The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-08-15 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1989 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Discussion of Squash Tournament Request for Funds 2. Update regarding Aquatic Center at Ford Park 3. Presentation of the July 31, 1989 Investment Report and Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Investment Policy 4. Discussion of Vail Valley Consolidated Water District/Town of Vail Land Contract 5. Planning and Environmental Commission Report 6. Information Update 7. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1989 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Discussion of Squash Tournament Request for Funds Jerry Stephens Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny request for $1,500. Background Rationale: See enclosed material. Jerry is meeting with the Marketing Board Special Events Committee Tuesday morning, and we should have their recommendation in time for the Council Work Session. 2:15 2. Update regarding Aquatic Center at Ford Park Tim Garton Jim Morter Background Rationale: Jim Morter will present an update to Pat Dodson the Council on the pool project. Conceptual drawings from Kristan Pritz the design workshop and schedule for the project will be reviewed. 2:55 3. Presentation of the July 31, 1989 Investment Report and Steve Thompson Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Investment Policy Action Requested of Council: Ask questions of staff, and approve amendments to the investment policy. Background Rationale: The investment policy requires that staff present the investment report semiannually to the Council. Staff Recommendation: Approve amendments to the policy. 3:55 4. Discussion of Vail Valley Consolidated Water District/Town Larry Eskwith of Vail Land Contract Action Requested of Council: Review contract and discuss with staff. Background Rationale: The exchange has been agreed to in concept by the Town and the District. The staff wishes to discuss the contract for the exchange prior to submission of the ordinance at a regular meeting. 4:15 5. Planning and Environmental Commission Report Peter Patten 4:25 6. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:35 7. Other RECD AUG - 3 ~~9 Gd~iSCd~DE C??~'B ~~''~ ~'QJ~~t~ 2f.~~~~' r~:~~S~~ i~i~ ?~~^~T-'~'5~1..f. (;Itl a71V111~' '~t1'--:.!I.Ir.11, 1~-ai„)~-~, i1ii~ Ij:j~.i~:-li~r Isi1~i:' 1I1 j''.?.11 (~~,IfIT',ir~i'~ ~~'~?111 1!'i~.7'• i}iF' 1_:lyr;~.rZF I~ ) 1 1i=a }t_) { ''~i -' N r., L 'r-,i- i~ r1 ~r.~ i-7 ~ .7 r?%r "'4 r• :lut_ ~r.:n ~,if ~. tll ~.=~tj_t:;~i iiti.ill~~.tl'1~:Ilt• r?l~:!1 x•:1411 .•r•_ ~=tI1:~ _"tI"tii,t.:ll.r ':ll :l.,jc;t'~:;. i 1i1., ['~?i11 ;:~~; r.11~ f li-~` t!rp ~,<~71. ~.:Il r[?ail} t'~s' ~~:t1i~ ~'~~~.Cr lii ;,? _t11. Fr~~'fe~:_ic'il:~.l ~'I:~.[?~i-:~ fr~,'in En;~;la.ilc~, ~;;?~:'t, i'.jr[f5r ?r:31~~nd, F'~~ILivt:3.i1, a~'au:~ti-.3.1i.~., .~.n~:i t11 ~'a`~ a '~' 4'~•i~;:"..i'.} }} ':'J' ~iatr irl 411:3 F.!i'J :'~'::'llt•, j!r'J'i1~1I11Y, Ct 4•'.>ilclritt~l41';.lil 'Jl ~rr+%.~.~~i r?~ , ~ ~1-~rr a-.• ~ rr• f ~ r -7 ~, r.i• C1ri 1I2 :~i-i1~.1:10n3.1 +:'. t' ~, .. ~ 1.2-~ ti;~ 4 r3,.1 nIi_~'= f: I'r'c.F=•Ii ~:1 ; i ~'t: r1 ~: t?c~ 2"CSI"tl t1i+: S,.jc~ 1, ' 1 2r, ~ ~ i ~ i 'a a s ~.'al ~'ltil Ivri lrri r.i,-, t' r•Iii ~r + as t~a.,a1.7 F:_•. _~.r1r1t-c1l~irn;itY1~? ~5- t f}I.) r11:,r?Nr frl~lrii .,.Ii ~~T~~r fiYia ~:;c.>>iritrTT ,,.i-~ ::~~r~a,,ta~:i tit c_:c_)t_~nNt -rr- - r---r - - f - - - - lil tt1F 1211~3.tet12" ~~'~I1rS. ~t'rg 11:3['e ~~?rt?:3<[? rc~<=~1[?ed ri1tS'1rS IrC'Ill ~_~Z1itCd"I11c1, 1~4 ~ ~? TT- NT.. ly i-:"-yT7. N iii ti N ~;,? r.i I -t~ ' r~T 1` ~11j' F:.al1i..1',~tiii~t, T~.~~~~., Tt:tri, id ..~ i',~f .si~~, i1... t -:Iii.., i',~i_t'~~a,:iiu~, .~.ts, ~~r~ 1 ~ir~..~..Ii. ~~i~'u~ S~u~s~ ~~a~~~s a s J u: ~ G•}) ,.~?7 r~u~. if N,` tl s) ~a~'~~rN '1 N x111 Y,`i" +` (f .~ ~ tTTt.'~ ~ u r~.'~f'tY~T~ ~ f a a I-._ :..nt ,~_:a .; ..'.: L,i._r~.:..~ rri.: _•.u .. .Yi•: ,_ _,.a ._al _t _•1ri;J b~:.Ya~. ; a~._ r, _.riC~ ci+: rla•::._,a .j- I,i._ r_1i;~ric;t~t-i~.tlr'.~. ;~nr.-~ jij~:°.t~?1r,.4 c.~f ~,r 1i;~v.1i n1;~~?Hr:Y frnlni~ ttiN fr,11r_~~;ti~iil'~• ~3.~'1r;'il,f t#ir,q~. ~;~?Ilr, 11~1.2-ticila:~.tYci 12-i t.1-iN :;t.~J.~~i~~: 1. `', tj '-''~ r~1 t~? 'J'•_i t~:t~,11 ,_, - µ C121i '~. {i ['.~}"""~r ... _ '.!.e' ltliJ: ai'=1i 1 =U~'at'1:31-~ ..li':11 l,a.~!? :1 cl'1'"''•1 _ , , ~ :i._ :, ~±. ;:-..f_1 :_1.IC~ r11=1'? =i''1if ~~~• ,~, 4 j.i,':'c• ci1~•':1 31:1 i c`=? ri_t'?~ fi:t~:.''=•'ri i-„'t'~r?'='ri ~ J.Il'`i :,~i~' 1T- tri~c• iri t}1 ~_,•_t i ~' rri; nt4-,c , l~ a r~ a _ _ r: ~: • 1 7 ~ _ v :r ~ C1. ,a a 1. , a a F: ~_~ _• v a ~ ~:1u':.a _' Ci ~! }sir I-H~.~)r.~21r,'jHr~ t}l;~t r}l`~'!~ij rt'11~~, S~,'•?r'~t-F'1 1i~lY~.:IS? t(1i" jijF~lC.llf-~ !_~'~- j~i~i-L.('~i1~Z.1 I-E',~tr~'~121 - 'f~.~_i ~ i-r'~I:'c~Iif~~d th~~t ~11~1I- t.2-li:''=; ['~?rrr; 1~='I" c_c1I11~_'lil~C~ ~::'11.$lIir,•:~:; ~tnc~i ~:'i~'t~1J.i"? ;j. ~~~).' o t~G~'21 <.'Cd'p<'.'r~J.tr StGC1:. ~' i. t'~ c,'[~~iil 1-t1~.1~1J.'.1 c;~~ i11Cd1~[T i11.J.i'f.rt IUilc:z~. ~I~.Li f~~ '.7 :5?n rYcl1 ': ~~L.it t~:' 'J tli" i ~~.l ~.ii l,li' II li'.'ill •'. ':,+ ~,i~~ Yi'~ll:~ F;,~,..;t sir:.,-itl-tt~ ,-1~,_~r~~r_ • 11. r'''~.5~~ f~~1 ~t 1'~1~~tlt'I t!:i ~::~~1T-t1~ltiil~c; L~ictt ~lt~i~'_12"t.'~gtl:xSil U:!tlI-Il~ti"1~'?Ilt; 1;:. TYi~ I-tlYciil in'v':!rn~ i~ $1 ~'°~, J4~. Tlie rn~'.li~in ln':':'Itt? i~~ 'x'_~ ;' r,+~3+,7 17iT>w Y1~liera? triis is :~ ITiar~.~t tYi~it rn~>~.t. Y~ttsin~sses in ~',',:iil SVL~IIId llk.~ to fc?~tCh Tf r.r~ ~..~:+i~r•+ fia~n• ~i•~i 4,: j~ fr:~.iti1 } ti r. }., ~•.•..~ * f1 fii:• 1• -:~ ~:•i 11 Vt'~: r,3.I1 I _ ..`:1 'lr 111iV.11'•~li.tl ll ~2l_' il'_.11 ttl~ ~.}'15'11 +-!•- ~~~: '. '_tll~~ t1I ~~. r'TTYli~ .'ii ~.llr' ~-~~:'1.I1'._i, j~.?:l ~",u~11uL7''. t~1t.L1Y.a t'_•,1~YY1_trrltlY~Tr• *,jtl) }1u,~.r~Yr~u I"ri•.tt{~Y CG~f C•ilC•~^jlllit''r•r ^tl ~ 7.:aI'iT_ /l '~ l"v 'i 1 \. ~•: ~ .l a ti 1 .l .J it 1 1 F.''~: v`.' 11'v 111 1 •~'1 _`: • ~~~.\~~ ~•_. 11 i1~J, ti •_.llllli vi- j~ _ J •_t~ ~fl:l•t ~,t,~11 t,f:'Il~'r;t tt,H ~;s*tir,~lr? t;':alt r~•,~I1I7111t1it~F. / .~ ~j'G'Il~~c:'r~.}lli:~' :_'FI1~:II~~ Tl~?C'il.~ lilc_lUCir :]. I~111 :~:J.'.r ;±.Cit'~'I'r.1~F2l1rI1C lil ttl~ tc'~1Jt'tl:1t'rli?t1r. 'r' i rrctlTi, ct?l~ I1ctL1'~dl'.'t~i':~.~' ':j` %t>'~1_lr' f!_! ct Iiic ~;~~ ,,' -{ -'tl-t?IlCr i ,r'~,~ ~ T,~, *,*i, [. •,'_ ~~• ti L. '.1.I1 ~• ~ :~ :.: _ Iltdctl ~1 _tll. 1Ti'.n. l r' r'~".ILI''~ llllcr .j~ l _'' U li'Jill 1.17:'• 1'.'T':~tl '.•'1 Ctjl l'.! 11'~.,.1~ '.~:~I1 tl Y L!Jlli ll~.ill' Tll• ..J~~l::~ ~{ y, r ~~1111!,'li 1'1<.'111(a{=':' :3 ,~?Il('!/~! T"~11 '~ t- c^~ tf'" *`, -,,•- 1,',{ f?•j t ~]• (, " ~ r+ ~, J.I Ii~7.221"Ilfi :tilr ~~, i . _~ _ ~~. , ,. I ._ T , r 11.. I t_ .- _ _ ~_~._ 111 r , I _tl • ~:'rc~ t~,,1 ~ ~ , ctrl tl-`.~.?tr T)Y1^uC tf~,'ir'~ t•_~k~.-~ri,'~T]uI'~ICtY~if '_~Yir~ ,'"iTEI.JY YrlIC'f•u1~~+riG~'illC• '1'i-111YY1^.IYfi;"••nt ~. 11 l _ 1 lr,v~~, 1'v .+'._ ll.l ~_"'v Ll ~~ ~ ~ lv~~ili~ j ~_ll•\I _ _ll'~. l 11 l~~'v'vl Llll'v 'v `_t ~~ v'l:l li ~~.lll'v al4 ~ _ (~~~T1r~Il_.P~: ~'~i?:~~=.i~ 1i2`'117lT~' ~.~.~ r.'I1 ~Tr~'~JI :i1'~11'=t ri ~;~FrlY1` `'.Ytl:''~_~11.1F.' I ,b'c:~uic3 be .1~~T~~~~T tci ~~.Il~~'~T~'i' .till' C~tteSL,iCdl°. t'c?fit IT11~r21~. f1:Z~'F c~C'I1Gri'i1121'3' ffli°, r~.?i1C ~~'!r:~Ii~':~r3~11~~. FlE'a~~ '::'Jrlt,"-1'::t. I:i' cil; 4 r' ~?- r' `' 1 r' CSI- ~: r` `~~-'_~~t~~~ i. it"i~rl~:S ic:'r ,1':~Ltr'"'~'rl~l''~~r~tl':'1,.. i "/ / ~ ~'~Y ~/ V ~_~_+._~~:~.<_~~' i~1J.t~'~~Cj}i'J.`'il L~li'E't=C~;2_ TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: August 10, 1989 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of July 31, 1989. The balance of the portfolio at July 31, 1989 was $12.4 million which was the same amount at the end of June. The portfolio balance at July 31st was 31% more than at the same time last year. Interest rates have continued to drop significantly. The repo rate has dropped from 9.40% at July 1st to 8.50% on August 3, 1989. The current repo rate is still beating everything on the inverted treasury yield curve by at least 50 basis points. In response to this change in July we picked up $1.1 million in CD's with an average yield of 9.02% and an average maturity date of 481 days. As of June 30, 1989 we have earned $472,248 in interest income which is 90% of the budgeted amount for 1989 of $525,000 for all funds. We are projecting total interest income for 1989 to be $866,431 which is $341,431 more than was budgeted. Please let me know if you have. any questions. We will be presenting the July 31, 1989 investment report and the proposed investment policy amendments, both attached, at next week's session on August 15, 1989. TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TOe Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: August 10, 1989 RE: Amendments to the Investment Report The following is a list of proposed amendments to the investment policy. These amendments will give us some additional flexibiity and make complying with the policy easier. These amendments will be up for discussion at next week's work session on August 15, 1989. 1. The present policy only allows for investments in federal agency securities which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States and in coupon or discount notes issued by Federal Home Loan Bank or Federal National Mortgage Association. We recommend changing the policy to allow for investment in all types of U.S. Government Agency or instrumentality obligations with the Investment Committee's approval or Town Council's approval. This amendment will give us the flexibility to invest in other U.S. Government Obligations, that we historically have not traded in without having to amend the policy. 2. The present policy allows for deposits with commercial banks insured by the FDIC and Savings and Loan Associations insured by the FSLIC. We recommend changing the policy to allow for deposits with savings banks which are insured by the FDIC with amount not to exceed $99,000. 3. The present policy does not allow the purchase of securities excluding certificates of deposit with brokers who are not designated as primary brokers. Page Two Amendments on the Investment Policy 3. (Continued) We recommend changing the policy to allow for the purchase of securities from any broker/dealer who has been approved by 'the Investment Committee. The approval process would ~_nclude having the security dealer successfully respond to a broker/dealer questionnaire and certification. `.Phe broker/dealer must certify to the Town that they have personally read the Town's investment policy and procedures and have implemented reasonable procedures and controls over transactions. Since we pay fo:r all our book entry securities and safekeep them at a third-party bank, this compensates for some of the risks of using a non-primary broker. 4. The present policy requires that two bids must always be obtained when purchasing a security. We recommend changing this from a mandatory requirement in all cases to a guideline. The reason for this change is that a broker may be offering a secondary market security at an attractive price which, if not purchased at that time, may be gone by the time you find another broker offering the .same security. The policy would still require the controller to demonstrate compliance with this guideline. Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending July 31, 1989 Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Commercial Banks Colorado Investment Pools Total Commercial Savings & Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Operating Funds * 7/31/89 of Total Allowed --------------------------------------------------------- 5763,918 5191,650 5955,568 7.64% 50% 511,617 $11,617 0.09% 100% ------------------------------------ ------ 5775,535 5191,650 5967,185 7.73% Banks Loans --------- Certificates of Deposit (see page ----------- 2) --- Eagle County Institutions 5210,992 5200,000 510,992 5210,992 Other Colorado Institutions 599,000 $99,000 $99,000 National Institutions 52,178,000 51,683,000 52,871,000 5990,000 53,861,000 Total 52,487,992 ----------- 51,683,000 53,071,000 51,099,992 ------------------------------------ 54,170,992 ------------ Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Repurchase Agreements Treasury Notes GNMA's U.S. Savings Bonds Federal Agency Discount Notes Total Total Portfolio Maturing Within 12 Months Maturing Within 24 Months Maturing After 24 Months * 52,395,642 is reserves that the Town does not have access to for operations 1.69% 0.79% 30.89% 33.37'/ 100% 13.46% 25% 51,700,000 $424,000 52,124,000 16.99% 75% 5680,000 5680,000 5.44% 100% 5188,047 5188,047 1.50% 100% 516,884 516,884 0.14% 100% 54,352,186 54,352,186 34.82% 100% 56,257,117 51,104,000 57,361,117 58.89% ----------------------------------- ------ ----------------------------------- ------ 510,103,652 52,395,642 512,499,294 100.00% ------------------------------------ ------- ------------------------------------ ------- 510,228,363 81.83% 51,440,000 11.52% 5830,931 ------------- 6.65% ------- 512,499,294 ------------- ------------- 100.00% ------- ------- 8/3/89 slml invsm907 Money Market Accounts as of July 31, 1989 --For the Month of July-- Account Institution Balances Type of Accounts High Low Average 7/31/89 ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- First Bank of Vail - Operating Interest 8.480% 8.340% 8.425% -------------------------------- -------------------------------- Balance $1,664,354 $390,797 $1,045,765 5757,160 -------------------------------- -------------------------------- First Bank of Vail - Insurance Interest 8.480% 8.340% 8.425% Balance ________________________________ Colorado Trust (Investment Pool) Interest Balance Central Bank of Denver Reserve Accounts Interest Balance Central Bank of Denver Operating Account Interest Balance 8/3/89 SLML INVMM907 5169,301 8.750% 511,617 5.000% 522,349 8.530% 56,758 --------------- 967,185 --------------- --------------- Page 1 Certificates of Deposit as of July 31, 1989 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value First American Bank, Boston Mass FDIC 10.468% 10.468% 12-Nov-87 12-Nov-90 1096 599,000 Vail Nat ional Bank FDIC 8.750% 8.750% 04-Apr-89 04-Apr-90 365 $10,992 FDIC 9.250% 9.250% 03-Jan-89 03-Jan-90 365 $100,000 FDIC 9.250% 9.250% 26-Jan-89 26-Jan-90 365 5100,000 Central Bank of Denver Reserved Funds FDIC 8.400% 8.400% 05-Oct-88 05-Oct-89 365 599,000 Coral Co ast Savings Bank, Boynton Bea ch Florida FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-89 27-Sep-89 181 $99,000 First Fe deral of the Carolinas, High Point North Carolina FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-89 30-Mar-90 365 599,000 Investor s of Florida Savings Bank, N. Miami Beach Florida FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-89 26-Sep-89 180 599,000 Firstate Financial, Orlando Florida FSLIC 10.500% 10.250% 31-Mar-89 02-Apr-90 367 $99,000 Bank of Horton, Horton Kansas FDIC 10.500% 10.500% 12-Apr-89 10-Oct-89 181 599,000 Hawthorne Savings and Loan Association, Oceanside California FSLIC 9.750% 9.750% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 599,000 First Na tional Bank of Glens Falls, G lens Falls Neu York FDIC 9.750% 9.750% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 599,000 Exeter B anking Company, New Hampshire FDIC 9.900% 9.900% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 599,000 San Antonio Federal Savings Bank, Ues iaco Texas FSLIC 10.500% 10.500% 03-Apr-89 03-Apr-90 365 599,000 Security Savings and Loan, Chicago Il linois FSLIC 9.950% 9.950% 18-Apr-89 18-Apr-90 365 599,000 Midstate Savings and Loan Associaton, Baltimore Maryland FSLIC 10.350% 10.100% 21-Apr-89 18-Oct-90 545 599,000 First Savings and Loan, Beverly Hills California Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.375% 10.125% 10-Apr-89 03-Jun-91 784 599,000 Franklin Bank, Menlo Park California FDIC 10.00% 10.00% 17-Apr-89 16-Oct-89 182 599,000 Sterling Savings and Loan, Irvine Cal ifornia Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.500% 10.250% 10-Apr-89 02-Dec-91 966 599,000 Bay Loan & Investment Bank, East Greenwich, RI, Reserved Funds FDIC 9.300% 9.050% f1-Jul-89 02-Dec-91 874 899,000 Homestead Savings Association, Middletown, PA, Reserved Funds FSLIC 9.100% 8.900% 21-Jul-89 02-Dec-91 864 599,000 Security Pacific State Bank, Irvine, CA FDIC 9.150% 8.900% 11-Jul-89 11-Jul-90 365 599,000 $2,091,992 Page 2 Continued Certificates of Deposit Continued as of July 31, 1989 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity !ns Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase --------------------------------------------------------------- Value --------- Brentwood Square Savings and Loan, Los Angeles California Reserved funds FSLIC 10.150% 9.900% 09-May-89 08-May-91 729 $99,000 First Chesire Bank, Keene New Hampshire FDIC 10.100% 9.850% 15-May-89 14-May-90 364 599,000 Trustcorp Bank, Toledo Ohio FDIC 9.750% 9.890% 12-May-89 14-May-90 367 $99,000 St. Edmond's Savings and Loan Association, Philadelphia Pennsylvania FSLIC 10.250% 10.000% 05-May-89 05-Nov-90 549 599,000 Columbia National Bank, Santa Monica California FDIC 10.000% 9.750% 1b-May-89 13-Sep-89 120 599,000 Monadnock Bank, Jaffrey New Hampshire FDIC 10.000% 9.750% 12-May-89 14-May-90 367 $99,000 Fidelity Federal Savings Bank, Richmond Virginia FSLIC 10.000% 10.000% 05-May-89 07-May-90 367 $99,000 Eastern Savings Bank, Hunt Valley Maryland FSLIC 9.750% 9.750% 17-May-89 30-Nov-89 197 599,000 Kislak National Bank, North Miami Florida FDIC 9.700% 9.700% 25-May-89 25-May-90 365 599,000 Standard Pacific Savings and Loan, Newport California Reserved Funds FSLIC 9.875% 9.670% 26-May-89 28-May-91 732 599,000 Century Bank and Trust, Somerville Massachusetts Reserved Funds FDIC 9.450% 9.450% 26-May-89 26-Nov-90 549 599,000 Century Bank of Suffolk, Suffolk Massachusetts Reserved Funds FDIC 9.450% 9.450% 30-May-89 29-Nov-90 548 599,000 Republic National Bank, Phoenix Arizona Reserved Funds FDIC 9.750% 9.500% 30-May-89 29-Nov-90 548 599,000 Lyndonville Savings Bank & Trust, Lyndonville, VT, Reserved Funds FDIC 9.250% 9.050% 26-Jul-89 01-Jun-92 1041 599,000 First Capital Bank, Concord, NH FDIC 9.000% 9.000% 07-Jul-89 01-Dec-89 147 599,000 Center Bank, Waterbury, CT FDIC 9.250% 9.120% 07-Jut-89 05-Oct-89 90 599,000 Souhegon National Bank, Milford, NH FDIC 9.350% 9.100% 07-Jul-89 03-Jan-90 180 599,000 Mission Viejo National Bank, Mission Viejo, CA FDIC 9.400% 9.150% 10-Jul-89 05-Apr-90 269 599,000 Coast Bank, Long Beach, CA FDIC 9.250% 9.000% 10-Jul-89 10-Jul-90 365 599,000 Charter Bank for Savings, Santa Fe, NM FSLIC 9.250% 9.000% 10-Jul-89 13-Jut-90 368 599,000 51,980,000 Page 2 Continued Certificates of Deposit Continued as of July 31, 1989 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ East Bank, New York, NY FDIC 9.000% 8.900% 11-Jul-89 11-Jul-91 730 599,000 Avg Yield 9.406% 54,170,992 Avg Days to Maturity 340 invcd907 Page 2 8/2/89 slml Government Securities as of July 31, 1989 ***Treasury Notes*** Years to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Par Coupon Yield --------- Date ------------ Date ---------- at Purchase ------------ Maturity ------------ Value ------------ ----------------- 8.875% 7.470% 11-Mar-86 15-Feb-96 9.94 6.55 $230,000 8.875% 9.067% 02-Dec-88 30-Nov-90 1.99 1.33 5250,000 9.375% 9.630% 28-Feb-89 28-Feb-91 2.00 1.58 5200,000 Average Maturity Years 3.15 5680,000 Average Yield 8.69% _ ____________ ***Repurchase Agreements*** Average Purchase Maturity Par Institution Yield -- ----- ----- -- - Date ------ ---- Date ---------------- ---- Value ------------------------ -- ----- - - - - Central Bank 8.306% - 12-Oct-88 --- Open 5424,000 Prudential Bache 9.025% 20-Dec-88 Open 51,700,000 $2,124,000 ***GNMA'S*** Years to Estimated Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Pool ------------ Coupon ----------- Yield --------- Date ----------- Date ----------- at Purchase ------------ Maturity ---------- Outstanding -------------- 5803 8.000% 8.480% 14-Nov-86 15-Oct-05 19.10 16.00 $45,363 13003 8.000% 9.500% 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 17,00 570,222 14659 8.000% 9.200% 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 21.20 18,00 572,462 Avg Yield 9.138% 5188,047 ***U.S. Savings Bonds*** Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Book Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EE 7.170% 01-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.00 7.18 516,884 530,000 ------------------------ ------------------------ ***Federal Agency Discount Notes*** Days to Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Book Maturity Yield - Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value - FHLB ---- ---- 10.353% ------------ 03-Apr-89 --------- 30-Nov-89 ------------- 241.00 ------------ 122.00 ------------ 5233,816 ----------- 5250,000 FHLB 10.069% 05-Apr-89 01-Dec-89 240.00 123.00 5234,300 5250,000 FHLB 9.851% 19-Apr-89 20-Oct-89 184.00 81.00 5238,168 5250,000 FHLB 9.940% 20-Apr-89 26-Oct-89 189.00 87.00 5950,965 51,000,000 FHLB 9.981% 03-Mar-89 23-Aug-89 173.00 23.00 5238,707 5250,000 FHLB 9.350% 25-May-89 25-Aug-89 92.00 25.00 5250,000 5250,000 FHLB 9.400% 25-May-89 25-May-90 365.00 298.00 5500,000 5500,000 FHLB 9.373% 17-May-89 22-Sep-89 128.00 53.00 5484,089 5500,000 FHLB 9.422% 17-May-89 18-Aug-89 93.00 18.00 5244,139 5250,000 FHLB 8.490% 11-Jul-89 15-Nov-89 127.00 107.00 5485,660 5500,000 FHLB 8.474% 28-Jul-89 03-Oct-89 67.00 64.00 - 5492,342 ----------- 5500,000 ------------ 54,352,186 54,500,000 Average Maturity Days 75 ____________ ____________ Average Yield 9.45% Total 57,361,117 8/3/89 SLML invtr907 Page 3 Planning and Environmental Commission August 14, 1989 12:00 Site visits 1e00 Vail Village Master Plan Public Meeting 3x00 Public Hearing 3 1. A request for a height variance in order to place a satellite dish on the roof of the Lodge at Vail, 174 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicants Lodge at Vail 1 2. A request for a setback variance in order to build a deck on Lot 2, Block 6, Intermountain Subdivision. Applicanto Stephen C. Beck 3. A request for a Conditional Use permit in order to operate a business office in the Public Accommodation zone district, at the Christiana Lodge, at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicanto Christiana Realty 2 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to enclose a deck at the Chart House located in the Landmark Building, 610 West Lionshead Circle, Lionshead Mall. Applicanto Chart House, Inc. 5. Report on Council action regarding: 1. Enzian Lodge 2. Katz variance 6. Appointment of PEC member to Art in Public Places Board. %; ~ INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1989, by and between the TOWN OF VAIL, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "Town"), VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "WCWD"). RECITALS° WHEREAS, the Town is the owner of certain real property known as the Old Town Shops, a legal description of which is contained in Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as "Property"); and WHEREAS, WCWD is the owner of certain real property known as the Lions Ridge and Gore Creek Water Treatment Plant sites, legal descriptions of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C (hereinafter referred to as "Other Properties"); and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to WCWD wishes to convey the Other finds that the consideration for for each party's respective consideration for the conveyance. convey the Property to WCWD and Properties to the Town, and each the exchange of these properties purposes constitutes adequate NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and conditions contained herein, the adequacy of which is hereby admitted, the parties agree as follows: TERMS 1. The Town shall convey by general warranty deed to WCWD the Property free and clear of any restrictions, reverter clauses or encumbrances thereon, except as noted herein. 2. WCWD shall convey by general warranty deed to the Town the Other Properties free and clear of any restrictions or encumbrances thereon other than those contained within this Purchase and Sale Agreement. WCWD intends, and upon arriving at terms satisfactory to WCWD does agree, to convey the Property to the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District for the purposes of its wastewater treatment facilities. 3. The Town shall retain use of the Property for its own benefit and that of the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District pursuant to the Town's Agreement with the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District dated January 1, 1989 and terminating December 31, 1993; such use right to terminate following sixty (60) days notice from WCWD or its transferee. So long as the Town shall retain use of the Property, the Town shall insure the Property against loss and liability in the minimal amounts of $150,000 per .,' `' .~ person/$400,000 per occurrence. The Town shall also retain responsibility for maintenance and repair of the property in such a manner as to preserve the asset. WCWD shall be named as an additional insured. 4. Prior to the design of the wastewater treatment plant expansion on the property, the Town shall be consulted as to the design and the potential for a recreational use facility on top of the wastewater treatment plant. Agreement of the Town shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any additional costs for design and construction of a recreational facility shall be borne by the Town or the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. 5. A structure known as the Gore Creek Treatment Plant exists on one of the Other Properties and contains pipes and filter facilities within the building. WCWD agrees to remove the pipes and filter facilities. The Town agrees to assist in removal and disposal of filter media to the extent Town is able to provide assistance in the Town's discretion. 6. Title insurance shall be provided by the Town at its cost for a reasonable value of the Property. Title insurance shall be provided by WCWD at its cost for the Other Properties for a reasonable value. Copies of title insurance commitments for the Other Properties are attached hereto as Exhibits D and E. 7. There shall be no prorations and the Town transfer tax, if any, is waived. 8. Final title commitments for the Property and Other Properties shall be exchanged by the parties not later than July 25, 1989. 9. The closing shall take place on or before August 11, 1989. The hour and place of closing shall be designated by the Town. 10. Each party represents to the other that no real estate broker has any claim for compensation or expenses as a result of this transaction, and each party hereby indemnifies the other against any such claim. 11. Each party warrants that no known pollution exists on the Property or Other Properties and indemnifies the transferee for any damages resulting from any such pollution. Neither party has received copies of patent reservations, restrictive covenants, easements of record or other encumbrances on the Property or Other Properties. Within ten days of receiving said documents, each transferee may, at its sole option, cancel this Agreement. 12. As partial consideration for the benefit received herein, Town agrees to continue to clear snow around fire hydrants within Town boundaries. Clearance of snow shall be effected on a timely basis, and continue until modified by written agreement between the parties. EXECUTED as of the date hereinabove stated. TOWN OF VAIL BY Mayor ATTEST: Clerk - _ VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT '~ BY President ATTESTe Secretary STATE OF COLORADO )ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 1989, by as Mayor of the Town of Vail. Notary Public My Commission expirese STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 1989, by Edmund H. Drager, Jr, as President of Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. My Commission expires: Notary Public A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS PART OF BLOCI{ ''D" OF THE LION!S.RIDGE SUBDIVISION EAGLE , TO~•INSHIP 5 SOUTH COUI•ITY, COLORADO, SITUA RANGE 81 WEST O TED IN SECTION 1, , i•iORE PARTICULARLY F THE 6TH DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEGINNING AT THE N IS COINCIDENT ORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL, WHICH CORNER GJITH THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OF SECTION THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF WEST, 6TH PRIi~7CIPA 1, TOGJNSHIP.5 L P~SERIDIAN THEi~ICE SOUTH SOUTH, RANGE 81 00 i•iIiIUTES 45 SECONDS MINUTES , WEST 84.35 FEET, THEidCE DEGREES 04 SOUTH 18 DEGREES 26 14 SECONDS i•iIiIUTES 11 SECOi1DS iJEST 86.06 FEET, THENCE jJEST SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 . i•IIiUTES 35 SECONDS 153.30 FEET THENCE EAST 35.97 FEET THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 23 SECONDS , NORTH 04 DEGREES Ol WEST 79.80, THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES i~IIi;UTES 00 SECONDS i•III~TUTES 35 WEST 62.68 FEET, THENCE 33 NORTH 87 DEGREES 48 SECONDS EAST 196.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ~. - A PARCEL OF LAND IN BLOCK D, LIOi~I'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION,. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIINING AT A POINT P;HENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4 SE l/4) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE GTH PRINCIPAL i~IERIDIAiJ BEARS NORTH 33 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST 207.