and
Liquefaction, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, /79
Surface and ground water in much of the West is committed or
overcommitted. There are many competing uses for surface water
supplies including domestic, agricultural, recreational,
electrical generation and other industrial uses,
The problem of the questionable availability of surface water for
synfuels development in the West is matched by problems
concerning the possible '1 mining 1
' of underground aquifers for
water.
While water availability may not be considered a problem for this
particular facility, lowered water tables near mining sites and
large water requirements for such facilities could result in
dried up wells for neighboring farms and residences and other
such impacts.
Water Quality
Expanded mining has its inherent effects on water quality. No
mining can begin until the water table is lowered to the level of
the mining operation, and during the dewatering this water must
be disposed of or used in the conversion process.
The initial coal cleaning process proceeding synfuel conversion
processes can contribute to water pollution. The acid solution
formed when water contacts sulfur containing compounds in the
coal can leach out trace elements (e.g. arsenic, nickel, iron)
found in the refuse pile resulting from the cleaning operation.3
Other water quality impacts can come from the actual processing
of coal. Many dangerous substances can be released into surface
and ground waters. Although this facility is said to have no
water effluent stream, water can enter ground and surface waters
through intentional releases, as in the discharging of
wastewater, or unintentionally through spills or process
malfunctions. These discharges can contain a variety of organic,
inorganic and trace element substances. Table 3 lists some of
these substances and what is known of their effects. Substances
listed are for coal conversion processes.
Water from the gas-scrubbing step in a high-Btu coal gasification
plant contains ammonia, phenols, sulfur compounds and cyanides,
as well as coal decomposition products such as hydrogen sulfide,
thiophene, fatty acids, amines, pyridines, thiocyanates,
ammonium, polysulfides and the like. Several of the organics in
waste water from coal gasification plants are known or suspected
carcinogens.4
It is possible to remove most of these harmful substances, as is
proposed for this facility, This requires expensive waste
control technology like ozonations, filtration, activated carbon
and desalination. The additional costs imposed by these measures
may dictate recycling and reuse of all fouled water, as has been
indicated for the proposed facility. Recycling can create other
Figure 5: Some potentially hazardous substances that could be associated
with coal conversion technologies
More poorly understood
Higher significance
Benzene: Suspected to cause leukemia
Beryllium: Suspected to cause bone
and lung cancer
Cadmium: Possible relation to pros-
tate cancer
Fluorides: May increase sensitivity
to chemicals affecting central
nervous system
Lead: Suspected occupational carci-
nogen
Nickel: Occupational cancer inci-
dence
Nickel carbonyl: Causes lung cancer,
possibly asthma
Nitric acid: Can irritate eyes,
I ungs , mucous memb r'anes, skin,
and corrode teeth
Nitric oxide: Can cause pneumonia,
circulatory system damage; sus-
pected respiratory irritation
and tooth corrosion
Nitrogen dioxide: Suspected to reduce
resistance to bacteria; acute
exposure causes increased res-
piratory inhibition
Phenols and cresols: Occupational
carcinogen (skin); may damage
central nervous system and liver
Selenium: Occupational cause of
digestive and nervous disorders
Sulfur dioxide: Correlates with chro-
nic respiratory diseases; syner-
gistic effects with particulates
Zinc chloride: Possible carcinogen
-?.4-
Lower significance
Carbon monoxide: Suspected to al-
ter enzyme activity; cause
behavioral changes; and
precipitate heart attacks
Fluoride: Suspected association
with blood disorders
Manganese: Causes brain damage
and pneumonia in high doses
Xylene: Inhibition of electrical
activity in cerebral cortex
at levels below odor thres-
hold
Vanadium: Acute respiratory irri-
tation; chronic ingestion
produces systemic symptoms
Zinc oxide: Occupational exposure
can cause intestinal, respi-
ratory, skin and nervous
disorders
F
'
l ,.
Figure 5: continued
Better understood
Higher significance Lower significance
Beryllium: Causes acute and chronic
respiratory disorder.from short-
term exposure
Chromium: Suspected cause of lung
cancer
Fluorides: High levels lead to
chronic poisoning of fatality;
can cause respiratory impairment
Lead: Damages central nervous
system
Mercury: Damages central nervous
system
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons:
Carcinogenic
Uranium: Insoluble compounds
damage lungs; salts damage
kidneys and arteries
Arsenic: Lethal at high doses
Barium: Eye, nose, throat, skin
irritant; salts and sulfide
poisonous
Beryllium: Causes chronic beryl-
liosis
Cadmium: Systemic and fatal effects
from inhalation of high
concentrations
Carbon monoxide: Causes dizziness,
fatigue, and coronary dys-
function
Chromium: Occupational exposure
causes lesions of skin and
mucous membranes
Cyanides: High concentrations
lethal
Phenols and cresols: Corrodes
skin and mucous membranes
Selenium: Causes dermatitis and
respiratory irritation
Toluene: Chronic exposure can
cause brain damage
bThe basis for the ranking of a substance is a combination of the
substance's inherent toxicity and the degree of human exposure antici-
pated. The latter is a relative measure, reflecting the increase in
concentrations over urban or rural background levels, the concentra-
tion expected as compared with the level thought to be harmful, and
the number of persons who will be affected.
Each effect is planced in the grid according to its ranking of
significance and how well it is understood. The list of problems is
not comprehensive and does not incorporate all advances to date in
the assessment of current knowledge. However, the most important
effects are believed to be covered. Some substances are listed more
than once depending on the effect and the level of understanding.
(Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Synthetic Fuels
from Coal: Status and Outlook of Coal Gasification and Liquefaction
June 1979)
-25-
• problems. Such an option will essentially transfer direct water
quality concern to the problem of solid waste disposal of toxic
concentrates---the buildup of these toxic pollutants in recycled
water cannot go on indefinitely. The solid waste itself,
disposed of in a toxic waste dump, may eventually enter water
supplies anyway.
Accidental releases of hazardous substances are to be expected,
whether on the processing site through spills, leaks, and so on,
or offsite as liquid fuels or wastes are transported by tank
truck and rail car.
One example of the type of accidental release of hazardous wastes
expected from synthetic fuel plants involves the SRC II pilot
plant near the U.S. Army's base at Fort Lewis, southwest of
Tacoma, Washington, operated by Gulf Oil Corp. On December 19,
1979 an operator at the plant accidentally left open a valve that
permitted 2,300 gallons of coal-derived liquid to spill in the
area of the plant, contaminating the soil and the underground
water supply. The state agency, in a citation later issued to
Gulf's Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining unit, termed the liquid
"an extremely hazardous waste", The state's citation pointed to
a potential threat to the drinking water of the Army base and to
the aquatic life of a nearby lake. The cost of the cleanup,
about $500,000, was borne mostly by the Energy Department. The
state's citation noted that "a series of minor spills during
handling of these (coal-derived) products have occurred since the
inception of the facility."5
Air Quality
The sources of gaseous emissions from synfuel plants are
primarily: 1) drying of coal in coal preparation; 2) carbon
dioxide venting during acid gas removal; 3) tail gas from the
sulfur plant; 4) flue gas from the utility boilers; 5) air and
moisture effluent from the cooling towers.
Superior Western addressed air quality concerns and has air
pollution control systems for the majority of items presented.
There is lack of information discussing the process used, if any,
to remove hydrogen sulfide gas that is produced during the coal
gasification process. Also, the air and water vapor from the
cooling tower not only pose problems in the form of mists and
clouds of water droplets forming fog and ice that can cause
visibility problems on the nearby highways, but these water
droplets also can contain, due to leaking in various cooling
systems, small amounts of contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide,
phenols, ammonia, cyanides and other such compounds.
Superior Western stated at the planning commission meeting that
C02 was not a contribution to the greenhouse effect. However, it
is true that C02 is a contributor to the greenhouse effect. Page
1 of Section 6.9 from Superior Western's special use permit
document states; "In addition to fixing and removing the S02 and
All NO the same system will remove approximately 5.5 TPD of C02.
of these will be converted to biomass and we have the fir3t step
toward the elimination of the greenhouse effect by reducing the
amount of COz emitted." This does not, however, say the plant is
a net producer of approximately 60 tpd of COz .
Human Health and Saftlx_
Coal gasification produces many substances which are harmful to
human health. There is a general lack of information to fully
determine the long term effects caused by chronic and acute
exposure to certain substances in coal gasification. This is not
to say the effects on human health and safety are not entirely
unknown or unpredictable.
Workers in coal conversion and the delivery of the products to
their final destination can be chronically exposed via skin
contact, inhalation and ingestion to unknown levels of
potentially dangerous liquid, gaseous and particulate substances.
Further effects will show up as toxic substances become
incorporated into air, water and soil and into plant and animal
life through the waste materials and accidental product losses
that will assuredly accompany these operations.
Coal gasification finds its most analogous operation in coal
carbonization, in which similar chemical reactions produce coke
and fuel gas from coal. The literature on the cancer experience
of workers in the industry shows that ''all of the occupational
groups employed at those processes or in the handling of by-
products such as tar and pitch have shown an excess of cancer for
one or more organ systems. "6 Topside workers employed for five
years or more, those with the greatest exposure to effluent from
these processes, suffered a lung cancer risk ten times that for
other workers in the steel industry,7 Workers also exhibited
higher than expected mortality from cancers of the kidney,
bladder, prostate and skin. Any stage of coal conversion
processes where high boiling coal liquids or their vapors may
escape must be considered a source of carcinogenic rislc,8
A small Union Carbide coal liquefaction pilot facility at
Institute, West Virginia, which operated between 1952 and 1962,
had to be shut down because plant workers were developing
cancerous lesions. A study of the 359 workers at the plant
showed an increase of 20 times the expected number of skin
cancers among the workers, based on incidence rates in the
general U.S. population, despite their use of protective skin
creams and clean clothing,9 Fifty of the workers with diagnosed
skin cancer and precancerous conditions were examined in a
follow-up mortality study by the National Institute of
Occupational Health and Safety, The study found that the rate of
skin cancer was decreasing after their work at the plant had
ceased.to An important fact is that 60% of the skin cancer cases
occurred among maintenance workers,11
A draft Environmental Impact Statement for the SRC II plant
planned for Fort Martin, West Virginia said this:
Maintenance operations involving opening, draining, and
servicing vessels and equipment are expected to produce high
dermal (skin) exposures through direct skin contact with
process materials. Dermal exposure can be minimized by
using protective clothing, boots, gloves, eye protection,
and outer wear. However, some skin contact will be
inevitable for some members of the maintenance crew,12
Besides cancer risks in coal conversion industries, there will be
other adverse health effects: acute effects from inhalation,
severe respiratory irritation and chemical and thermal burns.
Because of the high temperatures and pressures involved with
flammable materials, fire and explosion hazards are also
potentially significant problems,13
Workers health may be threatened by other chemical products and
byproducts. Carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide are
particularly dangerous and may be expected to be present in
virtually all coal conversion processes at concentrations which
can be immediately life threatening. They have been associated
with multiple fatalities and acute poisonings following
overexposures. Fatalities may also be caused by worker exposure
to hydrogen cyanide, carbon disulfide, and metal carbonyls. Such
gases may be present at high concentrations in reaction vessels
and cause respiratory difficulty or death as they escape through
leaks and process upsets, or as maintenance workers enter
improperly vented enclosed vessels without being supplied with
fresh breathing air,14 Many workers will face the risk of
silicosis and other respiratory diseases from breathing the dust
from the handling of ash and slag from coal conversion processes.
A MITRE Corporation report stated:
Since many coal conversion processes involve reaction of
coal constituents and other chemicals under high
temperatures and pressures, there will always be a potential
for leakage of toxic gases and vapors into the occupational
environment through seals, valves, and vents, as well as the
possibility of major release of such toxicants during a
process upset, pressure surge or pipe rupture. Many of the
chemicals released under such conditions represent acute
inhalation hazards, and can cause severe lung damage,
asphyxia, and/or death. Workers may be exposed to
especially dangerous combinations of tars, chars, and oils
during startup, shutdown and maintenance, so these periods
should receive particular attention,15
Genetic diseases and birth defects are possible; several mutagens
(agents causing genetic mutations) have already been identified
in synfuel processes, including thioacetamide, acetanilide,
A-hydroxylaniline, hydroxylamine and n-propylmethanesulfonate.16
The promoters and developers of synthetic fuel operations will
point to control measures which they promise will reduce or
eliminate the dangers these industries pose to human health and
safety. Industry's track record in these areas has not been
entirely gratifying. For instance, the EPA has estimated that
77.14 billion pounds of hazardous waste are generated each year,
only 10 percent of which is disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner.17
1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Synthetic fuels from Coal: Status and Outlook of Coal
Gasification and Liguefaction, 1979, pg. 30 (hereafter,
Status and Outlook)
2 Chemical from Coal: New Processes
3 Status and Outlook, pg. 90
; Environmental Science and Technology, Jan. 1981
s
6
7
8
"Gulf Synthetic fuel plan expected to get U.S. approval, but
plant spill stirs row," Wall Street Journal, July 31, 1980
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Adminstration, Health and Safety Hazards Associated with
Production of Synthetic Fuels, 1979 pg, 3
ibid
ibid
9 R.J, Sexton, ''The hazards to health in the hydrogenation of
coal. IV. The control program and the clinical effects,
Arch. Environ. Health, 1:208-231 (1960), cited by P.J.
Walsh, E.L. Etnier, A.P. Watson, Health and Safety
Implications of Alternative Energy Technologies. III.
Fossil Energy (prepublication copy, to appear in
Environmental Management in 1981).
1 0
1 1
J 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Quick
Response Evaluation of Energy-Related Occupational Safety
and Health Programs, Task Order 1: Mortality Study of 50
Workers Exposed to Coal Liguefaction Processes at a Unioll
Carbide Plant, (Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research
Institute, 1977).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Occupational Exposures in Coal Gasification Plants,
September 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement: Solvent REfined Coal-II Demonstration Project,
Fort_ Martin, Mon9galia County, West Vir:ginia, May 19890
(DOE/EIS-0069-D), pg, 4-4. (Hereafter, SRC Draft EIS)
L.L. Harris et al., Coal liguefaction: recent findings in
occupational safety and health. Special Technical Report,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH,
Rockville, MD, 1980, cited by Walsh, Etnier and Watson.
MITRE, Health and Environmental Effects, Pg. 47-48.
ibid, pg. 66.
ibid, pg. 49.
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality-
1980, The Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on
Environmental Quality, pg. 218.
t:v:J ~
~~JJ;
~·H1id~~~~/
M~ ~ ii-coat ~~ -;ofevd ~
}(ijl rt'kUJZJ7H,(_ ~'f-11 f7~c(afc I ;V.utraf
~ {/1-~ w ~adv r Vltcd' /1H~.
(o-M~ ;,~~~Aw~
~utz-~~ ~~./ ~cdt .
cpt 0~ ~ Awid . c:vd k~
~~ad~~, k~,· ~~ducufj~zi~~~
~ ~ hwVW Md-~um0 1 ~ ~~
/WuJU . jJ ,/,((µ,(_I ;J/.e ~ ~ 'A0. ~??,,-/~
;?'//I dtvt M -to Ur-A ai iiu.e ~ a tJuut c:l R
tJ ' c:CJ cj. (0 UJ UMpwi,,( d i5 '/M ~
AJ(t( ~-~ w( jw-<_~.
f~; /r/H/0 ({CPU£:;) C'MT
16419 f ryin8 Pan Qoad • Basalt. Colo rado 81621 • 303 -927-4253
~ ~
I
l DPT-AO
1 ·"°""..003/6'-12fll -6¢~1-I~
TWP & RANGE 6-92 SEC. & % 5EC. 8/9
-J'
Dunbar ~rold F. & Karen L.
6-92
Sec. 8 & 9. A Tr. of land in Lots
1,2,3 in Sec. 8 and Lot 2 Sec. 9
all lying s. of the DRGW RR ROW.
cont. 21.79 Ac. Bound on the E.
by the E. line of Lot 2, Sec. 9
and on the w. by the W. line of
Lot 3 Sec. 8; also a Tract of
meander land cont. 36.B Ac. Beg.
at the meander cor. of the E. line
of Sec a thenre N g1•15 1 w c:.,o n•
thence S. 88°30' W. 11.88', thence
N. a2• W. 1422.0', thence N.84°45'
W. 264.0', thence S. 82°45' w. 150
thence S. 43°14' E. 890.0', thence
S. 82°45' E. 1430.0', thence N.
69°20 1 E. 1645.0', thence N. 60.4'
to the POB.
Total 58.59 Ac.
5/IJ/O(, ~
RURAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORD•
-.
,.MAP NO. 2179
I DATE Month I Year I SOOK !PAGE
.4 78 51
AREA
TYPE o;rt Gr•vel
ROAD
lrrigo!ion
Wells
Oep•h Size
'0.
WATER IO<aH I ~ ..
RIGHTS
WATER Sl-IARES
SUPPLEMENT WATER
LANO Approise<I by
IMPS.
lond Use
Irrigated
'"
M.&l.P. --
Grazing
O!her
¢-/
2!l
TOTAL~ I sfJ.:>q '
TYPE
ln1tr.
Poved
TAX AREA
'""· "'
Cop;1cily
I Oirch
~-
FARMSTEAD
ROAD &
DITCHES
TOTAL
ACTU"L VALUE
0 A:.
RI f;_<
;< 15 "3~7D
7 ;;J.S-p Di)
'()
uxuxuuuuxx I ••u••••uuxux
RECAP
DATE
ENTERED ASSES~(!:> VALUE
T0T-.,L
.Joo· &-V
I
I
I
-.. r-,· . ,. ·~ ... '• ··;i .•
~· ..... c-•
~·-: 1
··~· U) ... :-1~~{;1 . h . •
•··· ·I 1 • • .' :~:;!: .•. ·.~:t-'••• ·:~.t d:~~ ... o· .' a .~ I I • ... • • • • • • ._
~;-·~ ' ..
. .
.... ..,,,. ...
I . . • J. . , .
. · '! ~
···.·
,, ~ .. tr!
. ·;
I ,
:" ! :
.,
I
GARFIELD COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
MARIAN SMITH
Glenwood Springs 81601
ARNOLD MACKLEY
Rifle 81650
BUCKEY ARBANEY
Glenwood Springs 81601
December 18, 1989
J. B. Davis
Superior Western Corporation
P-o. Box 17240
Tucson, AZ 85731
Dear Mr. Davis:
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
109 8th Street Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Telephone: (303) 945-9158
(303) 625-5571
CHUCK DESCHENES
County Administrator
Please consider this letter to be a response to the Eastside Project
Special Use Permit impact statement. In general, Superior Western has
addressed the issues required for a special use permit application.
Per Section 5.03.07(4), the Board of County Commissioners is requesting
that you provide additional detail about the following issues:
1. Please provide more site plan detail as to:
a. Dimensions of all buildings, particularly buildings that
exceed the 40 foot height limitation and the
justification/mitigation of any building exceeding height.
b. More detail on coal storage area i.e., acres to be
covered, maximum amount to be stored, height of piles.
