HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021905.tiff RESPONDENT EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
g EXHIBIT
Case: Probable Cause (ZCH #102 & SUP#454) - Duckworth/WCWD
Respondent —= _
Exhibit Submitted 03/01/95 By Exhibit Description
1. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Response to Colorado Health Department (Mallory and
Laudeman) dated November 23, 1994
(5 pages)
2. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Technology Laboratory, Inc., - Water Analysis Report
Wells#1, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 - sampled 12/27/94
(13 pages)
3. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Chen &Associates - map (1 page)
4. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc. (Godby)
Letter, with attachments, dated 03/11/91 to Weld
County Health Department re: Hazardous Wastes
(15 pages)
5. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Northern Colorado Consulting Firm (Godby)
Letter, with attachments, dated 06/06/91 to Weld
County Health Department re: Hazardous Wastes
(3 pages)
6. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Northern Colorado Consulting Firm (Godby)
Letter, with attachments, dated 12/02/91 to Weld
County Health Department re: Hazardous Wastes
(13 pages)
7. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Northern Colorado Consulting Firm (Godby)
Letter, with attachments, dated 03/02/92 to Weld
County Health Department re: Hazardous Wastes
(3 pages)
8. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Weld County Health Department (Jiricek and Stoll)
Letter dated 11/03/93 to Duckworth/WCWD requesting
development of characterization and remediation plan
(1 page)
9. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Weld County Planning Department (Schuett)
Letter, with attachments, dated 11/09/93 to
Duckworth/WCWD requiring compliance within 30 days
(3 pages)
10. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Weld County Health Department (Jiricek)
Letter dated 11/10/93 to Duckworth/WCWD detailing
seven compliance within 30 days
(3 pages)
11. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Response to Weld County Planning (Schuett) and
Health (Jiricek) Departments dated 12/09/93
(8 pages)
12. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Weld County Health Department (Jiricek and Stoll)
Letter dated 01/13/95 to Duclworth/VVCWD requesting
development of characterization and remediation plan
(1 page)
13. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Letter to Weld County Attorney's Office (Morrison)
dated 02/02/95
(5 pages) 2002-1905
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT CONTROL SHEET - ZCH #102 FOR DUCKWORTH/WCWD
PAGE 2
Respondent
Exhibit Submitted 03/01/95 By Exhibit Description
14. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 - depth gauge
15. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 - buoy system
16. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 - buoy system
17. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 -Well #5
18. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 -Well #6
19. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 -Well #8
20. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 -Well #9
21. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 - discharge process
22. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Photograph taken 02/28/95 - sand accumulation
23. Richard D. Judd, P.C., Attorney Groundwater Technology, Inc. (Shosky)
Status Report dated 10/21/93
ISIT
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C. 1
ATTORNEY A T LAW
1660 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 2800
DENVER, COLORADO 80264
FACSIMILE: 303/831-1181
TELEPHONE: 303/831-1110 it))? --
LIL\ r
DEC ', 1994
November 23, 1994
nhnninr
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Section Chief
Solid Waste Section
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
Geological Engineer
Solid Waste Section
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.
5019 Weld County Road 12
Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado
Dear Messrs. Mallory and Laudeman:
This office represents Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc. ("WCWD"). The following is
a response to your letter of October 25, 1994 Re: Notice of Violation.
WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Solid Waste Regulations (6 CCR 1007-2) (the
"Regulations") despite your assertions to the contrary. C.R.S. 24-4-105(2) requires a hearing
prior to a determination pursuant to Section 9.1.4 of the Regulations. Such a hearing did not
occur. As was stated in Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,
809 P.2d 1076 at 1077 (Colo.App. 1990):
The fundamental requisites of due process are notice and
the opportunity to be heard. See Nesbit r. Industrial Commission,
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
November 23, 1994
Page 2
43 Colo.App. 398, 607 P.2d 1024 (1979). If, as here, an
administrative adjudication turns on questions of fact, due process
requires that the parties be apprised of all the evidence to be
submitted and considered, and that they be afforded a reasonable
opportunity in which to confront adverse witnesses and to present
evidence and argument in support of their position. Puncec v.
Denver, 28 Colo.App. 542, 475 P.2d 359 (1970).
Accordingly, no response is necessary to your suggestion of violation of specific portions
of Section 9 of the Regulations. Nevertheless, the following is provided for your information:
1. Each of the impoundments has adequate depth gauges.
2. Monitoring Wells 5, 8 and 9 are now locked. Monitoring Well 6 is not currently
in use and will be abandoned.
3. Erosion is not occurring in Pond C. What was observed was a sandy deposit that
is being through put to Pond C since the Division will not permit removal of the sludge from the
receiving pit.
4. Pond C currently has a floating oil scum problem. The oil is contained by buoys
and is removed daily. The problem is caused because the receiving pit is full of sludge, and the
oil skimming at the receiving area does not operate properly when the receiving pit is full of
sludge.
5. No response to 5 is made, although some sampling could occur if a response was
made to my letter of May 8, 1994 to Timothy J. Monahan, Esq.
6. We note your allegation that wild fowl may have died at the facility after coming
into contact with the impounded wastes. If this is a problem, it is exacerbated by the amount of
floating oil scum on Pond C, which in turn is caused by the inability of the facility to adequately
remove oil at the receiving pit. See comment 4 above.
In reference to your request for additional information, WCWD responds as follows:
REQUEST: 1. A plan for characterization and remediation of an illegal disposal incident
at property owned by Mr. James Martin. The disposal occurred in June
of 1993. The information was first required in the Division's letter of July
7, 1993, and several times in subsequent correspondence. Sampling of soil
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
November 23, 1994
Page 3
at this site was performed in November or December of 1993, and the
results of this sampling were reported in Groundwater Technology Inc.'s
letter of December 17, 1993. We have received no other information from
WCWD regarding the extent of the contamination at the Martin property.
RESPONSE: Tab 1 is attached hereto. A report characterizing the subject soil at the
Martin Property has been prepared by Groundwater Technology, Inc. and
is being submitted under separate cover by Groundwater Technology, Inc.
REQUEST: 2. A copy of Figure 1 from the Chen Northern report contained in Appendix
D of the October 21, 1993 status report for the Facility. This figure would
contain information on the numbering scheme used for the monitoring
wells at the time of the report, and would be useful in correlating past
monitoring data. Requested in the Division's letter of December 14, 1993.
RESPONSE: The document is included under Tab 2.
REQUEST: 3. Ground water monitoring results for all monitoring events since second
quarter of 1993. Of specific concern are monitoring results for well MW-
5. This well has shown the highest levels of contaminants in the past, but
has not been included in recent monitoring events. The Division
specifically requested MW-5 be included in all future sampling events in
the Division's letter of December 6, 1993.
RESPONSE: Tab 3 is attached hereto. The groundwater monitoring results will be
forwarded to you under separate cover by Groundwater Technology, Inc.
REQUEST: 4. A listing of shallow wells within a five mile radius east of the Facility.
This information was requested in order to help determine if any of these
down gradient wells may have been impacted. Requested in the Division's
letter of December 6, 1993.
RESPONSE: The materials requested are included under Tab 4. The subject wells are
highlighted in yellow.
REQUEST: 5. The data and calculations used as the basis for the pond relining schedule
presented in the October 21, 1993 status report. This schedule called for
reconstruction of Pond A (currently inactive) and relining of Ponds C and
D. Requested in the Division's letter of December 6, 1993.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
November 23, 1994
Page 4
RESPONSE: Tab 5 is attached hereto. The materials requested have been prepared by
Groundwater Technology, Inc. and are being forwarded to you under
separate cover by Groundwater Technology, Inc.
REQUEST: 6. After a review of the Groundwater Technology Inc. sampling at the Martin
property (GTI letter of December 17, 1993), the Division requested
additional work to define the nature and extent of contamination. The
requested information has not been received. Requested in the Division's
letter of February 11, 1994.
RESPONSE: The materials sought are contained in the response to Request 1 under Tab
1 and will be forwarded to you under separate cover by Groundwater
Technology, Inc.
REQUEST: 7. April 4, 1994 letter to Richard Judd requesting for a second time the
information asked for in the Division's December 6, 1993 letter but not yet
provided.
RESPONSE: The Division's letter of December 6, 1993 referenced seven concerns.
(1) The concern of the Division is noted.
(2) The groundwater monitoring information is being provided
under Tab 3 above.
(3) The request for shallow well information is provided under
Tab 4 above.
(4) The calculations requested are provided under Tab 5 above.
(5) We have previously noted to the Division that WCWD
understands that the Division will require a detailed design and operation
plan for the relined ponds. Once the concept of the proposal contained in
the Report is approved, the detailed design and operation plan will be
prepared. See the letter of Richard D. Judd to Stephen Laudeman dated
January 6, 1994.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
November 23, 1994
Page 5
(6) WCWD noted in its response of January 6, 1994 that it
understood that the Colorado Department of Health had not yet approved
the conceptual plan.
(7) WCWD has presented all quarterly monitoring results.
Under Tab 5, the results of MW-5 have been submitted.
As an offer of compromise and settlement to the suggested delinquency in payment of the
Hazardous Substance Response Fund, and not as an admission of liability, WCWD believes that
the following amounts are due:
1993 3rd Quarter $12,113.89
1993 4th Quarter $13,231.24
1994 1st Quarter $13,915.61
1994 2nd Quarter $17,836.41
1994 3rd Quarter $14,235.43
WCWD proposes the following payment schedule:
1993 3rd Quarter December, 1994
1993 4th Quarter January, 1995
1994 1st Quarter February, 1995
1994 2nd Quarter March, 1995
1994 3rd Quarter April, 1995
1994 4th Quarter May, 1995
1995 1st Quarter June, 1995
1995 2nd Quarter July, 1995
In reference to the threat of litigation to pursue enforcement of violation of the
Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal and facilities, see the legal position of WCWD
set forth at the beginning of this letter.