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 65.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 61.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2G DEGREES 44 MINUTES 34 SECONDS~EAST 93.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 55 SECONDS JEST 129.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST .90 FEET THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST. 51.99 FEET; TIIEIdCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES. 58 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST 87.50 FEET; THEI•ICE NORTH 07 DEGP.EES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 86.95 FEET; THERTCE I~IORTH 27 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 190.91 FEET; THEiJCE NOP.TH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 61..52 FEET; TI-IEiICE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS i~7EST 38.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. .% - "' f ~. ~ ( - EXHIBIT D :• L A N D T I `~ L E G U A R A N T E E `~ O M P A N Y Representing Title Insurance Company of Minnesota THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER May 22, 1989 - - Our Order: V13298-2 BUYER: T0~~1N OF VAIL SELLER: LION'S RIDGE WATER DISTRICT, A QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ADDRESS: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED 69ATER 846 FOREST RD. VAIL, CO 81658 1 Attn: LESLIE PICKED UP FOR DELIVER AM pM :.;,' 7 :,t: ~,' M1NN~S®T,~ T1TLE ;~~ ,,~,,.. a7L:~~ o .~., a~ d 5440 Ward Road Arvada, CO 80002 420-0241 3300 So. Parker Rd., Suite 105 Aurora, CO 80014 751-4336 1810 30th Street Boulder, CO 80301 444-4101 200 North Ridae P. O. Box 2280 Breckenridge, CO 80424 453-2255 512 Wilcox Castle Rock, CO 80104 688-6363 212 North Wahsatch Colorado Springs, CO 80903 634-4821 ~~ ~Y. ,cam . °`;'.~;- 7 .=..~ y~;...-- .,,5'Y~ ~'~.~iYri ~ c„f~t,TAr.%~.'::.+i*'?`'}~ 2I~'7y9,~;Cv? GUi=:~HNTEE 14~ ~•~f~d B 9~YO ~a GUARANTEE Cb~~13~~d~'`~°a°~3~ m~ ~tiS~9i ~ CCi1/1FANY Issued through the Office of: 108 south Frontage Road w. P.O. Box 357 Vail, CO 81658 476.2251 P. O. Box 5440 Denver, CO 80217 321-1880 8421 E. Hampden Suite 100 Denver, CO 80231 750-4223 8333 Greenwood Boulevard Denver, CO 80221 427-9353 1201 Main Avenue Durango, CO 81301 247-5860 7700 E. Arapahoe Rd. Suite 150 Englewood, CO 80112 770-9596 3600 So. Yosemite Denver, CO 80237 694.2837 3030 S. College Avenue Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80525 482-9015 710 Kipling Street Lakewood, CO 80215 232.31 1 1 3609 So. `J'ladsworth Suite 115 Lakewood, CO 80235 988-8550 11990 Grant Street Suite 220 Northglenn, CO 80233 452-0149 19590 East Main Street Parker, CO 80134 841-4900 108 South Frontage Road W. P.O. Box 357 Vail, CO 81658 476-2251 ~: .a: _ :_'-^`: "=.i:~it:'•"-"7. Y~`- ~t~' „"' fJ -.^.,;; -c.;f4~:.~<,~~r Y7 tiny, T.'Y~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ T~ t~sur~ ~~ ~,: `= ALTA Commitment-1970 Rev. f~ I ICI N E S OT,4 TITLE o ,~~ N J b 1. The term "mortgage"', when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed lnsured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure of the proposed Insured to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith ~a) to comply with the requirements hereof or fib) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. STANDARD EXCEPTIONS In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements,. not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and whir.h are not sho~~m by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a (ten, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shovdn by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Title Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. - This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount or the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA A Stock Company 400 Second Avenue S ~~~~~y Aurhorired Signatory. - ,f ®~l ~" ~=+e ~l~ ~~u 55401 President ~~~ Attest Seuetary TIM Form 2582 .~ ~. . . •• A L T(:~ C O M M I T M E N T \ SCHEDULE A Application No. V13298-2 For Information Only - Charges - ALTA Owner Policy $377.00 - - TOTAL - - $377.00 With your remittance please refer to V13298-2. 1. Effective Date: May 15, 1989 at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy $250,000.00 Form B-1970 (Amended 10-17-70) Proposed Insured: TOWN OF VAIL 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: LION'S RIDGE WATER DISTRICT, A QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS PART OF BLOCK "D" OF THE LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, SITUATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL, WHICH CORNER IS COINCIDENT WITH THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 84.35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS 6JEST 86.06 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 153.30 FEET THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECOPIDS EAST 35.97 FEET, THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES Ol PAGE 1 - ~ ' ~ :- ( , , A L T` ::" C O M M I T M E N T \` SCHEDULE A Application No. V13298-2 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST 79.80, THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 62.68 FEET, THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST 196.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND A PARCEL OF LAND IN BLOCK D, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS NORTH 33 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST 207.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 65,15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 61.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 93.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 129.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST .90 FEET THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 51.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST 87.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 07 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 86.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 190.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 61,52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 88,15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE 2 • ~ " ~-. ~, A L T `: _= ` C O M M I T M E N T \= SCHEDULE B-1 (Requirements) Application No. V13298-2 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-t~~it: 3. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. ?. WARRANTY DEED FROM LION'S RIDGE ~~ATER DISTRICT, A QUASI-riUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO TOWN OF VAIL CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETURN ADDRESSES ON DOCUMENTS SENT FOR RECORDING!! PAGE 3 . ~ / A L T~._ C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B-2 C' (Exceptions) Application No. V13298-2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREti1ISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED December 29, 1920, IN BOOK 93 AT PAGE 42. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED December 29, 1920, IN BOOK 93 AT PAGE 42. 11. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED July 25, 1969, IN BOOK 215 AT PAGE 649 AND AS Ar1ENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED December 02, 1970, IN BOOK 219 AT PAGE 235. 12. EASEMENTS AS RESERVED AND EXCEPTED 10 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG EACH SIDE OF ALL INTERIOR LOT LINES AND 20 FEET IN WIDTH INWARD FROM THE WESTERLY BANK OF RED SANDSTONE CREEK FOR UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES AS SHOj~N ON THE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION. 13. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR RED SANDSTONE CREEK AS SHOGJN ON TIIE RECORDED PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION. 14. RESTRICTION AS CONTAINED IN DECLARATION RECORDED DECEP-1BER 12, 1973 IN BOOK 232 AT PAGE 474 THAT NO STRUCTURE FOR OCCUPANCY BY HUP~IAN BEINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OR MAINTAINED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15. TERP~IS, COPIDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF 6JATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT RECORDED t~iay 20, 1974 IN BOOK 234 AT PAGE 742. PAGE 4 ,, • E:~HIBIT E "~ s' ~:.ai ~~ ~ ~ ' L A N D T I 2~ E G U A R A N T' E E 1. 0 M P A N Y Representing Title Insurance Company of Minnesota THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER '~ May 22, 1989 Our Order: V13297-3 BUYER: TOWN OF VAIL SELLER: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED ~9ATER DISTRICT A, QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ADDRESS: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED P7ATER 846 FOREST DR. VAIL, CO 81657 1 Attn: LESLIE PICKED UP FOR DELIVER AM pj,~ ivlil\li~ESOT~ TITLE ,- ~~ ~~~~\ ~. O 1:~ 5440 Ward Road Arvada, CO 80002 420-0241 3300 So. Parker Rd., Suite 105 Aurora, CO 80014 751-4336 1810 30th Street Boulder, CO 80301 444-4101 200 North Ridac P. O. Box 2280 Breckenridge, CO 80424 453-2255 512 Wilcox Castle Pock, CO 80104 688-6363 212 North Wahsatch Colorado Springs, CO 80903 634-4821 `\q {~ ~ s~ :~i \-1 ~~~3~3fa~'l~l~~ ~® ~IlSi3tl ~ Issued through the ice of: P. O. Box 5440 Denver, CO 80217 321-1880 8421 E. Hampden Suite 100 Denver, CO 80231 750-4223 8333 Greenwood Boulevard Denver, CO 80221 427-9353 - 1201 1.1ain Avenue Durango, CO 81301 247-5960 7700 E. Araoahoe Rd. Suite 150 En.glev.~ood, CO 80112 770-9596 3600 So. Yosemite Denver, CO 80237 694-2837 GUARANTEE CC,'viPANY 108 South Frontage Road W. P.O. Eox 357 Vail, CO 81658 476-2251 3030 S. College Avenue Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80525 482-901 5 710 Kipling Street Lakewood, CO 8021 S 232-31 1 1 3609 So. Wadsworth Suite 115 Lakewood, CO 80235 988-8550 11990 Grant Street Suite _'~0 Northglenn, CO 80233 452-O1 49 19590 Easi 7.1ain Street Parker, CO S0134 841-4900 108 South Frontage Road W. P.O. Box 357 Vail, CO 81658 476-2251 GUt~.Rt:1~1TEE ^~''~'~-~-'A`~-Yu. 'u~-i '.nt ~4,iC'~f:.ia C-.~ ...~C.:~ ~+i~/!. .:'~+:.~a ~_s. ~ ~L'.'...~: i.'tii': ~.~.i;e.f:~ _ .C' ~...-.: M_~t. .s_!v~. .-.w1:re-~. ~ .~~._ .. < , ~o ~. •.e+~ ALTA Commitment-1970 Rev. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and M I ICI ICI E S OTA charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations TITLE hereof. ~,~ >``~ ~ This Commitment shall be effective only v:hen the ideniir~ of the proposed Insured and the amount or the ~ ~~~E policy cr policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the polic}r or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledne of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure of the proposed Insured to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company othen,vise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Compam; from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (alto comply with the requirements hereof or Ib- to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c1 to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and rnaoe a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. STANDARD EXCEPTIONS In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the follovving: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed bylaw and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Title Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA A Stock Company 400 Second Avenue So , Minneap ~ , inn ota 55401 ~~jl ~ ~~ o ~~--~a ,A] e ~ President Authorize Signatory ~ % (/ •-~ Attest "~T d ""` ""-"`^ Secretary TIM Form 2582 ,.~ ' - _.. - ' c -... . A L T A~ , C O M M I T M E N T ~` SCHEDULE A Application No. V13297-3 For Information Only - Charges - ALTA Owner Policy $552.00 - - TOTAL - - $552.00 With your remittance please refer to V13297-3. 1. Effective Date: May 15, 1989 at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy $450,000.00 Form B-1970 (Amended 10-17-70) Proposed Insured: T0~4N OF VAIL 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple ~. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT A, QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ~. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: _ TRACT C, VAIL VILLAGE, SEVENTH FILING, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. 'AGE 1 - ~... '~ • I .r. . A L T A C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B-1 (Requirements) Application No. V13297-3 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit: 3. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIOLIS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 4. WARRANTY DEED FROM VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED L+TATER DISTRICT A, QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO TOWN OF VAIL CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REpUIRES RETURN ADDRESSES ON DOCUMENTS SENT FOR RECORDING!! 'AGE 2 ~_. , A L T A C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B-2 (Exceptions) Application No. V13297-3 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. s. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY' OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED May 27, 1926, IN BOOK 93 AT PAGE 146. 10. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED December 07, 1965, IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE 515. 11. EASEP~IENT TEN FEET IN WIDTH ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LOT LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF VAIL VILLAGE, SEVENTH FILING. 12. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR GORE CREEK AS IT AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. 13. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED .FEBRUARY 23, 1989 IN BOOK 500 AT PAGE 878. 'AGE 3 P ., ~ .9 ~ ae~~A Indoor ,4ir Facts Noo 5 environmental Tobacco Smoke Environmental 1~obacco Smoke (ETS) is one of the most widespread and harmful indoor air pollutants. ETS comes From secondhand smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream smoke emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. E'f'S is a mixture of irritating gases and carcinogenic tar particles. It is a known cause of lung cancer and respiratory symptoms, and has been linked to heart disease. Breathing in ET'S is also known as 'involun- tary" or "passive" smoking. 11Vhat's The Big Deal About A Little Smoke? In the United States, 50 million smokers annually smoke approximately 600 billion cigarettes, 4 billion cigars, and the equivalent of 11 billion pipesful of tobacco. Since people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors, this means that about 467,000 tons of tobacco are burned indoors each year. Over a 16-hour day, the average smoker smokes about two cigarettes per hour, and takes about ten minutes per cigarette. 't'hus, it takes only a few smokers in a given space to release amore-or- less steady stream of ETS into the indoor air. In 1985, three major bodies were independently convened to consider the public health implications of passive smoking. Commissioned by the U.S. Public 1 {ealth Service under the Surgeon General, by the National Research Council (NRC) at the request of 1?PA, and by the congressionally-mandated Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer, lleart, and Lung Disease, the three bodies arrived at a consensus: passive smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer in adults. (n the words of the Surgeon General, "a substantial number of the lung cancer deaths that occur among nonsmokers can be attributed to involuntary smoking.' Moreover, there was agreement that passive smoking substantially increases respiratory illness in children and the NIZC recommended eliminating E7'S from the environ- ments of small children. UVhy ETS Is Harmful Because the organic material in tobacco docsn•t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than ~3,?(lO chemical compounds, including: carbon monoxide, nicotine, carcinogenic tars, sulfur dioxide, ammoni,r, nitrogen oxides, vinyl chloride, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, radionuclides, benzene, and arsenic. These chemicals have been shown in animal studies to be highly toxic. Many are treated as hazardous when emitted into outdoor air by toxic-waste dumps and chemical plants. '['here are 43 carcinogenic compounds in tobacco smoke. [n addition, some substances arc mutagcnic, which means they can cause permanent, often harmful, changes in the genetic material of cells. EPA research has shown that I?'1-S is the major source of mutagens indoors when smoking occurs. Fligher levels of mutagenic particles arc found in homes with 1?'1'S than in homes with wood stoves or in outdoor urban environments with numerous diesel trucks and busts. Many studies have shown that nonsmokers ah>orh E'I~S cornponcnts in their body fluids. I he rff~•ct of f"I'S on nonsmokers depends on the dur,tion of exposure. according to the National Itescar~h Council, short-term visitors to a smoking area arc most likely to he annoyed by the tobacco smoke odors, whereas nonsmoking occupants of the area are more likely to complain about irritating of fccts to the; eyes, Host or throat. Long-term exposure to L"I~S may I~ad to more serious health effects. Impact On Children Passive smoking induces serious respiratory symp- toms in children. Wheezing, coughing and sputum _ production among children of smoking parents increase by 20 percent to 80 percent depending on the symptom being assessed and the number of smokers in the household. Asthmatic children arc particularly at risk. A , Y Children of smokers have significantly higher rates of hospitalization for bronchitis and pneu- monia, and a number of studies report that chronic ear infections are more common in young children whose parents smoke. Also lung development is slower in children exposed to CTS. lung problems caused by ETS exposure in childhood can extend into adult life. ETS And Cancer "I he U.S. Surgeon General and the NRC agree that }?T"S can cause cancer-. The NItC estimates that the risk of lung cancer is roughly 30 percent higher for nonsmoking spouses of smokers than for nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. In 1986, an estimated 23,000 U.S. nonsmokers died from lung cancer, and the Surgeon General attributes a substantial number of those deaths to passive smoking. ETS And Heart Disease The Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer, }-lean, and Lung Disease Workshop on f~"I'S concluded that the effects of i~.'I"S on the heart may be of even greater concern than its cancer-causing effects on the lungs. f"hS aggravates the condition of people with heart disease, and several studies have linked involuntary smoking with heart disease. ETS's Contribution To Indoor Air Pollution There are many potential sources of indoor air pollution, including chemicals emanating from building materials, furnishings, and consumer pro- ducts; gases from combustion appliances like space heaters and Furnaces; and biological contaminants from a variety of sources. E3ecause cigarettes, pipes, and cigars produce clouds of tar' particles when smoked, f'f'S is a major contributor of particulate indoor air pollution. L?"hS also contributes numerous toxic gases to indoor air, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and ammonia. [~ield studies, controlled experiments, and mathe- matical models show that, under typical conditions of smoking and ventilation, E"["S diffuses rapidly throughout buildings and homes, persists for long periods after smoking ends, and represents one of the strongest sources of indoor-air particulate pol- lution in buildings where smoking is permitted. Studies of indoor air quality in commercial and public buildings show that particulate levels in areas where smoking is permitted arc considerably higher than in nonsmoking areas. Studies using personal air monitors have shown that a single smoker in a borne can double the amount of p;rrticul:uc :rir ~u,llution inhaled by nonsmoking rncmhers of the household. Evidence Of iVonsmoker Exposure Nicotine, a chemical uniyuc to tobacco, has been found to he a widespread air contaminant in build- ings where smoking occurs. Nicotine breaks down into cotinine as it passes through the hod v. cotinine can be detected and measured in tlrc saln;r. blood, and urine of nonsmokers, indicating thc:~ have absorbed tobacco smoke from the air. (.'oncentrr- tions of cotinine have been found in the h<uiv fluids of infants of smoking parents, and of ;,dolts who were unaware they had been exposed to I? I~S. Removal Of ETS From Indoor Air Environmental tobacco smoke can he totally removed from the indoor air only by removing the source (cigarette smoking). Separating smokers and non- smokers in the same morn Wray reduce, hr.rt will not eliminate, nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke. Placing smokers and non-smokers in separate morns that are on the same ventilation system also may reduce nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke; this approach, however, will proh;rhly not eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke since most pollutants readily disperse through a cornrnon ;rir space and since, in public or cornrnercial hurldings, must I IVAC systems recirculate much of the: cont:,rninatcd indoor air. Irt 1981, the ~\merican Society of I Ie;rtrntc, Itclri gcrating, and ;\ir-Conditioning I~.nRrncers (A.SIIRAF.), in its standard °Ventilation for -\cccpt- ahle indoor Air Cluality° recommended Five cubic feet of outside air per rninutc per occupant (cfm/occ) in smoke-free office buildings ;urd ?t) cfm/occ in buildings where smoking is pcrntitted. These recommendations were not designed to reduce health risks (for example, limiting cancer incidence or eye irritation); rather, the rccomrncndations were intended to control the nrlrrr from toh:rcco snrc,kc so that 80 percent of visitors (smokers and nonsmokers combined) to the building find it acceptable. ;~ proposed revision of this standard recommends a minimum of I S cfm/occ in ;.rll buildings. Research indicates tfwt total removal of tnhacco smoke through ventilation is both technically <uid economically impractical. I he effectiveness of air filters For rcntoving I~. f S p;o~ticles I runt rbc• rnil„or air is generally dependent on the typc:,nd cffic iency of the air clc•anc'r used; the cffcctrvcncss of ;trr cleaners in removing the gaseous e:omponc•nts of 2 ~_ ~ , Y tobacco smoke and other air pollutants requires further research. Since there is no established, health-based thres- hold for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and since EPA generally does not recognize a no- effect or safe level for cancer causing agents, the Agency recommends that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke be minimized wherever possible. "I~he most effective way to minimize exposure is to restrict smoking to smoking areas that are separately ventilated and directly exhausted to the outside, or by eliminating smoking in the building entirely. The Public Reaction To ETS People are becoming increasingly sensitized to the issue of [:'I"S. Numerous surveys have documented that the majority of both smokers and nonsmokers support restrictionson smoking in public, particular- ly in the workplace. In a 1987 Gallup National Opinion Survey, ~5 percent of all persons inter- viewed (including smokers and nonsmokers) were in favor of a total ban on all smoking in public places. Association, Cancer Society or I kart ~\ssociation, or the following: Office on Smoking and Ilcalth U.S. Public Ilcalth Service ~GUO [~ishers Lane, Room I-10 Rockville, i~~1U 2U8~7 Public Relations Office r\mcrican Society crf I Icahn); Rcfrigcratins~ and ;\ir C'cntditic)ning Engineers (;\SI I IZ;\ l'.) 1791 'fullie Circle, NI:. Atlanta, GA .30329 O(lice crf Cancer Cctntrnurucations National Cancer Instrtute I-800-4-C;\NCI•:R Smoking Policy Institute 914 I?ast .Icffcrson Suitt 219 P.<). liox 20271 Seattle, \~'A c)81U2 As a result, thousands of businesses and hundreds Americans for Nonsmokers RiL;hts of cities, as well as over 40 states and the District of 2U~4 llnivcrsity ~\vcnuc Suite ~UU Columbia restrict smoking in various settings. The Berkeley, CA 94704 number continues to grow rapidly. Conclusion EPA shares the recommendations of the 1986 Sur- geon General's Report: o Adults should protect the health of children by not exposing them to environmental tobacco smoke. Action on SmokinS and ) (ealth 2013 I I Street, '`'W. Washington, lX' 20006 Cigarette smoke` is only une of rnanv indoor air pollutants that can afFcct your licaltlt :ntd c:,,mfurt. Other I~.l'\ t)uhlications conccrnin); the yu;rlit~ of ind~ror arr tncludc: o L:mployers and employees should ensure that the act of smoking does not expose nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke by restricting smoking to separately ventilated areas or banning smoking From buildings. o Smokers shc)uld ensure that their behavior does not jeopardize the health of others. o Nonsmokers should support smokers who are trying to quit. For (Vlore In>•ormation for additional information on environmental tobacco smoke, contact your state or local I~ealth depart- ments, nonprofit agencies such as your local Lung o The lnctrlr .Src,rv: :1 f~rnr/c- rn Inclc,r>r :t it l.)rrulirv o l)irecrurtr r)j .tirrrre lndnnr air (:currucr.~ o lnclnc,r ;1 it l~~ucrs ~! / : l:l'.-1 unrl /nrlnnr ;tit ~)rnrl irt~ o lrrdrwr .•lir /'crcLS rlZ: ll';1 /ndoc~r .fir r>tnrliry lmplemcnrurinn !'!un o Indoor ~1ir l~ucLc rr3: Venlilurion uurl .tir ~)unlily in Ojjice.r o lndour ;lir Facts rr4: .Sick 1luilclin~~s "f'hese publications, as well as additional copies of this fact sheet, arc available from: Public Information Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code }'M-21113 4Ul M Strcct, SW. Washington, IX' 20460 3 IF~IC~'~ ~~®~J~' S~CO~TD]E~AI~~ SIi~®KE The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, the 1986 Surgeon's General Report which was peer-reviewed by more than 60 scientists, concludes: Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers. Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke. The technology for the cost effective filtration of tobacco smoke from the air is currently not available. The children of parents who smoke, compared to children of nonsmoking parents, have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures. Cigarettes contain over 3,800 chemicals. Hazardous substances in secondhand smoke include: carbon monoxide, nicotine, tars, hydrogen cyanide, benzopyrene, arsenic, formaldehyde, cadmium, benzene, nitrogen dioxide, and radioactive elements. There is no safe exposure level to many of these toxic elements. Every time anyone lights a cigarette, cigar or pipe, smoke enters the atmosphere from two sources. First, sidestream smoke goes directly into the air from the burning end of the cigarette. Second, mainstream smoke is exhaled directly by the smoker. • Cigarette smokers inhale and exhale mainstream smoke eight or nine times with each cigarette for a total of 24 seconds. But the cigarette burns for 12 minutes and pollutes the air continuously with sidestream smoke, which is more noxious than mainstream smoke. Smoke from an "idling" cigarette contains nearly twice the amount of tar and nicotine, up to five times as much carbon monoxide and 50 times as much ammonia than smoke that is directly inhaled. The total smoke exposure to nonsmokers is smaller than the exposure to the smoker, but the smoke nonsmokers breath is richer in certain hazardous compounds than mainstream smoke. ",one hour spent in asmoke-filled room is equivalent to smoking a ci~aretteo" U.S. Surgeon General, January 1989 GASP o1 Colorado Group To Alleviate Smoking Pollution Box 12103 . Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 444-9799 • 1 Answers T'o Frequently Asked Questions About Laws Protecting Nonsmokers in Public Places This paper responds to the major questions and concerns raised about laws restricting smoking in public. O. What do clean Indoor air laws do? A. They protect nonsmokers from the toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke by restricting where smoking is permitted in public places, restaurants, and places of employment. Q . why are such laws needed? A. Smoking controls are needed to protect the health, welfare, and safety of nonsmokers by reducing their exposure to the toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences, and every major health organization that has studied the effects of secondhand smoke has concluded that smoking is hazardous to the health of nonsmokers. The 1986 Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking, which was peer-reviewed by over 60 scientists, concludes that ° Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers. ° Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke. ° The children of parents who smoke, compared to children of nonsmoking parents, have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures. Scientists have determined that tobacco smoke is the worst source of indoor air pollution. Tobacco smoke indoors often exceeds the levels governments sets for outdoor pollution. This fact is important because most Americans spend more time indoors than outdoors. In addition, new scientific evidence indicates that exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to heart disease. The only entity that disputes these facts is the tobacco industry, which still does not admit that smoking kills smokers. C . How well do these laws work? A. The experience in 40 other states, in more than 300 communities all over the United States, and in more than 30 Colorado communities such as Denver, Fort Collins, Littleton, Colorado Springs, and Grand Junction indicates that these laws work well. Smoking restrictions are very popular, self- enforcing, and are good for businesses. Q . If these laws are basically self-enforcing, why are penalties needed? A. It is very important to have some kind of penalty clause in such laws to act as a deterrent, to insure that these laws are taken seriously, and to insure that there is a reliable and ongoing means of enforcement, in those cases in which it is necessary. Q . Isn't this another example of governmental restriction on personal freedom? A. These laws do not ban smoking or force smokers to quit smoking. They merely require that smokers smoke-in areas where they do not harm others. Limitations of certain personal freedoms are subject to restriction when they endanger the rights, health, and safety of others. Since secondhand smoke harms nonsmokers, smoking should be restricted in public places. C . will most people obey these laws? A. According to a 1988 Denver Post poll, 75% of Colorado's adults are nonsmokers already. Most smokers obey and support these laws in communities and states where they have been enacted because: (1) A majority would like to quit smoking; (2) Many don't want to create health problems for nonsmokers; and (3) Smoking in public places, especially restaurants, often annoys many smokers. Good sign placement, which is usually required by these laws, is the key element that makes these laws work. C . How well are these laws accepted by the public? A. A 1988 Denver Post-News Center 4 poll revealed that 89% of Coloradans support smoking restrictions in restaurants (84% of smokers, 92% of nonsmokers) and that 84% of Coloradans support smoking restrictions in the workplace (79% of smokers, 90% of nonsmokers). Other major independent public opinion polls conducted in the United States since the late 1970s show that the ., overwhelming majority of smokers and nonsmokers support restricting smoking in public places and places of employment. 2 ~ . Just how dangerous Is secondhand smoke? A. Tobacco smoke contains more than 3,800 chemical compounds that include poisons, irritants, and carcinogens that are emitted into the air. There is no safe exposure level for many of these toxic substances. An 1989 study by a commission appointed by the Envirorimental Protection Agency lists secondhand smoke as one of the top five hazards that are the worst health threats to metro area residents. A 1988 report in the scientific journal Environment International concludes that the total adult mortality in the United States from passive smoking is 46,000 deaths per year, with 3,000 Irom lung cancer, 11,000 from cancers other than lung cancer, and 32,000 from ischemic heart disease. O. Won't common courtesy resolve the problem? A. If courtesy were adequate 4o protect people, we would need no laws at all. Laws do not Interfere with people who are courteous; they only interfere with people who plan to be discourteous and Inconsiderate. In addition, nonsmokers should not have to ask total strangers to stop smoking in order to conduct their daily business in a healthy environment. Simple signs indicating smoking and no smoking sections will allow both smokers and nonsmokers to be comfortable without confrontation. The vast majority of smokers, being law-abiding, should obey signs. A . Do these laws infringe on people's privacy? A. Smoking control laws do not apply to private homes, offices, or cars. It is only when smoking affects and endangers the health of innocent people that it is subject to regulation. C . Why not let businesses and restaurants take care of the problem on a voluntary basis? A. The government has an obligation to protect the public health and to take positive steps to eliminate health hazards. Voluntary programs are not used to control other health problems, such as toxic wastes, sanitation, asbestos, or radioactive exposure, and therefore should also not be used to control the exposure to secondhand smoke. Voluntary efforts to correct this problem simply have not worked. Owners and manager of local businesses and restaurants have often indicated that they will not initiate smoking restrictions on their own unless they are required by law. ~ . Why not let the marketplace resolve the problem, especially in restaurants? A. To say we should let the marketplace handle smoking pollution or any other health problems is like saying that the marketplace should handle the problem of sanitary food handling. A . Do these laws cause confrontations between smokers and nonsmokers, thereby disrupting the workplace and. causing confrontations in other public places? A. Confrontation problems between smokers and nonsmokers already exist. The whole purpose of these laws is to end such confrontations by requiring employers to provide smoke-free areas for nonsmokers, while allowing employers to provide areas for employees to smoke where smoking will not affect nonsmokers. Based on the experience of other communities and states, smokers and nonsmokers get along quite well when everyone knows the rules. By establishing clear-cut rules these laws do more to decrease confrontations than to cause them. The need for laws requiring the posting of no-smoking signs can be compared to the need for traffic lights and stop signs. Most drivers obey stop signs, but if there were no lights or stop signs, drivers would not know where to stop. Just as drivers do not usually stop at an unmarked intersection, smokers do not usually refrain from smoking unless there is a sign indicating that smoking is not permitted. 0. Who promotes these laws? A. Abroad-based coalition consisting of members of the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASP of Colorado), American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Colorado Heart Association, environmental groups, health departments, and various civic organizations, businesses, political leaders, and private individuals support the passage of these laws. ~~ O. What kind of arguments are typical of the tobacco Industry? A. The tobacco industry uses three basic tactics in an effort to divert the attention away from the fact 3 that secondhand smoke is a health hazard. These tactics are based on Denial, Distraction, and Deception. Here is how the tobacco industry uses these tactics: DENIAL: Deny the scientific evidence, even though there are more than 50,000 scientific studies on smoking and more than 600 on passive smoking. DISTRACTION: Distract the public attention from the health issue by bringing up other issues. DECEPTION: Deceive the public by using half-truths, leaving out vital information, quoting out of context, quoting conferences that are meaningless because papers are not peer-reviewed, or using questionable or outdated studies. O. What about cost to government and the taxpayers? A. The initial governmental cost will be minimal, and generally less than it costs to implement most health regulations. In every instance, all over the country, where these laws have been enacted, enforcement has always been done by existing staff. There has never been a need to hire more people to administer-and enforce these laws. Letters, affidavits, and testimonials from enforcement agencies all over the United States show that most complaints regarding violations can be handled and corrected by phone or mail. O. What about the cost to businesses? A. Since most of these laws do not require building modifications, the only cost is for signs. Such signs will generally be less expensive than the ash trays and ash cans that many businesses have been providing for their smoking patrons. In fact, free signs are often available from the health agencies promoting these laws. Research by economists shows that in the long run, smoking restrictions will save businesses money by reducing absenteeism, health and fire insurance premiums, ventilation costs, interior cleaning, and maintenance costs. Worker morale improves because employees appreciate clean and healthy working conditions. Productivity improves because nonsmokers show an increased work efficiency when they are not forced to work in a smoky environment. Smoking controls at work result in better health for all. O. Wha4 about penalties for those who break these laws? A. Violations are generally classified as an infraction and are similar to parking violations. Fines can range from $25 to $100 for the first violation, and a maximum fine between $100 to $500 for subsequent violations. It is Important to have some kind of penalty clause to act as a deterrent and to Insure tha4 4hese laws will be taken seriously. Where such laws have been enacted, fines have rarely been levied. Enforcement agencies have sought compliance through education and by issuing warnings upon a first violation. Compliance is accomplished by explaining the provisions of the ordinance and giving businesses time to comply before resorting to fines. Fines are usually only given to those businesses or people who refuse to comply. O. Don't the police have better things to do, such as stopping crime? A. Absolutely! That is why a health department, a fire department, or an environmental enforcement division should enforce these laws. Since these government agencies enforce other health or environmental regulations and inspect many businesses anyway, they are the ideal agencies to enforce these laws. Since these laws are basically self-enforcing and compliance is obtained primarily by phone or mail, the workload for these government agencies will not greatly increase. Citations are extremely rare and have only been given when businesses steadfastly refuse to comply after several warnings. The police should not need to get involved. O. How do these laws work? A. Older laws provide for separate smoking and nonsmoking sections in public places. Newer laws, passed as knowledge of the dangers of secondhand smoke has increased, prohibit all smoking or limit smoking to a few fully enclosed separately ventilated areas. O. How do these laws work In places of employment? A. Employers are usually required to institute policies to protect nonsmoking employees. Employees are given the right to a smoke-free work area. Smoking is generally prohibited in auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, hallways, medical facilities and restrooms in the workplace. Other important stipulations in workplace provisions are: (1) A nonretaliation clause prohibiting an employer from disciplining, terminating, or retaliating in any way against employees who seek to enforce their rights (many communities have other laws prohibiting an employer from taking actions against an employee for reporting health or safety violations); (2) A provision giving employees the right to declare their work area as a nonsmoking area and post a sign to that effect; and (3) A clause stating that the right of 4 the nonsmoker to a healthy work environment shall be given precedence over the desires of a smoker in settling disputes. O. What areas are normally exempted from such laws? A. Hotel and motel rooms rented to guests, retail tobacco stores, private homes, private social functions, private enclosed office work places exclusively occupied by smokers, and taverns or bars are exempt. The goal of these laws is not prohibition, but to regulate smoking in public places to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the general public. The exemptions granted are generally fair-minded. For example, bars have generally been exempted because of the impracticality of providing separate no- smoking areas. It has been suggested that bars be required to have no-smoking nights as a solution to this dilemma, but no ordinance has done this so far. O. Is there an ideal amount of time that should be allowed before such laws become effective once they pass? A. Effective dates vary anywhere from one week to 90 days. An ideal period of time is 30 to 90 days. This will give enforcement officials plenty of time to create and send out brochures or flyers to businesses and restaurants, and will give businesses time to order signs and create new policies. O. How Important are community educat(onal campaigns? Are they worth the expense? A. Brochures and flyers explaining these laws should be printed and sent to businesses, retail stores, and restaurant owners as soon as these laws pass. As a public service, most communities already print up brochures about other important community services and laws on subjects such as leaf pickup, bicycle usage, water conservation, and crime prevention. Postage costs can be saved by either sending out the information with utility bills or with the monthly sales report forms most cities use. GASP of Colorado and other nonprofit health agencies can provide additional information and assistance in helping write or develop educational brochures. Educational campaigns will speed up compliance with these laws and substantially decrease the number of complaints received, once the laws take effect. For example, the City of Boulder sent out flyers to all restaurants explaining the ordinance before it went into effect and thus achieved compliance with the law by a majority of restaurants by the effective date. Since such efforts will cut down on complaints of noncompliance, they will also decrease the governmental costs of following up on complaints. In addition, educational campaigns show the community that the government is serious about these laws and that the government is making every effort to insure compliance. O. Where can one obtain more information about these laws and about secondhand smoke? A. Contact the enforcement agencies in communities and states where such laws exist to obtain copies of laws, information on enforcement, costs, and so on. Various health agencies can supply more information and assist in developing laws and educational brochures. O. What is GASP? A. GASP of Colorado (Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution) is a statewide nonprofit organization working to assure clean smoke-free air for everyone, in public places, restaurants, and at work. GASP is supported by annual membership donations and public contributions. All membership dues and contributions are tax-deductible. GASP of Colorado has been working on the issue of nonsmokers' rights since 1977. GASP can provide additional information about the topics in this paper upon request. GASP of Colorado (Group To Alleviate Smoking Pollution) Box 12103, Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 444-9799. An educational paper. 4 GASP Paper #27 lE-l[l[®~ 'g'® AI~TSW~IZ AIZGgJIi~IEI~T'g'S A~®IJ'~' SIVI®I«NG The Pollution Argument There's so much pollution. What difference does tobacco smoke make? ANSWER Tobacco smoke paralyzes the cilia in the lungs and reduces the capacity of our bodies to handle the pollutants which are part of our lives. This is why smokers are more prone to colds and other diseases. Also, pollutants are synergistic; several together can be more harmful than would seem to be their total effect. Besides, smoking is the major polluter of indoor air. A majority of people spend most of their time indoors. The Car Argument Why don't you help by not driving your car? ANSWER While car pollution is definitely a problem, our society has accepted much of it because of its redeeming use. On the other hand, there is no redeeming need for smoking. Research shows that indoor pollution from tobacco smoke is, in most cases, worse than the outdoor pollution. We are talking about an indoor problem. You don't see too many people driving cars indoors. No one would allow the kinds of outdoor pollution (to which they compare cigarettes) to exist indoors. For example, a car would never be permitted to give off fumes in a restaurant or in a workplace. The Courtesy-Is-Adequate Argument: ANSWER If courtesy were adequate to protect people, we would need no laws at all. How can courtesy handle large gatherings or places where people are already in attendance and smoking? Besides, regulations do not interfere with people who are courteous; they only interfere with people who plan to be inconsiderate. I Have a Right to Smoke it I Want to. It You Ask Me to Stop, I Can Ask You to Stop Breathing: ANSWER Smoking and clean indoor air cannot be equated. Clean indoor air and breathing are necessary to life; smoking isn't. Besides, most laws do not guarantee anyone the right to pollute the air. I Smoke Because Everybody Does: ANSWER It is a proven fact that two thirds of the American adult population does not smoke. National statistics indicate that there are about 50 million smokers. People Put on Weight When They Quit Smoking: ANSWER There is an error in reasoning; we see many fat smokers. Just eat sensibly. Besides, you would have to gain 60 to 100 pounds to tax your heart as much as you do by smoking a pack a day. Because smoking is such a strain on your heart and lungs, maybe that's why you lose weight when you smoke. We Need the Taxes from Tobacco Sales: ANSWER This is shortsighted. We lose more from the death, disease, and destruction caused by tobacco than we gain from tobacco taxes. Why should the government make money as a drug pusher since nicotine is classified as an addictive drug? If tax revenue were our only concern, we could legalize prostitution and tax it. I'm Not Hurting Anyone When I Smoke: ANSWER Your loved ones and anyone near you are being harmed by smoke pollutants. You are setting a bad example for your children and are practicing child abuse by forcing your children to breathe polluted air. It is a fire hazard to you and your family and it raises everyone's insurance rates. Continues on back... fey Grandfafher Lived 4o Be 90 and Smoked All His Life: ANSWER You could put on a blindfold and walk across a busy highway at rush hour and possibly not get hurt. This does not make it a wise thing to do and only a small percentage of those who tried would survive. Your grandfather was one of those fortunate enough to survive. One thousand people die every day of the year due to smoking related diseases or fires. Statistics do not lie: smoking shortens life. Smokers are inclined to point to the few survivors who have smoked a lifetime. Yet smokers fail to consider the millions who have succumbed at an early age to cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other diseases related to smoking. Also, don't forget those around your grandfather. Secondhand smoke kills thousands of Americans every year and causes a great deal of eye, nose, and throat irritation. Smokers risk not only their health, but also the health of those around them as well. I Can'4 Tell My Customers Not to Smoke in I~iy Store: ANSWER It's your store, and you have a right to restrict smoking to protect your employees, your customers, and your merchandise. If smokers can go to a movie and refrain from smoking for an hour and a half or during two hour flights, surely they can refrain during the time they are in your store. The Hospitality Argument You Cannot Ask Your Guests Not to Smoke. ANSVNER Your first obligation is to provide safe accommodations for your guests., the majority of whom are probably nonsmokers. Just as you would not serve bad food, you should not allow polluted air. As for your smoking quests, they wouldn't like you to tempt them to drink if they were alcoholics; they wouldn't like you to tempt them with sugar if they were diabetics. The Argument from the Group The Majority of Those at a Meeting Are Smokers, So the Majority Should Prevail. AfVSWER This is lynch-mob thinking. If a few people want to rob another of health, is a majority opinion the appropriate way to decide? Furthermore, tobacco use is already limited by custom in churches, funeral homes, around newborns, and by regulation in many areas. Our society accepts the idea of providing special facilities for the handicapped. Where are the special facilities for nonsmokers, who form seventy- five percent of our population? The Limitation of Freedom (The most common argument used by the tobacco lobby) ANSWER Limitation of one freedom is often necessary to protect a more important freedom. In this case, health rights are more important than the "freedom" to indulge in aself-destructive habit that also harms others. Freedom of choice is no longer the best choice when that choice endangers others. Everyone accepts as good and proper the limits of many freedoms. That is why we have speed limits and prohibitions on spitting in public. A PUBLIC SERVICE OF GASP OF COLORADO (Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution) ° GASP wishes to acknowledge the assistance from these individuals or groups in revising this paper: Richard Briedenbach, GASP Board member, and Joseph Cherner, Anti-Smoking Educational Services. PASSII~IG LOCAL S1i~iOKI1VG CONTROLS Mere is a brief outline of the key elements of a good lobbying campaign for clean indoor air ordinances. This formula has worked well for GASP in almost every community where it has been used. These tips are not necessarily in chronological order. Points 1, 2 ,and 3 are the most important points of all. Develop a package of information to give to your local representatives. This is a key to your campaign. ake sure that they receive the packet. If possible, give it to them personally. The three key elements of a packet are: (1) testimonials and letters from other cities, (b) information on secondhand smoke, (c) polls and other general information (see sample). You may want to divide these up rather than give them a whole packet atone time. A letter (with highlights italicized or in bold print) with a few articles may get more attention than a 40-page packet. GASP can provide assistance and materials for such packets. Begin a letter writing and phoning campaign. GASP has found that this alone can really change and gain votes in local communities. Intensify these efforts as the vote gets closer, especially phoning. Use your phone tree to urge others to call their council members. Urge your supporters to write supportive letters to the editors of local newspapers. These letters are a good way to get the word out to more people, serve as an educational tool, and help drum up support and momentum. What is the best thing to have people say when they call a council member? Lobbyists have advised us to tell our constituents to call their representatives and say, "I heard (or read) about this ordinance restricting smoking in public places on the radio (TV, newspaper, friend, or so on), I think it is great, and I would like you to support it by voting in favor of it." We have found these kinds of simple statements to be very effective. (3 Someone who is the most knowledgeable on the subject of nonsmokers rights should represent your group and ontact each council member on a one to one basis a week before the ordinance is voted on. Find out if they have any questions or objections. If something is asked that you don't have an answer for, tell the representative that you are going to look into it and will get back to them with an answer. If you can clarify questions before voting starts, you can gain votes. This has worked well everywhere we've used it and is often one of your most effective way of lobbying. Have key people from your group talk to local representatives. If someone knows a representative personally, they will be more effective. Identify people in each district who can serve as the constituent voice. Be cautious about who represents you and be sure to discuss what your compromise limits are -- what items and issues are "throw aways" and what your fall back items are. 4. Organize and get a small group of people together. Organize early. You do not need a large group. Plan your strategy and build a broad base of community support of visible, credible, respectable citizens. Get as many prominent people involved as possible. Attorneys, doctors, and environmentalists are helpful. It is important to get other people involved so that it doesn't appear as if the ordinance is being promoted by just one person. 5. Educate yourself and become familiar with the issues, pro and con. Develop a background of information that can be provided to speakers, the media, fund raisers, letter writers, and soon. 6. Develop signed petitions supporting the proposed legislation and present them to your local representatives. 7. Investigate how strong your support is by polling your representatives. You may have more support for certain kinds of smoking restrictions than for comprehensive legislation. Ask your representatives about restrictions in specific areas (supermarkets, workplace, restaurants, and so on) first, then ask them about their views on comprehensive legislation. Find out how many votes you will need to get the ordinance passed so that once your poll is done you will know which representatives you will have to really work on. Try to develop enough support to get the ordinance passed before you begin taking the ordinance to a legislative body. 8. Don't write off anybody, including smokers. Attack the tobacco industry, not the victim (the smoker). Keep in mind that polls show that a majority of smokers also support some kind of smoking restrictions. Stress the legislative benefits for smokers and nonsmokers. Stick with the issues. Ignore personal attacks and don't directly attack council or other opposition. Focus your opposition on the tobacco industry. Create a good image. Don't be afraid of those who think they are against legislation. The data are overwhelming and growing. You can win them over. Ask questions and take the time to inform and educate them. Many of those in opposition just do not know any better since they have not taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. 9. Contact other health groups, agencies, churches, special interest groups, and businesses to obtain their support. Form a coalition and encourage other agencies to have a representative in your group. Look through your yellow pages and contact agencies and individuals that you think might be supportive (doctors, hospitals, health food stores, quit- smoking clinics, environmental groups, and so on). Neighborhood groups can be very helpful; check with your local City Clerk for the ones in your area. 10. You may want to set up a speakers bureau of people who can explain the benefits of legislation, the hazards of secondhand smoke, and so on. 11. Raise some funds to cover your costs of mailings, packets, photocopying, phone calls, and other expenses 12. Form a phone tree to keep in contact with the members of your group and any other interested people. Organizers should divide up the calling among volunteers (10 people per person minimum.) 13. Set up a group of volunteers and have them do specific tasks such as phoning, petitions, typing, calling, and so on. 14. Get referrals from other agencies. GASP will be glad to provide you with a list of members and other people who have contacted us for information in your area. 15. Solicit endorsements from local business people. 16. Develop mailings and reminders to be sent to supporters. 17. Contact the local media and keep them informed. Solicit the support of the newspaper editorial boards. 18. Hold public meetings. To get the word out to the general public involve the press and use editorials, flyers, press releases, and mailouts. Give plenty of notice, use out-of-town experts (the media will give more attention to this, unless you have some special local personality joining your cause). Choose an easily accessible location. 19. Prepare your group for testimony. Have people lined up to cover all areas of the issue. Instruct them to dress well. Find out what the time limits are for testimony and keep within them. Get help from GASP or other agencies if you need people in business or professional people for medical testimony. GASP can also help prepare you and provide you with information on how to respond to the opposition. Keep in mind that those in favor usually testify first, so the opposition will have the "last word." In some cities, you may be able to rebut anything said by the opposition. However, this isn't done very often, so anticipate what the opposition will say and counter it during your testimony. If you find a council member who is really interested in the issue, provide them with all the information needed to counter the opposition. Once the opposition gets up to speak, you cannot, so the only support you'll get at that time will come from a council member. It is always a good idea to set the tone of the hearings by having someone review the hazards of secondhand smoke. This should be someone with a medical or a health background if possible. If you cannot find someone in your local health department, contact GASP or other health agencies for help. 20. USE THE MEDIA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. The media should be contacted often because publicity can really help turn things around in your favor. 21. As a last result, if you do not think you will get enough support to get an ordinance passed through your council, you may want to try to get the council to put the issue on the ballot. However, try to get something passed through a council first if possible (it is easier, cheaper, and you avoid the problem of confronting the big bucks the tobacco industry will probably pour into attempting to overturn a ballot issue). Should you end up needing assistance in a referendum or an initiative campaign, GASP can provide you with information on how to beat the tobacco industry. 