~· More detail on the size, type and maintenance of vegetation
to be used as landscaping screening, i.e., size to be
planted, watering systems, etc. If evergreens are to be
used for screening purposes, how long will it take them to
mature to created the screen proposed.
d. Engineered calculations of surface drainage with certified
statements and more detailed drawings of the proposed waste
water plans.
2. Further review of the existing housing will reveal that
Battlement Mesa does not have 100 mobile home spaces available.
Housing needs should be reviewed again, due to the lack of rental
housing. How will construction workers be housed? Will Eastside
help locate, subsidize and/or finance housing needs?
3. Schools do not have adequate roon1 for new grade
children. Further review of impacts to grade school,
and high school facilities would be appropriate.
school age
junior high
4. Coal haulage needs to be better defined, i.e. , nun1ber of t.rucks
per hour; size of the trucks; specific road improvements to be
made, number of round trip trucks per day if coal is in1ported
fron1 another mine.
NOTE: There appears to be an inconsistency between the number of
truck trips per day and the amount of coal that could be supplied
to the coal gasification process. 7-15, page 3 says 64 trips per
day, M-F only. If these are 25 ton belly-dumps, the following
calculation results:
64 trips x 5 days x 52 weeks x 25 tons/truck= 416,000 tons
per year.
It is proposed to burn 400,000 tons a year in the plant, leaving
only 16,000 tons for shipping by unit train? Additionally, 64
trips will result in 128 total trips per day. Depending upon the
time of year, this could be a substantial number of trucks per
hour. Please define this calculation better with specific
proposals as to the number of round trip/truck trips/hour.
5. As noted above, there only appears to be a potential for 416,000
tons per year of coal coming to the site. Please identify the
projected total amount of coal to be burned at the plant and the
amount of coal to be shipped by rail to other markets. Will you
ship coal for other mines?
6.
7.
Further identification of
proposed water needs. The
appropriate.
the legal water rights to supply the
noted legal opinion would be
Engineered plans and specifications of water and sewage
plants should be submitted to the county and the
Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division.
treatment
Colorado
8. Garfield County snow loading requirements are 40 psf and
structures will need to meet those requirements.
9. Garbage/solid waste is glossed over rather quickly. An
identification of the projected amounts of solid waste would be
helpful for projecting future county landfill needs and assessing
this project's impacts and the need for mitigation.
Page Three
10. Where will all of the proposed training occur and who will teach
it?
11. Clarification of understandings between the applicant and Public
Service Co. regarding the location of the point of connection and
transmission lines for the project needs to be provided.
12. Assessment of socioeconomic impacts should not include any
assumptions of UNOCAL shutdown of their Parachute facilities.
13. Additional detail should be provided on anticipated levels and
types of employees.
This list identifies the initial questions that should be answered. There
will probably be additional questions as we all become more familiar with
the project.
Your immediate attention to these questions, will allow for a more
expedient review. At a minimum, responses to these questions should be
received by January 2, 1990, if the January 10, 1990 Planning Commission
review is going to be realized. Your cooperation in this matter will be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
~~~~d
Marian Smith, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
XC: Mark Bean
Don DeFord
Sherry Malloy
,___--'-----'"-"--'----'"-----"C. 0... < b (Jy) _I S u5Q ~ ~-Q
\ \tev 5 '<' b~_ s~s}-e.V\A._ +-q__
\e..lfY\o.,f e -P--o \ L~H"'-+s +rQ:&"l _ __
,_ s·~ k ex o...~S ~. Cax b ~__1-j _SJ.._~ ----
' '<\ + h -e f? v: o & u..c.. + i o-P 5 + -e e
a. & _M V\ eA'\ + S_ tY ~ _ LL5 1 V\.,;f _ c <:t:Lb__O"Y\
,____C.._Ol'\_ <\--°' i i 6 l'.\__Q__ ~ -l' '-ti'_ °'-. ~ 0 \.w I. ti~$...___
\\t\e_ o+~€v-c ~:e_~~ c~5 -p ~p l_e.
---'-'"' o..\J~ ·-expxe-i.5~ _CQi\Cev V\S _a.,_6 01..-0+ _
_ _ o,;·(Q_ Q c..et~J e,v)~ W~1 '0h__ u-J\\l ~
C~\J ey.\--eJ +o _Co...'f bPV\ __ OVl._c_~
QMm o Y1i v.-w h;~h ,·.)_ no+ pro&.uc.12.L _
0-.L +-1 ~ _p laV\±_ h _ + bsou_J_bi_ _
_ l_n _ ~y-2_J VLU... te.y-+, \ \._L./l.-\'.S ~D '(
+he . ir~'o_h o u.$&. '/_Q_ Cg,\'\ 5 ee
__ Ll'l'e.. 5 a.. e..O\.J.-~_ a h d<&vou...S Q,.,MW\OV\iG-.
~-b'j-_±0-.v~s __a_M _ 'f0..V\<lie."i__5_
a:) \ _oy_ e. v __± ~ 1 i_ c o u. fv-d-_Q.. s -~~ '<"·\. \ \ < Q..v.
, _____ /j s __ ~~ '..S 4-es
_ ,· (ld1As+vifi is uJe. 'cr jli&_ . JoU-) Y\_ U-) \_ {b
'(_ eq_ u .. 1 a.J -~ 6V\ 5 __uJ e. _ C 1 .\-,· LJL Y'I s c. cH'\ ..\-Ln_~
+-Lu_. ~o \ Lu..-1-1., Ac_c.o'l<S \ V\~ _±,, +hL _
-~' g_~J.. .. o e-c.~~-A ~~
a.. v e ~~ ~o \1'-'+i ~ pe-r __ y-e.1!_;\·JlJ_~ ___ _
&-.[ \v ~ VVL!J e... _a.x--~ Lf 5 +o 6C?_
-4 ~a.~ CD (_C.<U_ b o Vl__M C V\_9 ~ ;~) 0...
-rUv ll~ +-~+a -A
Af _ I D)ooo _VY\ ·1e 5 P-~--~a..v ____ _
vJe.... _ 0.,\f"-€.... __ p _vo &'-'-\VI..'\: 1/~ +.:.......=..o ~
_Qf_ __ po \ ~v... -t\ . The._ 0 __ L.!_VVl.~-e::....:..v__!._1 ·~<..~__i. __ _
__ /_1..t~-_A_s_.so_c.I rLb. -J-e I s LLJ, __ _
u n," vtJ o--l.ilOJ & +ov-e. O v
--~-___&~_) s_ __ Movt+hs _ __R__~"-'---v __
-~Lo u.~_:0 ____ o_v_g__v_ f o o.+
_ c.~'{ lo_~M.__o_V\~\~.. A d& I/).. +-__ _
_ p~ ~ _ __y -e,h~-;-----='°~_:..._f ..;:.__()Y\..:._:_,,,5t__J:=.__:__ __ _
___ WQ_o&5t o \I~_) __ -~--~c9.\4-i_<m_oJ_ ___ _
_ f:IY\.a__(f-·f o v Mo V" .(!_ VV\ i l -e. ~ )__jg,_c..~o-vt_--=""----
-c_o.v-; _vYlo±p '<'c~~-)-_ b_o ~+__s_, _ olctY
---~o ~> 5-VlQt-u VVLq__b l l ~ eA-c . __ OoV\j-__ _
+o -r ~t -a.w V\_~o ~ s_:>_-P-Q\Ll.A. ~~.......__ __ _
.P'{_e-vt\ _ C.oo ~,·'Qr -;--P-Ql l ~~~~ '< t:n-V'-..
1--i" o & LA., c., <\-\ _o. -C-ps o J \..le-tL_w_~ _
_ __c_o:v\_5_\.D'\'U..) __ f '{_o~--e...lec...-\:rj (_~-~--~--_
_ ~--~bl_ ___ OY\ ___ VL& _Q_v'l_. ____ --_
·--'""'-=---"""'-"~-~\(-=-~~-"4--\ -e -~ e. b_~_
-°'~Q~Vlt 5 o+-. p o l L~t.i~ _ w~ _
__ -~fll.._ f'e5f-o -~.}2J b.Q_L _ .QQ'L_, ____ _/~_lso __ _
~Ji___ kc.o_~_s _o_b~·o~~-_ +k ___ _
o'-lv \ s vYI a vi& s ~ · · Yldvs-t ~ \<--.5
_ ~ V\o + '' cJ-e _ Q VL 'l I Y\ & \A.5-J-v~ • A VJd)
__ J.Jg___ ha. \j e.V\,j _ ~d-J~ +ku - - -- -
-~'Q\,L~ ,, &.~~()..{~ "'""'™ '1u...+o2
.__,,~N~O-~ ~& w_oo&j+o~e s__(~Y\-~_
-~L0.h0 _ ~'.{l:U.~-~-~~ PD ~->-)-:-pl\.v t ic\;,\J<t
----------
P Ll -< e.. C..o.. '< D <JVl I S uS-Q ~ Q.-.') a._
+\ \t ~v .5 v bb1 ~ s~s +--evv---·-\-o
\€..VV\o..f e. -P--oJl~H +s +r~ __ _
s··hu:,,8-ex b 0,. \.\ $ ~ • c ax b Oy\ SJL<fJ -
\ '<\ t \,\-e p.t o & u..e-+ I en o +
a. &_ _bg V\ e._ {'I+ 5 _fy_CJVV\ _ ____LLS_i_~_Ci!Y b ~ _
c""'.\-"' \ \ °'j Y\ o -5 "'"\. f "'y a__~ b \iv 1 o ..,_5.
\he_ o +h t'v c. ~e\NL1 c~Jb
Yl a..\/ ~ e X PY' e.,iS_,,,,e.~cQ __ C"---=..o _._,vl__,,,,,(-=-e _,_,Y '-'-"'-'-----""""'-=-'~-'-----
>f Q... Q(._e~yk)-e. W \.\ 1'0 vJ \ \ \ b..R... ___ _
CO"YL \l e v-\-e& +o CCJ..'f b on_~L ___ _
qMm o Y'li~ w h;c,,h ·j__ __ .JJ oL p r o&u c._gJ.__
°'-+ ±6 e_ r:l-'ltl+ 1 + bx o ~3_b_f ____ _
_ LD -b ~v aJ ~u... _ fex+\ \ , .. t.tz..-(s_J=o v_
+h e... ~teD bo u.$-<O. :i.c u.. Cc:tV\ __ _.,2_e ~
pu-{e_ ~a.,Se..o v-..~ a h_~~v ou...s MW\OV\t G-
-~ ~--._{::9'-Y'~S ~ Y-o..V\ ~e.v-_5 _
__ a)~ ovev +\rJ1 5 _ co u. fr 8-_a.__s -9~'<'-.\-\ \,~ ...
_____ /b __ UY\d-:.S o,+~.s _
__ ,.vt d lAs+vifi 1'5 we_\~& . JouJ~ ~_i_{-h__
-~-e_~J ... L \ a...1 ; 6Y\ 5 ~e_ C I t ~~¥'. 5__(_ 0 ~{i YI ~
-\-b U ~ o1 LJt A c co-< & i V\d_+o ':I:: h L
_E__Yl:li_Y-o e__ ~ J___ P~o 1~ c ~ PY\, A ~~--
Q. v e o.~o \ \..\.+.,-pe.-c__ ~1';&_
&< t \J ~~ m_J..e__ _Cl ( ~-~ 5 _±_Q_ ·--s o --
---4 ~°' W\S Co Lc.(}..,v boY\. 'l)n ox..l&&~ o...
_o p~CbLu,to. ~ +. ,
A+ I OJooo _VY\1.l e:s p~v ~CL.v
uJ ~ CJ-.l(Z pv o&\..A..c\VlC\:-'/ +o __
_ Qf_ po \~u.4-11'-v\. \h e_ 0 ,f1VVl-ev r'c_M\ __
_ f__u_d _A 55_o_c._I c-t'1-1' Pb_ -J.-e L-5_
bl.lY'V\; Vlr °'-l_;J_QoLlov~ LO__la o"v'
_a_ -~~-) 5_ MoV\+~s ~-~v __
-~ v O d_u.lli _____Sii E; Y _ b +o V\ 5 _ ___Q -+~-
C..a:.'i_b__O"Y\ ~o V\ o~ ~ .. _Ad & 1L -'---(--'-----'---'-
~ V.{(_hi c_k ) ~ fcrn 5 ~ __ _
woo & '5 + 0" e_ ) _o.J.J_ _ a_cO_cQ \ 4-1' ctn_oJ _ -
_+~o v yY\oV"~ Mt l-e.5> 7~_L.CJvL ""----
~o.vJ _ vYl ojo'<'c~~-)--b oQ,._b > _mo+QY
D O V\A-{.SJ 5-VlOt-tJ _~o bd~ _ ~~. _Do~1 ~---
+o< ~+-~w 0 _VV\D ~ s J --p o \ L~___:_ ~---
.Pv~ ~Qo k ''~ ) _ -f-o ll_v,,_<h '~ _±"°""'-__
_ ,o&u.-~~O"Y\ o_f__ yo&\.le--h_ _w~--__
c c>Y\--5 u V\'U-. J ~"" 0 VY'\ __ e... l e. c... -b .. ' c; ~ -~---
-U,~ -~6)_ _OY\ __ V\.& Q\fL __ _
__lJ e..-& 0 Y\~ \( ~ 0vl.i -u... ±k-e _h~ !o.~
0-\'V\ 0 UV\b _Qt-. p..o l Lu__+ t lrY\ l0 ~
_ _°'-'fl(_ \e 5f-o V"l 5 1 b..Q ..Poy, __ /j l so
_ 1 + he co y'\l\..Q_ s _a_b '\) _~ o ~s k _to u. v \ s M ~-~~ _,, V\ d us+" ·,_;::<.. __ .S ___ _
__ o.f(>_ vto+ '' cJ.e Qft\" 1' Y\d\A.s-!-v~. AvtcfL
_LJg__ ho,\let\~--~Afi~ +~u _
~; o\A..-' ,, &i5c~o..-1~ "'"'~-lt u.J:Q-2 __
(~ <AY\-.& _w_oo& j+o ~e ( ca"'-e&v _
_ co...LA-s1 ,0_b~z.the-o..~ o~. P-~vtic\,,\Je.s1
,_______ __
t----------5-_,.VJ-~-~--__ --= -_ -----~--=---~---~-\ .. --
c----
1-------
;--------------L--~---~--
-----·-----
------
----------------
----------~
,. RECJEij'\lE D
JAN 2 9 1~90
GA1,r1t:u 1
... .:.COUNTY co::i MISS IONliRS
(~)
( ;/)
·\ "
(6)
Garfield County Commis sion ers
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs Colorado
Re: Eastside Co-gen
Dear Commissioners:
28 , 1990
JAN 3 0 1990
G?\t1,-1tL tJ
COU NTY CO MM ISS IONERS
I have read Eastside ' s proposal a nd attench~d town and
county meetings where Eastside has presented their pro j ect.
I am an electr i cal engineer that has worked for Holy Cross
Electric for 17 years. I live on Silt Mesa, one mile below
Eastside 's min e in Harvey gap, and have lived there for 15
years. There is a devastating amo unt of incompatibility in
those thr ee sentences !
Let me start with a professiona l prospective of what
this project means to Garfield County. Lets suppose that
this project gets approved and the desalinization plant at
Glenwood Springs and another one at Mid-Continent 's rail
siding at Carbondale and one at the coal mine near River
Bend and one at the Sunlight Mine and one at th e Snowmdss
Coal Min e. Now lets say they all produce 100 MW each that's
600 MW and then we should add in the 75 MW pl a nt south of
the airport not t o mention how many mo re gas f :i.red plants
coul d come on line from all the gas we lls in the area.
The:c e ' s no end t o the potential ~Eo:c companies (public o r
private ) to burn up the natw:-al resources of Garfield County
to produce electricity. Each power plant that comes on lin e
now or in the near future will have an adverse affect on the
pu'blic e l ectr ic utilities in the state. The origina l FERC
a nd PURPA l aws were created to help a problem of too much
demand and not enough supply. Those l aws were thoughtlessly
adopted by governmental bodies of the state such as PUC and
legislature. The state of Colorado and several adjacent
states are in the reverse situation of too much supply a n d
not e nough demand. When you apply the governments wonderful
laws (created to increase supply ) to a situation of too much
supply -something's got to give! namely the utility with
the most excess supply. This is the main reason Colorado Ute
is facing bankrupcey and a lot of people on the Western
Slope a:c.e :i:acing higher electric rates. The public utilities
did not solicit for these contracts. They had to sign them
or break the law. This Rocky Mountain Region hccs electric
rates that are about the second lowest in the nation that
should indicate that the public utilities are doing a pretty
good job with out the help of private power plants.
With rate increases being the only way utilities can
make money Colorado Ute is forced to raise rates. Holy Cross
El,;ctric then has an option -pass them on or obsorb part of
them. Holy Cross decided to obsorb part of them to the tune
of over $100,000. If you like the way they've done business
in the past you might ask what will they cut -service,
equipment, benefits or employees? One more generating plant
will make the situation worse, but what effect will six or
seven more plants have?
If this was a public utility proposing a power plant it
would take 3 years to prepare a pr.oposal (including an
Environmental Impact Statement) and obtain all the permits
necessary to start construction. Believe me this discussion
has only scratched the surface and greatly over simplified
the electric utility business, but I hope that the more
information you have the better decission you will be able
to mal<e.
Personally my concerns include my families way life on
Sil·i: Mesa, property values, scenic views on Silt Mesa and
polution. As mentioned above I've lived here for 15 years.
If I was asked to describe where I live I would answer " On
a scenic mesa with an excellent mixture of farming and small
subdivisions back dropped by a geological wonder (the Grand
Hogback) that blocks the North winds in the winter, blocks
early morning sun in the summer and that c:radels two
reservoirs for ir:rigation and recreation." If this power
plant goes in I'm affraid my description would be shortened
to "I live on a dirty little raod 1 mile from a coal mine."
More than likely I would move.
Property values -it really goes with out saying --
right now I've got a moderate house an 3. 3 acres with great
views, a school bus route at my front door and only a mile
from a resevior. If this project is approved the things that
will be most prominent about my home will be some sort of'
coal haulage system with a new set of power lines thrown in
for a view and a coal mine for a neighbor. If I want to move
who would want to buy?
Polution -many days during the year· I see a brown
cloud when I look from Silt Mesa off to the West • I always
thought it was smog f."Com Gee and ,Junction and I always
wondered why Garfield County isn't helping to fight smog in
Mesa County if their polution drifts this far up the
Colorado River? I called the state health dept. the other
day and they said I was :eight " .•• mm:e than likely that is
Grand Junction smog. It's a natural thing that air and all
that's in it will be trapped in the valleys and drift up the
rivers". If we've already got Grand ,Junction's smog do we
really need more industry that is going to add to it? What
price is GacEield County going to make the residents in the
Silt, Rifle, and New Castle area pay for bringing BIG
industry to this county? 'rhis industry has so many negative
impacts, can't we bring an industry to Garfield County with
more positive impacts?