WCWD continues to be willing to prepare a detailed design and plan once a conceptual
remediation plan is agreed to by WCWD, Colorado Department of Health, the Weld County
Health Department, and now, the Environmental Protection Agency. The October, 1993 Report
outlines the remediation approach suggested by Groundwater Technology, Inc. As suggested in
my letter of January 6, 1994 to Mr. Stephen Laudeman, WCWD would like to have begun the
relining of Pond A in the spring of 1994, but the conceptual plan has not yet been approved.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Mr. Glenn F. Mallory
Mr. Stephen Laudeman
November 23, 1994
Page 6
Further, since early in the summer of 1994, WCWD has sought the approval of the
Division to remove sediments contained in the sump and treat the same on-site on a lined portion
of Pond D. Several requests have been made concerning this matter, but all seemed to have been
ignored by the Division. If the sludges were removed, for example, this would help lessen the
impact of floating oil scum on Pond C. See Observation and Determination numbered 4 in your
letter of October 25, 1994.
WCWD continues to be willing to pursue the course of action set forth in my letter of
May 18, 1994 to Timothy J. Monahan, Esq., to pursue a global settlement which takes the form
of a compliance order on consent and which addresses the alleged violations, possible penalties
and actions necessary to come into compliance with both hazardous wastes and solid waste
requirements and is scheduled for compliance. WCWD continues to be willing to provide
samplings based upon the techniques outlined in the same letter to Mr. Monahan, to which we
have had no response.
Yours very truly,
.9Q
Richard D. Ju d
RDJ/vab
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Howard Duckworth
Mr. Donald Shosky
Timothy J. Monahan, Esq.
Mr. Corbin Darling
Chuck Figur, Esq.
I D0IMIT
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. I Z
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-1 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-1 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed ua/L Number Compound Analyzed ue/L
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <0.5 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene <0.5
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5
74-83-9 Bromomethane <0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0.5
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.5 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <0.5
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.5 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene <0.5
156-60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <0.5
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 100-42-5 Styrene <0.5
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform <0.5
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.5 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <0.5 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <0.5
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.5 9549-8 2-chlorotoluene <0.5
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 106-43-4 4-chlorotoluene <0.5
71-43-2 Benzene <0.5 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.5 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <0.5
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0.5 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <0.5
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <0.5
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <0.5 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <0.5
108-88-3 Toluene <0.5 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <0.5
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.5 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <0.5
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <0.5
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0.5 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 91-20-3 Naphthalene <0.5
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.5
Page 1
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-1 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-1 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery % Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 93 76-114
Toluene-dg 102 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 103 86-115
eee,'
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 2
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-5 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-2 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed ua/L Number Compound Analyzed ua/L
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <0.5 127-184 Tetrachloroethene <05
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5
74-83-9 Bromomethane <0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0.5
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.5 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <05
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.5 10041-4 Ethylbenzene <0.5
156-60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <0.5
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 100-42-5 Styrene <05
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform <0.5
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.5 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <0.5 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <0.5
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.5 9549-8 2-chlorotoluene <0.5
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 10643-4 4-chlorotoluene <0.5
71-43-2 Benzene <0.5 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.5 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <0.5
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0.5 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <0.5
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <0.5
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <0.5 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <05
108-88-3 Toluene <0.5 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <0.5
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.5 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <0.5
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <0.5
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0.5 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 91-20-3 Naphthalene <0.5
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <05
Page 3
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-5 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-2 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery % Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 98 76-114
Toluene-d8 100 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 110 86-115
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 4
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-8 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-3 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed ug/L Number Compound Analyzed MAIL
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <0.5 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene <05
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5
74-83-9 Bromomethane <0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0.5
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.5 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <0.5
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.5 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene <0.5
156-60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <0.5
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 100-42-5 Styrene <0.5
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform <0.5
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.5 79-345 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <0.5 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <0.5
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.5 95-49-8 2-chlorotoluene <0.5
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 106-43-4 4-chlorotoluene <0.5
71-43-2 Benzene <0.5 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.5 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <0.5
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0.5 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <0.5
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <05
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <0.5 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <0.5
108-88-3 Toluene <0.5 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <0.5
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.5 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <0.5
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <05
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0.5 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 91-20-3 Naphthalene <0.5
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.5
Page 5
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-8 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-3 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery 96 Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 93 76-114
Toluene-d8 94 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 86-115
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 6
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-9 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-4 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed ug/L Number Compound Analyzed ua/L
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <05 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene <05
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5
74-83-9 Bromomethane <0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0.5
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.5 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <0.5
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.5 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene <05
156-60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <0.5
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 100-42-5 Styrene <0.5
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform <0.5
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.5 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <0.5 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <05
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.5 95-49-8 2-chlorotoluene <0S
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 106-43-4 4-chlorotoluene <0S
71-43-2 Benzene <0.5 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.5 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <0.5
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0.5 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0S
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <0S
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <0.5
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <0.5 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <0.5
108-88-3 Toluene <05 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <05
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.5 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <0.5
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <0.5
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0.5 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 91-20-3 Naphthalene <0.5
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.5
Page 7
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-9 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-4 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery % Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 93 76-114
Toluene-d8 102 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 8
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-12 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-5 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed uu/L Number Compound Analyzed ug/L
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <0.5 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene <05
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane <05
74-83-9 Bromomethane <0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0.5
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.5 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <05
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.5 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene <05
156.60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <05
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 100-42-5 Styrene <05
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform <05
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <05 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <05 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <0.5
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <05 95-49-8 2-chlorotoluene <0.5
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 106-43-4 4-chlorotoluene <05
7143-2 Benzene <05 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.5 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <05
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0.5 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <05
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <05
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <05 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <05
108-88-3 Toluene <05 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <0.5
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <05 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <05
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <0.5
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0.5 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 91-20-3 Naphthalene <05
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <05
Page 9
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-12 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-5 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery % Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 86 76-114
Toluene-d8 97 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 103 86-115
�C.fi
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 10
•
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Mr. Howard Duckworth Sampled: 12/27/94
12028 Warfield Received: 12/27/94
San Antonio, TX 78216 Analyzed: 01/03/95
Sample ID: 122794-13 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-6 Method: EPA-8260
CAS Concentration CAS Concentration
Number Compound Analyzed ua/L Number Compound Analyzed ug/L
75-01-4 Vinylchloride <0.5 127-184 Tetrachloroethene <0S
74-87-3 Chloromethane <0.5 106-934 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5
74-83-9 Bromomethane <05 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane <0S
75-00-3 Chloroethane <0S 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene <0.5
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane <0S 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane <0S
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene <05 10041-4 Ethylbenzene <0.5
156-60-5 trans-1,2-dichloroethenecis- <0.5 Total Xylenes <0.5
156-59-2 1,2-dichloroethene <0S 10042-5 Styrene <0S
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride <0S 75-25-2 Bromoform <0.5
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.5 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane <0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene <0.5
67-66-3 Chloroform <0.5 108-86-1 Bromobenzene <0.5
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.5 9549-8 2-chlorotoluene <0.5
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 10643-4 4-chlorotoluene <0.5
7143-2 Benzene <0S 108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene <0.5
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane <0S 95-63-6 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene <05
79-01-6 Trichloroethene <0S 98-06-6 tert-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.5 135-98-8 sec-butylbenzene <0.5
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane <0.5 106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene <0.5
74-95-3 Dibromomethane <0.5 541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene <0.5
108-88-3 Toluene <0.5 99-87-6 4-isopropyltoluene <0.5
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.5 104-51-8 n-butylbenzene <0.5
78-87-5 1,3-dichloropropane <0.5 87-61-6 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene <0.5
594-20-7 2,2-dichloropropane <0S 120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene <0.5
563-58-6 1,1-dichloropropene <0S 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.5
542-75-6 cis-1,3-dichloropropene <0S 91-20-3 Naphthalene <0S
542-75-6 trans-1,3-dichloropropene <0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.5
Page 11
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 204
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
(303) 490-1414
WATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample ID: 122794-13 Project No.: 122794
Lab ID: 8696-6 Method: EPA-8260
SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Compound % Recovery % Rec. Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 91 76-114
Toluene-d8 102 88-110
4-Bromofluorobenzene 95 86-115
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.
Page 12
a
.y
m
Z .a cc
J
c
•
J ¢
a ii
L_
m
`m c E
z° � o
E
v a
m c
d ��a
a m
.a 9
O o ` Ir
o e.-1 m * •-• 0
C \ a UN U` Cr U� (j
t u`4 f r r f r J" a
o n rt h (`a m
a nk
a) — 1 \ a a
LL N J
^` U 1/446:18:
CC CC M
:' € Q 3ek,\\.;)
ii
J Q E \ E
i r I—/ ----...„)=
V r - i — *
3 O � O
Y92
co
•.
O /V m co c D
LE
1;ims lo 14
c cr
c d E
U Q 7 D E N Z E ^ E C m N O
_ J auo ¢ m ¢ ¢ O
gapo4.4ea 4 EX
Exlwwr 3 jREPTY
w
....k'COUNTY ROAD as '
...-COUNTY SCALE: 1.200'
COUNTY ROAD 12
• 2• 3 • (abandoned) 4•
40FFICE - _ _ — __ _ _ — 7
I b•
ISTORAGE TANKS /R=E SCENED
\ 'ri _ TSL S£ EMENT 6 •
SUMP L _ _�, POND C • -
' _ , Dined?