22. Lobbying for smoking controls at the city or county level is often more effective than lobbying at the state level because: (1) local politicians tend to be more responsive to their constituents than state politicians, (2) the tobacco industry is not as effective on the local level, (3) you have more time to rally people, and (4) you have less people to convince. GASP's experience with the Colorado legislature confirms this view. GASP feels that the most effective way to obtain smoking restrictions and beat the tobacco industry is through local legislation. According to the December 1988 Tobacco Observer, the tobacco industry successfully helped defeat 9 out of 10 of the 181 public smoking measures introduced in state legislatures last year, and more than half of the 296 anti-tobacco measures introduced on the local level. That says a lot about how hard it is to beat the industry on the state level! Additional Written Resources Available Nonsmoking Ordinance Guide (free)- Texas Office of Smoking & Health, 1100 W. 49th St. Austin, TX 78756. Tobacco-Free America Project Legislative Handbook: Guidelines for the Legislative Process at the Stale and Local Level (free)- Tobacco-Free America, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW #710, Washington, DC 20005. Legislative Approaches to a Smoke-Free Society ($100)- Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 2054 University Above. Ste 500, Berkeley, CA 94704. ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS Colorado's Smoking Controls, San Diego, A Formula For Success, Table of Contents for A Packet of Information, A, Sample Letter To Supporters, A Sample Petition. GASP ®f ~®lorad® QGr®up t® Alleviate Smoking ~®llution) Box 92103, Boulder, C® 80303 (303) 444-9799 GASP of Colorado Group To Alleviate Smoking Pollution Box 12103 Boulder, CO 80303 303-444-9799 February 1989 Colorado°s focal Smoking Controls A list of Colorado cities and counties that have enacted laws restricting smoking in public places. City Population Workplace Restaurants Retail Stores Public Places Supermarkets Date Passed 1 . Arapahoe County 101,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Feb. 1988 2. Arvada 91 ,300 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes June 1, 1986 3. Aspen 3,300 Yes All Yes Yes Yes August 12, 1985 4. Aurora 218,000 Yes Over 50 Seats Yes Yes Yes June 30, 1986 5. Boulder 76,500 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes (1978) Aug. 1986 6. Boulder County 44,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Dec, 17, 1987 7. Broomfield 24,400 No Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes July 1987 8. Canon City 13,700 Yes Over 50 Seats Yes Yes Yes Sept. 2, 1986 9. Carbondale 2,400 No No Yes Yes Yes May 12,1987 10. Colorado Springs 272,700 Yes Over 50 Seats Yes Yes Yes April 7, 1987 11. Denver 505,000 Yes Over 50 Seats No Yes Yes (1984) Mar. 10, 1986 12. Englewood 30,500 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Sept. 2, 1986 13. Fort Collins 74,100 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Nov. 4, 1984 14. Golden 14,700 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Aug. 14, 1986 15. Grand Junction 32,500 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Nov. 20, 1985 16. Greeley 56,900 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes (1984) Feb, 1986 17. Greenwood Village 7,700 Yes Over 50 Seats Yes Yes Yes Oct. 19, 1987 18. Jefferson County 126,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Nov. 17, 1987 19. Lakewood 122,100 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Sept. 8, 1986 20. Littleton 32,300 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Nov. 3, 1987 21. Longmont 50,700 Yes All Yes Yes Yes Nov. 5, 1985 22. Louisville 7,400 No Over 25 Seats Yes Yes Yes Oct. 7, 1986 23. Loveland 35,500 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes July 2, 1985 24. Pueblo 101 ,200 Yes Over 50 Seats Yes Yes Yes Aug. 26, 1985 25. Telluride 1 ,200 Yes All Yes Yes Yes April 1988 26. Thornton 50,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Sept. 23, 1986 27. Trinidad 9,100 Yes Over 20 Seats Yes Yes Yes Oct. 12, 1986 28. Vail 3,700 No No No Yes No Apri11988 29. Westminster 66,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Mar. 17, 1986 30. Wheat Ridge 30,000 Yes Over 30 Seats Yes Yes Yes Oct. 13, 1986 Population estimates are based on the most recent Census Bureau Local Population Estimates for Colorado conducted July 1, 1986. Figures have been rounded off to the nearest 100th. A bold Yes in the workplace column indicates the existence of a nonretaliation clause in the ordinance. A L.O~G WAY TO GO There are still 240 cities and 60 counties Without any smoking controls at all in Colorado. Cl c C~~~fOfn~~~ STATE HEADHUARTERS e `~ President B6rk 6v~A94701 Howard Mitchell ~Q (415)Bdt-3032 I Pronldont ~ vice President Nonsmokers' R ~ ~ Peter HOnpuer John Neva ra l~ I S Vlcp Proaldont° Son Froncrsco Secretary Rovmond L. We¢berg. M.D. San Diego Affiliate Betty Heilman Mmfi0~0I9 PQ$r P,as,Oanl AmenDOn Cancer Sooery. ' P.O. Box 99511. Son Diego. CA 92109 Conrano D;vwon (619) 268-4277 Treasurer tos Angeres Karen Law rence ~~~ H lOWfinStfiln Prolessa or tow. UC1A San Diego "SAN DZEGO, A FORMULA FOR SUCCESS" Pffter E. Popl, MD. Mmaaipra Per PrevOeni_ A cooperative effort by Californians for Nonsmokers' AR16riCOn Mao7t AS{DDID rrOn Cor,rornb Arrcore Rights and Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights, San Die o. g Troasuror Affiliate has resulted in the assa e of le p g l StontonA.GlontzPn.D. prohi bi is ~~.Proressor or nteorc,na. throughout the City and County of San Diego which smoking in all enclosed public places and places of Ex oeutlvo Dlroetor employment except in designated smoking areas, prohibits Chores MOwson smoking in retail stores and retail service establishments a d i HONORARY CHAIR PERSON n prov des nonsmoking areas in restaurants ~ . \ ,o,B I have P prepared this information acket as a source of SUPPORT COMMITTEE ~+«aa«.u reference for others who wish to work for similar ~'~°"5"fO"O~'"D legislation in their area. Proross«aMe««ne uv.-e,vrv a Conr or wirx The first step we took was to interview all the candidates boot "v*+w ~ Via D~rry during a campaign for City Council. When politicians are \°, b . M Proress«or qpK He«n~ running for office, they are easily accessable and eager ~ to please. If yqy~dress well, have a business card for B„pp„ uoy lO,r,f r you_ r organizar;~n and can convince them that you control «,r re c~`°^`°"°'°' a lot of votes, they will normally commit themselves t c"O"'OnM0j1Qn o your cause. If they are nonsmokers, they will likely do s usi i c ~~ ~ePresoenr ast cally. Ask them to sponsor your proposal. If they are s ""°~'0"""'"'B "10""'0" mokers, the ma be 1 g. y y yin In our case we 0' ra , r p , recieved opposition from all the politicians who smoked ' c,.,°, MD ,o o, c `efP'BfOe"' so it s important to find out if they are addicts c°"O"1dfi1°°"°''0i«'°"On , .w» croneroe,p The next step was to prepare a proposal to present to Oo,u °no f.~croa leoro~° ~MKnpei M°CbsYSr the City Council. Since San Diego had an existing ordinance regulatin smoki i f,a<0r,r°~°"« Serra Cw g ng n public places, our task was to modify th di '°"°:pM°toWnn " "` e or nance to contain the provisions we wanted. tae made an effo t t '" BSOB"` utir,oF000acomr..errra r o retain as much of the existing ordinance a wo,vers unw~foc«e7e s possible and to retain the same format. tJe felt i ~'O`°0` t would be easier to sell a revision than a new ordinan c+e,.~rs.°o«ppno ce. We utilized ideas from many existing ordinances i Mover fo/eora n other areas but y primaril the Minnesota Clean Zndoor Act I Merw°f SNMmO,1MO.MpN p+ecr«or Neo,m . n our original proposal we included a number of srn f,wcx° provisions which were desirable but not u°,e,°s.,~sro.,+e, essential. This is important because, when forced to compromise i fb'r aenoer+r Ame,SO" L/rp AuOCgnm , t gives you something to give awe Alwa s ask for y~ y a.r a' ""~°O$T1`° r more chat you expect to get. ~OOO°'°"S1OSf Ppf~heuo6,+r Ye„o Cno Gar ~ 56rar M D M wlwcvrs r+orep« or fnw,+r°gpr uG,. .bffe \ Sr°eva,a M O U S $Jpe«r GMbr« riyP 17)J lu„w fM,r. M D US Svpew Gerror« .~, rWa peppy a fop« wovo/~ crv+n,co,or+ oW ou,., unr , C tae then submitted our proposed revision to the Mayor and all eight members of the City council_ along with evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed places is definitely harmful to nonsmokers. Iri the packet, I Tave 'provided you with ample evidence. I want to call your attention to page III.E. 9 of the Department of Consumer affairs report which refers to the Hirayama and Trichopoulos 6tUdlEf6 6howing that wive6 living with smoking husbands had about triple the iricidence Of lung cancer. Also notice in the Winters, Di Franza report that a person who smokes 1'~ packs a day exposes his bronchial epithelium to 8000 mrem per year, the equivalent of 300 chest Xrays. Tobacco smoke contains high concentrations of highly radioactive Polonium 210. breathing any amount of tobacco amoke introduces Polonium 210 into your lungs, a very strong arguing point for legislation to protect nonsmokers. The White, Froeb report is important because it presents evidence of damage to the lungs of nonsmokers exposed to tobacco smoke in the work place. We then began the very important lobbying process. we were most fortunate in having Chuck Mawson, the State CNR Executive Director, come down co help us out at this stage. The local politicians seemed impressed that the Executive Director from Sacramento was coming to see them and Chuck did a fantastic job. Chuck has an uncanny ability to talk to politicians in the most casual manner, hold their attention and get his points across. He was most helpful. Thanks Chuck! Two of the City Councilmen were strong advocates of nonsmokers' rights and were instrumental in introducing the proposal to the Council subcommittee concerning Public Service and Safety. When we formally presented our ~-, v ~ HOUar~~ ~-shell proposal to the PS S S Committee, they directed the Clty Manager to establish an advisory committee consisting of three members from CNR and three members from the business community to study the proposal and return with recommendations to the PS 6 S Committee. The Advisory Committee conducted a series of meetings during which we had to fight very hard on every point of the proposal. By giving in on points that we didn't consider essential, we were able to reach a compromise proposal which was then approved unanimously by the PS b 5 Committee and the San Diego City Council. we then prepared a proposed revision to the County ordinance along the same lines of the one adopted by the City Council which was quickly approved by the County Board of Supervisors. we asked the Lung Association to schedule a meeting with CNR, the City, the County, the Cancer Society, the Heart Association and the Restaurant Association to discuss methods of implementation. The meeting was highly productive and much progress is already being made to put the new provisions of the legislation into effect. How sweet it is! The Tobacco Institute has set up an organization called Take Action Now for the purpose of preventing any legislation affecting the tobacco industry. By the time they found out what we were up to in San Diego, it was too late for them to do much about it. They sent some agents down and tried but we were so well organized by that time they weren't very effective. The trouble with the initiative process is that TAIJ is bound to find out about it and will spend whatever it takes to defeat it. I hope this packet is helpful to you. work hard, good luck and never, never, never, never, never give up! Yours very trurly~ CIO J 1ow~ ~ 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 MEMORANDUM TOs Ron Phillips FROM: Susan Scanlan DATEe March 1, 1988 SUBJECTs No Smoking Ordinance oPPice oP communiPy dedelopmen4 You will find attached a chart which lists elements of No Smoking Ordinances for 18 different municipalities in the state of Colorado. Elements which are contained in any particular ordinance are indicated by an X. If there is no mark in an area that item was not addressed by the ordinance. Also included with this chart is an earlier memo which addresses in more detail some of the common aspects of the ordinances. Copies of the ordinances and information pamphlets are available in my office for perusal. MMMMNMMMxM S M O K I N G O R D I N R M C E S C O N M O N E L E N E N T S MwMMNMMMMM wINFORt7AT10N :: ~ RRERS SNOKING PRONIDITEO;: pRERS SHOKING RILDREO :: RESTFWRRNT SERT ING :: 4DRK PIRCE •: • PNWIiI_ET PROV IDEO::===____=_ _________ _________ _________ ____________ _______ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ____________ ___________ _____________ ______________________ ________ =_=____- _ ___=_____'__: : CONHON PUDLIC GROCERY ERRS ENCLOSED TUDRCCD DESIGNRTED RESTRURRNTS RESTFIURRNTS :: 50% OR OHNER : PETITION REOIJEST :: SIGNRGE :: :: CRICIAATION : TOL1N •: PURPOSE OEFINITIOM :: RRERS RRERS STORES .. CLUBS OFFICES SI70P5 RRERS 30 OR LE55 50 OF! LESS •• LESS DESIGNRTED :. 5P/. .: REO'D. :. FINES .. O!;T1 RSPEN X X X X X X X x X SEP. RRERS POLICY RDOPTED X f0-3300 CRRBOIdDRLE X~ X X X X X X LOUISVILLE x X X x X X X X % X X 90-33D0 %S TH(MNTON X x X X X X % X X X X X f25-Y300 GOLDEN X X X X X X X X X X ~ X EtSPLDYER DESIGNRTED x f25-f300 %< LOIIGNDNTw X X X X X X EMPLOYER OESIGtG1TE0 X f35-9300 FORT COLIINSw X X % X X X X X X X X X X X eouLDEaw x x x x x x x x x x x FlPVRDRw % X X x X _ X X X X X X ENPLDYER DESItRSRTED X f25-f500 X LOVEUINO X X X X X X X X X X X X f2i-9100 ;S COLORRDO SPRINCSw:: X X X X X X X X X PUEOLO X % ;S X X X X X X X X %S NESTMINSTERw X X X X X X X X X X X X X f25-4300 GREEIEYw X X X X X X X X X X X X X f25-f100 X LRKEHOODw X X X X X X X X X X X X X f25-1300 x L111ERT RIDGE X X X X X X X X x X X X X 425-1500 :< CRt10N CITY X X :S X X X X ;S X X X X f0-4100 %< GRRND JUNCTION X X X ;< X X % X x X X X X f0-t300 %< •• 0-90 DRYS TOs Ron Phillips & Peter Patten FROM: Susan Scanlan DATES May 29, 1987 SUBJECTS No Smoking Ordinance I. INTRODUCTIONS Over the past several months I have accumulated and reviewed no smoking ordinances from various communities around the State of Colorado. These ordinances range from very general no smoking provisions to very specific regulations and substantial penalties for violations. Most of the cities whose ordinances I reviewed implemented them by a vote of the City Councils< However, in the case of Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, the ordinance was put to a public vote in a special referendum election and was approved in both cases. II. BACKGROUNDS As a general overview of the ordinances, they all contain essentially the same provisions. These includes (1) LEGISLATIVE INTENTS A Statement of legislative intent or purpose which explains the reasons for adopting the ordinance, range from protecting the public health, safety and general welfare to preventing the general discomfort of being exposed to smoke in public places. (2) DEFINITIONSS A definitions section which defines common areas, public places, smoke and in some cases work areas. (3) SMOKING PROHIBITEDS Smoking is generally prohibited in common areas and public places. This includes but is not limited to hallways, elevators, lobbies, waiting areas, public restrooms, public meeting rooms, grocery stores, retail stores, theatres, educational facilities, libraries, recreational facilities, public transportation facilities and other enclosed areas to which the public is invited or where the public is permitted. (4)- SMOKING PERMITTED: In most cases smoking is e~-n,~t~ted in several areas which include: i A Taverns, bars or nightclubs where the service of food is not the principle source of income. B Fully enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers, even if they may be visited by non- smokers. C Retail tobacco shops. D Meeting rooms or halls where the general public is not invited and the control of seating arrangements is the responsibility of the function sponsor. E Designated smoking areas as determined by proprietors. F Most of the ordinances contain the provision to allow smoking throughout restaurant establishments with seating capacities of 30 or less, some go as high as 50 or less. The City of Aspen has been much more restrictive in their provisions and does not allow more than 50% of any restaurant to be designated as a smoking area. In addition, smoking areas must be completely separate and have individual ventilation systems. (5) DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS: Smoking may be allowed in designated smoking areas of public places. These could include: A Restaurants with seating capacities of 30 or more may designate an area comprising up to 50% of the seating capacity as a smoking area. An area could also be designated such that smokers and non-smokers can be accommodated without an unreasonable delay. B A portion of lobbies or hallways based on size restraints .provided that the designation of such an area does not require non-smokers to pass through a smoking area to get from one place to another. (6) GENERAL PROHIBITIONS: Smoking is prohibited in any area where it is prohibited by the Fire Marshall or applicable fire codes. (7)- WORK PLACE: Several of the ordinances include provisions for the prohibition of smoking in places of employment. This is provided for if: (A) A petition is received by the employer containing signatures of over 50% of the permanent employees requesting a smoke-free work place. (B) No physical barriers need to be installed to accomplish this separation. The ordinances which contain this provision for a smoke free work place also contain a clause which prohibits discrimination against any employee who requests such a designation. Employers may also establish and adopt a written smoking policy relating to their places of employment which may contain minimum guidelines as reflected in Aspen's ordinance. (8) SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS: Every building affected by the smoking ordinance, must have signs posted and maintained by the proprietor of the establishment. These signs must be posted on all doors providing - public access to the establishment or conspicuously posted so that they can be seen upon entering the building. The signs may be of specified sizes and may be printed with lettering or appropriate international symbols. The signs may be one of three: A No smoking - this would state that smoking is not permitted in any portion of the building. B Smoking m this would indicate that smoking is permitted throughout the establishment. C No smoking except in designated areas - this would generally prohibit smoking throughout the establishment except in those areas which are posted as smoking areas. It would also be the responsibility of the proprietor in this case, not only to sign all points of access, but also to clearly sign the areas where smoking is allowed. (9) UNLAWFUL ACTS: Several of the ordinances contain sections which define an unlawful act which would constitute a violation of the ordinance. These include, but are not limited toa A Smoking in designated and signed no smoking areas. _ B Failure to post required signage or to maintain posted signage. C Allow people to smoke in no smoking areas. (10) FINES: The fines for violation of any provision of the ordinance range from $0-$500 per day that the offense exists. The average fine appears to be $25- $300 per day. One ordinance contains a provision for a second conviction in 12 months that the minimum fine be $50 with $lo of the fine going to the city to purchase materials promoting no-smoking (City of Longmont). The City of WhE~atridge also prohibits the sale of cigarettes to minors and sets forth fines for the misdemeanor off°ense. III. (11) ENFORCEMENT: The responsibility for enforcement of the ordinance ranges from police officers, code enforcement personnel, public safety officers to environmental health officers/sanitarians. RECOMMENDATION: Review of these ordinances has provided a little insight into the manner in which they were arrived at and in some cases the input involved. At least in the cities of Aspen and Fort Collins there was considerable input from citizens both for and against the ordinances. In order for the issue of a no smoking ordinance to gain the type of support required for it to be successful, I believe it would be advantageous to solicit the input of the general public and the restaurant association. If the issue of smoking in restaurants is •to be addressed it would be crucial seek the support of the restaurant association. It would be beneficial to have the support of the restaurant association as it is a large contingent their opposition could make compliance difficult. city of Aspen has experienced considerable difficulties in dealing with their restaurant compliance and the ordinance itself has come under fire. to and The Most communities report that the ordinance has been well received and compliance is generally not a problem. Informational pamphlets have been produced in several communities which explain the ordinance and answer some commonl a k d y s e questions. • ao I believe that such an ordinance would be generally well received in Vail where a large percentage of the population are health conscious people. I would recommend an ordinance which encompasses the points as outlined in the background area of this memo. It should also be noted that the ordinance does not prevent anyone from declaring their business a no smoking area entirely even if they are permitted by the ordinance to have smoking areas. I think it is also important to include the provision for a smoke-free work place as individuals spend more time at work than they do in any other pursuit during the average day. It is important that their rights are also respected. Information can be obtained from the Aspen G.A.S.P. group as to the facts and statistics concerning smoking and the effects of secondhand smoke. They have been instrumental in getting Aspen's ordinance passed and providing support to other communities interested in passing ordinances. Copies of ordinances from the 18 communities are available in my office. 4 90W~ ~f Y~I 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 TO: Ron Phillips ''~~,,11 FROM: Susan Scanlar~ DATE: May 2, 1988 "```~~~~~'"'' SUBJECT: No Smoking Survey Results oP91ce oQ coev~rv~unity developen~n4 Several months ago Larry Eskwith was directed by the Town Council to draft a no smoking ordinance. Before this ordnance would apply to any public buildings other than those which are Town owned, the Council requested input from the Restaurant Association on this topic. I drafted a brief survey to all businesses which hold a license to operate a food service establishment. The survey was dated March 22, 1988 and was mailed out to 102 licensed establishments. The survey consisted of the following brief questions: (1) Name of establishment (2) Do you currently permit smoking in your establishment? Yes or No (3) Do you currently have a no smoking section? Yes or No (4) Would you support some type of ordinance limiting smoking - in restaurants? Yes or No ( 5 ) Comments Of the 102 surveys, 75 were completed and returned. Currently 65 of the 75 responding establishments permit smoking while 10 do not. Of the 65 restaurants which permit smoking, only 8 provide a no smoking section for their non-smoking patrons while 56 do not. The support for or against some type of ordinance limiting smoking in restaurants was pretty evenly divided. There were 37 responses which supported some type of an ordinance and 36 which were opposed to any type of regulation. One individual responding would be in favor of or opposed to an ordinance depending on how it was written. Attached you will find the comments which were included on the completed surveys. The following were comments included on surveys from those who were opposed to the idea of an ordinance. "We're fortunate to have high ceilings and good ventilation. Let's NOT legislate this!!" "Meghan's only seats 10 people and the amount of smokers coming in and out are few." "We would only support a total ban on smoking. Providing smoking areas would be an impossibility in a small area like ours." "Public service cannot be prejudiced to public - one comes to a public environment one should expect public normal behavior." "With all the cancellations and no-shows we experience; it would be almost impossible to determine how many seats we would allocate for this non-smoking section nightly. Potential disaster with unpredictable business forecasting and staffing requirements. Current volume of requests for non-smoking areas also does not support this idea." "I believe restaurant operators can resolve the smoker/non- smoker problem themselves. We do not need an ordinance to accomplish this." "Our restaurant is too small to have a no smoking section so therefore it would have to be all or nothing. I have a hard time supporting something that could drive away any customer." "This decision should be left to the individual businesses." "I am not smoking myself and I rather see anyone else not smoking, but I see a restaurant as a public place for every- one with no restrictions." "I would support a no smoking section. Most of our hotel and restaurant patrons are from 35 up and a good percent smoke." "I think that should be left up to each business." "I think it should be up to the good judgement of the individual restaurant owner. In some cases it might not be feasible. I would hope that we could handle this without making more laws." "With a non-smoking section we have had no complaints this year. Start an ordinance to stop nuclear waste trucks on I-70." The following comments were taken from responses which were in favor of the ordinance. 11Only if there is no smoking in all the restaurants, including the hotel restaurants. Smoking only in separate lounges or lobbies or restrooms. I do not support a no smoking seen in the restaurant because it limits seating and creates reservation problems during peak times." "It would be very difficult to cut out all smoking, but we would definitely support a law requiring some form of non- smoking areas." "For all restaurants only!" 1°I don't believe that an ordinance would cause any sort of problem with guests." "If they want to smoke they can go outside on my deck!" "It has to happen eventually.11 "A non-smoking area is absolute in respect to the majority non-smoker and good health people." "We are take-out only so it doesn't affect us as much." "Maybe per square foot?" "We do not encourage smoking. We have no barrel ash trays in the store." "We wish to pursue an ordinance that would prohibit smoking entirely in our store." "I would love to see Vail implement a total smoking ban in all public areas." "Yeah! We encourage the ordinance>" "Personally I would fully support no smoking, however I feel it may be difficult to enforce as well as alienating too many guests." "I would love to see a no smoking ordinance. I am sick of people who don't smoke having to put up with people smoking all over their food and smelling up my restaurant." "Possibly support no smoking area in larger restaurants only. Smaller restaurants and bars exempt." °1My area is small, I do try to keep smokers by doors." "We have been a non-smoking restaurant in the past. It caused dining situation for 1 1/2 - 2 hours. We now offer a smoking section and take a waiting list for both. Those who don't care we will seat in the first available table regardless of the section. The system is more work for us, but offers the customer the freedom of choice. We are happy at this time having the choice as to smoking or non. I feel each business should decide for itself and let the customers have a choice. "It would be nice if people did not smoke, but let this be a free market decision. Let the restaurants deal with it as the situation warrants." "Pipes and cigars should be banned." "I feel this is just another attempt of government interven- tion into private enterprise." "Makes me sick (I don't smoke) Prohibition next?" "We try to, as cordially as possible, put smokers in the part of the restaurant that is better ventilated. We have not in 2 1/2 years had a problem. Stay out of it!! Let them decide for themselves." "A larger percentage of travelers off the interstate seem to be smokers, than local business. I would not want to turn off the Interstate traveler." "We have only been operating since January 1988, but have never had a problem. Why create one? 1989 will bring many Europeans to Vail. They and the Latins still smoke." "Restaurants should make their own rules and regulations - nothing should be enforced. (We find that there are less and less smokers anyway). Some people really do object to cigars of which, there are very few." One response came back: "It will be a more healthy community and cleaner environmental area to live." but there was no response to the question of whether or not they would support the ordinance.. Copies of all survey responses are available in my office. "Restaurant area yes. Bar would be difficult to enforce and we also serve food in the bar." "We run a very health oriented menu with fitness in mind. We discourage smoking, you need to enforce no smoking areas." "Not in ballroom - should be up to groups." "It's way overdue - only by doing it as a town/community can we make it work. As a frequent diner outer, I'm personally livid over smokers in restaurants. Aspen is way ahead of us as is Colorado Springs." Also enclosed is a separate support letter which I received. Overall, the establishments which are supportive of some type of no smoking ordinance are those which are service oriented; grocery stores and convenience stores, or they are relatively small establishments which have little or no seating. Tl,e Tyr~leaq Iqn f3oX'~gO vai~,co~«-ado s16sS ~%-22aF March 29, 1988 Vail `Down Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: After carefully considering the pro's and con's regarding a non- smoking ordinance in Vail restaurants, I would support the ordinance with the following stipulations: 1) That restaurant owners have the option to designate 20% or less of their seating capacity as a smoking area without physically dividing it. (Airplanes have no dividers.) 