As a concerned resident employeed in Garfield County I
have contacted a chemical engineer that worlrn for a public
utility involved with coal bm:ning power plants. I have also
contacted the Colorado Dept. of Health and the Colorado
Dept. of Mines. I have contacted people involved with coal
contracts between mines and utilities. I've talked to people
at F.E.R.C. , P.U.R.P.A. , and the P.U.C. l\nd if Garfield
County hasn't made these contacts and more -they don't knON
enough to make a decission in favor of this project.
The co-gen proposal would not be before you now if
East.side Mine was not a big part of it. This power plant
would be a hub for numerous impacts that Garfield County
should consider: a 160 fo ld increase in the current mi nn i ng
a n d related act iviti es at Harvey Gap (to get the m t o 400,000
tons per year ), coal tr a nsport a tion from Harvey Gap to the
plant, coal transpor t ati on from other mines , tr a s h , sl udge,
a nd waste to be d ump ed at u nk nown si t es , mor e power lines to
connect to t h e transmission grid s y stem, a nd mor e pow er
lin es to the Harvey Gap Mine. HO W CAN GARFI ELD CO UN'l'Y REVIJ5W
rrHIS PROPOSAL WITHOU'r RESPEC'r FOR ALI, rrf-IE OTHER IMPAC 'I'S?
Garfield County is not in any crisis situation that
would :i.ndicate a n eed f or this typ e of industry now. This
t y pe of industry will a lways be able to s itua t e in t h e
County when and if we need i t. Thi s is an ex t 1~ emely cornp l e..x
and l arge iss u e for Ga:cEiel d County (larger and more compl ex
than t h e sing l e proposal before you ). Regardless of your
decission on this project the County n eeds to look seriously
at some very b as i c issu es tha t will dictate thi s County 's
f u t u re : ~roURISM, CLBAN AIR, CLEAN WATER , SCENERY, NNI'URAL
RESOURCES, AND INDU S T RY. Plan for our futur e now, b e for e we
get desperate a nd think we have to accept the first pr opos a l
that comes a long .
Deny thi s request for speci a l us e because it is
incompa tible with s u rr o u nding l ands , water, air and peoples '
lives.
.John Spangle:c
1823 23 7Rd.
S ilt , Co. 81652
876-2 1 86
Con1issioner:
I would like to express my support for the Eustside
Coal power plant. I think it would be a beneficial addition to
the economic base of Garfield County.
The opponents of this faucility have stated that this plant
is unaccaptable because of pollution,chemicalproduction, and haul-
age.
First I would like to state that I believe that the electrical
demands in the U.S. will do nothing-but increase and that this
pmwe will be generated, maybe not here, but generated in our count-
ry some1J.1here. The demand for po\ver in our are<l does nothing but
grow.
This plant is virtually pol:kution free. 'l'he fact that this
plant emits no sulfur dioxide (S02), Nitrous oxide (NOJ;) 1 or carbon
monoxide (CO) is amazing. No other pov1er plant in Colo. can make
such a. claim. S02 and NOX are the cause of acid ruin and are an • immedj_ate threat to all 1 ife of th~s planet. Acid rain will kill
forests, streat)s, lakes and possibly oceans. CO is poisonious gas
responsible for brrn•n cloud and the quality of breathinrJ air in our
citiE-)S. The opponents of thii; faucility say tl1at ca.rbo11 dioxide
(C02) is c] 1nuch \fi/Orse pollutant because of t:he tjtt-:>enhol.lS<~ effect ..
Thi~ i. ctbsurd. The greenhouse effect is a theory,not a fact.
The effects of it are also theory not fact. But assuming thnt t·J1e
greenhOUS(.' efJ:ect iG factllill. i::XpE: '."t-.S rr(·~dJct a 3 to 7 clP<j.t'f~("!
rise in <Jlobal teinperdl;ures over the next 50 t(J 100 yea1::-s. ·rhis
will cause coastal flooding displdcing by l:hen proably billions
of people and possil)ly destroying coastal marsl1es and their
delicate ecology. Possibly also shifting weather patterns chan -
ging locatio's of prime farming areas. However acid rain (cre-
ated by 502 and NOX) could create huge holes in our food chain
rendering some areas of the p.1anet unable to support any ar1imal
or plant life.
All forms of combustion creates C02 (carbon dioxide) ,as well
as normal animal respiration. So rny forced air furnace, my wood
stove,gas stove, and gasoline engine all contribute to this prob-
lem. C02 is a natural food of plants that they photosnythesis
into 02 (oxygen). 'rhe deforestation of our planet is prop~l,?; I + the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. This rp •"'
will fix 10% of its C02 emissions every day into soil beds that
feed plants. Granled 10% is not much. But it is 10% more than
anyone else is doing. It is a step in the right direction. This
proablern was created one step at a tinte ar1d can only be corrected
one step at a time.
In regards to the chemicalg that will be produced, stored,
and shipped from the proposed power plant. Dept. of Transporta-
tion and other federal and state agencys have ample laws govern-
ing the safe storage handling and shipping to guarantee our safety
But lets put these chemicals in perspective. Acetelyene, granted
an explosive gas. But used all over this county by individuals
.-:-1nd lJusiness' s using 9as welding rigs. I have one in my barn.
Incidently it isa gas generated by mixing calcium carbonate with
wnter, used in the old miner's lamps. Methanol is an alcoh.ol,
and is flainmable, but so is gasoline, diesel, and propane. \•Jhich
are stored all over this county in above and belmv grol.ldldtanks.
,r..cetone is a sol vent but most v101nen would recogniz;e it quicker
ns fin9<:~rnail po·t ish rc~mover. L . .iciuid anunonia (NH3) is a nitrogen
rich fertilizer tl1at every farmer and rancher. utilizes every year,
usually purchased from our local Co-ops. ',ihat I am trying to say
is that we are a chemically dependent society, mtreso than we
realiz.e. Chemicals are produced all over this nation safely and
effecienty, and a pbant this size is nothing to fear.
Haulage, a problem I have no answer to. But I think we
could work a compromise that could work. We have to be willing
to work with industry. I don't mean give them carte blanche.
But work a solution that will adequatly address all valid concerns
If this plant goes. in it will have benefits and problmns.
Everything in life has its good points as >1ell as its bad.
However I feel that the good this plant could do far oub1eiqhs
the bad. I bP.lieve that it could be a positive addition to our
economy and quality of life in goirfield county.
r
Board of commissioners
Garfield county
109 8th street
Glenwood Springs, CO
Gentlemen:
902 Red Mountain Drive
Glenwood Spgs, CO 81601
January 19, 1990
81601
"RE __ ,, ;r-. V'·" lj '' f \\'.".'" ~~~
• .. ... : •i._ ·:.-• ! \~ .· tl·.·.::'1 [t,J
'I: .,.,-
JAN 2 2 1990
GllHrlELO
.,GQUN1Y COMMISSIONERS
I
future
County.
urge you to consider
of the co-generation
my thoughts on the
plant in Garfield
All the talk about the economy in this area is
just so much hogwash if you vote against this
opportunity to bring more stability and a better
economy to Garfield County. And this week THE
GLENWOOD POST reported that a bond issue will
appear on the primary ballot asking for a county
tax increase for a new prison. What better way to
help pay for this new prison that to allow a new
business to locate in the county?
Garfield County needs the 170 or so jobs.
Most of these jobs would be filled by local
residents, therefore housing would not present a
problem. Please keep in mind that if this
co-generation plant is given the go-ahead, it will,
in turn, have an effect on the economy and boost
business for area businesses.
Garfield County cannot depend on tourism and
residents alone to mainta~the county's coffers or
to boost the economy. we need the co-generation
plant to provide the additional jobs, to boost the
economy, to help pay for the planned prison and
whatever else may be planned for the future of this
area.
Your vote for approval of this endeavor will
be a boost for Garfield County.
David and Kat~y Harris
4 7'7 5 1 : "' Rd .
Glenwood Springs, C~ 81601
Board o: Gar.fielct Cr.iunty Commissio ~
Mrs. Marion Sm i th ~
Mr . Arnold Mackley
Mr . Elmer Arbaney
J~nurary 12, 1989
Dear Commissione r s :
P fr='~ !i""'"' l'T '\ rr ""1Ttl ~
• ' I " ll, ~ ~i '
JAN 1 B 19 ~J
Gt1R~I EL D
C:ou ·.~11 ' '·1 '"I ' -. ·'·" (,~j ~ ?:
We ar e writing to ex p ress 0 1 1r concerns and adamant opposition to
the proposed Eastside Energy Corp oration 's p1o j ect soon Lo be
presented for your consideration . We seriously question that our
environment can be preserved w1 tt this Lyµe of i nd<;.stry present
in Garfield County .
The potentjal air pollution from the plant itse l f, and the
associated VPhic1.i.la..1 traffic are a real i ty . No :·rnst.ainalJlf
~,·idence to the c·::,n trary has been presented . Whi 1 e it has been
slated by representatives cf East£ide that lh~ technology to LP
employed for tr1is project is 'state of t!1e art", no quantifiab l e
dat.q_ a<i.dressing actual pollutants tliat may be released j_nto tlie
atmosphere has yet to be stated.
Due to tlie pn)xirnity of the plant to -!:he Colorado river, the
potential for devastating water pol l ution also exists. Should an
accid8nt occur releasing any of the toxic chemicals proposed to
be stored, ~he water flo wing to Rif l e, Parachute and beyond may
bP fouled. Also, the destruction of fisheries and waterfowl
habitat is a very rea l possibil i ty .
The recent addition of Harvey Gap Reservoj_r to the Colorado State
Park system hardly deserves an indus t rial zone (an operationa l
coal mine) at it 's entry. These two entities could not be less
compatible .
We urge you to deny the application submitted by Eastside Energy
Corporation as the r i s k s to our e nv iro nme nt far outweigh the
purported benefi t s of t~is project . C 1 ean air, pure water and
c!.oice recreational facilities are resources that i"e l..herish . Ir.
is o~r responsibility to protect them for ourselves, our children
and our economic vitality .
Sincerely,
David Harris
~~s d/~~
Rifle, Colorado, 816.SO
. January ll, 1990
~~~~:
hlastside Coal Co .
Superior liestern Corporation
Deare S1rsa
In answer to your letter of December 7, 1989 , I have read the doou11Jent
ooncernlng F.asts1de projeot and l want you to know that , at this time I am
oopposed to this project as oonstltuted, for the following reasons s
1. lt will decreaso the value of my property without a. doubt since 1t lies
just aoroaa the road from 1t.
2. It will increase the traffic problem wh1oh is b3.d enough .
J • It wt.11 1norease the haze and fog problems .
4 , It wtll increase the pressure on the water supply , wh1oh I ha.von 't heard
a.nything about ! There will be other problems unmench1onod .
·, ., .· ..
,,
' " -.1.:
......
. '.'.·
. '
""
" '.' '
'
' ' ' ~
D:1vid and Kath'./ Harris
4775 117 Rd.
Gier:wood Sp1~ing3 C0 8:601
Board of Garfield Counly Commissioners
Mrs. !'a.rion Smith
~r. Arnold Mackley
Mi . E ! mer Arb=:tney
Janurary 12, 1989
De-3.~-· C:olllrnlssioners:
GARF/EL
t:OU NTY COMMI S01 1.1,·vrns
We are writing to exp1ess 011r concerns and adamant opposition to
the proposed East s'de Energy rorpo:i:ation 's project soon to be
presented for your consideration. We seriously question that our
environment can be preserved with this type of industry present
in Garfield County.
The potential air pollution from the plant itself , and the
a!-'soc iRi.ed vehicular U -if fie are a reality. No sustainable
e\·idence to the contrary has been presented. Wh i 1 e it tas been
stateJ by representatives of Eastside that lhe technology to he
employed for this project is "state of the art", no quantifiable
data addressing actual pollutants that may be released into tl1e
atmosphere has yet to be stated .
Due to the proximity of the plant to the Colorado 1'ver, th:::
potential for devastating water pollution also exists. Should au
a.ccide11t oc:::ur releas)ng any o f the toxic chemicals proposed to
b2 stored, the water flowing to Rifle, Parachute and beyond may
he fouled . Also, th~ destruction of fisheriAs and waterfowl
habitat is a very real possibi l ity.
Tne recnnt addition of Harvey Gap ResF.Jrvoir to tbe Coloradn State
Park system hardly deserves an industrial zone (an operational
coal mine) at it's entry. Thes~ two cptities could no~ be less
com patible .
We urge you to deny the application submitted by E0·;tside Energy
Corpoia~ion as the 1jsks to our environment far outweigh lh0
purported benefits of this project . Clean air, pure water and
~ho ice recreation~! facilities are resources that we cherish. It
is o~r responsibility to protect them for ourselves, c~r children
and ou1 economic vilaltty.
Sincerely,
Davi-i Ha11l.s
l ~~
11__.p
. ' '
l
I
: :
... ' '.
·:. ,' .. ,_
. ' ' ' . '
,-I, , • . ,--· ..
.· ;i
l<Jt/ ?711. 2T
\. -
:~'· -'
,, :
'· .-,.,
i . . .
i
' . . -' '
.-'·'
January 10, 1990
G~rfield County Planning Commission
Court House
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
re: Special Use Permit
Eastside Energy Corp.
Chairman:
Although the maJority of the Trustees of tho Town of Silt are 1n
favor of the project, the following are concerns and questions
which they feel need to be addressed or made a part of, or
required prior to the issuance of a special use permit, to wit:
All conditions recommended by the planning staff of Garfield
County need to be met, as well as tne following items that need
to be answered or addressed:
1. We feel there will be a major impact on the Police
Department of the Town of Silt; especially when a crew of 150
construction workers located within a mile of town are released
from work. Drinking, drugs, and fighting are some of the
concerns brought up whon u 13% potential popul~~~on ir1cr~>~uw,
not including families, is located that close to town. A
possible area where the workers will locate is at tho Viking RV
park, located south of Silt, increasing our cl1ance for a major
impact.
2. Housing is a maJor issue when w~ talk in terms of 10%
increase in population. The present staff of the Town of Silt ia
unable to respond to this increase without maJor problems.
Additional staff would be needed in the planning and building
departments with the construction of additional housing that is
bound to como with a project of this size.
3. We would like additional information concerning
chemicals, with a list of and amounts to be stored, along with
general safety information. There are concerns about the handling
problems associated with fire, explosion, or accidental release
of these chemicals. Also, what are the possible short-term and
long-term exposure potential to the citizens of the Town of Silt,
as well au t11~ wurk~lLl ur· volur·1c2~rs wrju w~1~.L~l LGSIJC•r1a to ~uch
emergencies (such as the police, ambulance and fire departments).
'
'·'
MSDS sheets on all hazardous material of over SOO gallons stored
on the premises are a must.
4. The noise pollution in terms of DBA should be included
in the special use permit as a condition based on facts
information. This should be submitted and related in terms
and
of
noise factors on ~ common theme, such as noise of TV voluma, cars
on the highway, etc.
S. There must be some sort of condition to meet emission
standards to assure compliance with maintenance of the trucks to
avoid truck emmissions of pollutants above normal.
no
be
6. There must be assurance there will be
concerning the residents of the Town of Silt who will
wind and subject to such odors if there are any. A means
down operations, etc, until odors are cleaned up or
before operations may be resumed should be included.
odors
down
to shut
removed
7. Dust control assurance so no coal dust would leave the
property is needed. Any dust would be grounds for shut down until
the problem is solved.
8. Normal coal haulage would not be through the Town of
Silt, including empty trucks.
9. The company credentials and credit should be
investigated to assure completion and continue compliance of the
project. This would include previous operations and whether they
complied and continue to comply in terms of being a good
neighbor.
Respectfully submi.~d,
/)Utit-/ V(/Yh-< c~c~
Mabel Ann Fazzi 0() -
Mayor,
Town of Silt
Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sirs,
In response to your inquiries concerning the proposed power plant
in Silt, let me address one small aspect which affects many local
residents, stable employment. I have lived in this area for over
20 years and have found it necessary to work in many parts of the
state and surrounding area. Let me assure you that I have not
done so due to ruy fondness for travel. The local labor force
has become accustomed to a series of hirings and layoffs
throughout this area to the point that it seems normal. Much
more desirable, however, would be some employment opportunities
which offer a large measure of stability. The proposal before
you offers a substantial number of steady, permanent jobs and,
speaking for many in thi.s area, I find that a very refreshing
prospect.
Power plants, such as the one proposed, can exist in close
conjunction with the community and environment as has been proven
by the existing cogeneration plant in Hifle.
I urge you to seriously consider the positive effects such a
plant would provide this area as well as the overwhelming support
of the local job force.
James
P.O. Box
Silt, CO
Knapp
262
81652
V.
Carl & Dee Mobley
1158 Road 237
Slit, CO 81652
Mark Bean-Director
Garfield County Planning
and Zoning Commission
109 8th St.
January 8, 1990
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean,
Our property on Slit Mesa is bordered on the west by
county road 237, which at this time is a part of the route
for transporting coal from the Eastside Coal mine.
Our concern is the hauling of coal on roads 237 and 233
which are narrow county roads that are barely adequate for
normal everyday traffic, to increase the amount of coal
hauling on these roads wil I have a great deal of impact to
both Eastside Coal and the people living on Silt Mesa not to
mention the recreational traffic to Harvey Gap.
We do think the proposal for a Co-Generation plant
could become, with adequate controls, a good industry for
the area and should help to increase the tax base for
Garfield County; however, we do feel that the routing of
coal to the plant site ls a major problem that must be
carefully studied and resolved before the Eastside Coal is
permitted to proceed with their proposed plans.
·' l
i.
' . '
' . i
e--~;;: -
r A->-... t..)ro·f/1~ fh<') /ef/..cr fh. Sc,-/f'or-f-
of2-f-"'-C. c_p _, '7 e. f\ f lfrv.. f-r h Gf/ r .(; e. I) C1>V-4v~ ,
Tli-e__ .A-re/I-h.rf-5 A ,5/ror. 1 f" . .e.J ..(;r ':Joocf.. JtPb
-fr> &ef 64,-/,·c,t,J c!.oc_...rv+y 10··"-1 krwvf-y-J ~ r
rf.A-fi c-<.. .4 bf t:7+ f.eof le. ./fr·(._ ~4,~;-,.5 + ./-4t s
('(o]e.c...1-, i3J T -KeJ.-fh+./-if-Iv.._ Wt!t-fo"'I-'! -o-l-
f-l-.L5-t_ fe.Pfl-t. cfo nvf n~ l-i,<-johs/ +!..+f-
f . 1-•'' 15 f-1--..t.'1 rrr<-. r..(.rf,·r<,A or fro-t:e..S")•'or..-tf 1 flv, .. f;.l'J,:;~f.
s .(!. .e_ tf'-. ri-e.. e.-J ·,LI; ' :rrd u.~ f-r? .. Tr. f f....e_ Ju
YeA--r5 T h-4-V~ t..ru-e) r-vi. 6.rt-r+ie...tJ <!oi-...n,-1-~
'i!. 14'1 f /0 '1 ,,..._,_-<-,.,., cy-h--1-J 4'lw4-1.i -s bee,, "1-<!.o h-<!_ ~,,. /"\.. ......
r .(.-1.,;;-v,_/c_ ./-1-.-;-') IS q_ Gvt.+f-Dferfv..tt•'{t .fur
CAs , bJ k..J e_ s !vr.JWI cf +.1tt-e_, tt-ci V1-h I-~ JL o ..( i + .