I \ L_i—`J •
1POND 8 ACTIVE / TROSTELL L
1 r -1 \...._
(unlined) - / WELL
RECLAIMED
7•
12 POND A •-- ••• '
(lined)
INACTIVE
13 • /
\
� G
I I /-• Q��P
/8 5
IPOND D'
•
' (lined)
ACTIVE
/
11• —_
O \EMERGENCY OVERFLOW DIKE
10•
WINOMILI 9•
• MONITORING WELL
— — — ROAD
1 147 .4 Chen & Associates COLORADO DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. INC. rte- 1
I EXHIBIT
WELD COUNTY WASTE DISPOSAL
7551 CALLAGHAN RD. STE. 100
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78229
( 512 ) 525-9161
March 11, 1991
Mr. Wes Potter
Department Of Health
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal
Dear Wes:
Mesa Oil Company sent mesa complete laboratory analysis of a composite waste
stream. The analysis is enclosed. They wish to bring us 25,000 gallons.
The waste is fran their Mesa Oil plant in Golden. The owner is Larry Meers.
The waste is fran washing out underground storage tanks that were contaminated
with Diesel fuel. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jane A. Godby
Environmental Compliance Manager
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
cc: File
Mr. Howard Duckworth
'i:di5 ;40 • aUV-C.
—_ — —_ ■/�}, (@_ .—'ryA__—__— —�_- '7[21 `if.na7 a,
)' 716 SW
je-L
E.AC:11:CLIE iRAN: .'IITT_-AL SHEET
FAX NL;IEEt : 505-877-'6581 6)
•'. -D TO:
NI i TT_ FRO^. :
.. :u FOLD'.: :
of
mi l\A I :'VTR-As
::-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FOR
MESA OIL
LGN: 13519
The sample was prepared and analyzed for inorganic and organic
.p.trameters according to the methods referenced below.
TM':,,ANIC NARRATIVE
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, USEPA-600;4--9-
h 1983 , was used as the source for the analytical method .
control data are indicative of acceptable method and
. . _nt performance.
A -^thod blank was digested and analyzed with your sar. .
_a.:tinat:on was found.
f:NIC NARRATIVE
:'•.ethcds 8020 and 8015 (modified to include the diesel f_a't
from., Test Methods for Evaluatina Solid Waste, USEFA SW-o4' , third
ed' tion , November 1986 , are used for the analysis of ATEX and LPH .
No BTEX are found in the trip blank above the practical
gtant:tat'_on limit (PQL) . The sample contains all of the E:EY
parameters. The TPH is diesel .
The BTEX and TPH analyses are performed within the EPA reco:.'ended
analytical and extraction holding times . These data are
for the respe_ tive methods.
Gi I , Ins= �..+�<: r , t.a c:t r' • '- "
ANALYTIC A..
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
MESA OIL
Client ID: G-W Date Sampled: 2-21-91
Analytica ID: 13519-1 Date Received: 2-21-91
Total Metals , mn/L Concentration
Lead 0 . 20 (0. 05)
Detection Limits in Parentheses
P16_o. Oil . Inc . 505$7765$1 P. 0
-
A.,N'ALYTICA
--N-G-O--R-P-0-P- -E-D—
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
MESA OIL
Date Sampled: 2-21-91
Client ID: G-W Date Received: 2-21-91
Analytica ID: 13519-1 (BTEX) Date Analyzed: 2-26-91
Units : mg/L (TPH) Date Extracted: 2-27-91
Volatile Aromatic Organics Concentration
Benzene 1. 0 (0. 500)
Toluene 1. 1 (0. 500)
Ethylbenzene 2. 0 (0.500)
Xylenes, Total 13 (0.500)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Concentration
550 (8) 1
Internal Standards % Recovery
Difluorobenzene 104
p-Bromofluorobenzene 88
ND = Not Detected
Detection Limits in Parentheses
= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel
Mesa O i I Inc .
5 ci T r _ 5 s P . O E.
Lk II
ANALYTIC k
—i � oFroj :
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
LGN: 13519
Total Metals, mg/L Sample Duplicate RPD
Lead 0. 20 (0 . 05) 0. 18 (0 . 05) NC
PD = Relative Percent Difference
NC = Not Calculated
Detection Limits in Parentheses
Para er
Client ID Can
Oil & Grease
G-W 390 (1)
5
Detection Limits in Parentheses
Pla o. Oil , Inc _ 5058776581 P _ 0+
•
ANALYTIC A.
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
LGN: 13519
Total Metals , mq/L Sample Duplicate RFD
Lead 0. 20 (0. 05) 0 . 18 (0. 05) NC
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
= Not Calculated
uetection Limits in Parentheses
n e.aa VII . Inc_ 50587765e1
ANALYTICA
-i-n-r,-o-a-a-o-a-a-�-e-c-
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
MESA OIL
LGN: 13519
Units : mg/L
Parameter Client ID Concentration
oil & Grease G-W 390 (1)
Detection Limits in Parentheses
Mesa Oil , Inc . 5058776581 P. 09
4
ANALYTIC A.
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
SPIKE ANALYSIS
LGN: 13519
Sample Spike Spike
Total Metals , mo_LL Result Result Added % R
Lead 0. 20 (0. 05) 0. 62 0. 50 84
s
' = Percent Recovery
L.. ection Limits in Parentheses
505S776521 P. I0
1 _ 1
AJNALYTICA
tC-
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
MESA OIL
Date Sampled: 2-21-91
Client ID: Trip Blank Date Received: 2-21-91
Analytica ID: 13519-B (BTEX) Date Analyzed: 2-26-91
Units: mg/L
Volatile Aromatic Organics Concentration
Benzene ND (0 . 001)
Toluene ND (0. 001)
Ethylbenzene ND (0. 001)
Xylenes, Total ND (0. 001)
eternal Standards % Recovery
Difluorobenzene 98
p-Bromofluorobenzene ' 101
= Not Detected
Detection Limits in Parentheses
_ _ .. _ . . ...... 0abc r 7e.se l P. 1 1
ANALYTICA
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
LGN: 13519
Units: mg/L
Sample Spike Spike
Parameter Result Result Added %RR
Benzene ND (0. 001) 0. 101 0. 100 101
Toluene ND (0. 001) 0. 100 0. 100 100
Ethylbenzene ND (0. 001) 0. 102 0. 100 102
Xylene ND (0. 001) 0. 101 0. 100 101
TPH ND (0.5) 22 25 88
Spike Duplicate Spike
Parameter Result Added 1_12 gEQ
Benzene 0. 102 0. 100 102 1
Toluene 0. 102 0. 100 102 2
Ethylbenzene 0. 104 0. 100 104 2
Xylene 0. 103 0. 100 103 2
TPH 20 25 80 10
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
t R = Percent Recovery
ND = Not Detected
'-`ection Limit in Parentheses
I = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
ANALYTICA
-�-N-C-G-P-P-O-fi-A-i-E-G-
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
LGN: 13519
Units: mg/L
Parameter Result Result RPD
Oil & Grease ND (1) ND (1) NC
SPIKE ANALYSIS
Sample Spike Spike
Parameter Result Result Added $ R
CPI & Grease ND (1) 114 100 114
D = Not Detected
C = Not Calculated
PC = Relative Percent Difference
et=ction Limits in Parentheses
WELD COUNTY WASTE D I S P O S AL • INC
7551 CALLAGHAN RD. STE. 100
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78229
( 512 ) 525-9161
March 11, 1991
Mr. John Dempsey
Mesa Oil, Inc.
4701 Broadway, S.E.
Albqucercue, N.M. 87105
Re: Waste Water Analysis
Mr. Dempsey:
I submitted the laboratory analysis you sent me to the local County Health Dept.
Mr. Wes Potter the Director gave me verbal approval to accept the water. They
will follow up in writting. Thank you for your business. If you have any
questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
r� .
vane A. Godby
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
430 30 Ave. Ct.
Greeley, Colo. 80631
(303) 253-7589
cc: file
Mr. Howard Duckworth
/ t
fsd
',\ 41 1
� ' ty. lug DEPARTMENT OF HEALT
' 1517- 16 AVENUE COU
GREELEY, COLORADO 80€
ADMINISTRATION (303)353-CE
Co HEALTH PROTECTION (303) 353.06
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353.06
COLORADO
March 12, 1991
Jane Godby
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
430 30th Avenue Court
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Ms. Godby:
The staff has reviewed your proposal to dispose of diesel fuel contaminated water
from Mesa Oil Plant, located in Golden, Colorado; at Weld County Waste Disposal,
Inc.
The Division approves of the disposal as proposed, so long as it is handled and
disposed of in compliance with the existing Colorado Revised Statutes.
The final decision and authority for receiving the liquid waste at the disposal
site rests with the owner/operator of the facility.
If you have any further questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact our office at 353-0635.
Sincerely, / .',(//0
Judy Schmidt - Supervisor Wes Potter - Director
Environmental Protection Services Environmental Protection Services
JS/WP/lam-22
-- -
s 1 r
_, a a
`/ ` -.Z
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
I 3rra :
4 lam{
S
June 6, 1991
_ _ __ Ms._Judy Schmidt_
1517 16th Avenue Court
•
Greeley, Colorado 80631------- ---- .. _ I-
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal
_ - -
near Judy: _..
Approved Oil Services, Inc. has requested that Weld County Waste Disposal Inc. accept
----- -438;000 gallons-of- waste-water:---The water is contaminated with diesel fuel, and sane
leaded and unleaded gasolines. Approved Oil services has their own trucking services
and the contact person is Matt Penn at 287-2806. Industrial Laboratories ran the
analysis and it is enclosed. Thank you for considerstion and approval of this '
request.