2) Bar stools or areas where no food is being served should stay exempt. This would put a non-smoking ordinance in effect supporting the large majority of non-smokers without running the risk of loosing any of our existing or new Vail clients by being too restrictive. Sincerely, Pepi Langegger The Tyrolean Inn ~~ I} ~ . ~~~~ ~~lfU~~ ~~~ Steaks--Seafood-Prime Rib August 15y 1989 To; Town Of Vail Council, After reviewing the no-smoking ordinance, Chapter 8.03 for the town of Vail, I hereby support this legislative intent and purpose to ban smoking in public places. Indoor pollution is a serious health issue and I would like to protect the well being of my employees. Therefore9 I, E. Theron Powell, Manager of the Chart house Restaurants give full support of this ordinance. Signedy L. Theron Powell Manager of The Chart House Restaurant CI{[~ Inc. dba The Chart House 610 t1!. Lions Head Circle, Vail, CO 8(057 0 "I'elcphone (303) 476-1525 o ~-~- ~•l6 •~9 ~P~~~C1~~~II~ ~R~PC~~~L On August 1 ~>til-2 c~th, the cascade club in vaii c~~iorado Viii host The ~ascad~ Club Open Sflftball Squash Tournament, Frith both pn~ and amateur di*risions. This ;~ri11 be the first profe~~ional squash e<<ent evet- ~} t~Y.e place in ~'aii. Ptah er; fry.>rn Fr~olar?d, E~`Tl~?fi., ~a~~J ,flal~.ild, ~F~.kit~.i1, e~s.~~trali~., ~.nd tY1fl Z1.S. ',?111 compete in the professional eG•ent, pro~Tiding a continuation cif t~Fail`s int~ernatsonai e<<:pflsure rnost rei;:entlTl receiTred from t.Yie 't',torld .~Ipine S~:i Championships. Entxies for ti?e ~an?ateur etfent; ha~re t~eetl recei~red from California, Penns,~1;*ania, N.,~.~ i)t:i.h, N!~~I~r I~riec<aic{?, I'~''~!~r ~~?rk, I'{t~.~.~~~1:Y111fir?tt.,, ~rfl~C)Il~ ,~t.j1i~ tir~afil~ingt,:~ri, ~~_. Appro~~m~3.telyT 75-10c~ pia~Ters fi'r}m ar~,~a.nd t~t1e countryT are e:~~ected to compete, inclu~iirig ,' ~ Tear c>Id riashim Than. Hasi~im is regarded as one flf the tip squash playTrrs iii the ~~~FC}r1~~. He is t~11e ~~~~n+nor c~f so[Ten yBi~itisll ct~:~en t.~tles be;iiiniTn~; in 1 ~aSC~, ar14i t,'2? ;~TlnnCr of j4 int~rnatl~.?riai lll,1:•'~ ~Jy~~ri_lll tJt'l;/~%~ ClZ 1'~'f."f ~~n'~~ 1 ~;~~~C rln :^ftla i~.l.','.~ .h~: i ranl;.~d h~~a.~trr p1s.; er in thy; v~ or~d in 1 ~a,~,~,. Trournarrient rr~at~vhes begin Fri~:iaT~ at 4 p.m. Tici.ets for trip professional mat~vhes are r3tFf3.ilable at the Cascade Clut,~ <~r Cascade Sports. For more tournanl8ilt lflfc~i'n1~3.tic~il c.3.i1 th Cascade ~_.itlb ~t -t .' ~- r 4u0 Or CaS~::a~.i? .~pi7rts cit. ~t .' ~,- r ~ 1 i' ~:~r ~ r -';~ +~ r°i$?oll~ ~®li~s$ ~ia~e~s t'~. ro-?iflrjt ~ttl,t_~T~ ;~!'Slgrl?ci ta? rtl?aStl.re the pl_1.rchaing ~?Y1~.'71~?r, an~'~ ~'~err11?~~'r?.pYll.~" characteristics and iifesty1es of sq>>.as11 pia~Fers fflund the foilo~~a~ing about those ~~~o participat~ci in file sturi'T 1. ` h~. ~ plaTy squash 3 - 4 times a ~~TeeY 2. 5O~ tf~Ytie their racquets T~~~hen tYi?T~ traTrel 3. 4~;a. l ~ ~?T,~n ?, - 5 rac:~:~1et; ~. ;2.~ v also play golf 5. 45.E ~ alsfl play t~enrsis F1. ~ j.c~j u alsfl ski r . ~~~±~ Y!a'rfl t.~.kan b?t'E~IN~n 2 ?.nci 2~7 air trips in tY~e last 12 m~?ntlls - 57.b ~ responded that these trips ~aTere purei~T for pleasure or personal reasons 7 - 42.9 ~ respo~ided tYiat tYieir trips t~Tere fflr corribir~ed k,~usiri~ss acid p~~1e~~sure ~. ~c).3~ flt~a'n corporate stflcl~. 71.4 o~4~n mutual or mone~T nlarl;et funds. 40.2 L a vin real estates other than their home. ~~. ~0~ hold post-aradtlat~e degr?es t 1 1. ; ~.5~ feel a lo'Jait~r to companies that support sr~uash tr~urnarr~enta 12. The mean in~:~?m? is $12~,00~?. Th? m?~ia.n income is $~ ~,Oc~~ e belieT~e this is a market that most businesses in Vail mould like to reach. If ~~ra Can recei~Fe financial ll~l~i from file tl~;!1Y! t1J bet th1S first etr'ent of f the gro~].nd, ;nre helie'1e fut~].re t~v.rnaments ;mil become major self sust~.ining, s~].riimer ever~tfi that ~~ii ~,enefit the ~vhoie t~aii community. SF7orisorsliiF~ k.,eriefits ~~ould ir~c~lude ~. f~].11 F3:~.~re ad~'ertiseifieiit iii tlir tc~uriiatiier~t program, anti nataonVaide e~~p~Jsure t~ a market shrith streTlg pot~:ritial t~J 'visit;Mail. ~tle are rec~uestan~~ ~ 15~i~ from t~Yie Tovrr~ of 4?ail t~: r~e1p c3efra'J t~~urnarnent %ost ~,:~'ill~~il includes a ~~fl(Yi(j F~ttr~~e for file prngr 1r~r~,o~lll~ for file pros, tc~1].rllainetit Sh1rtS, arti~tk'1].r prises, fnr>~=~, 1~.~?4?r, a~'~'dertl~].Ii~ ~.r1~ ~?tll~'r rtllc~;ilari~'~?lt~ tcyll.rl~.~.rfi~rlt. e`_~?er1~~e:~. Please include us oil ~TQUr r~u~~;ust ,~ ~~Torit schedule. I ~~,~ould t:}e ~i:~.pF'~~t' to a~is~~er ati4' ~7~`,'~t1~~TIJ ~~i~u m1L''iit Yta~'e C'onCernl.tt~ tlii~ ~;~Ter~t spons~~~rship. Please contact me at. ~ ; ~~-?51 r or =~ ~-~;~~~;~. Thanks for 'Jour corisideration. j~gg~ Steens t~a.scade %1ut~ ~<~uash ~~irecf~}r d CI-~~C~DE CL~T~ ~FE ~Q~T~I TQUF~t~ET j~~-~-~ Stee~~~~ - T~u~r-~~ae~t Di~e~tc~~ ,Tail resident for 1 S T~rears Helper. r~~r~~anize ~r'ail Rugt;~,r Club in 1972 - Sersre~ as President for 4 ~~ears - Clu.hma.n of tl1? YAar 4 Tear; Ten ;ears et~perience as retail sports St,~re I+~Iana~~r S~~~s~ ~~~aia~~~a~~fis Kind eI the Court, Tourn~3.inent - ~'ai1 ~lthleti{~ Club ac~uash, ra~v~uetball. hanciball - lst place 41<,+;4'J In~;ilco i~Tci%l~:~n~~l ~~.~~ia~ll C12ciiii~~I~;inSYtl~~s - 19s~~ C1ut? Cliampic~n - ;v~`r3i1 rl~,lil2tic, Clt1-.~ R:~~iont~l Finalist - Penner InLilco hlati,~na1 ^x~~u;~li i.liampi~~>r1:nips - 1 r~,~v,~, Club t:11~J.I7lpif1Ii - VF~3.11 ~1ti11FfiiC t_1~1~'~ F:e~ieilal Champion - IaenTrer 4t L' .. TTT~ _~. . i~1a~.ic.iials - vv~.~~tilii`tC~ii, P.i1. Insil,c~ I~-,a.tioiial ~qu.asTl Cliaiiipioiisliit ti, - 19~~7 Ar~rrir~r~a Rir~ut'r• •11 r~r~~r r1 ^r, i ~rrc Jlk•~1'v 11 V. 1111 L41i+J - 1~".Jl+.•1 Ll'_~11 ~J hJr1r1 ~J Idatic~nfi.l Cansc~laticm Finalist- Bc~st~~ii First ~liinu~i.f Cascat:Ie Clut~ St~uf~.sh C1ia.iiipitinshiF~s - 1 to y7 First F~la~~~e F~ Di•,rision First l~nnu~-~1 CTalle Jos I~~rl~~senr,, S~.~u~~st~ Tournament - l~~t,~~ ~ecend Place E L~iT~ision Sef'.oti ~ rlnnual Cascade Clut~ S~:~uash Chanlpi«nsliips - 1 ~ vu ~ec~:~r~~:~ Place B L}i;llslon Second l~nnual Calle~os I~iasonrT S~ttash Tournament - 1 :~4,4~ First Pl~~ce ~ Pi~~isir~ri Seasr~n Opener mot tt}ail T<}ornament - ~~'ail, 1 r~ Jr~ 1~ Consolation ~?Tinner 19r39 r~~Ierrill L~jr~~;t~ Op?n - r'~lt~~~,~»erc~»~;, 19;9 First Piace E Pi~ision C i1i I eiltl~t+ illailr~r~er ~.1.t ~r~iltw~~.t~~' ~i,JT'`~l t-LJ !J.il~~ J~~ll~.ibll Dii ec:tCJi rl.t the GfJ.J~~i~~~f' Clu.t; . ,. G 4.~3C.C11LlE ~LtID DL`EL$ DIIDVEE E~FENSES FOOD :~ ~.,t)0 PRO PURSE $ 3004 TUURI~1~~r~,'iEI4jT SHIRTS $ 50c~ Lr~.DOF, $ 1104 TOTJRI~d~~:'iEI~dT PFr~rR~I+:i ~ 3r7~~ $ 500 II~tiYt~I~~iE PROtJF~ ~PvI ~ D S $ l to 44 E~;TF~Z FEES :~ 140~:~ P/*TA(jT~J~ ~ 3ijf1 2 r Ci t~ .~~~rIOUNT NEEDED ........................... $ 2 c~~ ~~ ~~ REtili1EST FRC7i~iI T+;~ ~~jrr .................. ~ 1 ~ ~vtr,1 Uo~n ~! raa 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2100 office of mayor August 15, 1989 Mr. Michael Cacioppo P. 0. Drawer 3300 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Mike: It has come to my attention that you, without being authorized by the Town Council, purported to represent the Town in a meeting with Mike Shannon relating to the purchase of the Edwards property. At the meeting, you acted in a confrontational manner with Mike Shannon, the President of Vail Associates, and made threats to Mr. Shannon relating to the way Vail Associates might be treated in regard to matters which came before the Town Council. I wish to strongly emphasize that you have been given no authority by the Town Council of the Town of Vail to represent the Town Council in these negotiations with Vail Associates, or any other party. Further, any issues relating to Vail Associates, Inc. which may come before the Town Council or any other administrative body of the Town of Vail, will be dealt with in the same even handed and fair manner any other person or business is dealt with by the Town. You should not purport to represent the Town Council with Vail Associates, the Town of Avon, or any other person or entity on any issue affecting the Town, unless you have authority to do so from the Town Council. Sincerely, Kent R. Rose Mayor KRR/LAE/bsc !I I. ., / ~~I~US I.II i! II II I ,~ `~~ . d' y I ; ;. ~ `, , L: „! i 1"raj I 11 t; I~ lI} ~:~ 111 r 1 h 1 rt I l I I i f I IN II ~ il,h~, (',~ I I i ~ ! Inlul''I,UI:! ~ i ~~ ,~~ I Ic I4I1 i ' REC9 AUG ~ 5 ~~89 } ~~ I ~, ~ ~ ~~ l' ; ~ y "t n ~ Hti I ~ ~~~,~~~,, r ,~"~~1~hJ~r~,,h~"tt,~' t~~~~~~141~p~jl,~ ~ ~ , i , ~ ,'' ' ~~' Vail Transportation Centfi er • P ®._ 13ox 3506 !Vail, Colorado 816.58.303/476 3€ (III ~ i! 'I I ~' I 1 II !l I! ~ ~'.:~7 III } !1.:' ~ ~ :.. td $}°t~ I ~51~, , ~I I II , , Ijl 111I~jj I ~sty'CI I I 6 I . h, ~ I '~ I ~ ~I III I - 7„ i, 1 I v~.~ I '..., ~~~r7 ly~~l'~d~~qu'~d ~~h'~i'r~ k ~ t I 1"I ~ II:I I,I I~ I 1 II I I ~ P..' ~ 7f I' ~ t l7 t ~<I_ , I III ralN `# ii ~II~'1I1",~OMIae ~t , ,>, II I~ I i .~ ~ i ~ d q r a I~ Nrlph b ~ I.II~ , '~~R 1 ~ August 14 , ~ 19 8 9 I ' ~~ i i ~ I I~ 1~I}i ll, I},~~ ~ ti~~~~~F b'"'Ifs ° ~~" ~ n I ~. a I~ ~ ~' ql~t~~ ~:I'I,ll I ~ I I ~II r1I I I II I II I II. ,p 11 IAu I'~ I Ii i J , ,1 I! !Ilr tl~~k ! {~u l~t Ilpl ~'~Y~~}II I~, ~ ~ .~i 4~ti1 ( ;~ II ~ it {~ dlll , ,~;~. i i I I _ iii. ~~1 ~: p ~~ Ili li ~p ~'ll ~1 ~I ~II~~IIN!ppp ~ _ ~ ~~Ilp~l ~~I ! ~ {. 1 I I III ~ I ~rl ~I 4 ' i'~~h '1 ~n~ ~t ! ~~~~ 1, ,~. ~! I ~;!~~III~ ohor'able A9a~ or dent ~Rosel~and~: Y~Iembe'rs,;;of the .Council) III I, ,IN~ Iluu~'I!~411I1'lti t~ iltlllgl ~d I~! N t'{.~ I, ',,,i .. .I, ~ , I i ~611i i,.'~ I -'`;, I . 1,5 , V !h! 1..1; ~~: ~ ~ P' IIIO,',I,'., fl ! !.I ll.p:!li'~~' Ili~ll~i 11 '".',NISI HfI~~~ ~II, II{!Ihl i l 1j11.;',~~li ~~ (!. -. , rl.~~i~ ~~I { 11 1 lll,~ ~I~ ~II: f d~li F'~;I!II`l'1.,. 111 it 1, lil{ ,-'~I.~ •~•.~u I~,'~„'~ t { !'.I':~:i. 17~111!~IIJ~IIA tl, ll.!;! II II6 - :~I Il lv I'i '.''iltAi I i I~111111 II. ~ III ~: ~ I~, Ylqf I I'.'}1Qq~~i ~~..1 I,. . i I.•.. , . t i al ~ .~ , ~ n. t.., -., ' ~I~,:, ~ ~ .!I.~~I 1 ~ ~.,>,~ I ,~ ,~ t IJN'llr :~,! ii gNU~i lli';i 1 I}nt'I'N! ,~.. I.'I~ , ;~ , ~.. 1, rth i~lt 1. fit II IL!;I,H t~. .'r 1. ! ~~II I~ , 9 ~~I would like ~ tol :have ;been;here personally~~on Tuesday, !butl~ I am ,appear,ing ~~ aG'I~fan~';the ',~locaT roduction of.:, Anythlpig Goes I and there, is ,a rehearsal !I ,!~"' }pia ~I'; ~ It, p ~ I ~,i.~, . n I. I { ~ L, I I I , ~~! i 1, I J }I it 1 r"'~ al 4~ K a4N~ll~tl i'~~~I~'Elsly ~~~.scheduled for,.,,this .:evening'. , ~, ar ~''~'~ it I"i "'~ ~'~ {i, ;!I,I,:~~ I 1 ~, ~~~I ,~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~,,~"~ ` r Via; !Ind"~~~~I~~p t,' 1'IG:l~II,II II-ill 'I'~! '!. i....q ~„~ I I.7.r.ri Cll I hi.; I I '„'i I.-ll lli lf!} ~~1~ ,..,~ I I. I~I ~!Illlrl~,, ,Ihl ail I I ..I,I !III i~~0:. 11 FI !v~~yy . ~ti~.~!'"11p7 f .~'lr,,l 'r rl! II ._.,I.,,, ~ ~ ,rl 4f r .~;I I. 1 N.., I,.. , ,,.:'I ~ ,.i4 ~~, I(NI II !,' ~ Q I'~ 'I~.~, ~, ~: C7U' ':I~ 1q~. ~! I't ~..._.~t!~I II ~I:;,j4111r 1.,1 {iii ~~.n';II~,.'~p ~.. j tl ,i.:,u I ~i ,~lA~1,~~~ -~1~~:~.,~ i I -f!:~:~, I~~ ~I. II~-: ~i° ~ °„~ ,:~ rt~ 6P 1}i~l ~.~lll.l;; !I I I '1;~1~ ~li.,,. l,.~i (~~ ".~I~I,:hA I! ,1 ~I„,~~~~I~~.!~, ~~!1^!~ ~ h : I:.,~, to 1, t, ~':'g aml. writing ;this 'letter in response to the .recent 'newspaper;''articles {, ~I ~~~"i, ~~about. public !smoking `~in~~the Town 'of .- Vail ,~;I wonder~~:how~many~~~people ij~~~~~~~{~~~~a~t ~iassociated with the ~ Fresh Air ~ Committee ~ ('F~4C)~~,are 'business~.;owners ln,'the .1 ~~jTown; of Vail?.: ~As a ,.businessman in Vail;y .I; ,have made aninvestment ln~ an !'; . ,. went ,that ,caters ;to. all ;people,. ' r,Y.; aould not 'expect,~;lto Ystay din r,li establish I ~~. I I ~! III II I ,. :very; long „1f I,,practiced „(or was .;;forced to ;practice:) 'I,'~(;I,~lyulh~~l~,!t,,~~~t~;1,1!~'~~p~~~"~~ ' rights Ildiscrlmin ' ation ~' .Ip~ £eel Ghat, ,those:. who ,feel ~s'ahou`gh ,their~'~hould makare aril); ,being infringed u on by establishments 1'~thatl., ermlt smoking s, e' I;+N~'~a~, '' 'r business elsewhere.'` Public'demand should; .their statement b taking the) p y ~„ ~ sses~.; rather, than cit ,:,i ordinanc' I ~~~ 4,` ' dictate the olicies of huslne' ~ y es., ~,i;~Those whi would like to ;.see no :;smoking ,ordinances do,,;not; patronize every ,~restaurant~ ~'~and business with ;'enough '~frequency~:',to ~be representatlve~"iof t'h,e'total~~;'i f+~R';,li!;j~~ '.. "clientele.' If enough. customers.convey.to the ;businesses the':'message`,that a no .smoking section would be desirable-- then lone should be put I in I ~ " la~~ '`? ...1 ~ !Ipl - I ~ '~ I ; I 4 ,V I t ,'r i 11 ~,~~, ,I I~ ! , I ~' t I ~, 1'. '., III 'ad 1 It ' '~'tl , ~11 ~ ti~ '. ! .~ - 1 I ,~ ; ,~.~ 1 '. !. n ; .- I i~,n r .~'; :'. I ~.,;.1 I ,.1 ~•j~ I I °i -n. II I 'I!~~ I I i ('' i i I'~ ~„', I ^~ I nG!; 4,1! ~ Ii ]"dl ' ~,~,Tl .feel' that the vocal. minority'that is supporting efforts toi ban public nail (.!'smoking may be missing the. point as to 'what, Vail is ;all:about IWe are a ' 1 ~~~iWor.ld Class Resort:which c'ater`s I to l'Is very diverse groups ofl ~ p,eoplel from ~ R{~'r~~~ , y m would be offended by :such a discriminatory around °'the ~ world man of>~;wh'o ~~ ' ~,rdinance I,.believe that' legislation,such as :~~.his ;would make, the wrong ~I F~uhlnl I -'t ^... I ~ 1111 ~Ite!~ ~~ , ~ ,. II ~.. I: ~; I I it I ' I ~I { i ;III 1 " i , ',Y I , ,ltl, ;P I h t ,~ks~a ~ement~ to ~•the.`Vail',~visi~tor.; ! We ;,woul'ii, Iln ef;fect,~l Abe ;;sayingthat, tae f1la~~'~I ,,Il~:only. want a particular type ofl person to be ~abl'e to en,7oy~ all that Vall I~r ~I~~thas to offer, and l;f. you don't..,ft that mold, we don't ;.want ,;you here),; II ! I{~ti ';~ca~ouia like to think' ghat :we have ja 'greater !sense of "hospitality, than,, ,,,I~~f.; any y: ,.. _, ~.. ,.~ .., _ .. +tf.al 'j~J ,~'i~hat..,~ ,I ;think ,that such a statement would be very dangerous from a r,,, !I . I~~marketing viewpoint. !~,i It '' ~ :,>~~ '~;J, f~ -, , I ~~ lY'';,!' ~^"~:hi~~ ~ `; ~F. ~ r ~ , i ~ ! I ~ I .' f,,; H ~ i2 Il.r :... ~ t~ ran' k1 "k' 'S trw~4, ~r ,~J!$,( 1 , ~, 1 ~ 1 I' A Fr.1+: RI r Nif, ~, 'il v„ ~~il ~ F ' ~. ~, a ~ ' ~~-~ I ;,r -I;: ~`' ..:r.; , ~ 1(~I;; II~ ,n; ~:_: ,.', I T'`'; , a fears to su ~ ~~ort ,the,i~r p !,. The Fresh Air Committee FAC has cited health.', pp ;,.+ views. ;, But these are theories only.,, ,The 'Surgeon-General has~statedjthat I;~here rs...not sufficient evidence I;to conclude ;that ,o~her,people~'s,~;lsmoke it il~ ' I,~ causes ~ diseases . in nonsmokers 1;.°I The Surgeon .General also :~stat'es ;'that ; !:~ ~ 1~ I ~! +' ~ h , ;He °` l; ~:. obacco smoke' allergies: have not..been ,demonstrated: in humanst. Ft, ~"'` i' t i ~ ~ Irl ~dda, ! ~, , ~continues.by'saying that,what response does occur in'.healthy nonsmokers ~;~r :'may be due `to~psychologlcal factors.l't!Whlle tobacco,'amoke as frequently,l~ (blamed for poor sir :qualityn ;chances are at. is .the wrong target ~;forl`~„bi~~~~;,~[F~m';~~! ~com lalnts .In the vast~:ma orlt of cases the real ro ~,, P. ~ ~.~, ~~, I, , ': ,~ ,, ~ ;, y ~. ai,i. I ,;, .:"h ~Irblems, are;~poor~~~3~, "~rentllatlon and ,air' flltratlon.Il~,E{!~In fact, ~accoPding to independent 'r~' ~~'~~ a ~scent~ific ,tests "co,nducona"1 a~'178anciwa~halfCdaFs~eoramoretthant400uldrnktake a marathon eating seas) „of y , ~~~a111 al.' ~ ~: .. -. ..i p ,e II I ,;,1 ~. , ~M ~ ~, t'I,~t ~. iiMi ,:, i T~47 "~~-~~}k ~ '! ~ t.at' kM L ~ ~ 11'.r '~ a f 5rF ~ ,, r: a u1 r ~!COntlnuOUS-~hO11rSy.~fOP,~$ diner,~~.ln,a.r:;;~ypl.cal.,_~rest.~aurant~F~to be expose ~~'*to -t_h~ i'r ~Y!].COtlne ~qulvalent kl~IOfvu~,0Yle~~C4lgarettee~'~+~p~~7~~'~~~~~ I,~"~I ~ ~ ~~~'I~''' I ~I~ 'I.!~;prM~. I .~'i~~4~~.. I :' ..I... "-r~'~.: i~~-..~..,~I,I'~~ell.u, u~hlP~l9!t'41M,eY.ifi4rtla~r+."~It~~R!rt~!c,~n~i~di7l~fini~,t~.c~~`;~i`id~ual~rhltii~yW,~1~Ai~~`~!uS~03~~r~u?.~R~'~4i;~L"~~~Bi~^.:~4jii~I. ie~unP~~"!d&~i~`INIAFIkm1I~~~~I~tdF:~tn~:%:.' '.i t g,l; M,}F~~(p lr~ ~ ll~ du'-a 1 a-,~.N.~~9s;h~'H.. .." r'~ ,ery ^t'r, ~.. e-E. oY,j7 ~• syr51:. ~ .[I Ff ii 9Fl 5q~'it" ~1a 'a ~,/ ~ l 7i:all~ I 5 z ~ ' •„~ Potatoes and Sandwiches as Big as °the Rockies ~ A F~ : ~k 4 ~ 4j ~ ! ;~ k ~ is " h~' °~s~ '~~ P 1= ~ 1t~_~h a a~ ~~u~ tit ~~at. ~~ ~J r o~:~t tc.~ Q ~~ C T - trf ~ ~,~~`~'~: ~r`~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~~..~ L~'~d 5~.:'~ h ~`~ ~''~~" ~'r ° 4 ~~ ~~~~`"' *~ ~',~ , ' ~~} ~~~ ''Iii ~ 1 't ~1, kx4~' r ~~.. , . "S ~ h , ~~~~~~.~~~wi#`~~fi..~r~:~'~'.t'~,~~'~.._',I~~;y. s, ~lt~ .. _.ue._. ~r~ ''~.____v.~~_ <w..~4 Public smoking laws have been described as nuisance laws. Is the FAC going to enforce these laws, or a~:•e business owners going to become enforcers rather than hosts. I'm certain the local law enforcement has much better things to do with their time than issue citations to smokers. Do we, the restaurant and business; owners of Vail want to risk losing many of our customers due to discriminatory legislation? Take for example, Beverly Hills, California. In March 1987, the city council imposed a total smoking ban in most restaurants and shops. Within one month, restaurants were reporting a drop in business of 12 to 30 percent, with some even steeper. Workers were laid off and hours of operation were reduced. Three and one-half montt-s after it was enacted, the city council repealed the smoking ban. Nevertr-eless, the damage was done. Published estimates of the revenues lost duz•ing enforcement of the smoking ban are as high as $3 million. Vail may r-ot feel such dramatic effects as quickly as Beverly Hills, but we could lose some of our repeat visitors. As a nonsmoker and businessman in Vail, I feel that cooperation, rather than legislation is the answer to the smoking issue. In my experience, most smokers do respect the feelings (not rights) of nonsmokers and do not represent a criminal element, which they just may become if Vail adopts a public smoking ban. Respectfully yours, Dan Sunday Owner ~; ~r i ati . a~ ~ t: .= ; . ~.._.... .. ~,_!_ ~ , ay,.,3 „_Lr:. ,.;..,.~. ~.... -.. _ ~. .. -,._ ~ - .. .. .-.~ ~ ,. 'ham. , y . s .~ ~ ~ -o „n ~~a ~ 8/14/89 Council - FYI The Fire Department orientation meeting will be aired on the public TV channel Friday, 8/18, 7:00 p.m., and again on Monday, 8/21, 7:00 p.m. /bsc AU6~~~ To the Editor: As a Vail resident for over 13 years, I am surprised that our community has not taken more positive action with regard to a no- smoking ordinance. Having lived in Aspen for a number of years, I have always considered the Vail Valley to be a progressive and growing area with the exception of clean indoor air. As you might already know, both Telluride and Aspen have adopted comprehensive no-smoking ordinances. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the issue of Clean Indoor Air, I will briefly bring you up to date. As a health conscious community and as a premier ski resort, an overwhelming majority of locals (approx. 850) and visitors are nonsmokers, yet we do not provide our guests nor ourselves with a healthy indoor environment. Our banks, grocery stores, retail shops, restaurants and other areas of employment are at the mercy of self regulation which has been ineffective. In years past, I have been involved in the ownership of a retail business. I established a no smoking policy in all my shops but I can appreciate the burden of enforcement without a town ordinance. This is not an issue of preference nor of smoker vs. nonsmoker, it is simply a health issue. Smoke from an "idling" cigarette contains nearly twice the amount of tar and nicotine, up to five times as much carbon monoxide and 50 times as much ammonia than smoke that is directly inhaled. The Fresh Air Committee is going to propose a broader no-smoking ordinance for the Town of Vail on Tuesday, August 15th at the evening Vail Town Council meeting. If you have ever complained about secondary smoke, I urge you to attend. f~~ Ldu Armitage Vail cc: Kent Rose John Slevin Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal - Michael Cacioppo Thomas Steinberg This is a copy of a letter sent to The Vail Trail, Vail Daily and ABC Times. AfC'0 AIIG 11 ggg STATE OF COLORP,DO C®L®6iAD0 DEPARTRAERlT ®F F9EALTH of Soto 4210 East 11 [h Avenue ~Q~` {.~,~~t~9Q Denver, Colorado 80220 i~ O Phone (303) 320-8333 ~'~ ~? ~'~ ~ " ~ 876/ MEMORANDUM Koy Komer Governor TO: Interested Parties Thumas M. Vernon, M.D. Executive Director FRUM: Dick Parachini, Eagle Mine On-Site Coordinator DATE: August 10, 1989 SUBJECT: State Air Monitoring Results --------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a summary of the air monitoring data collected by the five additional air monitors operated by the State of Colorado during the Eagle Mine remedial activities. Date Minturn Middle Minturn Middle Minturn Community School Rooftop School Foyer Center Rooftop 07/28/89 TSP 13 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 Cd <0.01 ug/m-3 As <0.01 ug/m-3 07/29/89 TSP 10 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 Cd <0.01 ug/m-3 As <0.01 ua/m-3 07/30/89 TSP 11 ug/m-3 7 ug/m-3 25 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 <O,1 ug/m-3 <0.1 ug/m-3 Cd <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 As <0,01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 <0,01 ug/m-3 07/31/89 TSP 14 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 Cd <0.01 ug/m-3 As <0.01 ug/m-3 08/01/89 TSP 13 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 08/02/89 TSP 13 ug/m-3 39 ug/m-3 23 ug/m-3 Pb <0.1 ug/m-3 <0.1 ug/m-3 <0.1 ug/m-3 Cd <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 As <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 <0.01 ug/m-3 ESTIMATES Ok' RISE RENTED TO AIRBORNE MINE AND MILL TAILINGS AND CONTAMINATED SOILS AT THE EAGLE MINE SITEa MINTURNp COLORADO (DRAFTo 8-2-89) Prepared byo COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Disease Control and Environmental Epidemioloc3Y Division °3 3 ~ - y~13 ~~ : ~' ~~~ I. INTRODUCTION The Eagle Mine is a Nat~:onal Priorities List site located south of the community of Minturn, Colorado. The site consists of the Eagle Mine workings and several waste areas. Mine drainage and wastes are the sources of site contamination by metals and acidic water. In February of 1989 a health assessment was completed by the Colorado Department of Health for the Eagle Mine site (1). This health assessment identifies two potential human exposure pathways; ingestion and inhalation of mine wastes and contaminated soils. Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead are identified as contaminants of concern. The potentially exposed populations are identified as those persons living, working or attending school at and adjacent to the mine and mill tailings. Several conclusions and recommendations are presented in the Eagle Mine health assessment. Perhaps most significant were those related to the potential exposure of children living and/or attending school in the area of the Eagle Mine facility to unacceptable concentrations of airborne metals. These conclusions and recommendations were based on the information available at that time. As stated in the health assessment, significant data gaps existed and necessitated the use of several assumptions. These assumptions were highly conservative to guard against underestimating actual exposures and potential health impacts. Thus, the calculated risk values served as upper bounds which were unlikely to be exceeded. Since the completion of the Eagle Mine health assessment, additional data have been collected which better define air quality conditions in the vicinity of the site. These data include finalized air monitoring results from the first remedial construction season (August - November, 1988)(2), finalized air monitoring results from the winter of 1988-1989 (December - April)(3), and preliminary air monitoring results for May and June of the second remedial construction season (1989)(Attachment). The air monitoring was performed at two stations; the roof of the-Minturn~Middle School and at the confluence of the Eagle River and Cross Creek (North Site). Monitoring during remedial construction quantified total suspended particulates (TSP), respirable particulates (those particulates less than 1.0 micrometers in diameter, "PM-10"), and arsenic, cadmium, and lead concentrations. Those data collected during the winter of 1988-1989 only quantified TSP. These data have significantly improved the basis for calculating estimates of risk associated with exposure to airborne metals in the vicinity of the Middle School and Maloit Park. These data have been employed for this purpose and the assumptions, methodology, and results are presented below. An effort has been made to 1 bracket potential exposures and associated risks both temporally and spatially. Thus, the likely range of exposure duration and frequency as well as geographic location have been examined. Lastly, the potential risks associated with multiple exposures have also. been calculated. II. ESTIPgATES OF CANCER RISK TO CHILDREN POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO AIRBORNE ARSENIC CADMIUM AND CHROMIUM IN THE VICINITY OF THE MINTURN MIDDLE SCHOOL AND MALOIT PARR A. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGYo 1. The method and calculations used assume exposures and the related risks of adverse health outcomes are associated with airborne mine and mill tailings at the Eagle Mine Superfund site and not with other sources of environmental contamination (e.g., local metallurgy and automobile emissions). 2. The data collected at the Minturn Middle School and the North Site air monitoring stations are assumed to be representative of ambient air quality in the Middle School and Maloit Park vicinity, 3. Although the sources of airborne contaminants located at the site are contained by snow cover for a fraction of each year, continuous source conditions will be assumed. Reduction of inhalation exposure to airborne contaminants would be equal to the extent and duration of source containment. Thus, assumption of continuous source conditions provides a higher estimate of exposure. 4. Increased construction at the site will include increased dust control measures. 5. Where arsenic or cadmium was detected at concentrations below the analytical detection limit, the concentration is assumed to be one-half the given detection. limit. This assumes that the 11below detection" concentrations were randomly distributed between 0.0 and the detection limit and that the median value is representative. Where the value is reported as "less than or equal to" a given concentration, the value is assumed to be that concentration. Since the currently available data was collected every third day, it is assumed that the measured and assumed values may have occurred three times more frequently than observed. 6. Data which describe the air concentration of chromium species in the Middle School and Maloit Park vicinity are not available. However, estimates based of mine waste geochemistry presented in the Eagle Mine health assessment indicate that chromium VI may be as high as one-third of the cadmium concentrations (that is, a 2 chromium VI to cadmium ratio of 1:3). This ratio is applied here to the air monitoring data for cadmium. The chromium VI concentration so estimated is then used to calculate upper bound risk values for potential exposure. This estimate assumes that 100 percent of the chromium present would be in the +VI valence state and negates the possible presence of chromium +III. This assumption leads to a higher estimated exposure to chromium +VI. 7. The air aonitoring data and the above described assumptions are used to calculate an average metal concentrations in the Middle School and Maloit Park areas. These concentrations are then modified to reflect the PM-10 (respirable) fraction of a selected TSP concentration. This is necessary as the reported metal concentrations were determined from TSP samples. 8. The length of a child's attendance at the Minturn Middle School is assumed to be 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, 9 months per year, for 4 years. Children residing in the Maloit Park area are assumed to be present on a continuous (24 hrs./day, 7 days/week) basis. 9. Potential source durations have been selected to estimate risks given an early completion of remedial construction (i.e., capping of tailings in 1.5 years) or a delayed completion (i.e., capping in 4 years). 