C: tto'-J l GooJ. (Orf k., lvhl c A-lr-e-1-~ ks+-ho""'-e....s
4M-J (rx,4-t} fo / e+u-(... ff...€... /J·r'<.v-... 0<--CA-<.-,__.-'!J,€_ (lo/-
t_ Jto'-4 t.. ~. y -fvope.,
wt~\ '}o '"'-+o 1-~1~ _ A~
'4 r<.. };.,-~ Joi~+ s-el\ thR-
RECE:H\llE~D
JAN 9 1990
Gi\RFli:.llJ
COUNTY GO~iMISSIONERS
sw00 · ~t\00
f'~ Jo~ o.f. f-k e... (le..\,.
WCI t:-r~ ~ 0 t.._6 r+'
:5 ihc_e.,..t_. ( '\
S+~fki.. IM,
(:; 3$ ~pe.I'
(?;f I~ C,,
I •
J../(_}(_J U/L-f-t1U(__> I \u
;:;1L-1 1 ca c;;10sc_
J~~ 6) 1490
~ fY'\-Wf2177rVG 70 VOICE i"rLlf ,51..APPO!CI oP
--n-1£ c~ P{)U_JE.v_ PL/TlufS rrz.oPo~---tJ::, /PE'&r-oF ,<;;,1cr.
I Fet:::-c l71C @:£lvbF-1 rs -ro <O!lRF:t ELA~ C~"J 7-7
ftrC-s JNU9"! dbD COu. rVr-1 TA'><-f5t"r6t=-) 6 CO/\Jdn\ f c__
0/L!JJWTt+ 'if ar--rtf:3(__£ <DfZ.tmzJll-f-1 ';/ ~s~ -or -'rrf-£-!T7ZI
~ctt1Votb.OG v ( 7'1-tA1-Is JUOT 'Df+7Y\A<O //\](;, 'iv (hJ.J2_
{3VV1foN~), I /18PE yc)lA__ lU1u_,
&; I I.)€ y ()l,-U(__ fl rn-£ /ttVD C QIU 5 I ~/QI() Tu
/th? Pflo Po~ ) hf\-)b L1 'zflc-A_)~ 7-v /lf05E lJif-o Af2E
/(fi)r)WL12-00~ A-fLJb /HD"dE: V-J1 rn exP~~
I u IA) /ff-Pr I I 5 PAC fu._ftc_ err er f w I u__ ~
6 Y\J ()UJC ~ Sf\JLJ 1 eo f\Jfl'L&\Jr •
"/Uftrurc__ YCJLZ__ ~· YenuL n rv1vE: I fl) /(£]1°7:>1 !Uc,
If-( OP'0 S Tl lu__,e,~T~ l£7tctt' '.
&r~LfV-1
f u:JJL~(J{--
'5 f e_ I/ e. W ex\c! +
.Box 351
5ilt-Cu. "ifff,5)__
J
G:vrf
1
Jd Coun<i?-
0
will be, a_ leade.v e11v1vonmerifcdlj-
p"od,u,c.1"'(5 Q,lt'.-c.Jv;e_,~ o+ no1 o..dl11'.'6 to i-ht.
ru"'hol.\.SJL e_,.f¥'e.c...4-ctV\cl p1·ov1d.1V\(f h'a·"\ BTLL) /ou.J _ju.ltLL\r
Coal to (Y\ 0. Y ke_+5 ea.Sf (1vic~ ·~ U) Z,<; + fl 1 e v .e.Ji j
'<e.d.u.c, \\~ o..c.1 J. re\ 1 n . p, n l\.1 l J 1 J.. .bt I 1 e v z t.<L\+_i 1 Jz
tne.y
00
ho..s d~MoAsiv-°'-~e.& ~/-he.iv t.,u1ll1nJn<:s5
+o uJorl{ w1~li '/-1'~-('ornfVlL111,~J uJhen fhed
a_J_J.ve.5SJLJ. CoYJc~v1"-6 ,,,;01cr<_&_ Q\J'2v +\...._ +'1vs<l
p'<o?o:so..Q movind thi<. rvoj.oc4--(\-ovY\ \i(\vve 0 G0-p)
loc(k_+\1 ~I\ p(up>2--I'~ W1'lh ec\!J-1?.y L1'-~ IY\ ~ \" "-(1 V1 ~ ,,.,c LW; d {"' ~H '· ""'"J c;l asl--Y'
]::. €,(ICOLL10.«)''--L(/"\" Su-fpc·/l 0
·(; -/(;, 5 pvoj .zccf.
Janna Six
P.O. Box 726, Rifle, CO 81650
303-625-2424
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood, Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garco P&Z Committee:
January 6, 1990
A coal-gasification power and chemical plant is being proposed for
Garfield County by Eastside Energy Corporation which concerns me.
I have been able to obtain a copy of the proposal and attended a
presentation by J.R. Trout from Superior Western Corporation with
the Rifle City Council members January 5th.
The proposal intends to spend $85 million in the next ten months
to put a plant on line by December, 1990. For such an expensive
project which will impact the community to great extent, I am
worried about the many questions that are not answered by the
proposal.
1. Do we need more electrical energy in the area?
2. Although Public Service has guaranteed to buy 25% of the power
for 30 years, no other contracts have been made. Mr. Trout
admitted that the company was "taking a gamble". Does our
community want to accept that kind of risky industry?
3. Does the plant design meet state and/or federal standards for
human and environmental safety? Mr. Trout stated that the plant
had an 800% safety factor for water spillage. The exaggeration is
ludicrous. Even the best plans face unforeseen problems. Does
Garfield County want to accept the chance of an accident?
4. To what extent will the area's transportation routes be
affected? Moving 2.1 million tons of coal per year (the maximum
potential) would disrupt and tear up roads, and making driving for
citizens more hazardous.
5. Plans for the greenhouse are vague at best. What produce would
be grown? Has the technology been documented that emissions from
the plant will be "cleaned" in the greenhouse? Will the food be
safe to eat?
6. Detailed plans are absent which might reveal the size and
height of any of the 11 buildings proposed.
7. I understand that no environmental impact statement is needed.
For a proposal of this magnitude, it should be required by the
county that Eastside Energy Corporation do its own E. I. S. with
testimony of experts. Page 2 of Section 4.3 states that "there is
a project underway to reduce the salt loading in the river". Their
environmental protection and mitigation is ambiguous and not
stringent enough.
As the area's energy needs grow, doesn't it make more sense for
Garfield County to seek the least-cost, most environmentally safe
form of energy. Energy efficiency... weather stripping,
insulation, higher quality glass windows, computerized thermostats,
high intensity fluorescent light bulbs. . . is a more reasonable
solution.
If another electrical generation plant is ever needed in Garfield
County, it should be part of the long term county plan, and not a
haphazard proposal brought in by a private firm which must have
much to gain by investing $85 million.
The 110 local jobs which it may provide are not worth the
degradation of the quality of citizens lives through noise, air and
water pollution, and transportation congestion. Please search for
other forms of economic develop for this county.
I hope you will deny the proposal from Eastside Energy Corporation
when you meet Wednesday, January 10th.
Sincerely,
John P. Powers
P. o. Box 726
Rifle, CO 81650
(303) 625-2424
Garfield County Planning and zoning
109 8th st., suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
re: Eastside Energy Corporation
Dear P & Z Members, Monday, 8 January 1990
This letter is one citizen's opinion that the request for a permit
by the Eastside Energy Corporation be denied. As the weaknesses of
the operating specifics of the proposal are being addressed by
others, I am addressing the concept of providing electricity to
match the need for it. The following four elements are presented to
illustrate a conceptual evaluation of matching supplies with needs.
I. Amount of
energy
needed
II. supply of
sufficient
energy
III. Costs
of Supply
IV. Revenues
calculated on
costs of supply
I. The initial task is to determine how much energy is needed. It
is pointless to produce in excess as the fuel (in this case coal)
consumed is lost forever, and the costs to produce energy that is
not used are wasted. For example, energy producers provide for peak
loads with generation that only occurs during those periods. It
would be pointless to produce peak energy supply all the time.
II. To supply sufficient energy from available options, the means
with the lowest installation cost, lowest operating costs, greatest
efficiency, and least environmental impact should be chosen.
III. As the costs of supply go up (an energy producer with a new
sixth power plant vs that same producer with five), so does the
financial risk. More loans are required, greater debt service, more
equipment, chance of breakdown, labor, etc. are required and the
finite supply of resources (coal, oil, gas, river sites for dams) is
used up more quickly.
IV. To provide a sufficient supply of energy, the producer charges
enough to its customers to pay for total costs and earn some profit,
no matter what the means of assuring that supply may be. Typically,
costs to construct, run, and depreciate a power plant are added to
the rate base and are used by the PUC to calculate the amounts the
supplier may charge.
If a producer, such as Public Service, would pay for insulation,
weather stripping, storm doors and windows, high efficiency light
bulbs, and other energy conserving equipment and measures and in-
stall them in customers' buildings and homes, costs to the producer
would be charged to the rate base -just as costs to build addition-
al capacity to generate more electricity are added to the rate base.
The supply of energy can be reduced to match reduced needs for ener-
gy through greater efficiency.
It is clearly proven that the costs of reducing the demand for ener-
gy, the need (paying for conservation materials), are significantly
less than the costs of increasing the means of supply (building more
power plants). Also, customers' bills for energy are reduced as the
amount of energy consumed declines faster than costs per kilowatt
hour rise to pay for efficiency measures. The profitability of the
energy providers is more stable and risk is reduced as new construc-
tion, loans, uncertain interest rates, etc. are avoided. "Provi-
ding" energy, really meeting the need for energy, is most efficient
when the demand is reduced. Demand can be reduced in many ways with
no loss in utility (an insulated house consumes less to maintain a
comfortable temperature than an uninsulated one). Further, environ-
mental impacts are minimized.
If the United States is to compete successfully economically with
Japan, West Germany and the rest of Europe, we must reduce our con-
sumption of energy. Currently, the US consumes twice the amount of
energy per dollar of GNP as does any other country on earth. This
over consumption of energy means that our costs to produce goods are
automatically more expensive and less competitive. Over consumption
is the same as inefficiency and is caused by a lower level of tech-
nology. New technologies in efficiency are industries of the fu-
ture, and the US is falling further and further behind. So too,
environmental problems are getting bigger and bigger. This country
needs to put its time, efforts, and investment in research and de-
velopment of efficiency so that we may compete in world markets and
maintain national economic health. No alert business person would
pay more than necessary for costs to run the business.
The national whole is a sum of regional parts. Each of us as indi-
viduals and communities must do our part for our own good and the
good of this country.
On each count, the Eastside Energy Corporation falls short: There
is no demonstrated need for more energy. Its means of supply are
not the least costly and most efficient and have significant en-
vironmental impacts. The costs of the supply are high, and there is
unnecessary consumption of our national supplies of fuel sources,
which could be saved for the future when they are needed. In this
case with Eastside Energy, which of us would like to have our elec-
trical bills go up to enable this company to go into business?
People in Garfield county are encouraged to support Eastside's pro-
ject because jobs would be created. What dollar and environmental
costs will citizens bear to pay for those jobs? We should advocate
the creation of jobs by encouraging energy producers to provide
efficiency. Manufacturing industries would be stimulated and pro-
fessionals would be needed to perform installations.
We must conserve for the future and reduce what we consume. We do
not have the right to use up resources for future generations to
benefit the narrow financial return of a few, especially when the
costs are so high.
Dear Garfield County Commissioners:
Karyn Zaremba
243 Sopris Ave.
Carbondale, Co. 81623
January 9, 1990
I have recently learned that an Arizona company wishes to
build a chemical and coal gasification plant near Silt, and a coal
mine near Harvey Gap.. I ahve also heard about possible powere plants
near Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. I would urge you to
let these people know that there will be strong oppostion to
any of these ideas. I believe that many of the people who
live here value the clean air and environment, and that most of
our visitors do, also. Dirty air would ruin the tourist industry
here, and I suspect that many home owners would leave the
area as well. Please consider the affect this would have
on our overall economy and way of life here in the Roaring Fork
Valley.
Sincerely,
Karyn Zaremba
JAN 9 1990
·, GAlifitLU ----,,.,
'COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
I>ea2· Si..rs,
In response to your inquiries concerning the proposed power plant
in Silt, let me address one small aspect which affects many local
residents, stable employment. I have lived in this area for over
20 years and have found it necessary to work in many parts of the
state and surrounding area. Let me assure you that I have not
done so due to my fondness for travel. The local labor force
has become accustomed to a series of hirings and layoffs
throughout this area to the point that it seems normal. Much
more desirable, however, would be some employment opportuni·tiesi
which offer a large measure of stability. The proposal be.fore
you offers a substantial number of steady, permanent jobs and,
speaking for many in this area, I find that a very refr0shing
pr01ipect.
Power pJ.ants, such as the one proposed, can exist in close
coi1jur1ct,.io11 wi tl·1 tl1e con1muni t.y and er1 v ir<.)ntnent as l1a.s been p1·ovel1
by the existing cogeneration plant in Rifle.
I urge you to seriously consider the positive effects such a
plant would provide this area as well as the overwhelming support
of the local job force.
Ja1nes
P.O. Box
Silt, CO
Knapp
262
81652
V.
Carl & Dee Mobley
1158 Road 237
Silt, CO 81652
Marte Bean-Director
Garfield County Planning
and Zoning Commission
109 8th St.
January 8, 1990
GI enwood Spf' i ngs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean,
Our property on Si It Mesa is bordered on the west by
county road 237, which at this time is a part of the route
for transporting coal from the Eastside Coal mine.
Our concern is the hauling of coal on roads 237 and 233
which are narrow county roads that are barely adequate for
normal everyday traffic, to increase the amount of coal
hauling on these roads wil I have a great deal of impact to
both Eastside Coal and the people living on Silt Mesa not to
mention the recreational traffic to Harvey Gap.
We do thin!< the proposal for a Co-Generation plant
could become. with adequate controls, a good indust:ry for
the area and should help to increase the tax base for
Garfield County; howeveT, we do feel that the routing of
coal to the plant site is a major problem that must be
carefully studied and resolved before the Easts Ide Coal is
permitted to proceed with their proposed plans.
Cin·I C, Mobley
Dee Mobley
C--~ .9
r A-»-{,J r.·f{,~ J/..;-s lefk.r ,-i,, sv-rfor f-
of-+--1-ve... c_p _, '7 ~ (\ f IA-M f-,-" Gf/ r.Ci e I) {bc,,_,._;f·~,
Tli.e_ .A-reA-h/1-5 A .flro"' 1 //' .e.J ~( ')00,J. JOb
-fr:, &ef 64r/1·e-1J c!.oc,_,rv+y 701'r..7 krwvfy-J ~ r
fe,4/1'?:.<-4-bf <7.f f.eofk ./1-r-<-. WjA-,~ns+ f,4.-s
(roj e..c .. J-. 6,,,...+ T +e.e.J. -{/.,4.J--flv... h11t-jori' 1-'J -ol
f--0._5~ fU>fJ-'--do nof-n~ i--J...<-/ohs./ +f...+f-
) 1-"' 15 J-4'1 '4-r<-r<-Lrf,·r-c or fro{e.S-;i'or.1tl 1 f-ti+f;.l'J:;~f
s .e <-e::... f1 -e.. e..J ,16 , rrd ~ 1-r 7 ~ r r. f f-.....e_ 1 u
Ye..+-r.5 T h.4v-e... t.ru~ ,-."' 6A;,,-.(1e..,/J do"'-n-+'J
€!.14'1flo'1 r---~.,.:::I-h.+s 4-'k.;4-ti -s beer. ."f <!,o1"-<!....-e..,,-YL __
r f-h7'> IS ct G n .. ,+-1-Oferfv...ti ,·.;..~ .ftir
~e__ sA,oiv/d -f-4/:-e_, !'1-d v+h J-~ -'<... 0 .( i + .
t.. no~ t.. 6=-J.. y -?wpe___
wrl\ tjo '"'+o -\-~•~-AvJ
'4 (.e, ~; v<.<f Jo;;,+ Sell f'k
J/\N 9 1990
A-I r-e-1-~ k. s +-hoWI. e...s
0 <'._, ~IL (lo/-
s~o0 c~€A*t-\00
t-~ J-o~ 0¢ {-K. c (le\...
wor 1::-r"-'\ ~ S-/-,_., r+,
5n ... ~'--( '-\
S+<:f4 ... lM ..
& 3$ A-spe.I'
fi~ I~ G,
I '
(,,. (,s--2....1, "ifg,
UCX_! LJ(CA-fUi_~ ITV
St l .. T ! CO '610 'S z::_
,JA-10 !.M'hV--j B \ I 9 9 0
-J. ~ WiC117NIQ 70 vo1c.c: rrl,lf ,SvcPPo;c_r-oF
l'H£ c~ PmuelL. PL/'M.Jr5 PfZCJPO~-'oi~ WE?:o1-OF "~::,1c..ro
I FE:c7.. ~ ~G-P-1 re_:';, IO <ON<'F1 EJ....A~ COL-( /\..J t7
~· f NCIC.&n ~ COu ,,_:rcr TA'x Bn-ac-_) E-CoNCJrl\ r c ..
0 /(/:.-w Tt+ 71' ar"-Afj}x,£. G fZ.tzn.c.J it+-, 'Tl ._'S71°rTE. . of= -Ir-/£ -/TfZ. r
lt::CtTNO ~OG 1 { Trtf'lrr I s 1UOT v ??r\Aw / 10 & Ju cruJc
(3J V1 !C'oN YY\,(::7ur-) , I /kJPE yc)[A__ lU1 u__,
0 I L) € y (Jl.l...rZ___ /7 YY\..k !'MJT;> LC) fl_) 51 ~'! 0 rU /-cJ
/(_/VCZA_JLbL">0~ A-AJb /f*J"2JE Wr 17-f -CX(V::f2·.{72st_-:-
I 0 iu !+f+r· 1 r 5 me llA./l-L cr--r c~ 71 uJ 1 cA..... ~
Q /'\) owz_ LCC/'tc._.. EJVU I L CJ (U (lLf7\Jr "
~re y CTU... f::::cW'._ Y G~-(7 fYL£ / A.J i<_1::::.f1"V I r0 C,
4-( 0 f'v S T7 lu..B~115 LeliC:::.rC '.