...._..Sincerely, --_—
Jane A. Godby
Environmental Compliance Manager
cc: file
SI)' SPEEDY /12049 TEL No .303-289-2630 Nay . 9 . fl 1b :UD NU .uuo r .v_
Approved Oil Service, Inc.
•
WI, Irl I .t•unt.•y Uit.(-.nr..a1 , Inc .
/CI° 30th Avenue f.tu.,r1.
farrcle•r. rll Ein6:41
At tf-ritinr,; :lame Godhy
Dcor .1(;nc :
fps, l air.illfl to ntr , Intent. C.or,ver L.at iOn9. E nc lii4. CI f,) •.e.r.r• find
an annlySit, l &port. from ]ntlu [rlal [ .-.t.C•r .ater ]c• . rNt.retNeol lt.'!
&438, 000 4:i) 1nrn: of wuo-.te water r, o mil tdr.. 11 i tv . tIpc,n
.1u,n: Ova+ 1 from you we would l il:c to start ht„J] irltl this wetfr to N,=111 Cci..mty Disposal . D,alivery :-,t that-. water to your '
fcility will be t,tnyclereti or at your Cif , f9 thin; P) t';i r• It::
me I,nnw a:. &.nor, at. porm] bie if tIit't.t tet,l . t•wu) [ n.e,'t. tfle
1 tr.0t ite(I parameter:— YOU! CDUpCi t] Un it:. i?TeSt. iv
(.pl•r.•t : (rf. E.rl .
3j
/i�nu:/c•1' e l v
Pl:; I t Penn
Ill fir t-• I'9;,riatic•,
•
In:, : 1- a3t,--:3•:•S"
- -.54R" SPEEDY #2049 TEL No . 303-289-2630 May 29 ,91 16 :05 No .006 P .(
® THE INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES COMPANY
f Complete Consulting Chemistry Service
Bacteriological&Analytical Testing
1450 East 62nd Avenue
Industrial P.O. Box 16207:
LABORATORIES Denver.Colorado 80216
(303)287.9691 FAX(303)287-0964
Analysis Report
To: Approved Oil Service
5390 I. 12id Ave. Page:
Commerce City Co 10022 Date Recelved-05/22/91
Dale Reported,AS/29/91
• Atto: er
CustomerLabNumb P.O.:Sample Marked:
Dote: Sample test procedures conform to IPA 4OC71136 reguireaeats.
Lab Dauber Sample Oescriptioa Tut Desalt Omits Date Analysed Dy
1191111206 Dater Sample 5/22/91 Steatite 1200.0 mg/L 05/24/91 Ill 1
Itbylbenseae 5.0 mq/L 05/24/91 III
)potability >200 deg F deg l 05/20/91 ill
oil 6 Crease 21.0 mg/L 05/20/91 MI
Lead 0.60 mg/L 05/24/91 PAS
totem 150.0 aq/L 05/24/91 7110
Total Petroleum Iydrocarbons 51 mg/1. 05/24/91 411
lylene 1200.0 oq/L 05/24/91 111
Pepe..
•
•
T_ N• -
aw e �'
•
• vvi
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
IA ALI 44.4..A red•ner
z. EXHIBIT
December 2, 1991
Weld County Health Department
Att: Judy Schmidt
1517 16th Avenue Court
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal Inc.
Dear Judy:
t;S.• is requesting that Weld County Waste Disposal Inc. accept 1500 gallons of
waste water.
Tank J is sample 3-JK-TWl
Tank K is sample 3-JK-TW2
Their analysis is enclosed along with a verbal description fran Kent Friesen.
A second request is enclosed for Tank Hi.
Re?uestinc removal of 2,000 gallons. It is all rain run off.
A description is also enclosed for this request.
Sample 2-Hl-TW1.
If you have any questions please contact me or Mr. Kent Friesen at 760-8914.
The owner of the water is LAFB.
Trucking company is Approved Oil Co.
Thank _you!
Sincerely,
Jane A. G,tibv
Environmental Compliance Manager
cc: :-le
Howard Duckso_-th
1 1 . i 5. '� 1 L 1
M * DENVER 551 P n 4
JVULA FILL UKuAlY1l:J1)AlAD1iC.G1 LMethod 8240 Client Sample ID:
Lab Name: Analytical Technologies Reagent Blank
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc.
Client Project ID: Lowry UST Removal Lab Sample ID: 91-10-029-00
Sample Matrix: Water Sample volume: 5Date Collected: N/A
mL Date Analyzed: 10/15191
Dilution Factor: 1
Concentration &,l & sic
ug/L
< a. -61 - 7W I
nloromet ant_.------_ 10 _ r�,/
Bromomethane < 10 4,v0 R- y/
Vinyl chloride < 10
Chloroethane 12
Methylene chloride 10
Acetone < 5
Carbon disulfide < 5
l,1-Dichloroethene < 5
1,1-Dichloroethane < 5
1,2-Dichloroethene < 5
Chloroform < 5
1,2-Dichloroethane < 10
2-Butanone < 5
l,l,l-Trichloroethane < 5
Carbon tetrachloride < ]5
Vinyl Acetate < 5
Bromodichloromethane < 5
1,2-Dichloropropane < 5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropane < 5
Trichloroethene < 5
Dibromochloromethanc < 5
1,112-Trichloroethane < 5
Benzene_--------_ < 5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropenc.�- - < 5
Bromoform < 10
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone < 10
5
Tetrachloroethene <
5
t 1.1,2,2-Tctrachloroethane <
< 5
Toluene
Chlorobenzene < 5
5
Ethylbenzene <
< 5
Styrene < 5
Total Xylenes
>urrogate ecuveries:
I,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-dS
Bromofluorobenzene
. ' ' • DENSER 551
VULAl ILL VKUrtiNll-J VA IAJ11tt1 ��
Method 8240 Client Sample ID:
Lab Name: Analytical Technologies
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. 2-(''-T-"
Client Project ID: Lowry UST Removal
Sample Matrix: Water Lab Sample 1D: 91-10-029-01
Sample volume: 5 mL Date Collected: 10/03/91 , / /
Date Analyzed: 10/15/91 /4#t' LC"
Dilution Factor: 1 y✓`Te(
Concentration
ICO' -'OUND NAME U.
'orornetnane <
Bromomethane < 10
Vied chloride__ < 10
Chloroe:`cane < 10
' 1'.1ettivlene chloride 23 B
Acetone 53
Carbon disulfide < 5
I l, -Dichloroethene I < 5
.1-Dichioroe:pane < 5
,2-Dichloroethene < 5
Cnioro;crm < 5
I i.2-Dichloroethane < 5
12-Sutanone < 10
11 ,1,1-Trichlorocthane < 5
Carbon tetrachloride < 5
Vinyl Acetate < 10
Bromodiuhloromethane < 5
< 5
: _fl_t';ornpropene < 5
.rchi01.!?:.^.enC_ < 5
: :. . ..m c'loranethane < 5
II.I .2.-Tr.,:h!orxthane_ < 5
5r::en.: 76
((r:::-.<— I. Dic„loroproper•.e < 5
i
biotrct;:nni_—_ < 5
._ ilet:,no tr _-- 17
I -:.�.'.: r, I 2 c,entanone < 10
Trrr:+: Jorocihene < 5
! I ' . ' .2.2 Te;rachlorcethane � I < 5
cli,trc 240
'..:uxher.zen . < 5
:2t.i!,cnz .1. - 41
iS: < 5
, O,;,i Xvlenes _ 220
I purr hecntertes: ; `Jr rceC units
94 76-114
.-ere '. _I 100 88-110
Br- :,�,•:... enzene _! 108 86-115
-- -__ l:
: 1 * DENVER bbl r u
• VULA'I'1LE UKUMNICS VA I A Jt1C.1r I )L
Method 8240 Client Sample ID:
Lab Name: Analytical Technologies V
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. I 2-H1-TWI
Client Project ID: Lowry UST Removal
Sample Matrix: Water Lab Sample ID: 91.10-029-02
Sample volume: 0.5 mL Date Collected: 10/03/91
Date Analyzed: 10/15/91 rkyz H?
Dilution Factor 10 WA7F/L
Concentration
COMPOUND NAME ug/t
Cntoromethane < 100
Bromomethane < 100
Vinyl chloride < 100
Chloroethane < 100
Methylene chloride 120 B
Acetone < 100
Carbon disulfide < 50
I,1-Dichloroethene < 50
1,1-Dichloroethane < 50
1,2-Dichloroethene < 50
Chloroform < 50
1,2-Dichloroethane < 50
2-Butanone < 100
1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 50
Carbon tetrachloride < 50
Vinyl Acetate < 100
Bromodichloromethane < 50
1,2-Dichloropropane < 50
cis- 1,3-Dichloropropane < 50
Trichloroethene < 50
Dibromochloromethanc < 50
1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 50
Benzene < 50
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 50
Bromoform < 50
2-Hexanone 57
4-Methyl-2-pentanone < 100
Tetrachloroethenc < 50
k 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 50
Toluene 57
Chlorobcnzene < 50
Ethylbenzene < 50
Styrene < 50
Total Xvlencs < 50
Surrogate Recoveries: 90 Kee Limits
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 93 76-114
Toluene-d8 96 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 95 86-115
B - Found in reagent blank
Sample was diluted due to large concentration of hydrocarbons present.
- 5. _ - 1 1 : 2 AM * DENVER 551 PO r
B Y 1R
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS )c
aA
Method 418.1
Laboratory Name: Analytical Technologies, Inc. Date Collected: 10/03/91
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Date Extracted: 10/09/91
Client Project ID: Not Submitted Date Analyzed: 10/10/91
ATI Work Order Number 91-10-029 Sample Matrix: Water
Concentration Units: mg/L
Client Sample ATI Sample Dilution TPH
ID ID Factor Concentration TM"6 / N.