10. The average inhalation rate and body weight of a child attending the Middle School are assumed to be 15 m3/day and 40 Kg, respectively. In order to address younger than middle school aged children who may be residing in the Maloit Park area, an inhalation rate and body weight are assumed to be 10 m3/day and 20 Kg, respectively. 11. Absorption from the lung is assumed to be .100 percent (actual values have been reported as follows (4): arsenic=100%; cadmium=50o; chromium=?). 12. The cancer potency factors (slope factors, q*) used in the calculation of risk estimates were obtained from the U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)(5). During the final drafting of the Eagle Mine health assessment, IRIS listed a lower cancer potency factor than the current value. The new listing was posted December 31, 1989. The currently posted value for arsenic has been used here for calculation of risk estimates. 13. Current cancer potency factors (inhalation slope factors) have been obtained from IRIS for the arsenic, cadmium, and chromium VI and are listed with their weight of evidence classifications in Table 1 These cancer potency factors are estimated at the 95 percent upper bound for a 70 year lifetime exposure. Thus, the potency of each metal is unlikely to exceed the estimated value and may in fact be less. 3 Table 1. Cancer potency factors and weight of evidence classification for inhalation exposure to arsenic, cadmium, and chromium VI. POTENCY per (mct/Kg-d) CLASSIFICATION ARSENIC 50 A (Human Carcinogen) CADMIUM 6.1 CHROMIUM VI 41 B1 (Probable Human Carcinogen) A (Human Carcinogen) 14. The model used for estimating cancer risk is as follows: fraction of TSP metal x PM-10 x respiration rate x q* x lifetime concentration fraction body weight exposure B. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA All data collected at the Minturn Middle School and the North Site air monitoring stations between August of 1988 and June of 1989 have been reviewed and are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Although airborne metal concentration data were not collected during the winter of 1988-1989, the TSP data which were collected indicate that airborne contaminants were at their lowest concentration during this period. C. ESTIMATES OF RISK Airborne metal concentration data collected at the Middle School and Maloit Park air monitoring stations are discontinuous between August of 1988 and June of 1989. Average exposures and associated risks cannot be fully assessed for this period. Alternatively, a range of potential exposures defining the maximum risks likely to be experienced in Middle School and Maloit Park vicinity are used. This approach assumes maximum values for exposure duration, frequency, and dose (airborne concentrations). Table 4 lists the variables employed to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes to children attending the Minturn Middle School and those residing in the Maloit Park area. As discussed under 1°ASSUMPTIONS1°, potential source durations have been selected to estimate risks given an 4 early completion of remedial construction (i.e., capping of tailings in 1.5 years) or a delayed completion (i.e., capping in 4 years) . Estimates of risk associated with potential exposure of children to airborne contaminants in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School and Maloit Park are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The total risk posed by multiple ~axposure is also shown in Tables 5 and 6. Total risk is assumed to be the summation of the individual risks. Table 2. Summary of data collected at the Minturn Middle School air monitoring station between August of 1988 and June of 1989. All values are given in ug/m3 unless otherwise noted. Metal concentrations are based on analysis of TSP samples. AUG.-NOV.,'88 DEC.,'88-APR.,'89 MAY-JUNE,'89 GM* TSP 10.8 10.1 23.3 PM-10 58.Fi 50.3 GM ARSENIC 0.002 0.002 GM CADMIUM 0.005 0.004 GM CHROMIUM** 0.002 0.001 * Geometric mean. ** Estimates are based on mill tailings geochemistry. 5 Table 3. .Summary of data collected at the North Site air monitoring station between August of 1988 and June of 1989. All values are given in ug/m3 unless otherwise noted. Metal concentrations are based on analysis of TSP samples. AUG.-NOV..°88 DEC.,°88-APR.,°89 MAY-JUNE,'89 GM* TSP 18.1 16.0 29.0 PM-10 72.5 59.4 GM ARSENIC 0.002 0.002 GM CADMIUM 0>005 0.004 GM CHROMIUM** 0.002 0.001 * Geometric mean. ** Estimates are based on mill tailings geochemistry. Table 4. Variables employed to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes to children attending the Minturn Middle School and those residing in the Maloit Park area3 Airborne metal concentrations are given in ug/m . MIDDLE SCHOOL* MALOIT PARK** PM-10 72.5 72.5 ARSENIC 0.002 0.002 CADMIUM 0.005 0.005 CHROMIUM VI 0.002 0.002 * Eight hours per day, 5 days per week, 9 months per year. ** Twenty-four hours per day, 7 days per week. 6 Table 5. Estimates of risk associated with potential exposure of children to airborne contaminants in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School. CAPPING IN 1.5 YEARS CAPPING IN 4 YEARS ARSENIC 3E-7 3E-7 CADMIUM 8E-8 8E-8 CHROMIUM VI 3E-8 3E-8 TOTAL RISK 4E-7 4E-7 TABLE 6. Estimates of risk associated with potential exposure of children to airborne contaminants in the vicinity of Maloit Park. CAPPING IN 1.5 YEARS CAPPING IN 4 YEARS ARSENIC 8E-7 2E-6 CADMIUM 2E-7 6E-7 CHROMIUM VI 6E-7 2E-6 TOTAL RISK 2E-6 5E-6 III. ESTIMATES OF RISK TO CHILDREN POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO AIRBORNE LEAD IN THE VICINITY OF THE MINTURN MIDDLE SCHOOL .AND MALOIT PARR A. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY Children are considered to be the most sensitive individuals to lead exposure. Currently, the U.S. EPA has no recommend basis for risk assessment of inhalation exposure to lead by children. The U.S. EPA has established neither a reference dose for lead exposure nor has it classified lead as a human carcinogen. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead is 1.5 ug/m3. - A method which has been used by the Colorado Department of Health under similar circumstances (i.e., lack of acceptable exposure standards) involves the use and modification of occupational standards (6). This methodology is used in 7 preference to other approaches in that the modification process addresses specific exposure variables. More specifically, this method calls ford 1. use of the most stringent occupational standard; 2. modification to account for environmental (continuous) exposure of children rather than occupational exposure of adults; and 3. modification to account for a broader range of individual sensitivity. Application of this methodology to lead requires the use of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration°s (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for inhalation of inorganic lead (7). Assumptions regarding a child°s weight and respiration rate are the same as those described for children residing in the Maloit Park area. Derivation of a standard by the method described above results in a limit for continuous exposure of 0.68 ug/m3. This value is approximately one-third of the NAAQS for lead. The risk of an exposure can be estimated by evaluating the ratio between the environmental exposure and the calculated exposure limit. This ratio is referred to as the 11hazard index.1° A index greater than or equal to 1 indicates an exposure at or in excess of the calculated limit. Under this condition, a health hazard may be present. A index less than 1 indicates an exposure below the calculated limit. B. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Airborne lead concentration data have been collected at both the Minturn Middle School and North Site air monitoring stations during the first and second remedial construction seasons. The geometric means derived from these data and given in Table 7. The highest 24-hour airborne lead concentration recorded at the Middle School station was 0.089,ug/m3. The highest 24-hour airborne lead concentration measured at the North Site station was 0.487 ug/m3. C. ESTIMATES OF RISK A hazard ratio has been calculated for the maximum 24-hour airborne concentrations measured at the Minturn Middle School and the North Site air monitoring stations. A hazard ratio has also been calculated for the highest geometric mean airborne lead concentration measured at the Middle School and North Site stations. These ratios are shown in Table 8. 8 Table 7. Geometric mean of airborne lead data collected at the Middle School and North Site air monitoring station between August of 1988 and June of 1989. All values are given in ug/m3. Concentrations are based on analysis of TSP samples. AUG.•-NOV.,'88 MAY-JUNE,'89 MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.005 NORTH SITE 0.005 0.003 0.007 Table 8. Hazard Indies for the maximum 24-hour and highest geometric mean airborne concentrations measured at the Minturn Middle School and the North Site air monitoring stations. HAZARD INDEX MIDDLE SCHOOL MAXIMUM 0.1 24-HOUR CONCENTRATION NORTH SITE MAXIMUM 0.7 24-HOUR CONCENTRATION HIGHEST GEOMETRIC 0.01 MEAN CONCENTRATION IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS As previously noted, the data collected at the Minturn Middle School and North Site ai.r monitoring stations have significantly improved the basis for calculating estimates of risk associated with exposure to airborr,~e metals in this vicinity. Estimates of adverse health risk to children potentially exposed to airborne arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School and Maloit Park are presented in sections II and III of this report. As shown in these sections, the individual risks which contribute to the total include those for arsenic, cadmium, chromium VI, and lead. Based on the all 9 currently available data, including site geochemistry and the relative toxicity of other metals present, it is unlikely that concurrent exposure to these other metals would increase the magnitude of the total risk. The cancer potency factor for arsenic, combined with its geochemical occurrence in site mine and mill tailings, result in arsenic driving the overall magnitude of risk. Because the risk assessment approach uses here employs maximum exposure values, it is necessary to evaluate the calculated risks in that light. The calculated risks serve as upper limits which, based on the current data, are unlikely to be exceeded. The calculated individual and total risk of cancer associated with potential exposure to arsenic, cadmium, and chromium VI are within the acceptable magnitude of E-6 (one in one million). None of the measured airborne lead concentrations or their geometric means exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 1.5 ug/m3. Measured and averaged lead values do not exceed estimated lead exposure limits for environmental exposure of children, including the most sensitive individuals. Thus, the most current air quality data and analyses available for the Eagle Mine site indicate that no unacceptable risk to children attending school or residing in the Minturn Middle School and Maloit Park vicinity will be experienced for the duration of the remedial process. We continue to recommend, however, that rigorous dust control measures be exercised at the at Eagle Mine site. Rigorous dust control will further reduce any existing airborne metal concentrations which could contribute to potential exposures. 10 V. REFERENCES 1. Colorado Department of Health, 1989. Health Assessment, Eagle Mine Superfund Site. 2. Air Quality Data Summary, First Construction Season Sampling, August - November 1988. Eagle Mine Project - Minturn, Colorado. Air Science Inc., Lakewood, Colorado. April 1989. 3. Air Quality Data Summary, First Off-Season Sampling, December 1988 Through April 1989. Eagle Mine Project - Minturn, Colorado. Air Sciences Inc., Lakewood, Colorado. May 1989. 4. Carson, B.L., Ellis, H.V., McCann, J.L. (1986). Toxicology and Biological Monitoring of metals in Humans. Lewis Publishers, Inc. 5. Integrated Risk Information System (1989). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 6. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. The Chemical Health Effects Assessment Methodology and The Method to Derive Allowable Ambient Levels. 7. NIOSH Recommendations for Occupational Safety and Health Standards (1988). U~.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 37:S-7. Centers for Disease for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA. 11 ATTACfIMERT Eagle Mine Preliminary Air Monitoring Results May -June, 1989 ].2 N Date Sainpl ed 05/04/89 05/07/89 05/10/89 05/13/89 05/16/89 05/19/89 05/22/89 05/25/89 05/28/89 05/31/89 EA60-E NINE SITE HAY 1989 (u9/m3~ H ~i a ti~U ~7 m .~ AIRSORNE PARTICULATE COMCENTRATIOHS SC1i00L SITE TSP* Pb** As Cci PM10 11.9 <0.004 <0.002 <0.009 9.7 14.5 <0.004 0.006 <0.009 9.7 ls.a a.oo5 <a.o02 <a.ao9 10.0 18.9 <0.004 <0.002 / <0.009 9.9 17.3 <0.004 <0.002 <0.049 13.1 41.6 <0.004 0.001 <0.009 24.0 20.2 <O.Otl4 0.005 <0.049 10.5 22.7 <0.004 0.003 <0.009 fi.9 21.4 <0.004 <0.002 <0.009 9.4 33.7 <0.004 0.005 <0.009 13.3 * = Pernit Limitation 150 ug/m3 ** = Pernit limitation 1.5 ug/m NORTNiCROSS CREEK SITE TSP~ Pb** As Cd PH10 11.1 <0.004 <0.002 <0.009 10.3 20.5 <0.004 0.005 <0.009 13.9 55.9 0.413 0.208 0.034 38.2 24.7 <0.004 0.007 <0.009 13.1 15.7 <0.004 0.003 <0.009 13.1 36.1 <0.004 0.005 <0.009 25.7 22.1 0.005 0.003 0.012 16.7 22.9 0.009 <0.002 <0.008 10.8 28.2 0.011 0.005 <0.012 12.5 37.8 O.OOb <0.002 0.013 16.H TIIESE DATA ARE PROVISIONAL AND SUDJECT TO REVISION AFTER f1UDITING AND VALIDATION i~ ~D ~~~, PROVISIOIAL AIR pUALITY DATA (ug/m3) .EAGLE HINE,SITEf June .19891 SG Total° _ -- Suspended Particulate Date (15P) Lead00 Arsenic Cadmium Sampled uq/m3_ ug/m3_ u9/m 3_ uq/m3_ 06/03/89 23,6 0,007 0,005 < 0,006 06/06/89 30,9 0,010 < 0,002 <=0.009 06/09/89 18.1 < 0.004 <=p,002 < 0,008 06/12/89 16.6 < 0,004 < 0,002 < 0,008 06/15/89 23.0 < 0,004 0,003 < 0,008 06/18/89 $ ---= ---- ---- 06/21/89 37,8 < 0,004 < 0,002 < 0,008 06/?4/89 36,6 0,007 < 0,002 < O,OOB 06/?7/89 29.1 0,010 0,003 < 0,009 06/30/89 31,2 0,015 0,003 < 0,010 ° =Permit limitation 150 ug/m3 °° = Permit Ilmltaflon 1.5 ug/m3 $ a Invalid date PM10 ug/m3- 9.0 12.6 12,8 9.5 14.5 11.3 12,4 17.4 15.5 11.6 Tofaln Suspended Particulate (TSP) ug/m3- 94.2 33.6 19.6 19.7 26.7 21.6 46.0 39.8 29.4 31,1 THESE OATH ARE PROVISIONAL A1lD SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER AUDITIIiG AND VALIDATION. 111/CROS S fill: l K S I i l feed°tl ug/m3- Arsunlc -ucJ/01)- ('.oilwluu~ -uU/011- 1'MIO ug/m3- 0,487 0,245 _ < 11,(111 40,3 0,00) <=0,OU2 < U,(1(ll 14.4 0,009 <=U,U(12 < (I,(lUll 14.8 0,006 < U,oU? c (I,UO/ 12.8 0,004 <=0,OU2 < (1,(lUll 20,2 < 0,003 < O,OU2 < U.OI-7 16.4 0,004 < O,OU2 < (!.0(17 17,3 0,009 < O,U02 < U,0011 22,5 0,004 O,UU3 < U,(JUII 19, 1 O,OU7 O,OlJ3 c (1,(JOU 11,9 r' r t a i i 8 l l l f L SZO~~~Y ~ ~t)TIP.ANY, 1~TC. ~9S~C ASSESS~/iEBV~" F®R fV1E~ALS EXP®SURE A~ ~9~E MIIV~"URN Anl®®LE SCSI®®L ~~epaa~e~8 E®~ ~"~e Eagle C®unty Sc~®®9 ®~st~oct A~galst 7, ~L989 Leonard C. Slosky, President Bank Western Tower ~ 1675 Broadway ~ Sane .1400 ~ Denver, Colorado 80202 ~ (303) 825-1911 { i I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction l I. Review of Available Environmental Data 3 Tailings 3 Soil ~ Ambient Air Quality 9 Air Quality Modeling l0 Indoor Air Quality 1 1 Drinking Water ~ d II. Review of CDH Health Assessment of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site 16 III. Risk Assessment l~ General Approach 17 Data Adequacy and Uncertainty 17 Methodology 18 Modes of Exposure 18 Assumptions 13 Synergistic Effects ? 1 Sensitivity of Children to Metals 21 Scenarios Analyzed ? 1 Results ~6 IV. Conclusions ,9 V. Recommendations >; VI. Appendix: Summary of the Toxicology of Arsenic, 35 Cadmium and Lead SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. r r r t f INTRODUCTION The objective of this risk assessment is to develop technical information to assist the Eagle County Board of Education in deciding whether the Minturn Middle School should be used while the cleanup of the Eagle Mine Facility is in progress. The central question is whether students attending the Minturn Middle School will be exposed to concentrations of toxic metals that represent an undue risk. This risk assessment does not include an assessment of all the damages the Eagle County School District may have incurred as a result of the Eagle Mine Facility or the potential for contamination of the Minturn Municipal Wells. This report is divided into six major sections as follows: I. Review of available environmental data II. Review of the Colorado Department of Health's Health Assessment III. Risk assessment IV. Conclusions V. Recommendations VI. Appendix: Summary of the Toxicology of Arsenic, Cadmium, and Lead Following is an explanation of the metals symbols, abbreviations, and units of measurement used in this report. Metals Arsenic (As) Antimony (At) Cadmium (Cd) Cobalt (Co) Chromium (Cr) Copper (Cu) -- Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Molybdenum (Mo) Nickel (Ni) SLOSKY & COMP:INY, INC. i i i i i i } ,_. i (__ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page Z Selenium (Se) Thorium (Th) Zinc (Zn) Abbreviations CDH Colorado Department of Health EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency HEPA high efficiency particulate air (filter) HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning RI Eagle Mine Remedial Investigation prepared for State of Colorado Department of Law by Engineering-Science, December 2, 198 TSP total suspended particulates Units of Nleasurement dl deciliter hr hour Kg kilogram 1 liter rn3 cubic meter mg milligram u micron ug microgram 1 / 10 of a liter 1,000 grams 1 / 1,000 of a gram 1/ 1,000,000 of a meter 1 / 1,000,000 of a gram SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ~_ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 3 I. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA This section of the report covers five areas as follows: o Tailing ~ o Soil o Ambient air quality o Indoor air quality o Drinking water TAILING In order to gain greater understanding of the composition of the tailing, two samples from the New (Consolidated) Tailing Pond were collected on Jule 17, 1989. The samples were taken from the top of the Pond and from the north face of the Pond. These two samples showed metals concentrations in the same range as the data reported in the Eagle Mine Remedial Investigation (RI) prepared for State of Colorado Department of Law by Engineering-Science, December 2, 198. Metals concentrations in the tailing samples are considerably higher than the surrounding soils. Under the Eagle Mine Remedial Action Plan, the Old Tailing Pond and the Roaster Piles are being moved to the New (Consolidated) Tailing Pond. Since the fugitive emissions from the New (Consolidated) Tailing Pond are a combination of materials originating in the New Tailing Pond, the Old Tailing Pond, and the Roaster Piles, composite values for metals concentrations in the Consolidated Tailing Pond were calculated from the weighted average and weighted maximum metals concentrations from these three sources. Table 1 contains these data. SLOSKY & COMP, .~`~_ a Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 4 Table 1 ~. METALS CONTENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED TAILING POND ml;/Kg (parts per million) Metal Weighted Maximum Weighted Average Concentration, Concentration As 3,252 2,120 Cd 225 85 Pb 6,924 3,264 Cr 84 28 Ni 45 33 Mn - 37,640 20,925 SOIL ~- Soil samples were collected from the top 1; 2-inch of soil at 14 locations in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School on July 17, 1989. Sample locations are shown on Figure 1. The samples were collected with a clean file spade and put into clean, labeled polyethylene bags. Samples were promptly shipped for laboratory analysis. Extra sample material has been archived Three of the soil samples were analyzed for total concentrations of the following metals by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method 6010: As, Cd, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, and Co; and for total Th by EPA method 7841. Cu Zn The , , remaining soil samples were analyzed for total As, Cd, Pb, and Zn. Results of the analyses are shown in fable 2. Metals concentrations in soils at the _ School are suggestive of contamination by tailing. The RI contains data on soil samples from 16 locations. Based on discuss ions with Engineering-Science, the company that prepared the RI, none of the soil samples were taken from the Minturn Middle School property. Table 3 summarizes the soil data from the RI. The control locations are those believed not to ~ have been contaminated from the Eagle Mine facility. Table 4 compares the l results of the soil samples taken from the Minturn Middie School property to the normal ranges of uncontaminated soils and to EPA's guidelines for metals in R soils. t_ SLOSRY & COMPANY, INC. I Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 5 Figure 1 SOIL SAIdiPLING LOCATIONS • . -~, '..:'yam / ~~~;6 7- ~ ,~jpr~ ,` O u . O ~-~ ~• C Rio' O ~'. ~ a. e. o _~ j ;{ ~ a ThtUNG~ PdND f.pV ODD ,., X0.0? ~p._ '~J rrt~r ~J C`f O ° ~'~ ~~ ~ i ~ , , ; , ; , .,r~,,,,~ ¢«~a 7 •L , •6. .. J ~~ t= ~®a aA ~ • . o ~. • • . .. ..av~y_ ~ ... G L_ ~. SLOSIZY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 6 Table 2 h~IETALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL SAMPLES FRONT THE iVtINTURN 1\9IDDLE SCHOOL mg/Kg (parts per million) Samale Metal Numberl As Cd Pb Zn Cu Mn Mo Ni Se Th Co 3 119 <0.3 <8.0 l 42 4 124 2.8 95.1 ~ 15 5 90 <0.3 <8.0 89 6 159 0.6 12.8 359 7 117 <0.3 <8.0 180 12.2 601 <2.0 11.2 <9.0 0.3 ~.9 8 83.5 <0.3 <8.0 116 9 111 <0.3 <8.0 188 10 71 <0.3 <8.0 70.6 7.1 253 <2.0 8.3 <9.0 0.2 3.8 11 102 <0.3 <8.0 73 12 164 2.8 49.1 552 15.E 643 <2.0 14 <9.0 0.2 6.8 13 196 4.3 194 613 14 147 <0.3 <8.0 132 1 ~ 84.4 <0.3 <8.0 155 l b 123 <0.3 16.1 385 _ Average 121 0.96 31 25~ 11.6 499 <2.0 11.2 <9.0 0.23 ~.~ 1. The location of the samples is shown on Figure 1. SLOSKY & COMP:~NY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 7 Table 3 S11J1VIMARY OF SOIL DATA FROiVi THE RI Metal Control Areas Areas Impacted by Windblown Tailing As <5-16 12-106 Cd 0.7-4.3 2.2-12.0 Cu 5.7-70.0 14.0-51.0 Mn 160-600 290-1200 Ni 12-27 12-36 Pb 10-55 19-310 Zn 34-160 114-1700 Areas Impacted bv_ Surface Water Contamination 14-960 1.9-49.0 23.0-280.0 290-8600 13-29 16-9600 190-2800 SLOSKY & COMPANY, ,~~- Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 8 Table 4 COhIPARLSON OF METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL AT THE NQNTURN N®DLE SCHOOL mg/Kg (parts per million) Metal Range of Metals Normal Range EPA line id G Measured in Samvles of Metals in u e From the Minturn Uncontaminated Middle School Soils As 84-196 1-50 300 ave 121 ~ Cd <0.3 3 0.01-0.7 ave 0.96 .06 Pb <8.0-194 2-200 1000 ave 31 10 1 Zn 70 6 3 ~ 10-300 ! X00 ave 25~ ~0 Cu 7.1-1 ~.~ 2-100 2~0 ave 11.6 30 Mn 253-643 20-3,000 1000 ave 499 600 Mo <2.0 0.2-5 ~ ave <2.0 2 : Ni 8.3-14 5-500 100 ave 11.2 40 Se <9.0 0.1-2 '~ ave •3 Th 0.2-0.3 - - ave 0.23 Co 3.8-6.8 1-40 200 ave 5.5 8 1. Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2. U.S. EPA 1983. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment. S1V-847, Washington, D.C. SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 9 Il AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Four sets of air quality data are currently available: (1) samples collected between 1985 and 1987 by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) at the old ' Battle Mountain High School/Colorado Mountain College building (currently the Bronze Factory); (2) samples collected by Dames & IVloore on the roof of the Minturn Middle School from mid-August 1988 through June 1989; (3) samples collected by Dames & Moore at the North Cross Creek site from mid-August 1988 through June 1989; and (4) samples collected by the CDH between July 17, 1989, and July 27, 1989, from the roof of the Minturn Middle School, the foyer of the School, and the roof of the Minturn Community Center. The data collected from the old Battle Mountain High School provide a historical look at air quality in the area. Since these data were probably dominated by the flow patterns in the Cross Creek drainage, low total suspended particulates (TSP) values would be expected. The data confirm this assumption, showing an average value over the period of 11 ug/m Since these data spanned all four seasons, they were reviewed for seasonal variations. The data showed that the winter months (probably due to frozen ground and snow cover) do have lower ambient concentrations, but not until December; and the spring months showed increases as early as March. This same trend was observed at the Middle School and North Cross Creek sites, except the increase in the spring starts in February (as opposed to March) for these two sites. The data show concentrations increasing at the old Battle Mountain High School, reaching a peak in August, and then decreasing until December. From the limited data available at the Middle School and North Cross Creek sites, both are exhibiting the same trend. The magnitude of the readings also varies from the three sites; thelowest values are at ~ the old Battle Mountain . High- _ School, next highest is the Minturn _ Middle School, and the highest is the North .Cross Creek site. The TSP values at the Minturn Middle School are approximately one and a half times higher than the old Battle Mountain High School, and the North Cross Creek site is well over double the values. The highest TSP value recorded has been at the North Cross Creek site (94 ug/m3). The highest at the Middle School and the old Battle Mountain High School were 44 and 32 ug/m3 respectively. Even though the particulates have consistently recorded lower values at the Middle School than at the North Cross reek site, the metals values have been slightly higher at the Middle School. It is possible that the placement of the samplers on the roof of the School _may have influenced the results. Monitors placed on the roofs of buildings may not accurately measure the pollutants in the vicinity of the building, due to wind currents created by the building. On July 13, 1989, the CDH began operation of additional ambient air quality monitors on the roof of the Minturn Middle School. On July 1 ~, 1989, monitors began operation in the Minturn Middle School foyer and on the root of the SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ~- Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 10 Minturn Community Center. Monitoring results have been received for the July 13/ l ~ through July 27, 1989, period. The filters from the monitors were not analyzed with sufficient sensitivity (low enough detection limits) to produce meaningful results for metals. The significance of the results from these new monitors is difficult to evaluate because, at most, only 10 days have been monitored and because results from the other monitors are not yet available for comparison. The average TSP measured at the School b~ the CDH monitors was 23 ugjm3, compared to an average TSP of 17.9 ug/m for the Dames & Moore samplers. The average TSP measured in the School foyer (fora three days when School was not in session) by the CDH monitor was 13 ug/m, The average ~SP measured at the Minturn Community Center by the CDH monitors was 49 ug/m compared to an average TSP of 25 ug/m3 for the North Cross Creek monitor. AIR. QUALITY MODELING 3 F P The air quality (TSP) in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School was modeled using EPA approved models to assess the impact for periods when the Dames & Moore air quality samplers were not running and to identify the major areas of impacts around the New Tailing Pond. The Industrial Source Complex (ISC) This is one of the more sophisticated include particle size distributions calculations. The model was run in th hourly data and produces results that c values. model was selected for this application. models available and has the ability to and deposition concentration in the short term mode (ISCST), which requires in be compared to the 24-hour monitored The meteorological data used were ten months of data collected at the North Cross Creek site. These data were adequate for the ISC model and 317 days of modeling was accomplished. The New Tailing Pond was divided into 12 sections, and each section was assigned an emission factor. Th e emission factors were evaluated using values for dust emanations from ex posed surfaces, as determined by the Air Pollution Control Division of the CDH. The model showed results that compared favorably to the measured TSP values at the North Cross Creek site. The TSP values at the Midd le School compared on an average basis, but exhibited greater variability for the individual values. The model was calibrated to the north site and rerun. The model showed that June 3, 1989, produceu the highest TSP value at the North Cross Creek site, which was also the highest monitored value to date. It further indicated that the highest predicted TSP value occurring at the Middle School was on December which was not a 15 1988 day that the monitors were operations, with a value ' , , of 83 ug/m3. The highest monitored value at the Middle School was 44 ug/m and occurred on March 17, 1989. The model predicted the average TSP (resulting from blowing tailing) to be 13.E ug/m3 at the School. The average monitored TSP at the School is 17.9. Considering that not all dust in the air at the SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 1 ] School comes from the New Tailing Pond, the modeled result is in good agreement with the monitored value. IND®®R AIR QUALITY The building is serviced by a forced air heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Ducted air handling units serve the offices, gymnasium, locker rooms, etc. Individual unit ventilators serve the classrooms. Air intakes are located on the sides of the building. Filters on all HVAC equipment are changed semiannually. There does not appear to be significant potential for concentration of metals indoors relative to outdoors. In general, the school is quite clean. Very few fabrics exist, especially in high activity areas such as the halls and the gymnasium. Summer cleaning was in progress at the time of both site visits. Most of the procedures involved wet wiping or mopping. These procedures are beneficial, in that they suppress reentrainment of dust. Procedures such as dry sweeping or dusting should be avoided. Use of a (high efficiency particulate air) HEPA filtered vacuum cleaner should be considered, at least on a periodic basis, as a replacement for ordinary vacuuming of carpets. On July 15, 1989, the CDH began operation of a high volume (HI-VOL) outdoor TSP air quality sampler in the Minturn Middle School foyer. Monitoring results have been received for the July 15 through July 27 period. The filters from `~ the monitors were not analyzed with sufficient sensitivity (low enough detection limits) to produce meaningful results for metals. The significance of the results from these new samplers is difficult to evaluate, because only three days have . been monitored. The average TSP measured in t~e School foyer (for three days when School was not in session) was 13 ug/m In addition, it is highly unusual to operate this type of monitor inside of a building. The accuracy of results from such a monitor indoors is unknown. In addition, since school cannot be conducted with the noise from such a monitor, it is recommended that several appropriate indoor E ~ air quality samplers be in place to monitor air quality when classes at the Minturn Middle .School commence the end of August. On July 10, 1989, three dust samples were taken from insi~?e and one sample from i outside the Minturn Middle Sc~ool_ Table ~ contains the results of tl~e analysis of these samples. 