Gd:<-Di JJ Cou~ P/11V\n1''J ~ ?on<1d Cov>lv>i1551
""'
I o 9 '6 i:.\'.l ..S ~ .e_d-
.5LL1 iz 3o3
01tV\woo& 5p'j'6, OJ. <6'! Go I
-S fe_ Ve. W e-nci +
.Box 351
5;11-Co. 'fffk,5.l-,
Ga.xf,JJ Coun<l-0 w1!( be-CL leadev e111/1vont'Ylenta_/L(}
pY'od..u_c1Y1d .Q./ec.Jv1G 1 ~ 0 1 no+ ad.J,1i/ to +he._
rf .. l!.A''lhOLLSJI... e_,We,c</-ClV\J p1-ov1JIV\cr h1g-l-1 BTll) /ol.JJ .5u..lfLLV
cooJ fo morke+s el\.s-t Q.-1cQ l.t..'es+ -111.:v-eLJ:J
l"e,cL.LC1\\;J-Q..C1cl Yct1 11 . F1n<LllJ 1 .__L b~l1e\e. ~>Li-l51clz_
l::ne.v 0 (i h'"-5 d-eV'vlons4v-l\.~e_cQ '-f-he1y LUl//nCJncss
+o u.J or I{ w; {h 'ft"-.. ('01n1Ylc1 11 , -~j uJl--ie n f l1ed
CLJ.dJ.v.e.5:;..._J.. Conc..e.v1"-6 vo1c11._.Q_ ov~v +\"-{\vs{
p'(o? 0 so...Q ) (Yi() v I 1'\J th.Q._ r y oj t'. c 4 .fv c V-Y\ H(\ vv c CJ G0--f J
IOCl\..-ti\1 01\ p ((J~\'~ W 1 i h eC\~,Y-l 1 \'-~ I Y\
p lo.~ Cl. V\ & ~ c u. v-; v..j { \'-11 ' 111 -<'. _ c. e <; 'ic< 1'.j l.U o..Sf-~'---Y-
I e_nCC·LliO.:r--L(J(,\X {. 5u-fe(·\ j b (; )111 5 (>rcj ec~t -
January 5, 1990
Garfield County Planning & Zoning
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Last night I was fortunate enough to receive a call
from a friend about the ''new" Eastside coal gasification
plant proposal being presented in Silt. I hurried to the
Town Hall and was utterly dismayed at what was presented.
The entire project lacked any degree of professional-
lsn1. Tl1~ [o:i-..11tal: ·\va.s ~-iast.t-a~d ."!.at..keJ. &11 fiI1.:..t.c amounts
or numbers. Throughout the three hour meeting, we were told:
1. That the plant would be a "Zero Emissions'' facility
that would emit 10,000 pounds per day of carbon
dioxide as the "major component", but would not
effect air quality. C02 is the major ingredient
in our "Green House Effect" of worldwide warming.
2. Approximately 150 jobs would be created, but no
plans for housing.
3. A road for 150 ton trucks would be built, but no
information as to where or how.
4. To fire up the power plant would require 25 ton
trucks to drive a county road at 4 minute inter-
vals 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (but only dur-
ing "Daylight" hours), and this would be minor
compared to the planned and concurrent development
of the coal mine to its "maximum" potential of 2.2
million tons a year.
5. The plant.would require storage of 55,000 galions
of methylnol, some "unknown" amounts of ammonia,
actylene, and other chemicals that coulc not be
"remembered'' at the presentation.
'l'he questions that came to my mind during the "show"
were so numerous that I could not write them down before
they were forgotten. Beyond anything else, I was just plain
insulted by the proposal.
page 2
To be brief as possible, I cannot support in any manner
this type of half spoken truths. If a full and honest pro-
posal can be presented along with Federal and State permits
indicating that this project can be developed without destroy-
ing our county (just to sell power to other states), I might
reconsider my response. Please consider our quality of life
here and now and what it could become if this project is built
no better than it has been presented. If we let some High
Rollers railroad a project of this magnitude through the local
government, we may have sold our own souls for the total ben-
efit of others we don't even know, whose laws prevent and pro-
tect them from facilities of this type.
PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS GO ANY FURTHER!
Thank you for the time,
Don Nisbet
6533 214 Road
New Castle, CO 81647
(w) 945-6544
(h) 984-2456
Glrfield Cl:unt:y
Planning arrl ?arirg Cl:mnis.sirn
GlEIMCCd Epdn:Js' Cb
IB3r Morrl:ers of the Cl:mnis.sirn:
Ce::ari:Er 28' 1989
I an wri t.irrj to express my grave = ab::ut tre re.v prq:x::s3l to cxrre l:efore 'Pl in Jam.my fron tre
Eastsic:E Cb3l CJ:nµmy.
Che of my lari:FSt = is this. I cannot un:lerst:ard this proje:± or ju:'l:je this project ba:au.se of
the high &grEe of t:a:mical exp2l'.tise rB:e3S3l'.Y. I can rero tre pro:ESS bJt after refiling it I cb not
feel mnfortable in my m:Erstardirg of it. 'Ihere is ro W3y I can say to 'Pl -"I kn::w this will l:e
d2tr:irrart:al to the i:a:ple of this =nt:y ard to this El11T.i=rrait." l'rrl in tre sare W'J.Y tlEre is ro W3Y
I can ~ this project safe ard ai:µqxiate ba:au.se I an i:rqalifie:i to cb s:>. It's t:n.E if Iv.ere
ioclirB:l to l:eliE.Ve eJer'f \\01'.d in tre p:t:p:s31. it s:uxls great. art: I d:n't. 'lh=s= i:a:ple are not
<ping to list the [D\:altial p:d::>lars for us. I l:eliE.Ve tlEy will l:e utNi:illirg to srere their t:a:mical
~ WE1 it a::rres to tre 0093tive asi:a::ts imclve:l.
I st:rrnqly feel that tre =nt:y sh:llid axBid2r i=lving t:e::ilnically Edu:Et:a:i, rnbiasa:l irdivid.Els to
lcx::k at this proje:::t: ard give 'PJ, as v.ell as all of us, a vi6'1 of the [Dl:ential for l'kBt I l:eliE.Ve rray
l:e s::rre very 921'.icus p:d::>lars.
I an very =D2rtl"d for the [Dl:ential p:ssible p::illution of tre Cblorab PJ ver. ll¥ m:'lers1:ardin; is
that tlEy are prq:x:sing the pro:lu:tirn ard storage of chanical rn site .•• tre site l:eing tre hmks of the
Cblora:b Ril.'2!:, me of the rra:'Pr W'J.l:en®.ys of the \B31:. 'This W3ter is the lifelin= for eveP,OE \o.ln
li\eS alcrg it. \'12 w::uld not l:e here if this l::e3utiful river v.ere rot here. It is the s:::urcE of my
drink:in:j W3ter teing a resi<'Ent of Silt. I think tre [Dl:ential for spills into this ri1.er lfil l:etter
l:e lcd<e::l at with utrrcst =· I:b v.e rmlly W3nt to tum this pmrlise v.e are privilegn to live in
into the nightnare of tre East Cb3st7 ••• I.oJe carru?
M3yte 'Pl all d:n' t W3nt to l'B3r this ba:au.se 'Pl feel it d:es not fall url=r 'PJr juris:liction as
rrsTb2rs of the Planning an::l Zmirg o::nmis.sirn bJt my un:'l=rstarding is that there is ITT rEEd for the
p:cdu::tion of this p:».er. I sttrrgl y cbjert to the p::illutirn of the E11virana1t on su:::h a lfilge scale
for the pro:lLci:ion of s:rret:hing which v.e d:n 't nee:i. If v.e as irrlividuals d:n 't l:Egin to act with a
glcbal =is::::i.o.HEss, future ga-eratirns lcs= tre right to live in the pristine W'J.Y that w= are bles.se:i
with in v.estern Cblorab.
\'12 have me q:e:at.irrj a:rgsreratirn plant in Glrfield G:mt:y. 'There are three nnre p:qx:oo:l -
cartx:n::lale, GlEIMCCd strings ard Silt. l'rrl th:se are ml y the onss I krr:w ab::ut. I fEEl there is a
great nee:i to lcx::k into the future here ard try to cetennire l'kBt it is v.e are SEEking for this arre.
I:b v.e just W3nt ffi'.WIB at any cx:st:? - - -m::ire jets? I think rrany of us live here ta:::arne it is not
<'Ensely p:p.tlate:I. W:iy cb 1..e SE€k =ist:ant groNl:h? It SEaTE to rre 1..e sh::uld l:e Lta1ax:b.Ely ~ective
ab::ut tx:w this arm is d2velc:p:rl in cm:'er to protect t.'lls. \'12 stDJld lcx::k to other arms to learn fron
tlEn \'kBt 1..e W'!.nt here. If 1..e tre i:a:ple \o.ln live in W2St:ern Cblorab nee:i m::ire eloct:ricfil ers:gy th:n
it llEkes S31Se to rre that 1..e sh::uld l:e lo::king for 11Bys to prr:du::E it. art: my m:Jerstan:lin:J is that 1..e
!Eve a p:».er glut. It rrakes ro sense to je:pi:c:dize tre El1Vironait in su:::h an ext:rere \'8Y in tre rare
of "grr:wth ard l!Dre jets".
lh:atlet 28' 1989
Plannin;J ard Zmirg G:mnissim (=itirnm)
Pa:ie Tho
I au a1ro o:n::errfil for the ITESSive irx:re3se in tru::k traffic l::ei:J£al Eastside O:al Cb. ard the prqx::sed
ro-gon plant. 'lley are prqx:sin:J irx::rEBsin:J the OJtpJt of the rrri.re fron 200, 000 t:ms i:;er ;eir to 2. 2
millim t:ms i:;er 'tffir. 'The rnnter of tru:ks re:µi.rffi to rro,;e tlEt kin:! of \.GlUTe ITU3t re very ~
:in:ml.. 'Ihe liq:act this will rave rn the gU31.ity of life for f_:ECPle v.to rave :investe:J. in a rural
lifestyle will re OJt:rcgn.lS. 'The air p:illutirn will irx::rn3se. 'Ihe quiet of the oo.ntry i:eplaarl bt
the ro.rn of of diesels am my gi:es.s w::uld re fallin:J [lLClEL Ly values.
PlEESe re av.are tlEt there are mmy of us v.tn are very o:n::errfil am.rt: this issue. 'Ihere is m <pin:!
l::ock fron s::net:hing as ~ am :inµlctin:J as this prq:x:s31. 'Ihe rffi!X11Sibilities for these ds::isims
are hu:]e. I Cb mt e::rvy y::u v.to rave ctx:an to <'Ecide for us all. I can mly pray th3t :ia.ir ds::isims
will re wilh a visim of the future am for the g:o:1 of us all.
a: :cartield Cl:unty G:mnissimers
'lh3nk y::u for 10.Ir atl:altim,
S:Jiri H.nter-BrobrrBn
m B:Jx 623
330 NxLh l2Lh
Silt, Cb 81652
876-2242
To Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission,
On January 10, 1990, the Eastside Energy Corporation and the
Superior Western Corporation will be asking Garfield County Planning
and Zoning Committee for a Special Use Permit to start construction
of a coal-fired, gasification chemical plant one mile west of the
Silt Town limits.
Once again the energy industry has paid lip-service to the
idea of environmental awareness in their ''no meat'' proposal and then
they have decided that the safest and best place for a never-before-
tried chemical plant is on the banks of the Colorado River, one mile
from the Silt Elementary School.
Would this proposal even be in the works if it were not for the
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act? Would the up and coming pro-
posals in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale for power plants even be
thought up if it were not for this Federal Act that has long since
served its usefulness? Is this the approach we want to use in facing
Garfield County's economic challenges? Do we want a power plant in
every community in our county?
We may look at the 100 or so jobs this industry might bring as
enriching our county, but what if something goes wrong? Who pays?
How do we replace what could be destroyed?
Our most effective tool, now, and in the future is to maintain
and protect adamantly our greatest natural resource, our environment.
Garfield County is so rich in coal and gas that unless we, the citizens,
do not speak clearly now our beautiful environment will be defiled
forever. There are too many tax-paying county residents that have come
from different parts of the United States where heavy industry has
ruined forever the natural beauty of the land.
The citizens of Garfield County and members of Garfield County
Planning and Zoning need to think of the far-reaching consequences of
a short-sighted approach to what we think of as economic woes.
We are all past the point of "Jobs at the cost of our environment".
I ask you to please deny a Special Use Permit to Eastside Energy
Corporation and Superior Western Corporation on January 10, 1990.
Sincerely,
0 ~ (" A--1 )----,,,, , -/
Oleta Corry ----~6
631 Home Avenue
Silt, Colorado 81652
Wednesday: December 13, 1989 T~o Dally !J~n~lnal Patie 4A \
' . ' ' . -.
I
Foundod In 1693 .
A Cox Newspaper
l.N. Bunting, Publisher 1893-1911
George Orbanek
Editor and Publisher
Larry J. DeGolycr
General Manager Walter Walker, Publisher 1911-1950
· Preston Walker, Publisher 1950-1970
Kenneth Johnson, Publisl1er 1970-1979
James C. l<ennedy, Publisher 1979-1985
Dennis M. Herzog
Ma11agin[J Edilor
llngcla Hogue de Rocha
Edilorial Page Edilor
[J)aily Sentinel edifloo•i_!31IS
At what cost jobs? rr he backers Of a ('CHli-
: fired cogeucralion
•. power plant have come
up with a new proposal that
·would locate the plant on a
.strip of land between the Col-
orado River and the railroad
· ·tracks near Silt instead of
near Harvey Gap Heservoir
'as proposed last summer.
That's ai1 improvement?
Now that the project is
planned south of the Great
.Hogback, the residents of the
:Colorado River Valley lle-
twecn Silt and Glenwood arc
certain to be even more im-
pacted by the project. The
site change does not address
the project's critical flaws:
').'he power isn't needed. and ·
ihe plant holds the potential
for significant environmental
degradation.
: Both drawbacks remain a
·high price to pay for the cre-
ation of jobs backers are
quick to invoke,in support of
the plant. ·
'. The fact remains, too, that
the project would not be even
remotely feasible from an
~conomic standpoint were it
not for the 1978 Public Utili-
ties and Regulatory Power
Act, which long ago outlived
its usefulness.
.: Plant backers, though,
negotiated an agreement
iYilh Public Service Co. lo
~ell 2~ 'n1eu:awatJn ur lhn h., ...
er produced by lite planl. un-
der l'lJHl'A, whil'h required
utilities to purchase coge11-
eration power based on an
arcane cost-av.oidcd formula
until the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission de-
clared a morntorium on Colo-
rado PU HP A projects in 1987.
'l'hc 1noratoriu1n was de-
clared with good reason. Col-
orado, particularly the West-
ern Slope, was suffering from
a glut of' energy production
capncity, a glut partially re-
sponsible for the financial
morass in whil'h Colorndo-
Ute is mired. 'fhe glut is eve-
ry bit as severe today as it
was in 1987.
The project is scheduled·
for review oil Jan. 10 by the
Garfield County Planning
Commission, which rcjeC'lcd
by a 4-:l vote thP Harvey Gap
proposnl.
l~iven the Hl'\V cireuu1-
stances, there's little reason
for the planning commission
to change its position ..
The same holds true for the
Garfield County ccimmission-
crs who, no doubt, eventually
will be asked to decide
whether, for the sake of' a
purported 150 jobs, they're
· willing to saddle their con-
stituents with environmental
problems and even greater
energy overproduction woes '1. -·-'t ... -• • .•
To Planning and Zoning Conunission Members,
I am writing this letter in regards to the Special Use Permit
being applied for by the Eastside Energy Corporation.
I believe this project has far greater negative impact and
potential for a major disaster than their Harvey Gap proposal.
Their Special Use Permit Documentation may be somewhat more pro-
fessional looking, but for the scope of the project it certainly
lacks in any great amount of detail. I have page after page of
questions regarding this proposal, most of which I will address at
my Silt town council meeting. However, I would like to highlight
some of my most serious concerns.
The simple fact that this proposal is being kept separate from
their plans to increase the scope of the mine project is quite dis-
turbing. The citizens of this county should be allowed to view
these two projects as one, which they are. Numerous times in their
Special Use Permit application they refer to operations at the mine
in the same breath that they refer to the power plant. It is highly
unlikely that one project will succeed without the other.
The truck traffic generated by the power plant alone will be
unbearable, but if the mine is allowed to increase ten-fold, then
what? Will we then be faced with a private road over which we have
no control, or some sort of coal-slurry pipeline? The thought of
either of those is very irritating.
This plant may be referred to as a zero discharge plant, but it
certainly is not pollution free. They have not told us how much
pollution will be emitted into our air, only that it will be minor.
Minor pollutants may not be acceptable to the residents of this county.
Will it also smell of rotten eggs? Will the sludge that they propose
to use as fertilizer on their trees also emit an odor? They, themselves,
say that if the sludge contain pollutants it will be disposed of in the
prescribed manner. Does that mean that we, as taxpaying citizens of
this county, may soon be faced with providing some sort of hazardous
waste site for this material? And how about the noise pollution from
the operation of the power plant? Even legal limits may not be toler-
able to the citizens of Silt.
On site chemical and gas storage also has me quite alarmed. It
must also weigh heavy with them if 2 fire trucks need to be maintained
on site. This plant will be approximately one mile from the town
limits of Silt, and this seems much too close for an operation with
such a great potential for disaster. I don't believe I'm being an
alarmist with this, just read your papers and see how many such dis-
asters occur on a daily basis.
What if one of their floating foundations broke into pieces and
one of their storage tanks full of chemicals discharged a large amount
of hazardous material into the Colorado River? Is there an emergency
plan for such a disaster? I see no such plan addressed in this pro-
posal.
Why is it that we're being told that this plant is to be in
operation by the end of 1990? With the extensive permitting, and
building of railroad sidings and highway interchanges, it does not
appear to be an attainable goal. So what else have they told us
that can't be attained? Will we have to rely on the state for all
the checks on this operation? We see how well that works with our
gas well problems in the Rifle area. Who would really have the
authority, the dollars, or the manpower to shut these operations
down if they don't comply with all laws, rules, and regulations?
If it were not for the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act
of 1978, this proposal would not even be before us. This act has
long since served its' purpose and is now being taken advantage of
at the expense of others. Until we as citizens can change it at
the federal level, we need to address it locally. There is no need
for the power at the present time, nor anytime in the near future.
We currently have plants with excess capacity, so why subject our-
selves to pollutants and potential disaster for a few jobs. This
county will lose many more jobs and dollars than it will gain if
it continually allows dirty industrial type operations to locate
here.
Our future needs long range planning, not short term gain.
Do we really need, or want, power plants strung along the
Colorado River, our greatest resource. We have the one in Rifle,
do we need them in Silt, Glenwood Springs, and Carbondale also?
Those proposals are currently in the works.
Our environment needs clean-up and protecting, not additions
to our problems.
Please help protect the future of Garfield County and deny
this Special Use Permit.
S~cerely,
Ran~!:y
Member -Silt Town Council
Chairperson -Garfield
Citizens Alliance
Reply To:
Superior Western Corporation
P. 0. Box 17240
Tucson, AZ. 85731
602-571-0117
January 2, 1990
Garfield County
109 -8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-9158
Attn: Don DeFord
County Attorney
Re: Eastside Project
Road Improvement Agreement
Dear Don:
Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the road improvement
agreement associated with the Special Use Permit for the
Eastside Mine. A copy of this agreement has also been
submitted to King Lloyd for review.