Reagent Blank 91-10-029-RB 1 e 0.05
2-G1-TW1 91-10-029.01 1000 120
2-H1-7W1 91-10-029-02 10000 320 ti
. i1 't DENVER 551 PO
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Laboratory Name: Analytical Technologies, Inc. Date Collected: 10/03/91
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Date Extracted: N/A
Client Project ID: Lowry UST Removal Date Analyzed: 10/15/91
Workorder Number: 91-10-029
Sample Matrix: Water
Lead Conc.
Client ID. ATI ID. (m L) Tx aIWhat
Reagent Blank 91-10-029-00 < C.002
2-G1-TW1 91-10-029-01 0.74 E�
2-HI-TW1 1 91-10-029-02 0.76
TANA 111 it*it<
', 15. 91 11 : 2 3vAlL . DENVAN IERA55ti�r_ 1 U
Method 8240 Client Sample ID: Jl
Lab Name: Analytical Technologies e \
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Reagent Blank
Client Project ID: Lowry AFB
Sample Matrix: Water Lab Sample ID: 91-10-133.00
Sample volume: 5 mL Date Collected: N/A
Date Analyzed: 10/21/91
Dilution Factor: 1
Concentration
COMPOUND NAME uL 3— 5X-'w
Chtorometnane < 1
Bromomethane < 10
Vinyl chloride • < 10
Chloroethane < 10
Methylene chloride 17
Acetone < 10
Carbon disulfide < 5
1,1-Dichloroethene < 5
1,1-Dichloroethane < 5
1,2-Dichloroethene < 5
Chloroform < 5
1,2-Dichloroethane < 5
2-Butanone < 10
1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 5
Carbon tetrachloride < 5
Vinyl Acetate < 10
Bromodichloromethane < 5
1,2-Dichlompropane < 5
cis•l,3-Dichloropropene < 5
Trichtoroethene < 5
Dibromochloromethane < 5
1,l,2•Trichloroethane._ < 5
Benzene < 5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 5
Bromoform _ < 5
2-Hexanorte < 10
4-Methyl-2-pentanone < 10
Tetrachloroethene < 5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 5
Toluene < 5
Chlorobenzene < 5
Ethylbenzene < 5
Styrene < 5
Total Xvlenes < 5
surrogate Recoveries: `/o Rec Limits
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 100 76-114
Toluene-d9 102 R8-110
Bromo!luorobenzene 101 86-115
Analyst Initials: lr
1, 1 . 15_ g1 11 : ')....M * DENVER 551 0
. , F1
V....J.l 1Lte LIMO/AniL Litt n anal:saI
Method 8240 Client Sample ID: )c
Lab Name: Analytical Technologies
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. I3•JK•TW2
Client Project ID: Lowry AFB
Sample Matrix: Water Lab Sample ID: 91-10-133-02
Sample volume: 5 mL Date Collected: 10/16/91 ��XJ Thew,Date Analyzed: 10/21/91
Dilution Factor: 10 yrarF2
Concentration
COMPOUND NAME u
Chlorometnane < I
Bromomethane < 100
Vinyl chloride < 100
Chloroethane < 100
Methylene chloride 150 B
Acetone_ < 100 •
Carbon disulfide < 50
l,1-Dichloroethene < 50
1,l•Dichloroethane < 50
1,2-Dichloroethene < 50
Chloroform < 50
1,2-Dichloroethane < S0
2-Butanone < 100
1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 50
Carbon tetrachloride < 50
Vinyl Acetate < 100
Bromodichloromethane < 50
1,2-Dichloropropene < 50
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene < 50
Trichloroethene < 50
Dibromochloromethane < 50
1,1,2-Trichlorocthane < 50
Benzene 700
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 50
Bromoform < 50
2-Hexanone < 100
4-Methyl-2-pentanone < 100
Tetrachloroethene < 50
( 1,1,2,2-Tetrtchloroeth:me -- < 50
Toluene 3300
Chlorobenzene < 50
Ethylbenzene 990
Styrene < 50
Total Xylenes 5400
Surrogate Wecuvertes: - .116 Rec Lmuts
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 99 76- 11.4
Toluene-d8_ 96 88-110
13romofluorobenzcne 106 86.115
13 - Found in reagent blank
Analyst Initials �I
1 1 . 15. 91 1 1 : 23 AM >1: DENVER 551 P)11
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS BY IR c
Method 418.1
Laboratory Name: Analytical Technologies, Inc. Date Collected: 10/14/91
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Date Extracted: 10/15/91
Client Project ID: Not Submitted Date Analyzed: 10/16/91
ATI Work Order Number: 91-10-112 Sample Matrix: Water
Concentration Units: mg/L
Client Sample ATI Sample Dilution TPH
ID ID Factor Concentration
Reagent Blank 91-10-112-RB 1 < 0.05
3-JK-TW I 91-10.112-01 100 60
T.tarc T9.'o ,' W n-
1 '_ . 15. 91 11 : 23 M + DENVER bbl ri
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Laboratory Name: Analytical Technologies, Inc. Date Collected: 10/14/91
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Date Extracted: N/A
Client Project ID: Lowry UST Removal Date Analyzed: 10/25/91
Workordcr Number: 91-10-112 Sample Matrix: Soil
Lead Conc.
Client ID. ATI ID. (mg/kg)
Reagent Blank 91.10-112-RB < 0.002
3-JK-TW] 91-10-112-01 0.006
fd1:441(.1I##0 .C/' W4767(
. _ . . - DENVER 551 :F ,
V ULA I II. `' UKt,Al lt2l VA 1 A Jl lit 1
. Method 8240 Client Sample ID: il,
Lab Name: Analytical Technu,ca :s
Client Name Engineering Science, Inc 3-L-TW:
Client Project ID: Lowry AFB
Sample Matrix; Water Phase Lab Sample ID: 91-09.148.01
Sample volume: 1 mL Date Collected: 09/23/91
Dace Analyzed: 09/30/91 7al L GYut
Dilution Factor: 5
Concentration
COMPOUND NAME ut
Chlorometnane <
Bromomethane < 50
Vinyl chloride < 50
Chloroethane < 50
• Methylene chloride < 50
Acetone _ _ < 25
Carbon disulfide < 25
1,1-Dichloroethene < 25
1 1,1-Dichloroethane < 25
I !,2-Dichloroethene 35
j Chloroform < 25
1,2-Dichloroethene < 25
2-Butanone - < 50
' 1 t-Trichloroethane < 25
i Carbon tem:chloride < 25
Vinyl Acetate < 50
' 5ramodichloromethane e 25
: 7.'•.-`hluropropane < 25
. .,3-Dicliloropropene < 25
. 'r'. roc'tient. 31
' . cHc romethane _ < 25
. ;.::crotthane < 25
r < 25
n:i:,: .;.Utchloropropene < 25
I1 . _ t _ < 25
..-l-=, ,..:,:.. e < 50
' 1. : .i _ , entanone < 50
c::,2 itc.nc.nene < 25
l 7 . . .:.2-Tcrrachloroethane < 25
r,e 20 J
Chlorcl.enzene
< 25
Etilvlbenzene < 25
Styrene < 25
Tula] Xylenes 40
Surrogate l{ecovenes: % Rec Limits
1,2-Dichloroethene-d4 93 76.114
ITc !ut^.e-us 100 88.110
I 6romnfluorebenzene 104 86-115
2 • EEttl113ted conceniration. Found below detection limit.
_ :. ! UEN • E. I. 551 - - �
TOTAL PETRCI EUM HYDROCARBONS BY IR )1
Method 418.i
Laboratory Name: Analytical Technologies, Inc. Date Collected: 09/23,24/91
Client Name: Engineering Science, Inc. Date Received: 09i24/91
Client Project ID: L< =ery AFB Date Analyzed: 09/30/91
AT w-„ Order Number: 91-09-148 S.mple Matrix: Water
Concentration Units: mg/T-
.
. . _ ,::;;.,, Alt; Samp.e Diluoon TPH
,�, I ID Factor Concentration i
-.,..-,k 1,-- 91.09.148.00 1 < 0.05 i n yti�, ,:
91-09-148.01 10000 46000 '
ape G I
_-._ -
,1 V..S_. n
C r c-,.,•rl , (
Ju . 5 •
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTF
^� 1517 . 16 AVENUE COU^
) �IGREELEY,
ipe LL COLORADO 8063
�� L r• ADMINISTRATION (3031 353-05E
HEALTH PROTECTION (303) 353-063
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 353-063-
COLORADO
December 4, 1991
Jane Godby
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
430 30th Avenue Court
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Ms. Godby:
The staff has reviewed your proposal to dispose of 1500 gallons of
gasoline/diesel fuel contaminated water from Lowry Air Force Base, located at
Lowry Air Force Base, Tanks J and K, at the Weld County Waste Disposal,
Incorporated facility.
The Division approves of the disposal as proposed, so long as it has been tested
and documentation is on file to show it is not a hazardous waste and is handled
and disposed of in compliance with the existing Colorado Revised Statutes.
The final decision and authority for receiving the liquid waste at the disposal
site rests with the owner/operator of the facility.
If you have any further questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact our office at 353-0635.
Sincerely,
Judy Scrimidt, Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
JS/1f-922
EP23
Ap--112-1
"••.i Nears•i
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm RESPOMENT
EXNeff
1 7
March 2, 1992
Weld County Dept. of Health
1517 16th Ave. Ct.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal Inc.