'This table also compares the results with previous analysis of dust in the School and soils;~in the vicinisy of the School. . I. On July 10, 1'089, dust sam4p3es I weiseiir ~ke~i ~ from fillers in the Minturn Middle i School heating and ventilati~~~ :~ystemn. ~ Fable 6 contains the results of the analysis of these samples. ~`~'h~ tal9le also ~; .compares the results with previous analysis of dust in .the School .and°a`s~ils'.inuhe. yiicin~ny oJ' the School. SLOSKY & COMPANY, Imo. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page S 2 Table 5 CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN D1UST COLLECTED AT MINTURN MIDDLE SCHOOL mg/Kg (parts per million) Sample As Cd Pb Description Entry Light Fixture 15 (0.3) 13 (3) 120 (30) Lab Dust 26 (1) ~ 11 (2) 120 (4) Visible dirt on floor 19 (a) 3.0 (0.~) ~7 (1) Dirt on playground 32 (0.5) 3.5 (2.5) 95 (5) School Dust Values 20-24 8.5-29 57-66 From the RI (Table 8.1) Reference Soil ND-~ 16 0.7-4.3 10-55 Values from the RI (Table 5.1) I Windblown Contaminated IS-1.10 2-12 15-310 Soil Values from the RI (Figure 5.2-5.4) l t i {' i Values in parentheses are the analytical detection limits. ~ ND =Not Detected. SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 13 Table 6 CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN DUST COLLECTED FROM AIR FI LTERS OF THE MINTURN MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 mg/Kg (parts per million) Filters Filters Reference tVindbiown Exposed Exposed to Soi! from Contaminated To Outside Recirculat- the RI Soil from the Air in Air Table ~.1 RI, Fisure ~.2 to ~.7 As 54(20) 56(1) ND-16 15-110 Cd 7.6(1.0) 10(5) 0.7-16 2-12 Pb 240(20) 300(10} 10->j 1~-310 Cr 44(4) 38(Z) Cu 150(4) 230(2) 7-70 1~-60 Fe 18,000(4) 18,000(4) Mn 840(2) 880(1) 160-600 280-1,200 Ni 46(4) 23(2) Ag ND(4) ND(1) Zn 1,900(4) 1,300(02) 34-160 110-1,700 r 1. Values in parentheses are analytical detection limits. SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ~ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School 1 August 7, 1989 Page l4 DRINKING WATER Elevated levels of copper in the Minturn Middle School drinking water had been ~ reported by the Rocky Mountain Student Environmental Health Project (RM-STEHP) based upon one sample obtained on 3uly 29, 1987. In order to determine the drinking water quality in the Minturn Middle School a sample and a replicate sample were obtained on July 27, 1989, from the drinking fountain on the north wall of the gymnasium. The results are shown in Table 7. Table 7 CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN DRIIVKING WATER IN THE ivIINTURN MIDDLE SCHOOL ug/1 (parts per billion) Metal Sample. Replicate Drinking Results Sample Water ndard 1 St Results a As <2 <2 ~0 Cd <1 <1 l0 ! Cu 447 433 ` 1,000 Pb <5 <5 ~0 Based upon this analysis, the current drinking water quality at the Minturn Middle School does not pose <.~ignificant risks of adverse heal th effects. The water quality is far better than required by federal and state standards. The concentration of arsenic in the Minturn Middle School water is at least 25 times less than the maximum allowed under federal and state regulations. The concentration of cadmium in tt~-e Minturn Middle School water is at least 10 times less than the maximum allowed under federal and state regulations. The concentration of copper in th.e Minturn Middle School water is less than one-half of the maximum allowed under federal and state regulations. The concentration of lead in the Minturn Middle School water is at least 10 t imes less than the maximum allowed under federal and state regulations. 1. Federal (EPA) primary maximum contaminant levels, 40 Code of Federal Regulations 141.11. Colorado's standards are the same as the federal standards. ~ 2. Federal (EPA) secondary maximum contaminant levels, 40 Code of Federal _ Regulations 143.3. Colorado's standards are the same as the federal standards. SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page IS The RI indicates that the Minturn Municipal wells may become contaminated in the future, particularly if the wells are used more extensively. The remedial actions underway at the Eagle Mine facility could significantly alter the hydrology of the Maloit Park area. Thus, it is important that the drinking water quality be assessed on a regular basis. The analyses for metals should utilize detection limits no greater than the following: arsenic 2 ug/1, cadmium 1 ug/l, and lead 5 ug/l. SLOSKY & CoriP~'VY ~i~_ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 16 II. REViE~1' OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF I-iEAI,TFi'S IIEALTI-I ASSESSMENT OF TFIE EAGLE )\71NE StIPE12FUND SITE The Colorado Department of Health has prepared a report entitled 1 lealth Assessment Ea gle Mine Superfund Site, February 14, 1989 (1-lealth Assessment). The portions of this report directly applicable to tt~e risk of students attending the Minturn Middle School wer e reviewed. Following is a summary of the significant issues regarding the School. As the CDI-i Health Assessment states, it was prepared before ambient air quality data were available. Because of this lack of data, the CDI-[ 1-lealth Assessment calculated potential (maxlmllm) airborne metals concentrations for use in its risk assessment. Based upon the mid-August 1988 through June 1989 ambient air quality data from the monitors located at the North Cross Creek site and on the roof of the Minturn Middle Scl~~ool, the CDI-I, I-[calth Assessment significantly underestimated the actual concentrations of cadmium to which students at the Minturn Middle School are being exposed. CDH estimated th e cadmium concentration to be 0.003 Ug/1113. FCOm mid-August 1988 through November 1988 and ,jvlay and June 1989, the average mcasured cadmium concentration was 0.0082 3 ug/m at the Middle School and 0.0094 ug/m at the North Cross Creek site. The CDH Health Assessment pointed out the inadequacy of the data available at the time and recommended that additional data be incorporated into the risk assessment as they become available. An error in the EPA risk assessment database (IRIS) resulted in the CDII using a cancer potency factor for arsenic inhalation of IS (mg/Kg/day)-1. "1'he correct potency factor is 50 (mg/Kg/day)-l. This error in the EPA data resulted in a significant understatement of the cancer risk from arsenic in the CDI-I Health Assessment. The CDH was provided with erroneous information resulting in the use of a three-year period of attendance at the Iyliddle _ ,School when the actual attendance is four years. In considering these issues, one should keep in mind that the CDH Health Assessment used assumptions that would .significantly overstate the risks posed to students attending the Minturn. Middle School. For example, the students attend the School for four years (94 percent less time than the 70 year exposure used by CDH); and the students spend nine hours or less, 182 days per year, rather than the 24 hours per day, :365 days per year assumed by the CDH. The CDH has recognized the irrrportance of correcting these problems and of incorporating new data into tl~e risk assessment. It is understood that flit CDI-I is continuing to provide public health analysis on these issues. SLOSIIY & COr'IPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 17 III. RISK ASSESSMENT The discussion of the risk assessment is presented in three segments as follows: o General approach o Methodology ~ o Results GENERAL, APPROACH This risk assessment is intended only to estimate the additional risks associated with students attending the Minturn Middle School. It is important ~ to recognize that students attending the School may also receive exposures to metals at other locations (e.g., home) and from other sources (e.g., lead from motor vehicles) that are not considered in this study. This assessment does not address the risks to adults working at the School or children and adults living in the vicinity of the School. This assessment does not address potential risks from organic chemicals that may have originated at the Eagle Mine facility. The risk assessment assumes that students do not play on the tailing ponds or in the Maloit Park wetlands. The assessment considers the metals that originally were present in the New Tailing Pond along with the metals in the Old Tailing Pond, and the Roaster Piles that are being moved to the New (Consolidated) Tailing Pond. Bata Adequacy and Uncertalnty L` Although more data are now available than when the CDH conducted the health assessment in early 1989, a number of uncertainties remain as to the actual levels of contaminants to which students at the Minturn Middle School are exposed. The most important uncertainty is with regard to air quality. It is believed that the Dames & Moore monitors located on the west side of the root of the Minturn Middle School may not be accurately measuring the metals exposures of the students because of air currents produced by the Scf~ool building. At this time, data on metals concentrations measured in the vicinity of the Sc}-,~ol are only available for five and one-half months. This monitoring period is considerably shorter than desired .for a risk assessment. Since data collection efforts for this risk assessment had to be completed prior to resumption of school in the fall, it was not possible to obtain "in l use" dust or air quality samples from within the Minturn Middle School. In addition, data on the metals content and particle size of the tailing and the metals content of the soils is limited. While this risk assessment utilizes the latest health effects information SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 18 available, it should be recognized that current knowledge about the toxicity of metals is not perfect. To compensate for this uncertainty, a "conservative" approach is utilized in an attempt to minimize the chance that risks are underestimated. However, there remains a small probability that the risks could be greater than the estimates. Because of these uncertainties, the risk assessment is conducted in a "conservative" manner, which rninimizes the chance that the actual risk of students attending the Minturn Middle School will exceed the estimated risks. Because of this "conservative" approach, the estimated risks are likely to overstate the actual risks. METHODOLOGY Modes of Exposure The risk assessment evaluates the following ways in which students at the Minturn Middle School may be expo:>ed to metals from the Eagle Mine facility: o Breathing air containing, metals blown from the tailing. o Breathing air containing metals that have been reentrained from soil ~ or dust. o Ingesting particles which have been inhaled but do not enter the lungs. o Ingesting soil and dust ;from dirty fingers and other objects. The risk assessment does not include ingestion of water because the available data indicate that at this times the drinking- water at the School represents an insignificant risk (see Drinking Water, above). The risk assessment does not address swimming in contaminated water or the consumption of contaminated foodstuffs as there is no activity at the Minturn Middle School know to produce such exposures. Skin absorption of metals is not addressed because the contaminants present at the School are not known to be absorbed through the skin. ( Assumptions L The risk assessment used the following physiological parameters: o Body weight: 35 Kg (i'7 pounds). o Respiration rate: 1.0 nt3/hr while in the School building. i ~- o Respiration rate: 2.5 m3/hr while outside the School building. SLOSKY I & COMP!~NY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 19 o Oral ingestion of soil/dust while at School: 10 mg/day The risk assessment used the following exposure parameters: o Students attend the Minturn Middle School for 4 years out of a 70 year lifetime. o Students attend the Minturn Middle School for 182 days per year. o Students spend 6 hours each school day inside the School building. o Students spend 3 hours each school day outside the School building. f o) 64 percent of the particulates from the tailing are of respirable size (< 10 microns). Particulates greater than 10 microns in size ~ were considered unavailable to the lung but available for ingestion. o Indoor air quality is assumed to be equal to the outdoor air quality with dust being reentrained indoors and outdoors. The risk assessment utilized the most current information available from the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on the health effects of the metals present at the Minturn Middle School. The risk assessment addresses the carcinogenic and other toxic effects of the metals. For substances that cause cancer, it is believed that there is no amount ~ (greater than zero) which is safe. In other words exposure to even the smallest amount poses some risk, although the risk may be extremely small. Exposures to metals that may cause cancer are thus evaluated in terms of carcinogenic potency factors that express the probably of cancer incidence from various amounts of exposure. Exposures to metals that do not cause cancer are evaluated with respect to reference doses. The chronic reference dose is the highest exposure level over the long term that is - believed to not cause an adverse effect. A hazard index is used to indicate the potential for noncarcinogenic toxicity effects. The hazard index is the ratio of the estimated doses to the reference doses for a given metal. Thus, a hazard index of less than 1 indicates that no toxic effects should occur. A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that toxic effects could be expected to occur (if people actually receive the estimated dose). ~. Following are the carcinogenic potency factors and chronic reference doses used in the risk assessment (except for lead). 4__ I SLOSKY & COMPANY. INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 20 Table 8 POTENCY FACTORS AND CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES Carcinogenic Potency Factors Chronic Reference Doses Metal Inhalation Oral mg/Kg/day-1 Inhalation Oral mg/ Kg/day-1 As 50 2 -- 0.001 Cd 6.1 -- -- 0.00029 pbl __ __ 0.00043 0.0014 Cr VI 41 -- -- 0.00 {Cr III) Ni 1.19 -- -- 0.02 Mn -- -- 0.003 0.22 1. The EPA no longer recommends using references doses in evaluating lead exposures. EPA recommends that lead exposure be evaluated with slope factors to predict potential increases irr blood lead concentrations as shown in Table 9. Table 9 SLOPE FACTORS FOR LEAD EYPOSURES TO CHILDREN Lead ExDOSUre, -Child Slove Factors Inhalation 3-~ ugjdl per ug/m' Water (0-20 ug Pb/L) 0.2~ ugjdl per ug/L Water (20-~0 ug Pb/L) 0.02 ug/dl per ug/L Dust/Soil 1-10 ug/dl per 1,000 mg/Kg The slope factors indicate the increase in blood lead (ug/dl) expected for each unit of lead exposure from the air, water, and soil. The slope factors used for children results in twice the increase in blood lead as the same amount of exposure to adults. Due to the age of students at the Minturn iVliddle School, the slope factors for children were used. Despite toxic properties at high concentrations, relatively small quantities of selenium, arsenic, chromium, and nici:el are considered to be essential or potentially essential nutrients. Consequently, risk calculation based on "upper bound" risk factors may result in numbers which indicate a small risk of cancer exists when in fact the level of exposure may be beneficial. The Appendix contains a sumrriary of the adverse health effects of the major 1 metals present at the Minturn Middle School. ' SLOSKY & COMP3NY; INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 21 Synergistic Effects A literature review and discussions with EPA health effects experts has identified no strong synergistic cancer risks (similar to smoking and asbestos) for the various metals found in the tailing. The potency factors for cancer risks ~ used in the risk assessment are "upper bound" estimates which likely compensate for any synergistic effects. The risks for lung cancer from various metals should be considered additive. There have been many physiological interactions identified in the metabolism of metals. The noncarcinogenic oral risk to lead and cadmium toxicity is increased by the presence of the other metal. Also, the risk of toxicity to either metal would probably be greater in individuals in poor nutritional status in regard to protein, iron, zinc, and possibly other essential nutrients. However, no specific synergisms were identified which would put the students of Minturn Middle School at additional risk at this time. Sensitivity of Children to 1Vletals The greater sensitivity of children to lead toxicity compared to adults is well documented and was included in this risk assessment. Certain scientists believe that a child is more sensitive to toxic concentrations of metals (e.g., arsenic) as compared to adults, due to developing organ systems. However, critical toxicological data to support this belief are not adequate at this time. Thus, EPA does not recommend utilizing greater risk factors for exposures to metals (other than lead) which occur at a young age versus an older age. It should also be noted that the EPA potency factors are "upper bound" (95 percent confidence interval) and are designed to take into account an individual's entire lifetime including infancy. While the potency factors may not have been developed specifically for the age of the students attending the Minturn Middle School, this risk assessment incorporates a number of "conservative" factors to adequately protect this age group. Scenarios Analyzed Because of the inadequacy and uncertainty regarding the available data, six scenarios were analyzed to assess the risks resulting from different levels of metals exposure. The scenarios included- several maximum probable levels of metals exposure and several levels of expected metals exposure. Following is a summary of the conditions of each scenario. ~. Scenario 1 o The particulate level inn the outdoor air at the School is equal to ~ the average particulate level measured by the monitor on the School roof (TSP = 17.9 ug/mot ). SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 22 o All of the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School come from the tailing. o The concentrations of metals in the particulates (TSP) in the um weighted i 1 m outdoor air at the School are equal to the max the Old Tailing New Tailing Pond th i 1 , e n concentration of metals Pond, and the Roaster Piles as shown in Table 10. Table 10 METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN TAILING; TSP = 7.9 ug/m3 iVIAYIMUM WEIGHTED Metal Tailing And Air 3 ) Airborne Dust (ug/m (m1,/Kg) a qs 3,252 0.068 Cd 225 0.0040 pb 6,924 0.12 ~~ Cr 84 0.0015 Ni 45 0.0008 Mn :37,640 0.67 ,~ o A large amount of dust (100 ug/m3) is assumed to be reentrained into the air inside and outside the School building. The metals i mum content of the reentrained dust is equal to the weighted max il i i n measured metals concentrations in dust within the School and so ted in li s the vicinity of the School. -The metals concentrations are Table 11. Table 11 WEIGHTED NiAYIMUM METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL AND DUST Metal Dust Soil 56 196 L Cd 13 4.' Pb 300 194 f Cr 44 44 46 120 Ni 1,200 Mn 880 These concentrations were then weighted by the amount of time ide the School building and by the t s students spend inside and ou This approach to reentrainment ~s the associated breathing rates. ~ti same in all of the scenarios. __ SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. r Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 ;~ Page 23 Scenario 2 This scenario is the same as Scenario 1, except that the concentrations of metals in the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School are equal to the average weighted concentration of metals in the New Tailing Pond, the _ Old Tailing Pond, and the Roaster Piles. The metals concentrations are listed in Table 12. ~. Table 12 AVERAGE ~dEIGHTED METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN TAILING Metal Tailing And Air 3 Airborne Dust (ug/m ) (mg/Kg) As 2,120 0.038 Cd 85 0.0015 Pb 3,264 0.058 Cr 28 0.0005 Ni 33 0.0006 Mn 20,925 0.37 Scenario 3 This scenario is the same as Scenario 1, except that the concentrations of metals in the outdoor air at the School are equal to the maximum 24 hour metals concentrations measured by the monitor on the School roof, as provided in Table 13. ~ • Table 13 1 MAYIIVIIJM 24 HO>(JR METALS CONCENTRATIONS MONITORED AT SCHOOL t Metal Dust Equivalent Air (mg/Kg) (ug/m3) l As 1,508 0.027 Cd 670 0.012 Pb 4,972 0.089 i_._ Scenario 4 o The particulate level in the outdoor air at the School is equal to the maximum particulate level measured by the monitor on the School roof (TSP = 41.4 ug/m ). ~_ f SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. I ;~ ~, ;~ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 24 o All of the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School come ~ from the tailing. ~- o The concentrations of metals in the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School are equal to the maximum weighted concentration of metals in the New Tailing Pond, the Old Tailing Pond, and the Roaster Piles as listed in Table 14. Table 14 MAYIMUM WEIGHTED METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN TAILING; TSP = 41.4 ug/m3 ~ A_ Metal Tailing And Air Airborne Dust (ug/m3) (mg/Kg) As 3,252 0.13 Cd 225 0.0093 Pb 6,924 0.29 Cr 84 0.003 ~ Ni 45 0.0019 Mn 37,640 1.56 o Dust/soil reentrainment is the same as in Scenario I. ~ Scenario 5 o The particulate level in the outdoor air at the School is equal to the ~verage particulate level modeled at the School (TSP = 13.E ~ ug/m ). _ o All of the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School come . from the tailing. o The concentrations of metals in the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School are equal to the average weighted ~~ concentration of metals in the New Tailing Pond, the Old Tailing Pond, and the Roaster Piles. The metals concentrations are listed in Table 12. o Dust/soil reentrainment is the same us in Scenario 1. Scenario 6 o The particulate level in the outdoor air at the School is equal to the average particul t:e level measured by the monitor on the School } roof (TSP = 17.9 ug/m~;1. L __ SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. l_ ~a T ~. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 25 o The concentrations of metals in the particulates (TSP) in the outdoor air at the School are equal to the highest average metals concentrations measured either by the monitor on the School roof or at the North Cross Creek station. The metals concentrations are listed in Table 15. Table 15 MA%IMUM AVERAGE I~iETALS CONCENTRATIONS iV10NITOREI) AT THE SCHOOL OR AT THE NORTH CROSS CREEK SITE Metal Dust Equivalent Air (mg/Kg) (ug/m3) As 201 0.036 Cd 458 0.0082 Pb 2,648 0.067 o Dust/soil reentrainment is the same as in Scenario 1. Lead The risk assessment for lead differs in that the slope factors described previously were used to estimate the increases in blood levels as a result of environmental exposure. To assess the hazards at the Minturn Middle Sc hool from lead exposure from the tailing, the potential increase in blood lead was estimated based on: (1) the maximum probable lead exposure from the air and the soil; and (2) the expected lead exposure from the air and the soil. The maximum exposure estimates were based on the maximum measured 24-hour lead concentration at the North Cross Creek monito r and the maximum lead concentration measured in soil in the vicinity of the School. The expe cted exposure estimates were based on the maximum measured 24-hour lead concentration from the monitor on the roof of the School, and the average lead concentration measured in the soil in the vicinity of the School and the dust from within the School building. Table 16 lists these values. Table 16 POTENTIAL LEAID CONCENTRATION E`CPOSURES t I Source Potential 'Lead Concentration Exposures Maximum Expected Air (ug/m3) ~.5 :0.09 Soil (mg/Kg) 1''~4 46 SLOSKY & COMP._~TS~ _ r ~I ~~ .~ .~ ~~ ~' 1- ~_. ~` ~_ ~- L c t r i Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 26 RESULTS None of the scenarios estimateci concentrations of metals that are of concern with regard to acute toxicity. Table 17 summarizes the results of the risk assessment for the most important metals by oral and inhalation (i.nh.) routes of exposure. The hazard index was calculated for chronic toxicity. A hazard index of less than 1 indicates that no toxic effects should occur. Table 17 SUMMARY OF EST][IVIATED RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES Metal Estimated Maximum Exposure Estimated Expected Exposure Risk Hazard Risk Hazard x10-6 Index x10-6 Index Arsenic Oral 4.1 0.079 3.0 0.04 Inh. 33. -- 3.8 -- Cadmium Oral -- 0.003 -- 0.002 Inh. 0.35 -- 0.05 -- Lead Oral -- 0.14 -- 0.091 Inh. -- 0.18 -- 0.039 Manganese Oral -- 0.004 -- 0.0039 Inh. -- 1.4 0.23 -- SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ~, ~~ I~ a' _, `~ ;. =1? ~, { ~. ~~ g 3II 8 r Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 27 Arsenic Based on the risk assessment, inhalation of arseni~ is of the greatest concern. The estimated risks range from 3.8x10- to 3.3x10-~. The expected risk is estimated to be near the lower end of this range. The significance of these risk estimates is discussed in the Conclusions section of this report. Although the oral risk from arsenic was estimated to be up to 4x10-6, the associated dose is less than one-tenth of the chronic reference dose. At such levels, arsenic is considered a potentially essential nutrient and not a cancer risk. Cadmium The highest risk estimated for cadmium was 2.8x10-7. This is well within the range of normally acceptable environmental risks and at a level at which corrective actions would normally not be undertaken. The maximum estimated hazard ~ index was 0.003, or more than 300 times below the chronic reference dose. Thus, cadmium is not considered a significant danger at this time. Lead It is now recognized that individuals with blood lead levels between 10 and 20 ug/dl can have neurobehavioral deficits. Since the mean blood lead levels in the U.S. population range between 5-7 ug/dl, additional lead exposures should not contribute more than 3 ug/dl. Table 18 provides the estimated increases in blood lead for the maximum and expected amounts of lead exposure at the School. 'Table lg P®TEI~I'TIAL I1~1CR'EASES IN BLOOD LEAD LEVELS L ti L Source Potential Increases in Blood Lead Levels. (ug/dl) Maximum Expected Air 1.5 0.27 Soil 0.2 0.05 TOTAL 1.7 0.32 Thus blood lead levels could be increased by about 28 percent, if the maximum exposures occur, and about ~ percent with the expected exposures. Even though use of the chronic reference dose is no longer used for lead, a comparison was conducted to ensure that the hazard index did not exceed 1. The SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. T' .