It would be appreciated if you would review this document
and give us your comments. If you need to discuss any
technical details, you can talk to J. R. Trout at the
mine (876-2944) or myself here in Tucson.
We will look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
SUPERIOR WESTERN CORPORATION
J. B. Davis
Enclosure
cc: Mark Bean
J. R. Trout
ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as
"this Agreement") is made and entered into as of the __ day
of , 1989, by and between Eastside Coal
~~~~~~~~~
Company, Inc., a Colorado corporation, party of the first
part, hereinafter referred to as "Eastside", and GARFIELD
COUNTY, COLORADO, party of the second part, hereinafter
referred to as "County."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, heretofore in years past County has caused to be
constructed a public road, known as County Road ( 237')
which traverses southerly from Harvey Gap to County Road (233)
which traverses westerly to County Road (227)-which traverses
southerly to Highway 6;
WHEREAS, such roads will be used by Eastside, its
employees, agents and contractors; and
WHEREAS, additional traffic will be generated on such
road in connection with Eastside Coal Mining operations
at its Eastside Mine; and
WHEREAS, other persons also use or may use such road
for any lawful purposes, and neither party can control the
' lawful use to which such road is put by others; and
\
WHEREAS, pursuant to County's regulations and resolutions,
Eastside has obtained a Special Use Permit for the Eastside
mine, and
WHEREAS, County has determined that the traffic impact
of such coal mining operations upon such road will add to
the deterioration of such road; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that such road as intially
constructed was never intended to support heavy wheel-
loading required by the operations contemplated herein to
be conducted by Eastside; and
WHEREAS, Eastside as part of its Special Use Permit
1cr0 ?
dated 18th day of March, has agreed to provide certain
necessary improvements to make the road adequate to serve
the operational needs for its coal mining operation.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of
the convenants her~in -corit~ined,~it :is agreed -as -follows:
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a narrative
description of the present condition of such road which
the parties agree fairly and accurately represents the
present facts as to the construction of such road and its
present condition.
2. Eastside has selected and the County agrees, that
Superior Western Corporation of Silt, Colorado, shall be
responsible for management of construction of the road
which construction shall be conducted in such a manner that
traffic shall not be unduly interrupted and shall consist
of the improvements described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof. The general alignme~t map attached
I
hereto as Exhibit 11 C" generally indicates the proposed
location and extent of the ·improvements.
The specifications and alignment for the work will be
provided in a final form by Superior Western Corporation.
3. Superior Western Corporation shall keep the County
apprised of all construction activities and shall furnish
the County with all test results, soil reports and other
data accumulated in the construction of the road.
4. Eastside will provide the .county with a description
of the improvements as constructed.
5. All associated road improvement costs .shall be paid
by Eastside and all funds advanced by Eastside shall be
considered grants-in-aid from Eastside to the County.
Thereafter, as in the past, the County Road shall continue
to be the property of the County and Eastside agrees that
it will have acquired no interest in the improved road.
Said road is being paid for by Eastside under this agreement
solely to comply with terms and conditions imposed by the
County in connection with the issuance of the Special Use
Permit for the coal mining operation.
6. In the event that any provision or provisions of
this agreement are found to be, or become, illegal or
unenforceable under the laws, resolutions, regulations,
judicial decisions or other actions of any applicable
governmental body, the remaining provisions of this agree-
ment shall remain in full force and effect unless any party
hereto is materially and adversely affected by such
' illegality or unenforceability. If any party ,is so
materially and adversely affected, such party shall have the
right to terminate this agreement by reasonable written
notice to the other party.
7. In the event, pursuant to the provisions of this
agreement, any party is not obligated to. perform its
obligations as herein provided by reason of the default of
another party, or of the failure of any condition precedent
or subsequent applicable to such party, or for any other
reason, then any such party who is not obligated to perform
may terminate this agreement by notifying the other party
in writing and thereupon this agreement shall be terminated
without further obligation or liability upon any of the
parties hereto.
8. For the purposes hereof, all notices shall be in
writing and shall be deemed delivered either when delivered
personally or when deposited in the United States mail, by
certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Eastside:
County:
Eastside Coal Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 161
Silt, Colorado 81652
Board of County Commissioners of
Garfield County
Garf iled County Courthouse
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
9. Nothing contained herein shall constitute an agree-
ment or a declaration of any kind that either garty is the
agent or representative of the other party, and each party
hereby declares that no agency is hereby created between the
parties hereto.
10. This agreement sets forth the entire understanding
and agreement between the parties with reference to the
improvement of the County Road herein specified, represents
a merger of all previous agreements relating thereto, which
are deemed to be of no further force or effect except to
the extent referred to herein, and may not be altered, amended
or modified or terminated other than in writing agreed to by
all the parties hereto.
11. This agreement and all questions arising hereunder
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
12. The parties hereto agree to execute any further
documents and perform all further acts which are necessary
or appropriate in carrying out the intent of this agreement.
13. This agreement may be excuted in two or more
counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be an orginal and
all of which shall together constitute -one and the same instrument.
14. The parties hereto convenant and agree with
knowledge that the road improvements are of importance to
them, and for those reasons, among others, that the parties
will be irreparably damaged in the event that this Agreement
is specifically enforced. Accordingly, in the event of any
controversy concerning the right or obligation to improve
the road or to perform any other act pursuant to this
Agreement, such right or obligation shall be enforceable
~n a court of equity by a decree of specific performance.
Such remedy shall be cumulative and not excl~sive, being in
I addition to any and all other remedies which the parties may
have.
15. This agreement and all right and obligations
hereunder, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit:df
the parties hereto, their respective successors, heirs,
personal representatives and assigns but this agreement may
not be assigned except with the prior written consent of all
parties hereto.
16. Time is of the essence of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
CLERK
Eastside Coal Company, Inc.
By:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
\
• .. •' I·
..
. .. . ....
~··.
REPLACEM EN,T OF
CULVERT AS
NEEDED
,.
. ,.. .
-~ _,,.... .. ,~··· . ·•
•
BITUMEN PENETRATED RXK SUR.
NEW SANO FILLED GRAVEL
SUB-BASE
EXISTING GRAVEL SUB BASE
NOTE: THE MIN. BITUMEN PENETRATED ROCK SURFACE
THICKNESS WILL BE J''(INCHESJ. A MIN. OF 6"
(INCHES) OF NE'l'I SANO FILLED GRAVEL SUB -
BASE WILL BE ADDED. THE COMBINED THICK-
NESS OF THE EXISTING GRAVEL SUB-BASE .
ANO THE NEW SUB ·BASE SHALL NOT 8£ LESS
THAN 18" (INCH£$)
EASTS/OE ENERGY CORP.
SILT COLORADO
"'i}.Titte: ·
GARrtELO COUNTY ROAD
MODlrtCATION
..
ROAD WIDENING
WITH ROCK CUT
2'1 ROADWAY NOT LESS THAN
20 FEET
ROAD WIDENING
2' 24'
NOT LESS
THAN 18'
,
2
G.t..RFIE'\..0 C.OUNT'{ RC)"O
MODI 'FltA"T 10""
SCALE DATE OWNBY
IZ·Z'l·8"1 · JRT
f.>. 0 5lJPERIOR WESTE;RN
'VI· C.ORP-
'-C TUC~ON • ARl'ZC>NA.
GARFIELD COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
MARIAN SMITH
Glenwood Springs 81601
ARNOLD MACKLEY
Rifle 81650
BUCKEY ARBANEY
Glenwood Springs 81601
December 18, 1989
J. B. Davis
Superior Western Corporation
P. o. Box 17240
Tucson, AZ 85731
Dear Mr. Davis:
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
109 8th Street Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Telephone: (303) 945-9158
(303) 625-5571
CHUCK DESCHENES
County Administrator
Please consider this letter to be a response to the Eastside Project
Special Use Permit impact statement. In general, Superior Western has
addressed the issues required for a special use permit application.
Per Section 5.03.07(4), the Board of County Commissioners is requesting
that you provide additional detail about the following issues:
1. Please provide more site plan detail as to:
a. Dimensions of all buildings, particularly buildings that
exceed the 40 foot height limitation and the
justification/mitigation of any building exceeding height.
b. More detail on coal storage area i.e., acres to be
covered, maximum amount to be stored, height of piles.
c. More detail on the size, type and maintenance of vegetation
to be used as landscaping screening, i.e., size to be
planted, watering systems, etc. If evergreens are to be
used for screening purposes, how long will it take them to
mature to created the screen proposed.
d. Engineered calculations of surface drainage with certified
statements and more detailed drawings of the proposed waste
water plans.
Page Two
2. Further review of the existing housing will reveal that
Battlement Mesa does not have 100 mobile home spaces available.
Housing needs should be reviewed again, due to the lack of rental
housing. How will construction workers be housed? Will Eaatside
help locate, subsidize and/or finance housing needs?
3.
4.
Schools do not have adequate room for new grade
children. Further review of impacts to grade school,
and high school facilities would be appropriate.
school age
junior high
Coal haulage needs to be better defined, i.e.,
per hour; size of the trucks; specific road
made, number of round trip trucks per day if
from another mine.
number of trucks
improvements to be
coal is imported
NOTE: There appears to be an inconsistency between the number of
truck trips per day and the amount of coal that could be supplied
to the coal gasification process. 7-15, page 3 says 64 trips per
day, M-F only. If these are 25 ton belly-dumps, the following
calculation results:
64 trips x 5 days x 52 weeks x 25 tons/truck = 416,000 tons
per year.
It is proposed to burn 400,000 tons a year in the plant, leaving
only 16,000 tons for shipping by unit train? Additionally, 64
trips will result in 128 total trips per day. Depending upon the
time of year, this could be a substantial number of trucks per
hour. Please define this calculation better with specific
proposals as to the number of round trip/truck trips/hour.
5. As noted above, there only appears to be a potential for 416,000
tons per year of coal coming to the site. Please identify the
projected total amount of coal to be burned at the plant and the
amount of coal to be shipped by rail to other markets. Will you
ship coal for other mines?
6.
7.
Further identification of
proposed water needs. The
appropriate.
the legal water rights to supply the
noted legal opinion would be
Engineered plans and specifications of water and sewage
plants should be submitted to the County and the
Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division.
treatment
Colorado
8. Garfield County snow loading requirements are 40 psf and
structures will need to meet those requirements.
9. Garbage/solid waste is glossed over rather quickly. An
identification of the projected amounts of solid waste would be
helpful for projecting future County landfill needs and assessing
this project's impacts and the need for mitigation.
Page Three
10. Where will all of the proposed training occur and who will teach
it?
11. Clarification of understandings between the applicant and Public
Service co. regarding the location of the point of connection and
transmission lines for the project needs to be provided.
12. Assessment of socioeconomic impacts should not include any
assumptions of UNOCAL shutdown of their Parachute facilities.
13. Additional detail should be provided on anticipated levels and
types of employees.
This list identifies the initial questions that should be answered.
will probably be additional questions as we all become more familiar
the project.
There
with
Your inunediate attention to these questions, will allow for a more
expedient review. At a minimum, responses to these questions should be
received by January 2, 1990, if the January 10, 1990 Planning Commission
review is going to be realized. Your cooperation in this matter will be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
)Aat~ )?'iai
Marian Smith, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
XC: Mark Bean
Don DeFord
Sherry Malloy
Re ply To:
) )
Superior Western Corporation
P. 0 . Bo x 1724 0
T ucso n, AZ 8 573 1
602-571 -0 117
Decemb e r 7 , 1989
Mr. Mark Bean
Dir ector of Planning
County of Garfield
109 -8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mark:
) ,
)
Enclosed , please find yo ur personal copy of the Specia l
Use P ermit Document and two other copies for the library
in your office. Also attached , is th e request for special
us e permit , and a list of th e people to whom we sent copies
of t h e docume n t .
We wou l d like to take this opportun ity to thank you and
your staff for a ll of t his assistance tha t has been given
to us in the pursuit of t h i s project . It is certainly a
pleasure wo rking with professionals , a n d it is hoped t h at
we will be ab l e to cont inue t hi s re l ation s hip -1Y years
into the f uture .
Shou l d yo u ha ve a n y question s , p l P -
can't promise to have all answ ~
give i t our best try .
Again , t h a nk you and we will loo.
again soon .
S incerel y ,
S UPERIOR WE STERN CORPORATION
~is
Enc losur e s
JBD/bw
'.l . We
l.inly
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SANITATION AND PLANNING
December 12, 1989
Jim Yale, Town Manager
Town of Silt
Box 174
Silt, CO 81652
Re: Eastside Energy Corporation
Special Use Permit
Dear Jim:
Recently, the Mayor and council members received a copy of the Eastside
Energy Corporation's Special Use permit application for a commercial park
for their coal load, cogeneration, greenhouse and associated facilities.
Since the Town had commented on the previous application and the fact that
the new application may have more direct impact on your community, we are
requesting that the Town comment on this application.
Tenatively, this application
Planning Commission on January
when the date is definite.
will be
10, 1990.
reviewed by the Garfield County
We will confirm this with you
If you could have comments to us prior to the meeting, we would appreciate
it. Otherwise, your comments would go to the Board of County
Commissioners at their public hearing, which is tenatively set for
February 5, 1990.
If you have any questions, feel free to call or write to me or Glenn
Hartmann. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building, Sanitation and Planning
MLB/emh
encl.
109 BTH STREET, SUITE 303 945-8212 / 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Press Release
Eastside Energy Corporation has submitted documents to Garfield
County for permission to build a National Resources Commercial Park,
The site is approximately one mile west of Silt, Colorado on the
south side of the D&RGW Railroad.
Coal from the Eastside Mine in Harvey Gap, will be transported to
the new complex. At the complex, the coal will be processed into
stoker coal which will be shipped by rail to markets, Waste fines
from the coal processing will be gasified using plasma arc heaters.
The gas will be quenched where the particulate matter will be
removed and sold for cement plant feed.
Gas from the coal gasification unit will be converted to carbon,
methanol and fuel gas. The carbon and methanol will be shipped by
rail market,
The fuel gas will then be used to fire a power plantfor the production
of electric power. Part of the electric power will be sold to
Public Service Company and.internally used in the plant.
Flue gas from the power boilers will be processed
tric beam chamber for nitrogen and sulfur fixing,
and sulfate will be produced.
through an elec-
Ammoni um nitrate
The resulting flue gas will then be passed through soiCI. beds in the
greenhouses where all remaining SOx, wox, CO and particulates will
be removed. Approximately 5.5 tons of C02 will also be fixed
daily thereby, taking the first step toward the solution of the
greenhouse effect.
Vegetables and fruits will be produced from the greenhouses. Over
20 acres will be under cover.
Technology used in the Eastside Project is some of the best avail-
able. With this technology, the project has come forth as one that
will be a leader in pollution reduction and the establishment of
new economics for the coal industry.
Eastside Energy Corporation is a private corporation formed expressly
for the development of the Eastside project, A contract has been
issued to Superior Western Corporation to provide consulting and
engineering for the project. Inquiries for the project should be
directed to 303-876-2944 in Silt.
llF\. l'\R 'R'l l'\R: 1 Fi <"'"FR TOR WFSTFRN fil'\i' C>7171'\i'1
Barry Shideler
Harry & Imogene Cook
Clarence E. Hangs
Stuart Dykstra
Ester R. TJkele
William G-tcven"
I'&.t.. ... .:.._.J.. 4 Su"au Aul..1.1•1<,lll.
Larry & Glenda Antonelli
Gerold & Mai:jorie DuuLe1.i:
MAILING LIOT
Howard & Clarice J. Robinson
nnn~ln H i•rrirnn
W. II. & Iluua. Jvllo:y
Frank & Karen Hardwick
Homer & Loretta Johnson
Donald Hangs
Silt Ambulance Department
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Union Oil of California
Scott Miller, Air Pollution Control
King Lloyd, Garfield Road Department
Silt Fire Department
Colorado State Highway Patrol
Commander, Corps of Engineers
nt r-ur. ~JIJ J.1)c.LJ.• !l.i..i !ia1...1,..lflllii11111,,t. l>''ll!l~A J.VJ.YL' •
Verne Soucie, Garfield County Sheriff
Rurcau of Lo.nd Mo.na~emen"
Greg Lewicki
Zach Miller
Don DeFord
Mark Beam
James Kirkham Gary & Karen Dunbar
Garry Stollern, Public Service Cu. u£ Colorado
P.i't'7
MAILING LIST
Robort W-.toon
Butch McQuiddy
J. T, HuLLu11, Suut!iern I-aci:t:;Lc ·•·rans. <.:o.
John Steele, Mayor ProTem, Silt Town council
Stewart CQriae, Silt Town Counoil
Wesley Puckett, Silt Town Council
Diana Hansen, Silt Town Council
Jim Yale, Sllt Town Council
Honorable Dave wattenburg, Colorado State Senator
Ed Sands, Rifle Area Industrial Development
Scott Mcinnis, P.C,
Michael Copp, Glenwood City Mgr.
New Castle Town Hall, Silt
Joe Sos, Silt Town Council
Ann Fazzi, Mayor, Silt Town Council
nnhFrr l7"nhlri1t1· il\111. M·.111ur, Cilt. COUii!~ U&u1 1 • .i..:..L
Bob Pretti, President, Farmers Irrigation
Randy Parks, Rifle City Council
Bill Pickett, Rifle City Council
Harold Piper, Rifle City Council
Einer Lindquist, Rifle City Council
Vicki Choate, Rifle City Council
nave Ling. Mayor ProTom, niflc C.i.ty Cou1\.:;.i..l
Mike Bester, Rifle City ~gr.
Dave Rousseau, Parachute Town Admin.
Lowell Torkleson, Garfield ~conomic Dev.
Arnold Mackley, county Comm.
Elmer Arbane~, County Comm,
M.:;i.rion Cmith, Ceunty Co11u·1,,
Chuck Deschanes, Garfield county Admin.
Dave Rousseall, P"'L-cichute Town Admin.
Lowell Tork.leson, Garfield Economic Dev.
Randy Corry, Silt Town Council
DCC 00 'O'J 00: 17 C:11 nCRIOR WCCTCR~l G02 :;717021
MJl.ILINC Ll:Cm
Stephanie Beerman, Planning & Zoning Board
Peter Nichols, Planning & Zoning Board
Diok St.1;1phenson, Planning & Zoning Board
Greg Valasquez, Planning & Zoning Board
Laverne Starbuck, Planning & Zoning Board
Eligg Link, Planning £ 2oning Bo~rd
·Bob Myers, Planning & Zoning Board
)
Silt Branch Library
Rifle Branch Library
r.111"~; 1'1.:1 C•'.•lmL.l' L.i.L.i.•.1.y
J. R. Trout
s. K. Malloy
Lj nnn Td.mbach
Rusty Ford
Steve Self
81K Gold, Rifle
I<MTS, Glenwood Springs
KQIX, Grand Junction
~G~w, ~lenwooa LJp~1n9s
rJ
MAILING LIST
The Glenwood Post
V~lley We8t Dispatch
The Rifle Telegram
'I'he Fraa Weok.ty
'.L'h.Q lic.il~· Gnni'.inr.J ( TT.-.11+1!1.-,,. M,•1m•,• \/•"•I')
ii'.5J7
SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Applicant I EASTSIDE ENERGRY CORPORATION
.t.1"1rA1H nf lI1I11 fru1n~1 P.O. Box 161, Silt, Colorado 81652
Special/Conditional Use: Natural Resource Canmercial Park
.i..ega.L Deacr1pt1on1 See Attached Document
Practical neaoription (location With respect to hi9hW~~a, ao!M'll¥i roada, and residences): A~roximately One Mile West of the Town 6f Si t an u
of the D&RGW ROW.