Dear Judy Schmidt:
Weld County Waste Disposal is requesting permission to accept 50,000 gallons of
gasoline/diseal fuel contaminated water from.Approved Oil Services. They are
located at 5390 East 72nd Avenue, Commerce City, Colorado. The contaminated
water is on their site. It has been tested by Industrial Laboratories and is.
enclosed. The Contact person is Matt Penn at287-2807. They will be trucking their
own water. The water was accumulated by cleaning underground storage tanks and
stored at the Approved Oil site until testing and disposal. Thank you for your
consideration of the enclosed information.
Sincerely.
1461-(7
J A. God?.
Environmental Compliance Manager
cc: file
Howard Duckworth
c
• FEB 27 14:20;MAI F,a,_ • , x
THE INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES COMPANY
Complete Con;vlting Chemistry Service
Bactorlologleal A Analytical Testing
'��.■ 1480 East 82nd Avenue
1 Ti d U S t r i a I ' i'.O. Sox 15207
Delver, Colorado 80212
LABORATORIES (303 Color FAX (303) 237-0964
Analysis Report •
1o: Approved 0i1 ;eyelet Ap0S19
5310 t. 72nd Ave. Page; .
Comte:et City CO 10022 Date Received: tee le144
Dale Reported: 02/25/92
Lab Number: III blot
Attn: Rett Pen' Customer P.0,: pd ek 1311
Sample Marked: •
Pitt; Maple test proeeduns soniora to t?A 40C?R134 requirements,
Dote Pete
•
lib lumber !ample Oescriptioa Test Result colts Received laityred 9y
1112102235 later 3/14/92 Deanne 19 mg/1 02/14/21 2/14/11 1m1 A
ttSplbenteas S m0(1 01/14/92 2/14/92 2X1
Paz Multi Cosplete 02/14/92 02/11/92 RDl
Oil t grease 114 m0/1 02/14/12 02/19192 IDS
teed 1:90 >tg/6 62/14/12 02/24/92 ASK
temple Preperatioe • tigaid Complete . 02/14/92 01/24/92 1O
• toluene • 19 '9/1 02/14/92 2/14/12 2141
total ?stroll's ilydrocerbona 1200 30 mqlti 02/14/91 14/91 2/14/51 i411•
0IM
Xylem.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
te.oeinl-r Andynie;Arv¢As neknbwieconn the Mrr^.e end condition.Oft toe revere aide and ecknowl.deos that then pre pert at this¢der.
:hie,eoorl le ner iG he i/Oro duo.d l•.whole or In part for Ad.Orileine purpose.without obte!n!ne prior whirrs eulhor!tellon,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517. 16 AVENUE COURT
lunge
GREELEY, COLORADO 8063'LDMINIOTECTION (303)353-0636
HEALTH PROTECTION (303) 353-063;
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303) 353-0638
COLORADO
March 4, 1992
Jane Godby
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
430 30th Avenue Court
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Ms. Godby:
The staff has reviewed your proposal to dispose of 50,000 gallons of
gasoline/diesel fuel contaminated water from Approved Oil Services, located at
53090 East 72nd Avenue, Commerce City, Colorado at the Weld County Waste
Disposal, Inc.
The Division approves of the disposal as proposed, so long as it has been tested
and documentation is on file to show it is not a hazardous waste and is handled
and disposed of in compliance with the existing Colorado Revised Statutes.
The final decision and authority for receiving the liquid waste at the disposal
site rests with the owner/operator of the facility.
If you have any further questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact our office at 353-0635.
Sincerely,
%,n((Er
Judy Schmidt, Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
JS/lf-e413
N0V- 8-39 M0N 14 :06 2 2105259339 P. 02
.3. ' • / ;1 EMT
rs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517• 16 AVENUE COURT
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
O ADMINISTRATION(303)3530566
HEALTH PROTECTION (303)3530635
COMMUNITY HEALTH (303)353-0639
COLORADO November 3, 1993
Certified Letter No. : P 186 978 594
Howard Duckworth
Weld County Waste Disposal
12018 Warfield
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Dear Hr. Duckworth:
The Environmental Protection Division of the Weld County Health Department has
completed an initial review of the Status Report, dated October 21, 1993,
submitted by Groundwater Technology on behalf of the Weld County Waste Disposal,
Inc. facility, Weld County.
As you are aware, volatile organic compounds have been detected in monitoring
wells located on the facility. The presence of these compounds in the
groundwater indicate a environmental impact from this facility. Additionally,
the detected concentrations of benzene exceed the groundwater organic chemical
standard as defined in "the Basic Standards For Groundwater", 3.11.0 (5 CCR 1002-
8) .
The Division requests that the facility develop a characterization and
remediation plan detailing the extent of migration of the contamination and
measures being considered to alleviate the impact.
The facility shall submit this material, both to this Division and the Solid
Waste Division of the Colorado Department of Health in a comprehensive document
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact Trevor Jiricek at (303) 353-0635.
,Sincerely
-� � cthz, 9w,- g ,woe
Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor Jeffrey L. Stoll, Director
Environmental Protection Services Environmental Protection Services
/tj-2256
cc: Steve Laudeman, Colorado Department of Health
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney's Office
Chuck Cunliffe, Weld County Planning Department
Don Shosky, Groundwater Technology, Inc.
NOV- 12- 93 FRI 15 : 12 COPYWORLD BUSINESS CENTR 3033510081 P. 05 .
EMT
It° " � 1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (303)353-3346, EXT. 3540
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N.17TH O6NUE
O GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
November 9, 1993
Howard Duckworth
Weld County Waste disposal
12018 Warfield
San Antonio, TX 78216 •
Subject: ZCH-102
Dear Mr. Duckworth:
An on-site inspection of your property was conducted on November 5, 1993, to
determine if the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards placed on
your property at the time SUP-454 was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners are in compliance. The inspection and review of pertinent
information (memo dated November 5, 1993, from Trevor Jiricek; Certified letters
iP533510950, 4P860415499; and letter dated March 10, 993, to 14. on Mr.d J A copy John
hle)
e)
revealed violations of Development Standards X41, 4, 11,
these items from the approved resolution are enclosed.
•
•
The Use by Special Review area must be brought into compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards within 30 days from the date
of this letter. Noncompliance will result in our office scheduling a Probable
Cause Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. If the Board determines
these is sufficient probable cause to warrant further action, a Show Cause
Hearing will be scheduled to consider revocation of the Use by Special Review
• permit.
If you have information that may clear up this matter, please call or write.
Sincerely
/�
urrent Planner
pc : Jane Godby
Northern Colorado Consulting Firm
430 30th Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
Trevor Jiricek
NOV- 12-93 FRI 15 : 13 COr-eWORLD BUSINESS CENTR 3033510081 P. 06
NOV- 5-93 FRI 12:35 P' U2
mEmORAnDUm
IIIIIIDe. To Keith Schuett, W.C. Plannin%115 November 5, 1993
COLORADO Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Environmental Protection Service
From
Weld County Waste Disposal Violation
t.,b�am:As you know, I conducted third and fourth quarter inspections at the Weld County
Waste Disposal on the dates of September 29, 1993, and November 5, 1993. The
purpose of the inspections were to assess the facilities compliance with SUP-454 and theRegulations Pertaining to Solid following violations aDisposal
ware observed either none or s Facilities.
bo h ofthese dates or as the
result of record review in our offices
1) The facility has contaminated groundwater at this location. According to
the Groundwater Technology, Inc. report dated October 21, 1993, the
facility has detected levels of benzene in the monitoring walls in excess
of the groundwater standard as defined in "the Basic Standards for
Groundwater", 3.11.0 (5 CCR 1002-8).
This item is considered to be a violation of SUP item #4 and Section 2.1.3
and 2.1.4 of the Solid Waste Regulations.
In addition, this facility has been cited by the Colorado Department of
Health for this violation.
2) The facility has previously accepted hazardous waste at this location.
According to the Notice of Violation and Request for Information from the
Colorado Department of Health, Certified tatter No. P 860 415 499, the
facility has accepted hazardous waste on four (4) separate occasions.
This item is considered to be a violation of SUP item 04 and Sections 2.1.1
and 9.7.2 of the Solid Waste Regulations.
3) On both occasions, scum was observed on pond C. On September 29, 1993, the
pond was observed to be approximately 5-102 covered with scum, and on
November 5, 1993, pond scum was observed to be approximately 15x.
This item is considered to be a violation of SUP item d4 and Section 9.7.5
of the Solid Waste Regulations,
4) The facility does not have adequate freeboard gauges on site.
This item 'is considered to be a violation of SUP item #11 and Section 9.5.1
of the Solid Waste Regulations.
5) The facility previously applied waste on property located to the south of
the facility. This is considered an expansion of the facility.
.
NOV 0 5 1993
NOV-12-93 FRI 15 : 13 COPYWORLD BUSINESS CENTR 3033510081 P. 07
HOV- 5-93 FRI 12:36 i P.03
Weld County Haste Disposal Violations
November 5, 1993
Page 2 This s d the
Soliditem iWasteaDisposalconsidered to be a violation of SUP Sites and Facilities Act, Title e30,, Article 20, Part
Part
J., CRS, as amended.
6) Contaminated s across e site. The facilityhas
not
maintained the site adequately. The disposal of waste in area' other than
within the ponds is considered an inadequate disposal.
This item is considered to be • violation of SUP items 01 and 14 and the
Solid Haste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part
1, CRS, as amended.
If you have any questions, pleas4 call me at 353-0635.