~ ~ } c~ 3 :~ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School .~ , August 7, 1989 ..3, ; Page 28 ~, . highest estimated hazard index was 0.18. The significance of the risk 6 assessment concerning lead is more fully discussed in the Conclusions section of this report. iVianganese The estimated hazard index for manganese ranged from 0.004 to 1.4. The expected hazard index was 0.32. Because of the number of conservative assumptions and since the expected hazard index is considerably less than I , toxic effects from manganese are not expected. Other Metals t ' The risk assessment indicates very low cancer risks and hazard indices for chromium and nickel. The risk estimates for chromium ranged from 8x10-8 to r 1.-1x10- The highest hazard index for chromium was 0.006, or 200 times ~_ below the chronic reference dose. The highest risk estimate for nickel was 1 .6x10-8. The highest estimated hazard index for nickel was 0.002, or X00 ~ times below the chronic reference dose. Excluding manganese, the sum of the ;;< estimated hazard indices for each scenario total substantially less than 1. "~ Due to the low concentrations present in the environment, lower cancer potency factors, and higher chronic reference doses, the hazards from antimony, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, selenium, thorium, and zinc are negligible. ;~} L c SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. t ~. r Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle Schooi August 7, 1989 Page 29 IV. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions are presented with regard to: o Arsenic o Cadmium ~; 3 1 o Lead o Other metals o Major mechanisms of exposure i ~~. ARSENIC Inhalation of arsenic is the greatest concern with regard to metals exposure at the Minturn Middle School. The estimated expected risk from arsenic inhalation of 3.8x10-6 (four-in-a- million) at the Minturn Middle School is in the range of normally acceptable environmental risks. Most ~nvironment~l standards are designed to achieve risks in the range of 10- to 10- Figure 2 illustrates the relative risks associated with environmental standards, arsenic inhalation at the School, and common hazards. A four-in-a-million risk is comparable to smoking 8 cigarettes in a lifetime or receiving one-half of the radiation from a chest x-ray. Based on this level of risk, 260,000 students would have to attend the School over the next several years for there to be a 100 percent probability that one student would contract cancer from metals exposure at the School. The "normal" child (age 3-14) cancer incidence rate is l.~x 10-'. The L ~, . estimated expected risk from metals exposure at the School is about 400~~~~less' than the normal child cancer rate. The maximum estimated risk from arsenic inhalation of 3.3x10-~ (three in 100,000) at the Minturn Middle School is at the high end of the range of normally acceptable environmental risks. However, given the many conservative assumptions used in the risk :assessment, the actual risk is likely to be considerably less than the maximum estimated risk. Following is a summary of some of the conservative assumptions used in tla: risk assessment: o The air inside the i.:S~hool lktiilding is assumed to be as dusty and contain the same .con®;~tr~vion ofa~~tals as ahe air outdoors. o There is scientif~ . idencE that metals from tailing are less biologically available(toxic) -than metals from other sources. however -the r4sk~ ~s~ssme~tt ~sumed that the metals are 100 percent laiologicadly mailable. SLOSKY & COMPANY, ~~i.. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 30 Figure 2 SPECTRUM OF RISKS :~ ~. L i e L m E . ~ ~ ~ ~ E - ~ E ~ ~ ._ v _ a m m m ~ ~ E ~ . L • x ~ _ „ io m uJ ~ ~ v .~ ~ .~ 0 C Cn m m m m (A m ~ ~ C 0 V m y m O U `' L m Q m Q ~ 7 ~ ~ m ~ ~ C C.1 (O C ~ ~ a ~ o •c o U '~ L ` L ~ L V ~ 3 O U ~ .~ v 0) m L o 0 N CA Q ~ 'J W U 0 ~ INCREASING RISK DEGREE OF RISK SLOSKY Rc COMPANY, INC. ~---~ - i Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School •~-,, August 7, 1989 y. ~ ~ Page 31 ~, o The risk assessment used "upper bound" cancer potency factors that tend to overstate the risk of cancer. The following comparisons are offered to help put the maximum estimated risk of 3.3x10-~ (three in 100,000) in perspective. This level of risk is comparable to: o Smoking 2 packs of cigarettes in a lifetime. ~ o The risk (in a lifetime) of being killed by lightening. s; o The added radiation from living in a brick building rather than a _ wood building for 7 years. ~~. o One-half the risk of being killed by an animal bite or sting. ~, Figure 2 illustrates these comparisons. Based on this level of risk, 30,000 ' students would have to attend the School over the next several years for there :~ to be a 100 percent probability that one student would contract cancer from metals exposure at the School. Based on the maximum estimated risk, there is about a 2 percent probability that one student would contract cancer from the ~; ~ .;_. metals exposure at the School over the next several years. . The "normal" child (age 3-14 years) cancer incidence rate is 1.x10..-3. , The ~ ~ _ , estimated maximum risk from metals exposure at the School is about 4~ ~ less than - the normal child cancer rate. At the exposures estimated at the Minturn Middle School, the oral risk from arsenic is not considered a hazard. ~; CADMIUIVt Based upon information available at this time, cadmium is not considered a significant danger. LEAD ~ ~ Based upon the current levels of lead measured in the vicinity of the Minturn ~- Middle School, the expected increase in blood lead due to exposures at the Minturn Middle School is not large. Assuming that the students attending the Middle School do not have blood lead levels above the mean level of the U.S. population, School students should not have blood lead levels at which neurobehavioral deficits occur. It should be no ted, however, that there could ~ be individual students with blood lead levels , in excess of 10 ug/dl. It is L possible that if a student had a blood lead level of 8 ug/dl or greater, exposure to metals at the School could increase that student's blood lead level ~_, SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ;~ . 3 3 3 s :~ :, 7 s~. ~~ i 3 :~ a c-_ 1 L l 1. Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 32 to over 10 ug/dl. EPA recommends that medical surveillance be considered when exposure estimates indicate that values for blood lead concentrations may exceed 10 ug/dl. OTHER METALS The risk estimates did not indicate significant risks from any of the other metals know to be present in the environment of the Minturn Middle School. MAJOR NIECHANISNIS OF EXPOSURE Close examination of the various scenarios that were utilized to calculate risk indicates two major factors: inhalation of arsenic and lead and ingestion of lead. Generally, inhalation is more contributory than ingestion, and direct inhalation of dust from the tailing is more important that reentrainment of dust in the vicinity of the school. SLOSKY & COMPANY, INC. ~.! _ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 33 V. RECOMIVIEIVIDATI®NS -, The following recommendations are made to minimize the risks to students at the ', Minturn Middle School from metals exposure. 1. The Eagle County School District should assess the feasibility of redesigning the Minturn Middle School's HVAC system to provide: (1) a positive air pressure throughout the School building with respect to the outdoors; and (2) clean air via filtration (10 micron or HEPA) of the incoming air from the outdoors. For the system to be effective, proper maintenance would be imperative. 2. The ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School should be monitored on a daily basis from an appropriate location (such as where the CDH monitors a_re_ being relocated to the east of the School -- building). The samples from the monitor ~ should be analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, and lead _.. (with a detection limit of 0.001 ug/m3) and with results reported within 30 days. The results of the monitoring should be assessed on a monthly basis to determine if increased metals concentrations are occurring. If increased metals levels occur, particularly for arsenic and lead, it may be necessary to take further actions to protect the students at the School. 8t D_ 'L L 'ti I 3. Appropriate indoor air quality monitors should be used to assess the indoor air quality of the Minturn Middle School from the beginning of classes at the end of August through at least December 1989. The samples should be analyzed at least for arsenic, c~dmium, and lead 3 (using the following d~tection limits: As 0.002 ug/m Cd 0.001 ug/m and Pb 0.004 ug/m ). Such monitoring will ensure that the metals exposures estimated in this risk assessment are not being exceeded. 4. When blowing dust is observed, the Minturn Middle School windows should be kept closed to reduce the amount of potentially contaminated material entering the School. ~. To ensure that reentrainment of contaminated dust remains at acceptable levels, the good housekeeping pr actices that are currently employed at the Minturn Middle School must be continued. Procedu res such as dry sweeping or dusting should be avoided. Use of a HEPA filtered vacuum cleaner should be considered, as a replac ement for ordinary vacuuming of carpets, at least on a perioc:c basis. To ensure that the School remains c lean, dust samples, and wipe samples should be collected quarterly during unannounced random visits by a qualified industrial hygienist. 6. The New (Consolidated) Tailing Pond and the Maloit Park wetlands should be immediately fenced, marked, and maintained to prevent students and others from entering these areas. SLOSKY & COMP?~NY, INC. ~~ Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School :~: August 7, 1989 ,~ , ~ Page 34 7. It must also be remembered that students may receive exposures from ' metals in the tailing other than when they are attending the Minturn Middle School. Although exposures to metals is not confined to ~-~ attendance at the School, a selective screening program for blood lead and urine arsenic concentrations in children in the community should be considered. Testing of selected students attending the Minturn Middle School would be a logical place to begin such a program. This action is ~' relatively inexpensive and would answer more questions about actual risks than any number of other studies. 8. As the implementation of the remedial actions at the Eagle Mine facility progress, conditions in the vicinity of the Minturn Middle School could change. For example, because of the ground water diversion and extraction systems, the hydrology of the Maloit Park wetlands could be altered. If the wetlands become significantly drier, it could be another source of blowing metals near the School. The progress of the remedial actions should be monitored in order to identify changing conditions that could adversely impact the Minturn Middle School. 9. Because the Minturn Municipal wells could become contaminated, the drinking water quality should be assessed on a regular basis. The analyses for metals should utilize detection limits no greater than the following: arsenic 2 ug/l, cadmium 1 ug/1, and lead 5 ug/l. i L L L 4 SLOSKY & COMPANY. IYC. L. 4! Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 Page 35 IV. APPENDIX ~' ~~ ~ ~~ •~ AItSEliIIC TOXICOLOGY Arsenic can exist in a number of valance states and as a variety of inorganic and organic chemicals. Inorganic arsenic is a Class A human carcinogen for both oral and inhalation exposure. The lung cancer risk was based on occupational exposure data to arsenic in the form of metal and metal oxide fumes. The oral cancer risk was based on high levels of arsenic found in drinking water. The oral cancer risk has historically been associated with skin cancer, although data now exist to indicate that internal cancers (bladder, liver, kidney, etc.) are also linked to oral arsenic exposure. The oral cancer potency factor for skin cancer is 1-2 (mg/Kg/day)- l . EPA scientists consider this form of skin cancer highly treatable. Potency factors have not been developed to calculate the risk of internal cancers to oral arsenic exposure. Food sources of arsenic (except for fish sources) are not thought to contribute to arsenic toxicity. Normal human intake of food arsenic is estimated at ~0 ug/day. At this level of intake, arsenic may be beneficial because of its classification as a potentially essential nutrient. CADMIUM TOXICOLOGY Cadmium is a probable human carcinogen (Group B.l) for lung cancer via inhalation exposure. Workers involved with cadmium smelting have had increased lung cancer deaths. Animal studies have confirmed an association between lung cancer and cadmium inhalation and have also suggested that cadmium may be carcinogenic to other sites via ingestion. Cadmium bioaccumulates in the liver and kidney and oral cadmium can lead to renal toxicity and possible other symptoms, including hypertension. Cadmium and zinc interactions are well known. Cadmium can interfere with normal zinc metabolism, especially if the individual's zinc nutritional status is poor. Likewise adequate zinc status provides some protection to cadmium toxicity. LEAD TOXICOLOGY Lead is known for toxic effects at high levels to the hematopoietic (hemoglobin synthesis) and nervous systems. Lead interferes with heme production. Heme ~s a component of the major blood protein hemoglobin as well as cytochrom 4~0, a f_ protein with detoxification functions. ` Neurotoxic effects have been documented in children with blood lead levels over ~ 80 ug/dl. Irreversible brain damage can occur with blood levels over 100 ~` ug/dl. At blood levels of approximately 30-d0 ug/dl, heme synthesis is impaired and slow peripheral nerve function has been observed. { SLOSKY & COMP!~NY, INC. ~; `a Risk Assessment for the Minturn Middle School August 7, 1989 ;~ Page 36 Lead levels in blood have been decreasing in this country because of the phase :. out of lead-containing products such as leaded gasoline. Lead tends to bioaccumulate over extended exposures and only slowly leaves the body. Thus, with high blood lead levels, chelatin therapy is used to stimulate the removal of body lead. Recent evidence suggests that neurobehavioral deficits in children are associated with blood lead levels as low as 10-~0 ug/dl. Thus, safe levels of lead intake have not been defined. Recently, public health policy has focused on controlling blood lead values to less than 10 ug/dl. ~-~ Thus, this report emphasizes the potential increase in blood lead levels from potential exposures. .~ , i ~- i `-- SLOSKY 8c COMPANY, INC. L~ Q I~A~UR~d. ENERGY RES®URCES COn/1PANY RECD AUG Y 4 1989 ®® ~ A ® e s®® o v s w a A .- v y P. O. Bou 567 o Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 ~ (719) 481-200J ~ FAX (719) 491-4013 August 8, 1989 Governor Roy Romer State Capitol Building Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Governor Romer: Request a state investigation of the Upper G~mnison - Unc~ahgre Basin Study before state funds are used to make final payment to the contractor. This water development study was recently completed for the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority (CWRPDA). The final document contains serious tec'nnical flaws and misleading conclusions, in spite of numerous written attempts by the City of Gunnison, Arapahoe County, and Natural Energy Resources Company to correct these errors during the draft stages. Our basic complaint is that the study was "politically engineered" to favor the water development projects preferred by the Upper Gunnison representative on the Authority's Board. This governor appointee is Chairman of CWRPDA, while also serving as the attorney representing the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD) in opposition to Arapahoe County's competing Union Park water right filing in district court. The study's most seriously flawed areas are as follows: 1. The study concludes Upper Gunnison Basin water consumption is increasing, when in fact it is decreasing because of the Western trends toward improved irrigation efficiency and retirement of marginal irrigated land. 2. The study distorts cost data to indicate the Authority's proposed Needle Point Pumped Storage Power Project is more efficient than our company's more advanced Rocky Point Pumped Storage Project. 3. The study grossly understates the economic, environmental, and multipurpose advantages of a large, off-river reservoir at Union Park, for both slopes, as compared to Aurora and UGRWCD's transmountain concepts from the small Pie Plant or Taylor Park diversion reservoirs to Metro Denver. A cursory check by state investigators will show that most of the study's analysis was devoted to the ,rater development alternatives that could possibly be controlled by UGRWCD. This nonobjective misuse of state funds can seriously impact pending water court proceedings and work to the detriment of the state's long-term water development unity on both slopes. Detailed engineering data in support of this complaint can be supplied to state investigators at the earliest opportunity. Please advise. Since////e/ly,/ ~ /1/'~{,~/~ // i Allen D. (Dave) Miller, President ADM/bm cc: Colorado Attorney General, State Legislators, Arapahoe County, City of Gunnison, City of Aurora, CWRPDA. Q E®ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED E 143 Union Boulevard, Suite 1010, Lakewood, CO 80228-1824, (303) 988-2202 August 8, 1989 Mr. Uli Kappus, Executive Director Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority Logan Tower Building -Suite 620 1580 Logan Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Subject: Upper Gunnison - Uncompaghre Basin Feasibility Study -Final Report Dear Uli: We have quickly reviewed the subject report and appreciate the extensive effort that went into the analysis and presentation. The result is a good assembly of data and information and a comprehensive look at the many possibilities for developing the water resources of this area. Because ofour-current work on the Rocky Point Pumped Storage Project and past involvement in looking at out-of-basin water export possibilities, ow comments will be limited to the projects studied for potential revenue generation. We believe that some of the estimated costs for the Needle Point No. 3 Pumped Storage Project are low, particularly for the waterways. Also, we believe that amulti-level outlet should be considered as likely a requirement for Needle Point as for Rocky Point and that the different level of development should be reflected in a higher contingency for Needle Point than for Rocky Point. The probable result of our suggested changes would be that Rocky Point would have a somewhat lower cost per KW. T}1e report implies that the Taylor Park Project has a cost advantage over the others examined. However, the projects are not being compared on an equal basis. There are several factors that should be considered as follows: 1. We believe that all projects should be evaluated on the basis of the dependable additional water supply which they can provide to a system. 2. It is greatly desired in an arena of limited resources that the available resources be as fully developed as possible. It is evident from all recent efforts to develop new water supply sowces for the Eastern Slope that inexpensive sources no longer exist and that any reasonable source should be fully utilized. It is equally evident that sites for large reservoirs which can regulate the seasonal and yearly fluctuations in Colorado's natural supply are rare. - 3. AState-sponsored study should focus on the State or regional water needs, the best long- range plan to meet those needs and optimum development of resources. The largest and most immediate water need is for the Denver Metropolitan area, with other Front Range cities as potential users of the high cost imported water. 4. It seems very logical to use the Denver Metropolitan area future demand as the cornerstone of the comparisons. This demand has been well-defined by the recent Two Forks EIS and can be expected to continue to develop as the largest municipal demand in the state. The value of storage in supplying this demand is apparent, whether you look at the present situation where surplus uncontrolled surface supplies are still available to be stored to supply dry periods or the futwe when the only new supplies will be the early summer peak flows of the higher-than-normal runoff years. a Mr. Uli Kappus, Executive Director August 9, 1989 Page 2 S. The concept of the Union Park Project has been predicated upon the preceding parameters, using a large storage volume and high capacity conduit to supply water during dry periods only, and thus maximize the increase in dependable supply. The water available under the Flow Regime II assumptions translates into an increase in dependable supply for the Denver Metropolitan System of at least 140,000 acre-feee by utilizing the large Union Pazk storage volume. 6. The Collegiate Range Project without large East Slope storage provides no increase in dependable supply because of the long periods when no water is available. Alternatively the cost of such storage, whether it now exists or must be built, should be included in the Project's costs. 7 . The Taylor Park Project provides 36,500 acre-feet of increase in dependable supply. The East Slope storage assumed and costed provides only what is required to adjust the constant supply to the seasonal demand pattern of a municipality. 8. Assuming that the cost estimates of the report are acceptable for comparison purposes, the capital costs per acre foot of dependable supply increase are $5,150 for Union Park, $8,230 for Taylor Park and infinite for Collegiate Range. 9. The report does not mention that a project with large storage volume, such as Union Park, can provide additional benefits such as maintaining more constant levels in Taylor Park Reservoir for recreation, providing more flood control for the Taylor and Gunnison Rivers and increasing water availability downstream of the Taylor Park Reservoir during dry periods. We recognize that the report suggests that t}ie purpose of the cost estimates and comparisons is to evaluate the practicality of power or water diversion possibilities and to identify projects which may warrant further study. With that purpose we fully agree and believe the report satisfies that purpose very well.. Nevertheless, the reader who is trying to determine where to devote future study efforts, may, even with careful attention, be led to conclusions which are based upon unequal comparisons and, therefore may not be valid. We recommend that you change the final report to incorporate the draft report comments which would better allow equal basis comparisons to be made among the projects considered. Very truly yours, EBASCO ERVICES INCORPORATED ~~~ /~'' ~ ~ Peter L. Strauss Glen Rockwell PLS:mec 4 TP>!e T®as 40® ~®r>alaPacg®rs asc ro as hem w®rlc di s p eflecting on 1086, many of H:NR's top 50 heavy contrac- tors may agree with Jim L. R{ann, president of Green Holdings Inc., Irving, Texas, lvhen he says, "It was a year where we just didn't feel we got our f.•iir share." Ironically, Green more than doubled its share of heavy business in the U.S. last year, but (cw fellow contractors shared such success. Indeed, the heavy -narket, excluding powerplant construc- tion. dropped an estimated 5.5°Jo in 1086. 'Che 1~op 400 Contractors reported a domestic heavv contract volume of ncarly $ 15.2 billion, clown from the cstinrrtcd $ f G billion the previews year. Several heavy contractors now hope the new Icderal highway bill will help turn things around in 1987. f fit hardest last year were the nation's top five heavy con- tractors, wlro accounted for ncarly a quarter of the industry's total volume in L)8ri. The group's combined eolume dropped `IO% last year, leaving it wnh only a fifth of all heavy work. "l~he nosedive taken by Houston-based Brown & Root Inc., 1984's No. I heavy contractor, served as the hest example of the rnarkct's downturn. "I~he Texas fn~rn not only fell from the top five last }'car, it dropped 47 slots and reported nearly X1.1 billion less in its heavy contract volume. Balancing that departure, New York City-based Ebasco Ser- vices Inc. In<:rcascd its volunrc by ncarly 30 Jn in 198G and emerged as the nation's top heavy contractor. Diversifying more uuo the public sector, Ebasco took on major hazardous- waste jobs in the Northeast for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arrny. Traditionally more oriented toward power and utility work, Ebasco last year began putting togeth- er "a complete menu of services for its clients," explains Ronald C. Kurtz, the firm's director of corporate relations. Finishing second by less than a percentage point, To 400 leader Bechtel Group Inc., San Francisco, increased its heavy construction contracts 29~e. Also looking more at hazardous- waste projects and high-tech jobs, Bechtel allotted heavy con- su-uction agreater role in its plans last year. Acknowledging that the company had also increased its emphasis on airports, highways and mass transit, Bechtel Information and Planning h4anager John F. Carnphcll notes, "It heavy works has be- conrc more of a mainstay in our overall business." Battling declines that ranged from modest to drastic, other top contractors refused to relinquish their high --ankings. SufTering respective losses of 4 I and 34 Jo in heavv work volu-ne, Guy P. Atkinson Co., South San Francisco, and S.J. Groves and Sons Co., Atinncapolis, both rcrnained in the top 10. Boise-based Morrison Knudsen Gorp.rnoved up two slots despite a 1O°fo drop in heavy contracts. ^ ~®p 5® heavy ~®ro$~act~ors 1986 contracts in $ million Rank Flrm Total HWY•/ br. Wtr./ Dam awr. ~` _`1 '~batil:o•~$e`rvlces Inc.; H6ar York, W.Y. ~.. 789.1 : ` `'°~'."`-rf,,,._-,-,. 2 Bechtel Group Ina. San Francisco, CaIH ................................... 782.1 / / / 3 Klewlt Const. Group Inc., Omaha, Neb. 713.8 / / / 4 Morrison Knudsen Corp., Boise, Idaho 460.4 / / / 5 Koppers Co. Inc. (CM&S), Pittsburgh, Pa ......................................_...... 390.9 / / / 6 Granite Conat. Co., Watsonville, Catit... 387.5 / / / 7 Guy F. Atkinson Co. of Calif., San Francisco, Calif ................................... 380.9 / 8 Brinderson Corp., Irvine, Calit ................ 316.3 / ,- / / 9 S.J. Groves ~ Sons Co., Minneapolis, Mlnn ................................................................ 286.2 / / / 10 Stone 8 Webster Engrg. Corp., Boston 236.8 / / / 11 H.B. Zachry Co., San Antonio, Texas .... 227.4 / / / 12 Fru-Con Const. Corp., Baldwin, Mo....... 224.5 / / / 13. Dick Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa ........................ 223.0 / / / 14 Green Holdings Inc., Irving, Texas ........ 220.5 / / / 15 Yonkers Contracting Co. Inc., Yonkers, H.Y ................................................ 218.8 / / 16 T.L James & Co. Inc., Ruston, La......... 217.9 / / „ 17 Guat K. Newberg Const. Co., Chicago, III .................................................... 205.0 / / / 18 Robert E. McKee Inc., EI Paso, Texas .. 202.1 19 Williams Bros. Const. Co. Inc., Houston, Texas ........................................... 198.9 / / / 20 Kokosing Construcilon Co Inc Hwy./ Wtr./ Rank Flrm Total br. Dam swr. 24 Slattery Group Inc., Maspeth, H.Y.......... 177.2 / / 25 Austin Industries Inc., Dallas, Texas ..... 172.6 / / / 26 Danis Industries Corp., Dayton, Ohlo ... 169.2 / „ / 27 Perlnl Corp., Framingham, Mass ............. 167.7 / ., / 28 Traylor Bros. Inc., Evansville, Ind.......... 162.3 / / / 29 The Tanner Cos., Phoenix, Ariz .............. 152.0 / „ 30 Eby Corp., Wlchlta, Kan ............................ 151.3 / / / 31 The Lane Const. Corp., Meriden, Conn. 129.9 / / / 32 Holloway Ccnst. Co., Wixom, Mlch........ 129.6 / / r 33 National Englneering 8 Contracting Co., Strongsville, Ohio ....................................... 128.6 / / „ 34 E.L. Yeager Construction Co. Inc., Riverside, Calif ............................................ 125.0 / / .. 35 J.D. Abrams Inc., EI Paso, Texas ........... 119.0 / / „ 36 Kasler Corp., San Bernardino, Calif...... 119.0 / / / 37 Lunda Construcilon Co., Black River Falls, Wls ................................ 117.0 / / „ 38 IA Construction Corp., Concordville, Pa. 115.0 / / / 39 Shook National Corp., Dayton, Ohlo ..... 114.4 ., / / 40 Riedel International Inc., Portland, Ore. 111.6 / / / 41 Clanbro Corp., plttsfleld, Maine .............. 109.4 / / / 42 Hood Corp., Whittler, Calif ....................... 108.9 „ / 43 Great Lakes Int'I. Inc., Oak Brook, III... 105.0 44 Vecelllo 8 Grogan Inc., Beckley, W,Va. 105.0 / / 45 Mergentlme Corp., Flemington, N.J....... 101.9 / / / ' 46 The Walsh Group, Chicago, III ................ 94.3 / „ / Fredericktown, Ohlo ................................... 191.0 / .. / 47 Enserch Alaska Const. Inc, Anchorage 93.6 / / „ 21 Paschen Contractors Inc., Chicago, III. 190.3 / / 48 Brown ti Root Inc., Houston, Texas ..... 93.0 / / / 22 The Hardaway Co., Columbus, Ga......... 184.1 / / 49 Tutor-Saliba Corp., Sllmar, Calif...........„ 91.6 / / / 23 Jones Group Inc., Charlotte, N.C........... 179.7 / / / SO Horvitz Co., Cleveland, Ohlo .....„.._....... 89.0 / „ / Ranked by value of domestic contracts, excluding conshucfron management contracts, for heavy erM highway projects. Ercludes pOwerylants. ENR/April 16, 1987 87