Requirementa:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plana and specifications for propoaed use.
Lettera of apprnval frnm 11~llf~y nnmI'AnfAA, AAWA9A Anrl
water. Road access and other information deemed necessary.
A vicinity map drawn to scale depicting the subject property,
l1,10.:<1loiu11 •utll 1.11u1 ur bu11c1n11 an<l etr11ctures on aOJacent ior.e.
An impact statement on the proposed use where required by
S•c~ions 5,03-5.03.12 of zoning Regulations,
Notice including the name of the applicant, deacription of the
subject lot, a description of the proposed apecial use and time
and olaoe fnr ~h• hAArino AhA11 h• ofvan in ~h• n•w•nAn•r n,
general circulation in that portion of the county at least
fifteen (15) days prior to auch hearing time, Applicant •hall
bear the coat of adv1rtisin9.
A copy of Assessor's map showing prop1rty1 and a listing of all
adjoining ptoperty owners of said property, Notice containing
I •• ~ ~ ' -• ' ' -
TIME:
DATE:
PLACE:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
6:30 P.M.
January 10, 1990
Commissioners Hearing Room, 109 8th Street,
Suite 301, Glenwood Springs, CO.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of minutes:
December 13, 1989
P.U.D. Zone District Text Amendment; Continued from December
13th Meeting.
Applicant: Battlement Mesa, Inc.
Special Use Permit for a Commercial Park;
Applicant: Eastside Energy Corp.
Adjournment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Laverne Starbuck
Stephanie Beerman
Dick Stephenson
Gregg Velasquez
Bob Myers
Pete Nichols
Elise Link
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 13, 1989
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT
Don DeFord, County Atty.
Mark Bean, Director
Bldg.,Sanitation, Plann.
The meeting was called to order with all members present. The minutes
from the November 8, 1989 meeting were approved by Bob Myers, seconded by
Stephanie Beerman subject to changing Larry Velasquez to Gregg Velasquez
on top of first page and deleting "it" on 2nd page. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
BATTLEMENT MESA. INC.-P.U.D. Zone District Text Amendment
Mark Bean noted that Bob Myers did not have a pecuniary interest therefore
no legal conflict of interest.
Mark Bean then reviewed the Staff Comments as follows: This is a P.U.D.
Zone District Text Amendment request and Battlement Mesa is proposing to
add the term "guest suite" to the Residential Medium-Density and Central
Area Residential Districts within the Battlement Mesa P.U.D. As proposed,
the guest unit is defined as a multi-family dwelling unit available for
daily, weekly or other interim accommodations in return for a rental fee
or other form of compensation when the following conditions are observed.
1. Restriction On Mixed Use: Dwelling units intended for and
used as interim accommodations shall not be allowed within a
building which also contains dwelling units intended and
used for long term (monthly) occupancy except as provided
for in the hereinafter described Transition Period~
2. Transition Period: Interim occupancy dwelling units and
long term occupancy dwelling units shall be allowed within
the same building for a continuous period of not to exceed
eighteen months during the conversion of a building from
long term occupancy to interim occupancy or the reverse
conversion. Residents shall be notified in writing of the
impending change of use within the building prior to the
initiation of the conversion of the building. Residents
shall be released from contractual obligations to continue
to rent and occupy the dwelling unit if they choose to
vacate the unit when the conversion of use is initiated.
The P.U.D. zone district text amendment is processed the
same as a standard zone district text amendment. The
primary difference in a P.U.D. is the fact that the
residents, occupants and owners of the P.U.D. have a larger
influence per Section 4.12.03, which reads as follows:
(1) No modification, removal, or release of the
provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the
rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the
P.U.D. to maintain and enforce those provisions at law
or in equity; and
(2) No substantial modifications, removal, or release
of the provisions of
permitted except
following a public
accordance with
24-67-104, that the
-·I -
the Plan by the County shall be
upon a finding by the County,
hearing called and held in
the provisions of C.R.S. 1973,
modification, removal, or release
is consistent with the efficient development and
preservation of the entire P.U.D. does not affect in a
substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of
land abutting upon or across a street from the P.U.D.,
or the public interest, and is not granted solely to
confer a special benefit upon any person.
Presently, the Willow Park and Willow Ridge apartments have
sections that are guest suites and long term rental units. There
are a total of 432 units presently available, of which
approximately 70 units are being used as guest suites. The guest
suites are not isolated from the other units. Originally, the
guest suites were going to be limited to a single 20 unit
complex, for marketing purposes. The transition from one complex
to four buildings in different locations does not allow for
consistency in the residential character of the complexes. The
long term resident and transient resident needs and concern for
the welfare of neighbors is different.
Mr. Bean then said he made some notes in regard to Pitkin and Eagle County
in discussion with their Planning Departments and they felt that this type
of unit is equivalent to, or close to what would be typically a hotel,
motel unit. It is an issue that they are considering as a definitional
problem for their residences and dwelling units in both those counties.
Ron Liston, Land Design Partnership said that Medium Density Residential
district would be removed from the proposal. Only area will be guest
suites in the Central Area Residential. There will a conversion from long
term to guest suites and since it is identified as a Conditional Use, the
conditions need to be considered. Mr. Liston continued that the guest
suites were scattered out amongst a few buildings in Willow Ridge and
Willow Park. Plans are to bring all the guest suites into four buildings,
E, F, G and H in Willow Park. This would consolidate the guest suites and
the conversion will take place over an eighteen month period from the date
of actual approval of the conditional Use. Mr. Liston explained how they
would handle long-term tenancy, i.e., offer by Battlement Mesa at their
expense to relocate into other units. If the tenant chooses to stay in
their unit they can stay until their one year lease expires. If new
residents come in they will be notified, in writing, regarding the guest
suites intermixed. This can be handled to avoid any conflicts.
Don DeFord was concerned about conditions attached being only conditions.
His suggestion was that they become Special Use permits.
Bob Myers asked if he was correct in the 432 unit number? Rick Stanger
confirmed this. Mr. Myers asked if they were full and Mr. Stanger replied
that they have 58 vacancies currently.
Stephanie Beerman asked how many
guest suites. The reply was 80.
units were in the four buildings used for
Everything else is long term.
Elise Link asked if there were 80 units available for nightly use why
isn't it a motel or hotel? The reply was the units were much larger than
what is known as motel or hotel, more like a condo-hotel with lock-off
rooms.
Ron Liston said the primary issue was that a request was being made to
make a change in the P.U.D. to eventually allow a review of a conditional
approval of the operations.
Mark Bean said what is being proposed to the Planning Commission is
whether or not "guest suites" will or will not be appropriate. What
Battlement Mesa, Inc. is requesting is approval to do this.
Elise Link asked why not A, B, C and D buildings? Rick Stanger replied
that they were completed in 1987 and are of such nice quality that they
are more desirable for long term rental. The other buildings E, F, G and
H have good parking, are easy to find and are adjacent to the office
building where they will check in. They are not as spacious but would
suffice for interim accommodations.
-2-
Peter Nichols asked what market Battlement was trying to respond to. Mr.
Wilde said the primary market was sales prospects for the area.
Elise Link asked how full would the guest suites be. Bill Wilde responded
on a seasonal basis it would be about 60%.
Peter Nichols asked what the season was. Bill Wilde said they had a very
strong season from early May through mid-October.
Dick Stephenson asked that if the guest suites were approved in the given
area would the option be available to go back to long term rentals. Ron
Liston replied in the affirmative.
Bob Myers questioned the physical separation of E, F, G and H as being a
part of a complex and not really separated. Perhaps it is a difference in
definition.
Mark Bean
separation.
said perhaps it is needed
Physical separation is a big
to focus
part of it.
on the definition of
Dick Stephenson said the Planning Commission could
Mesa's business decisions as to what building
suites.
not
they
make Battlement
placed the guest
Laverne Starbuck commented that there was only one pool for both long term
and guest suites.
Bob Myers noted that there is no management after 5:00 P.M., thus activity
is uncontrolled.
been
be
Bob Myers also questioned taking available housing off the market when
housing is so critical in the valley. Ron Liston said there has
little utilization of the housing at Battlement Mesa and they would
glad to fill the units long term.
Lloyd Fellers, Battlement Mesa resident, stated that he lived there in F
bldg. for four years at the end of June, 1990. He said he and his wife
were the only long term occupants in F Building in Willow Park and that it
has been that way for about nine months. He said he would not trade his
apartment for any in A, B, C or D. If they have to give up their
apartment, they will not stay there as distance means a lot to him.
Stephanie asked if decision was to made based on the Recommendation or is
it an alternate recommendation.
Mark Bean stated that the Recommendation is just that. The primary issue
is not what presently exists which is in violation of the Zoning
Resolution as it was originally approved. What Battlement Mesa is
proposing is whether this concept would be or should be viable in the
future allowing for the flexibility to go back and forth between permanent
to guest suites or whether it will be dealt with in future construction.
Ron Liston said that Mark's recommendation deals with new construction but
the text he has added deals with converting the long term units to guest
suites. If the text amendment is approved at the meeting and was
approved by the Board, it would not be an approval of those
buildings. There would have to a Conditional Use application to
County that is provided for by the zoning text amendment.
then
four
the
Mark Bean noted that he had no particular problem with Ron Liston's
recommendation as to how to deal with the procedure. rt allows some
opportunity to determine whether or not a particular complex is or isn't
appropriate is what this procedure would allow for. It would allow the
Board of County Commissioners ultimately to make that decision assuming
that Battlement Mesa is successful and there is additional buildings
built, subject to subdivision review, the Planning Commission would have
further review at that time on the concepts of the future buildings.
-J-
Dick Stephenson said he sympathized with the residents who have been
disrupted and turned around. Evidently the older clientele are long term
residents and the overnighters are probably younger and they just don't
mix and he thinks it is unfair to some of the residents that have been
there for a few years.
Don DeFord said it was his understanding that these were the only
conditions that Battlement Mesa was proposing. It seemed to him that once
the four conditions were met, the Board of County commissioners would not
have any more control over it.
Ron Liston thought that a separate proposal would be made during the
conditional use review that "X" buildings would be where the guest suites
would be proposed and the issues associated with that. If the Board of
County commissioners decided "Yes, those are the four buildings", then
they would be the specific ones.
Don DeFord said the reason he asked the question was because of the
mandatory language and the way it is worded it does not say anything about
location, just if Battlement meets these conditions there is no
discretion, Battlement Mesa gets it. There is nothing regarding the
number of units, location, etc.
Don DeFord asked if Special Use was given consideration because of more
flexibility. Ron Liston said they were asking for a review process with
whatever makes the most sense.
Don DeFord stated that the application needs to be substantially rewritten
with additional conditions added of general nature but designed to address
specific problems with what is a hotel/motel type of operation and his
recommendation was to table it.
Dick Stephenson made a motion
information until January 10,
was unanimous approval.
to table the matter for more detailed
1990. Bob Myers seconded the motion. There
After some general discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Beerman
Secretary
SB/emh
-~-
REQUEST:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
PC 1/10/90
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Special Use Permit for a Commercial
Park.
Eastside Energy Corporation
A tract of land located in portions
of the N 1/2 Section 8 and NW 1/4
Section 9, T6S, R92W; more
practically described as a tract of
land located approximately one (1)
mile west of Silt on the south side
of State Highway 6 & 24.
SITE DATA: A 58.59 acre site.
WATER: On-site wells.
SEWAGE: On-site sewage disposal.
ACCESS: State Highway 6.
EXISTING ZONING: A/I
ADJACENT ZONING: North: A/R/RD
A/I
A/I
A/I
South:
East:
west:
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed commercial park is located in portions of District A, the
Silt Urban Area of Influence and District D, Rural Areas/Moderate
Environmental Constraints. An Urban Area of Influence is an area
identified in 1981, as a potential area for inclusion within an
incorporated area. The basic goal identified in the Comprehensive
Plan is to ensure that development occurring in the County which will
affect a municipality is compatible with the future urbanization plans
of the appropriate jurisdiction. Some of the applicable objectives
and policies under the Urban Area of Influence goal are:
3.
4.
Ensure that community service
levels are maintained after new
development occurs in an Urban
Area of Influence.
Development in an Urban Area of
Influence will have streets
that are compatible with the
municipal street system.
-/-
3. The County will require new
development to contribute
to any community services
that will be adversely im-
pacted by the project, so
that current levels of ser-
vice are maintained.
4a New development will be ex-
pected to design a street
system that will meet the
the affected municipalities
street standards for con-
struction and right-of-way
width.
4b It will be the responsibil-
ity of the developer to im-
prove any road or roads
that will become inadequate
as a result of the traffic
generated by the develop-
ment.
Some other applicable goals, objectives and policies are as follows:
Environment
3. Discourage new development that
cannot mitigate major air or
water degradation that will be
a result of the proposal.
9. Encourage development in areas
with the least environmental
constraints prior to lands with
greater physical limitations.
Water and Sewer Services
3. The County will require
major development pro-
posals to evaluate their
impact on the County air
and water quality and
may require mitigation
of any identified major
impacts.
9. The County will encour-
age the development of
land with minor or no
environmental con-
straints, prior to the
development of land with
severe or moderate env-
ironmental constraints.
1. Development in rural areas without 1.
existing water and sewer service
available is encouraged to make
provisions for water and sewer
improvements that will not be an
economic burden to County taxpayers.
New development propos-
als in rural areas with-
out existing central
water and/or sewer ser-
vice will be required to
show that legal, ade-
quate and dependable
water and sewage dispo-
sal facilities can be
created prior to final
development.
Transportation
9. Direct potentially conflicting 9.
types of traffic such as commercial
and local commuter traffic to
roadways capable of handling both
types of traffic.
Industrial/Commercial
3. Encourage commercial development to 3a
locate in areas conducive to safe
traffic flow, which minimizes
vehicular movement.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Heavy industrial, com-
mercial and intensive
recreational traffic
should not be directed
to residential collector
local and farm-to-market
rights-of-way.
Commercial vehicular
movement should be con-
centrated along major
roadways.
A. Site Description: The proposed project site is located on a
bench sitting approximately 50 feet above the Colorado River
between State Highway 6 and the river. Much of the native
vegetation has been removed to allow for agricultural
activities. The site also includes river bottom lands.
B. Project Descriotion: It is proposed to develop a commercial park
with a unit coal train loading facility, coal gasification unit,
a carbon production unit, a methanol production unit, a 98
megawatt power plant, a fertilizer production unit and
greenhouses. Water will be provided from on-site wells, springs
and the Cactus Valley Ditch System to provide drinking and
sanitary water, fire protection water, agricultural water and
production/process water. The process, agricultural and
drinking/sanitation water is to be recycled within the project.
A 10,000 GPD sewage treatment plant will be used to process an
estimated 4,250 gallon GPD of effluent, a 50,000 GPD water
treatment plant is proposed to treat the water from the sewage
disposal plant and process water system. Fire protection is
proposed to be provided by fire hydrants on-site, along with an
additional fire engine and snorkle truck stored on-site. Plant
personnel will be trained in fire fighting, to help supplement
local volunteer fire fighters.
-2-
Access to the site is from State Highway 6, with proposed
acceleration and deceleration lanes and railroad crossing
signalization. Railroad siding will be added to the site to
allow for the unit train loading and the transport and delivery
of other products to and from the site.
There will be 100 to 190 employees during construction and 150
permanent employees once the project is completed. The increased
employment base will result in an increase in 60 round trips per
day at the plant site and an estimated 22 round trips per day at
the Eastside Coal mine in Harvey Gap. Coal hauling is estimated
to be 55 trips per day, 10 hours per day, Monday thru Friday.
There will be an estimated 25 trips into the plant site from
vendors.
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: The project property is zoned Agricultural/Industrial
(A/I). This zone district is essentially an agricultural and
residential zone district. The industrial uses are special uses,
which are uses that may be allowed subject to special review.
Further, all industrial uses are subject to specific performance
standards and additional review as contained in Sections 5.03.07
and 5.03.08. Section 5.03.07(4) gives the Board of County
Commissioners the ability to request additional detail, which was
done in a letter dated December 18, 1989, but not received until
December 26, 1989. (See enclosed letter, pages l-11 ) The
responses to these questions will be discussed further on, in the
Staff Comments.
B. Other Agency/Individual Comments:
1. Public Service Company of Colorado has committed to a
230 kv powerline alignment that parallels the existing 345
kv Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) line that heads
south from the site. A letter will be presented at the
Planning Commission meeting.
2. Colorado Department of Health Air Quality and Water Quality
staff in Grand Junction have reviewed the initial
application submitted to the County. Their basic comment is
that if the more detailed engineering required for the State
permits is consistent with the general descriptions in the
County's land use application, Eastside Energy should be
able to obtain the necessary permits for operating the
equipment.
3. The Town of Silt has not submitted any formal comments at
this time, but will be providing comments to the Planning
Commission at the meeting. One verbal comment noted a
concern about the need for acceleration and deceleration
lanes at the State Highway 6 and Miller Lane (C.R. 227)
intersection.
4. Garfield Economic Development has sent a
the proposed project. (See letter, page
C. Staff Comments:
letter supporting
%" )
1. As noted previously, the County sent a letter to Eastside
Energy's representatives at Superior Western Corporation
requesting additional detail regarding various issues. The
Board and Planning Commission members received a copy of the
responses on January 3, 1990. The subsequent staff comments
will address those responses, as appropriate.
2. The supplemental information provided by the applicant has
listed the dimensions of all buildings. The buildings range
in height from 14 ft. to a maximum of 80 ft. in height for
the power plant building. The maximum building height in
the A/I zone district is 40 feet. Building height
-3-
limitations may be exceeded by special use permit. The
statements made in the application are binding and any
increase in heights above those identified will result in an
amended application with the same hearing process.
3. As a visual mitigation for the structures, it is proposed to
develop a vegetative screen around the perimeter of the
project. It will take 8 to 10 years for the full growth
that will provide a 50 ft. high visual buffer six to seven
months a year and a 20 ft. high buffer year around. Prior
to issuing any permits, a site specific landscape plan
should be submitted to the County identifying the specific
location and trunk diameter of all vegetation to be added as
landscaping and there should be a commitment to maintain the
site in a weed free state.