Itj-2306
NON- 1E-?3 TUE 10 : 13 COFY'NORLD BUSINESS CEHTR 3033x10081 P. 03
"re" i`Sr
' (1 ems:
it
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517. 16 AVENUE COUPT
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (303) 353-0586
O HEALTH PROTECTION 1303)353-0635
COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353.0639
COLORADO
November 10, 1993
Certified Letter No. : P 1B6 978 598
Howard Duckworth
Weld County Waste Disposal
12018 Hatfield
San Antonio 78216
Dear Mr. Duckworth:
On September 29, 1993, and November 5, ' 1993, a representative of' the
Environmental Protection Division (the Division) of the Weld County Health
Department inspected Weld County Waste Disposal (WCHD) , located at Weld County
Road 35 and Colorado Highway 52, Fort Lupton, in Weld County, Colorado. The
purpose of both inspections was to inspect and assess the facilities compliance
with the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act (the Act) , Title 30,
Article 20, Part 1, C.R.S. , as amended, and the Development Standards as set
forth in SUP-454:80:44.
On the dates of September 29, 1993, and November 5, 1993, field inspections, the
following observations were made:
1) The facility has impacted groundwater at this location. This has been
cited by the Colorado Department of Health, letter of August 26, 1993.
2) The facility has accepted hazardous waste. This has been cited by the
Colorado Department of Health, certified letter OP 860 415 499.
3) Pond C was observed to be partially covered with an oil scum.
4) Freeboard readings do not appear to be accurate. The gauges provided on
the facility ponds must be verified to insure accuracy.
5) Contaminated soil has been observed across the site.
6) Contaminated soil from the Martin property was observed stockpiled on
site.
U0.- 15--93 TUE 10 : 14 COF' , U0F'LD EUSIt:ESS CEHTFL 3033510081 F . 04
•
Howard Duckworth
•
Weld County Waste Disposal
Certified Letter No. : P 186 978 598
November 10, 1993
Page 2
7) The facility has removed contaminated soil near the disposal pad.
The above items 0's 1 through #5 are considered to be violations of both the SUP
and the Act, they will be discussed below. Items #6 and 07 are concerns of the
Division in which information is requested.
The facility has impacted groundwater at this location. According to the
Groundwater Technology, Inc. report, dated October 21, 1993, the facility has
detected levels of benzene in the monitoring wells on site in excess of the
groundwater standard as defined in "the Basic Standards for Groundwater", 3.11.0
(5 CCR 1002-8) . This is a violation of both SUP #4 and Section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4
of the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (the
Regulations) . The Division acknowledges that this issue is in the process of
being addressed.
The facility has previously accepted hazardous waste. According to the Notice
of violation and Request for Information from the Colorado Department of Health,
Certified Letter No. P 860 415 499, the facility has accepted hazardous waste on
four (4) separate occasions. This is a violation of both SUP #4 and Sections
2.1.1 and 9.7.2 of the Regulations. The Division acknowledges that the facility
is currently working with the Hazardous Materials section of the Colorado
Department of Health regarding this issue.
On September 29, 1993, pond C was observed to be approximately 5-10X covered with
an oil scum and on November 5, 1993 pond C was observed to be approximately 15X
covered with scum. According to Section 9.7.5 of the Regulations "all
impoundments operated as evaporative treatment of disposal facilities shall be
maintained as free as possible from oil or other scum." In addition, this is a
violation of SUP 04.
The facility does not have adequate freeboard gauges on site. This is considered
to be a violation of SUP #11 and Section 9.5.1 of the Regulations.
Contaminated soil has been observed across the facility. The facility has not
maintained the site adequately. Disposal of waste in areas other than within the
ponds is considered inadequate disposal. This is a violation of SUP items 01 and
04 and the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30, Article 20,
Part 1, CRS, as amended.
In regard to item' s, #6, and #7 the Division requests information on the
following:
Contaminated soil retrieved from the Martin site has been stockpiled
on the facility. Please provide the Division with the intended
method of disposal of this waste. Please provide the Division with
the time frame in which this is to be completed.
Y5 ' LIE 10 : 14 LUPn4UF:L LI BU'o INL- S3 LENIN: 3U. 35100,31 F . t+5
•
•
Howard Duckworth
Weld County Waste Disposal
Certified Letter No. : P 186 978 598
November 10, 1993
Page 3
The facility has removed contaminated soil near the disposal area.
Provide the Division with the facility at which this waste was
disposed as well as any analysis which was required for proper
disposal.
Items #1-4 outlined above constitute noncompliance with the Solid Waste Disposal
Sites and Facilities Act, and SUP-454:80:44. Development Standard #15 states
"the property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for
complying with all of the above Development Standards. Noncompliance with any
of the above stated Development standards may be reason for revocation of the
Special Use Permit by the Board of County Commissioners." This facility must
respond to this violation notice within thirty days (30) days. Failure to
respond to this notice will result .in further action in accordance with Section .
1.9 of the Regulations, and USR-540:83:3.
Discussion on items #6, and #7 should also be addressed in this thirty (30) day
time period.
If you have any questions, please contact Trevor Jiricek at (303) 353-0635.
Sincerely,
Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor
•
Environmental Protection Services
tj 12339
cc: Keith Schuett, Weld County Planning Department
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
Roger Doak, Colorado Department of Health •
Jane Godby, Northern Colorado Consulting
•
73':'s'r i T
! SCHMIT
ROSSI & JUDD 1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Attorneys at Law tor7lty ir
• +250 REPUBLIC PLAZA European Office:
DECT 3 370 SEVENTEIIJ'IH STREET AAotrta sTRASR:1042
• DENVER,COLORADO 80202 5000Roth40
FEDERAL REPJBDC OF GERMAN'
.: FACSIMILE 303/623-9176• FACSIMILE J HcHli Lit- I �
303/623-5600 011.9-221.4892050
RICHARD D.JUDD
December 9, 1993
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Current Planner
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 North Seventeenth Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
Department of Health
1517 16 Avenue Court
Greeley, Colorado 80631
acrigiTticraltounty.Waiste Disposal,
Dear Messrs. Schuett and Jiricek:
This office represents Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc. ("WCWD"). This letter is a
response to the letter to WCWD from Mr. Jiricek dated November 3, 1993 (the "November 3rd
Letter"), the letter from Mr. Keith Schuett to WCWD dated November 9, 1993 (the "November
9th Letter") and the letter to WCWD from Mr. Jiricek dated November 10, 1993 (the "November
10th Letter").
NOVEMBER 3RD LETTER
The November 3rd Letter alleges that volatile organic compounds have been detected in
monitoring wells on the WCWD facility. The November 3rd Letter further alleges "the presence
of these compounds in the groundwater indicate a (sic) environmental impact from this facility"
and further then alleges that "the detected concentrations of benzene exceed the groundwater
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 2
organic chemical standard as defined in 'the Basic Standards For Groundwater' 3.1 1.0 (5 CCR
1002-8)."
The November 3rd Letter then requests WCWD develop a characterization and
remediation plan detailing the extent of migration of the contamination and measures being
considered to alleviate the impact.
RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 3RD LEI I'ER
WCWD acknowledges that the report for WCWD prepared by Groundwater Technology,
Inc. dated October 21, 1993 (the "Groundwater Technology Report") indicates the presence of
benzene in two monitoring wells. WCWD denies that the presence of these compounds in the
groundwater indicate an environmental impact from this facility and also denies that the detected
concentrations of benzene exceed the basic standards for groundwater.
The November 3rd Letter requests that "the facility develop a characterization and
remediation plan detailing the extent of migration of the contamination and measures being
considered to alleviate the impact". The Weld County Department of Health has exceeded its
jurisdiction and authority in requesting WCWD to develop a characterization and remediation
plan. An examination of the Special Use Permit (SUP-454:8O:44) (the "Special Use Permit")
contains no authority granting to the Weld County Department of Health the right to require
WCWD to develop such a characterization and/or a remediation plan. Further, I am unaware of
any state statute or Weld County Ordinance applicable to this facility that gives the Weld County
Department of Health the authority to issue such an order.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, as an offer of compromise and settlement, and not as an
admission of liability, reference is made to the Groundwater Technology Report for information
concerning the extent of migration of the waters on the WCWD property and the measures being
considered to alleviate the detected concentrations of benzene.
NOVEMBER 9TH LETTER
The November 9th Letter makes reference to the November 5th memo from Trevor Jiricek
and also references certified letters numbered P 533 510 950 and P 860 415 499 without making
reference to the authors or dates of those letters. The letter referred to as certified letter
numbered P 533 510 950 is unknown to us. WCWD did receive a certified letter dated
September 29, 1992 from the Colorado Department of Health under number P 553 510 945.
Further, WCWD did receive a letter from the Colorado Department of Health dated September
23, 1993 under number P 860 415 499. We assume this is the letter to which reference is made.
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 3
The November 9th Letter also references a letter from an unnamed person dated March 10, 1993
to Mr. John Pickle. The two certified letters and the letter to Mr. John Pickle were not enclosed,
and accordingly, no response is made. The November 9th Letter also alleged that the
correspondence set forth above revealed violations of Development Standards No. 1, 4, 11, 14
and 15 of the Special Use Permit, but, other than attaching a copy of the memorandum dated
November 5, 1993 from Trevor Jiricek to Keith Schuett, the November 9th Letter did not detail
the alleged violations of Development Standards No. 1, 4, 11, 14 and 15.
RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 9TH LE 11 ER
The November 9th Letter states that the use by special review area must be brought into
compliance with the conditions of approval and development standards within thirty days of the
date of that Letter. WCWD is in compliance with the Special Use Permit.
To the extent the November 9th Letter incorporates by reference the memorandum of Mr.
Jiricek to Mr. Schuett dated November 5, 1993, please see the response to the November 10th
Letter contained elsewhere in this letter.