4. It has been stated that there are 100 mobile home spaces
available at Battlement Mesa. Verbal comments from
Battlement Mesa indicate that there are over 100 vacant
mobile home spaces at the present time, but they have no
intention of leasing the spaces to outside parties for
placement of mobile homes. This could result in more
interest in filling vacant mobile home spaces in the Rifle
area, which will, in turn, affect the RE-2 School District's
classroom capacity in their elementary and middle schools.
The recent increase in school population in the Rifle/Silt
area has not been typical and has created the immediate
problem. If arrangements cannot be made with Battlement
Mesa for housing, it would be appropriate for Eastside
Energy to enter into discussions and, ultimately, a written
agreement to mitigate impacts to the RE-2 facilities. (See
attached page /J, J-/Q )
5. Further verbal representations from Eastside Energy
representatives indicate an intent to run 10 hours a day
with four to five tractors with 30 ton aluminum trailers,
five days a week. The 55 trips a day, would meet the
400,000 tons/year demand of the generating plant. The
estimated one million tons per year would require
approximately 125 trips per day. At this time, there is no
agreement on the physical improvements necessary and the
location of those other structural/alignment alterations
that need to be made. A written agreement between the Board
of County Commissioners and Eastside Energy needs to be in
place prior to signing a special use permit that is based on
the tonnage and numbers of trips per day proposed by
Eastside Energy. Coal hauling times need to be coordinated
with the RE-2 School District bus routes and times, to avoid
any conflicts. Additional channelization of State Highway 6
and Miller Lane should be proposed subject to the Colorado
Department of Highways.
6. Water rights noted as available for the project are
presently decreed for residential irrigation and livestock
water purposes. The change in beneficial use to
commercial/industrial applications will probably require a
court decree which may take a number of months. Either a
letter from the State Division of Water Resources verifying
the legal right to use the water rights for the
industrial/commercial purposes proposed or a water court
decree approving the change in beneficial use should be
submitted to the County prior to issuance of any special use
permit.
7. The proposed sewage treatment facility will require a
Colorado Department of Health Sewage Treatment facility site
application. The site application requires the Garfield
County Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners
and Board of Health to review and make comments on the
application. This will require a copy of the site specific
engineering to be submitted. Prior to issuance of a special
use permit, the site application should be approved.
-1/-
8. The Eastside Coal mine will have to revise their MLRB,
Department of Health and County Special Use permit to mine
any amount of coal over the presently permitted 200,000 tons
per year. Otherwise, there is no guaranteed supply of coal
confirmed other than reference to other sources. Either the
Eastside Coal mine permit should be modified to allow for a
minimum of 400,000 tons per year or confirmation from other
sources that they will provide the identified amounts of
coal prior to issuance of a special use permit.
9. The proposed bank stabilization plan will require a separate
floodplain special use permit in addition to the Clean Water
Act, Section 404 permit if any portion of the structure is
within the 100 year floodplain. Further definition of the
proposed revetment needs to be provided prior to any
construction of the structure.
10. Prior to issuance of a special use permit, copies of
Colorado Department of Health, Department of Highways
Denver Rio Grande Railroad permits/agreements should
provided to the County
all
and
be
11. The proposed reclamation plan should be expanded to include
cessation of activities along with more detail as to how it
will be accomplished.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. The application has been filed in accordance with Section 5.03 of
the County Zoning Regulations.
2. That the proposed special use is not compatible with existing
land uses in the area.
3. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were
submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
meeting.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special
use is not consistent with the best interests of the health,
safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
If this application is approved,
conditions of approval should be met:
at a minimum, the following
1. All representations of the applicant presented either in the
application, as amended, or at the public hearing shall be
considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the
Board of County Commissioners.
2. Prior to issuance of the Special Use permit:
A. A Special Use permit for a 230 kv powerline as proposed be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. A Special Use permit for the Eastside Coal Harvey
mine modification to allow for mining operations
the 200,000 tons per year.
Gap coal
exceeding
C. Copies of all state and federal permits/licenses be provided
to the County.
D. Approval from the Department of Highways for channelization
of the State Hwy. 6 and Miller Lane (C.R. 227) intersection
and the State Hwy. 6 and project entrance. Further, that no
Certificates of Occupancy be issued until the identified
highway improvements are completed.
-s--
E. A letter from the State Division of Water
Colorado Water Court decree stating that the
for the property are valid for
commercial/industrial operations.
Resources or a
water rights
the proposed
F. A road improvement agreement be signed by the Board of
County Commissioners.
G. Copies of the licenses/agreements with the Denver Rio Grande
Railroad for additional siding and rail right-of-way
crossing.
3. The applicant shall prepare and maintain, at the project site, an
emergency disaster/evacuation plan for construction and
operation. Eastside Energy shall, also, establish written
procedures for notice and communication of an emergency or
disaster to the Garfield County Emergency Management Director and
all other government entities which may be affected by an
emergency or disaster at the site. The procedures for notice and
communication shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
4. Eastside Energy shall
the Board of County
operation activities
exceeding one month.
submit a notice
Commissioners
are suspended
of cessation of activity to
any time construction or
for any period of time
5. Prior to issuance of the special use permit, Eastside Energy
shall prepare and submit a Plan for Decommissioning of Facilities
acceptable to and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Plan for Decommissioning of Facilities
address both permanent and temporary cessation
shall additionally include, at a minimum:
A. A description, time schedule, and
decommissioning procedures; and
shall adequately
of activities and
sequence of
B. A listing of regulatory agencies requiring notice of the
commencement of decommissioning activities.
c. The applicant is responsible for site reclamation or
rehabilitation activities. To the extent reclamation or
rehabilitation activities are not required by any state or
federal permitting agency, the applicant shall have a period
not to exceed two years from cessation of such operations or
actions, to prepare and implement site reclamation or
rehabilitation in accordance with a reclamation and
rehabilitation plan found acceptable by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners may
require the submittal of acceptable financial security for
such reclamation or rehabilitation activities prior to
issuance of any special use permit. The express purpose of
such financial security is to assure the performance of
adequate site decommissioning and reclamation. The form and
amount of said financial security shall be determined by the
Board of County Commissioners but shall not, in any event,
exceed reasonable security amounts commonly required for
similar purposes.
6. If, pursuant to Section 9.01.06 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, the Board of County Commissioners determines that a
violation of a condition of approval of a special use permit,
authorized herein, has occured, the Board may suspend or
terminate said special use permit per the provisions of said
Section 9.01.06.
-(,, -
7. Eastside Energy shall substantially comply with conditions
imposed by permits issued by other government agencies.
Compliance shall be determined solely by any issuing government
agency, and the County shall not consider the question of
noncompliance under this condition until a violation is
determined to have occurred by such agency. Eastside Energy
shall advise the County of any determination of violation within
ten (10) days of the time Eastside Energy is advised of any such
violation. Such determination of violation may be considered by
the Board at any time. Action may be taken at such time in the
manner of a public review under the provisions of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution, as then in effect. In the event the
Board determines that a violation adversely effects the health,
safety or welfare of the population of Garfield County, the Board
may require that the permitted operation be brought into
compliance within a specified time period, and the pertinent
County special use permit may be suspended or revoked if the
operation is not brought into compliance within the time period
allowed.
-7-
:\
'
• . ,
·r
:(
"f·
' ;·
:,I'
;I· ..
'.. '·
: .
i
'; lJ:
.".(1·. .. }~~:
::.~;'._.
:::"
"i~<::
~~-~;::
'
GARFIELD ~~ECONOMIC
. ~ DEVELOPMENT
/
~~~~\~~~~ ~ (303) 945-9796
January 2, 1990
Mr. Mark Bean
Director Building, Sanitation and Planning
Garfield County, 109-Bth St.
Gli.\lfl£LD COUNTY
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
On Wednesday, December 13, the Garfield Economic Development Board of
Directors heard a presentation by Mr. J.B. Davis of Superior Western
Corporation. That presentation addressed, in general terms, the
proposed Coal Gasification Plant and Greenhouse Project for which
Eastside Energy is seeking a special use permit.
In considering the project on its merits, we believe it is a project
which should advance without serious objection.
Assuming the validity of the presentation, resulting impacts consist,
primarily, of those associated with increased traffic and the
availability of housing. Traffic impacts must be expected whenever new
jobs are added to the economy and, in the affected area, should be
readily absorbed.
The availability of housing is not that easily dismissed; particularly
during the construction phase of the project.· The question is: Can we
afford to discourage new industry because of a temporary housing
squeeze?
Considering the prospectus for long term employment, logic dictates
that the private sector will respond to the need for additional
housing. Beyond the construction phase, we would like to believe that
many local residents, presently commuting long distances to jobs, will
recognize an opportunity for employment closer to home and choose to
become part of the permanent workforce at the Eastside project. Such
an eventuality would significantly reduce the housing impact.
This project would provide a welcome addition to the tax base of
Garfield County, contribute to the diversification of the economy and
provide long term employment to approximately 150 persons .
. We.'Sbpport ):1W\ issuance of a speci a 1 use permit!
Don Click, ~<lent
Garfield Economic Development, Inc.
Mailing: 201 Centennial, Drop ;fl18, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Offices: 201 Centennial, Suite 107K, Mid Continent Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
·' r ;: .,,,.,
" ·.•· .. -..
, .. .. :·
·.·:·;. ·! .. ;
-:·': ... ;
..
'· !.· •' ?' .: .. -.
..
.... ··./:k~·: __ ._:
·:; '.'·' <:..:· ,-,; ,,,·. .'.'·
. -~·-.,:
;·-tt::-; ~
'
_:.':J!!~-
.; <3f .·. .· ~.·J:~( ..
·,! ·.
. ,;
...
-:·;_,.
: -~ :-. ·:-
>·;·.-:·:>ii~'
';.• ..
··' '
"
...
,,..
MARIAN SMITH
Glenwood Springs 81601
ARNOLD MACKLEY
Rifle 81650
t •'.·\ • 'r.
.......
GARFIELD COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
109 8th Street Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Telephone: (303) 945-9158
(303) 625-5571
BUCKEY ARBANEY
Glenwood Springs 81601 CHUCK DESCHENES
County Administrator
December 18, 1989
J. B. Davis
Superior Western Corporation
P. o. Box 17240
Tucson, AZ 85731
Dear Mr .. Davis:
Please consider this letter to be a response to the Eaetside Project
Special Use Permit impact statement.. In general, superior Western has
addressed the issues required for a special use permit application.
Per Section 5.03.07(4), the
that· you provide additional
Board of County
detail about the
Commissioners is
following iesuee:
requesting
' ·, . ' . ,-.,, -.;
1.. Please provide more site plan detail as to:
'
·\'.·
.;·
"·'·'·
a. Dimensions of all buildings, particularly buildings that
b.
exceed the 40 foot height limitation and the
justification/mitigation of any building exceeding height.
More detail on coal storage area
covered, maximum amount to be stored,
i.e.,
height of
acres to be
piles.
c. More detail on the size, type and maintenance of vegetation
to be used as landscaping screening, i.e., size to be
planted, watering systems, etc. If evergreens are to be
used for screening purposes, how long will it take them to
mature to created the screen proposed ..
d. Engineered calculations of surface drainage with certified
statements and more detailed drawings of the proposed waste
water plane.
.. i:: . .=
'·.' .~'
>"·
.:-··
..... ..
'
:\
' '.-·
•'.·
...
· .. :.;'·
''··1
' ·•,;
'i'·.
, ...
....
;..;r
~-··,·
Page Two
(: ··.<,: t • ~ •
' ."::·
2. Further review of the existing housing will reveal that
Battlement Mesa does not have 100 mobile home spaces available.
Housing needs should be reviewed again, due to the lack of rental
housing. How will construction workers be housed? Will Eastside
help locate, subsidize and/or finance housing needs?
3.
4.
Schools do not have adequate room for new grade
children. Further review of impacts to grade school,
and high school facilities would be appropriate.
school age
junior high
coal haulage needs to be better defined, i.e.,
per hour; size of the trucks; specific road
made, number of round trip trucks per day if
from another mine.
nun1ber of trucks
improvements to be
coal is imported
NOTE: There appears to be all inconsistency between the number of
truck trips per day and the amount of coal that could be supplied
to the coal gasification process. 7-15, page 3 says 64 trips per
day, M-F only. If these are 25 ton belly-dumps, the following
calculation results:
64 trips x 5 days x 52 weeks x 25 tons/truck= 416,000 tone
per year.
It is proposed to burn 400,000 tons a year in the plant, leaving
only 16,000 tons for shipping by unit train? Additionally, 64
trips will result in 126 total trips per day. Depending upon the
time of year, this could be a substantial number of trucks per
hour. Please define this calculation better with specific
proposals as to the number of round trip/truck trips/hour.
s. As noted above, there only appears to be a potential for 416,000
tons per year of coal coming to the site. Please identify the
projected total amount of coal to be burned at the plant and the
amount of coal to be shipped by rail to other markets. Will you
ship coal for other mines?
6.
7.
B.
Further identification
proposed water needs.
appropriate.
Of
The
the legal water
noted legal
rights to aupply the
opinion would be
Engineered plans and specifications of water and sewage
plants should be submitted to the County and the
Department of Health, Water Quality control Division.
treatment
Colorado
Garfield County snow loading
structures will need to meet those
requirements
requirements.
are 40 psf and
9. Garbage/solid waste is glossed over rather quickly. An
identification of the projected amounts of solid waste would be
helpful for projecting future County landfill needs and assessing
this project's impacts and the need for mitigation.
; : ''·8::7.
';.,: ' ·.;.
. ,.,
'1.,
_,', ...
.(· ... ;: . '
,•;'
':;'
.'.·.:
·>"
'' .. ' ··"·
·., , ..
,.·.
.,;'. .·
"·: __ ·
.. : ~ . ·~
.:::.):;".!{:~1~:,:·
... ;·
~-"~".
. ·,:·'·
:.-.·.:~ ..
.·.'
:')' :'! ·:
' . •
Page Three '
..;) (;· •\ .. : ~
,_ •*"
·•,'';'
10. Where will all of the proposed training occur and who will teach
it?
11. Clarification of understandings between the applicant and Public
Service Co. regarding the location of the point of connection and
transmission lines for the project needs to be provided.
12. Assessment of socioeconomic impacts should not include any
assumptions of UNOCAL shutdown of their Parachute facilities.
13. Additional detail should be provided on anticipated levels and
types of employees.
Thie list identifies the initial questions that should be answered.
will probably be additional questions as we all become more familiar
the project.
There
with
Your immediate attention to these questions, will allow for a more
expedient review. At a minimum, responses to these questions should be
received by January 2, 1990, if the January 10, 1990 Planning Commission
review is going to be realized. Your cooperation in this matter will be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
,..r A • -l J)u-;~ x'hlz.t.,U/
Marian Smith, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
XC• Mark Bean
·:,;.·.-
;::··
Don DeFord
Sherry Malloy
'
·:.?,
';;:-: ·.... :'· .. ~· ...
·;;i·.,
I'~ .. ., ..
'_,;
.'8.
,,,'•:J;' ,, '
-~1 ·
'S~j !<~!
:~i;t
1,\. ~ .. .,,
. ;~:'.' •.
'•f" ,:r
'}!.
·.' .~· :' ~ .·:;
,"
'.· .. ' ..
.. ' ,'
':~·;\·. \
i :/'.;. / /;~
'.'.){.•.,
. ::'. .
. . :;, :1·
"i.1
' ' ,,
"'
.....
·. . ~ . . .. ;
·t!
: ..
~ 1 ~l'"::""Tr:::r;;::::ir.:i1 i'-t"'S'.!1] f.1 .. 'l!~·"'f~ U..-r:~·: ut l'/.. t I ! I :, :~_·'.:::r~ ::~i.::..' .. ::::3(.·:~-~~.!.J._:) ' r
·1; t'
1\j .JAN 5 1990 r.Jb _____________________ _
BATTLEMENT MESA PARTNERS
P. 0. BOX 6000
BATTLEMENT MESA, CO 81636
GAHFIELD COUNTY,,.
..
January 3, 1990
Eastside Project
Special Use Permit Application
Mr. Mark Bean
Director of Planning
, .. ,_ ...
.;:! , .... ,
)~'l.·
Garfield County Dept. of
Building, Planning & Sanitation
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
We have reviewed the Special Use Permit application support document for the
Eastside Project, Silt, Colorado as prepared by Superior Western
Corporation. It is our understanding the facility would employ 100 to 190
construction workers during a one-year fast track schedule with a permanent
operating work force of 150 employees.
BMP must express its concerns with regards to socioeconomic and community
impacts. We are prepared and willing to accommodate the permanent workforce
housing needs but are not able to provide interim construction worker
housing. The SWC document states that 100 mobile home spaces are available
at Battlement Mesa for the construction workforce to reside. The document
further states these outside people tend to have their own mobile homes and
would fit the Battlement Mesa program.
Battlement Mesa does not have a mobile home park in the pure sense
definition of spaces available at monthly rental fees for privately owned
mobiles to accommodate the interim construction workforce. Among our 268
modular homes there currently are only approximately 6 units available for
rental with a minimal 6 month lease. Battlement Mesa has grown towards the
permanent residence and second-home recreational market community and has
less focus on the interim, short-term housing markets.
The prior mobile home park was replatted as Saddleback Village to allow lot
sales for privately owned mobile/modular homes as permanent residences.
Other building sites exist within various Battlement Mesa single family home
subdivisions although available spec-built units are in limited supply. We
have an inventory of approximately 1,000 lots and building sites with
adequate utility systems and roadway infrastructure completed.
We would al so have concerns with po 1 ice protection provided on a 1 imited
coverage basis by the Garfield County Sheri ff Department. Introducing an
'
.·
;: . . ' . . .
iJ.;.'· .. ~
'}~·.
·\if,.'.:'
:;f,;.: .\.
. ·~F
:· .. ,;·g:_:·
.: -~\-
,': ~ ·:·1 :.:·
"'
··.-'. '
·:·. '·'-··'' · .....
,< 'o
_::_~q;~_p_~·;.·
'):
1)?
>
~ ·. ' "··
...... . _ :. :_: .
• .
·, ..
. ..
Mr. Mark Bean -2-January 3, 1990
undetermined number of interim construction workers, who may typically be
housed within mancamp facilities at a remote site, would present unique
police protection impacts within Battlement Mesa. We would request
mitigation of impacts through additional, regular Garfield County Sheriff
protection services.
In summary, Battlement Mesa can accommodate and would welcome the permanent
workforce housing demand of the Eastside Project through available single
family home building sites and builder capabilities. However, we are not
able to accommodate the interim construction workforce through mobile home
spaces as SWC has stated and would require Garfield County Sheriff's
Department services mitigation.
Please present this information to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning
Commission for the January 10 special use hearing.
WWW: i b
.. >; "
Sincerely,
~-d-vtd_
William W. Wilde
Consultant
: ·;~ ·'
[·
·.>-~
. ;,f:
··;::.:;·' (• ·;.ti ...
' .':.·· ~ . ,?. '. . . :·J~· ~' ..
'i,'-
··,, .'!'
'•!· "> .... ,.
··.' .. ·::.
. •·. '• .. '·
·!. ·~ :.