NOVEMBER 10TH LETTER
The November 10th Letter indicates that Mr. Jiricek inspected the WCWD facility on
September 29, 1993 and November 5, 1993 to inspect and assess the facility's compliance with
the Solid Waste and Disposal Site and Facilities Act(C.R.S. § 30-20-101, et seq.) (the "Act") and
the development standards set forth in the Special Use Permit. Notations of seven specific
observations were made:
1. The facility has impacted groundwater at this location. This has been cited by the
Colorado Department of Health letter of August 26, 1993.
2. The facility has accepted hazardous waste. This has been cited by the Colorado
Department of Health certified letter # P 860 415 499.
3. Pond C was observed to be partially covered with an oil scum.
4. Freeboard readings do not appear to be accurate. The gauges provided on the
facility ponds must be verified to ensure accuracy.
5. Contaminated soil has been observed across the site.
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 4
6. Contaminated soil from the Martin property was observed stockpiled on the site.
7. The facility has removed contaminated soil near the disposal pad.
The November 10th Letter alleges that these are violations of the Special Use Permit as
well as certain sections of the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities
(the "Regulations").
RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 10TH LETTER
The Regulations are promulgated pursuant to the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act" Tide 30, Article 20, Part 1, Colorado Revised Statutes as amended, and are dated
June 30, 1993, effective October 9, 1993. Section 9.1 of the Regulations states as follows:
9.1 REGULATED FACT 1'11J_S These Regulations apply to waste
impoundments that store, treat or dispose of liquid, semi-solid or
solid waste, except as provided in 9.1.4 for facilities in operation
prior to adoption of these Regulations.
9.1.4 Those sites and facilities in operation prior to adoption of
these Regulations may be required to come into compliance with
these Regulations upon a determination by the Department that
such sites and facilities are causing impairment of existing or future
use of the surface water or groundwater.
The Regulations, in Section 1.2, define "Department" as the Colorado Department of Health.
WCWD has operated its facility in Weld County since a date prior to the adoption of the
Regulations.
There has been no determination by the Department, after a hearing held pursuant to
C.R.S. § 24-4-105, that the facilities are causing impairment of existing or future use of surface
water or groundwater. Accordingly, WCWD takes the position that it is not subject to the
Regulations.
WCWD responds to the seven numbered allegations contained in the November 10th
Letter as follows:
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 5
1. The facility has impacted groundwater at this location. This has been cited by the
Colorado Department of Health, letter of August 26, 1993.
RESPONSE: WCWD denies that it impacted the groundwater. It acknowledges that it
has received a letter dated August 26, 1993 from the Colorado Department of Health. Also see
the Groundwater Technology Report.
2. The facility has accepted hazardous waste. This has been cited by the Colorado
Department of Health certified letter # P 860 415 499.
RESPONSE: WCWD denies that it has accepted hazardous waste not within its permitted
waste stream. Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration,
development or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are solid wastes which
are not hazardous waste. 6 CCR 1007-3, Section 261.4(d)(5). See Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 attached
hereto concerning the request (Exhibit 1) and the approval (Exhibits 2 and 3) by the Weld
County Department of Planning Services and the Weld County Department of Health of the waste
stream accepted by WCWD.
The letter entitled Notice of Violation and Request for Information from Colorado
Department Health dated September 23, 1993 (certified mail # P 860 415 499) to WCWD
contained four specific observations:
1. Mesa Oil Company. See request of WCWD to dispose of waste stream
(Exhibit 4), the wastewater analysis submitted by Mesa Oil (Exhibit 5) and the approval
of the Weld County Health Department (Exhibit 6).
2. Approved Oil Service, Inc. On June 6, 1991 WCWD requested an
approval to accept,for disposal, 438,000 gallons of wastewater(Exhibit 7). Included with
the request was the analysis report from Approved Oil Service, Inc. (Exhibit 8). The
waste stream was approved for disposal by Weld County Department of Health on June
10, 1991 (Exhibit 9).
3. Lowry Air Force Base Tanks J and K. On December 2, 1991 WCWD
requested approval to accept 1,500 gallons of wastewater from Tanks J and K of Lowry
Air Force Base (Exhibit 10). Included with the request were analyses of the waste stream
proposed for acceptance (Exhibits 11 and 12). Weld County Department of Health
approved the acceptance of the waste stream by letter of December 4, 1991 (Exhibit 13).
• Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 6
4. Approved Oil Services,Inc. By letter of March 2, 1992,WCWD requested
approval to accept for disposal 50,000 gallons of gasoline,diesel fuel, contaminated water
from Approved Oil Services in Commerce City, Colorado (Exhibit 14). The analysis of
the waste stream was submitted with the request (Exhibit 15). Weld County Department
of Health, by letter dated March 4, 1992, approved acceptance of the waste stream for
disposal (Exhibit 16).
3. Pond C was observed to be partially covered with an oil scum.
RESPONSE: WCWD acknowledges your observation that, on the occasion of the two
examinations of the facility, Pond C was partially covered with scum. Development Standard
4 of the Special Use Permit does not specifically deal with scum and reliance on Section 9.7.5
of the Regulations is misplaced in that this facility is not subject to the Regulations. Even if the
facility was subject to the Regulations, the amount of scum on Pond C is reasonable and is
contained with a floating buoy. Periodically, the scum from Pond C is removed as a part of the
ordinary and normal operations of the facility.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, as an offer of compromise and settlement, and not as an
admission of liability, WCWD would be willing to biologically treat the scum material on site
if an on site treatment area is administratively approved by Weld County.
4. Freeboard readings do not appear to be accurate. The gauges provided on the
facility must be verified to ensure accuracy.
RESPONSE: WCWD acknowledges that Mr. Jiricek does not believe that the freeboard
readings appear to be accurate. The freeboard readings are accurate. See report of Alpha
Engineering Co. attached as Exhibit 17.
5. Contaminated soil has been observed across the site.
RESPONSE: WCWD acknowledges your observation. WCWD denies that contaminated
soil is located on the site. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-20-102(3), WCWD may dispose of its own
solid waste on its own property. Any solid waste disposed of on the WCWD property was
generated on the WCWD property.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, as an offer of compromise and settlement, and not as an
admission of liability, WCWD would be willing to biologically treat the impacted soil on site at
an area to be agreed upon by WCWD and Weld County using standard land application rates.
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 7
If this proposal is acceptable to Weld County, WCWD will prepare and submit to Weld County
an operations plan for such treatment.
6. Contaminated soil from the Martin property was observed stockpiled on the site.
RESPONSE: WCWD acknowledges your observation that certain soil is stockpiled on cfir5'
the WCWD property. WCWD denies that soil stockpiled on the property is contaminated. My )
soil stockpiled on the property was generated on the property. See C.R.S. § 30-20-103(2).
Again, notwithstanding the foregoing, as an offer of compromise and settlement, and not
as an admission of liability, WCWD would be willing to biologically treat the soil on site as
suggested in the response to comment 5 above.
7. The facility has removed contaminated soil near the disposal pad.
RESPONSE: Pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-20-102(3), WCWD may dispose of its own solid
waste on its own property. Any solid waste disposed of on the WCWD property was generated 1
on the WCWD property.
GENERAL RESPONSE TO ALL LETTERS
WCWD believes that its facility is in subs compliance with the Special Use Permit.
Further, no determination has been made by the Colorado Department of Health that the facility
is causing impairment of existing or future use of surface water or groundwater. Nevertheless,
WCWD has proposed to the Colorado Department of Health a schedule for testing liner integrity
of Ponds C and D which will entail reopening Pond A after first lining Pond A with 40
millimeter high density polyethylene ("HDPE"). Enhanced evaporation in Pond D would then
be undertaken followed by a liner test of Pond D. Pond D would then be relined with a 40
millimeter HDPE liner. The existing aeration system in use on Pond D will be reactivated to
stimulate degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Similarly, upon the relining of Pond D,
enhanced evaporation in Pond C would be undertaken, a liner test of Pond C would be
undertaken and, ultimately, Pond C would be relined with a 40 millimeter HDPE liner. WCWD
will also install an aeration system in Pond C. The details of WCWD's proposal is contained in
the Groundwater Technology Report.
WCWD desires to cooperate with all regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over it.
Despite the fact that the WCWD facility is not subject to the Regulations, WCWD has made a
comprehensive proposal to the Colorado Department of Health by submitting the Groundwater
Technology Report. WCWD believes that the recommendations contained in the Groundwater
Mr. Keith A. Schuett
Mr. Trevor Jiricek
December 9, 1993
Page 8
Technology Report, if implemented, will address the issues raised by both the Colorado
Department of Health and Weld County concerning groundwater in the vicinity of the facility. `
WCWD is concerned that if it is required to do the bidding of two masters (Colorado
Department of Health and Weld County), inconsistent requirements may be imposed that will
either increase costs to the extent that practical realization of the results of the proposal would
be impossible to obtain, or that requirements imposed by one governmental authority would
prohibit compliance with the requirements of the other governmental authority. Accordingly,
WCWD requests that Weld County continue to monitor the operations of the WCWD facility
pending a response to the Groundwater Technology Report by the Colorado Department of
Health. Upon receipt of that response, WCWD proposes a joint meeting attended by
representatives of WCWD, Weld County and the Colorado Department of Health to finalize and
agree upon site improvements for the WCWD facility and a schedule for implementing those site
improvements.
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Jute
RDJ/vab
cc: Mr. Donald Shosky
Mr. Howard Duckworth
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
JAN-19-95 THU 13 : 19 2 2105251512 P.02
4A 9 �,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517-16AVENUECOURT
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
C
ADMINISTRATION(303)353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION(303)353-0639
COMMUNITY HEALTH(303)353-0639
FAX 203)356-4966
COLORADO
January 13, 1995 1
RESPOICENT
i2
Certified Letter No. : P 186 978 955
Howard Duckworth
Weld County Waste Disposal
12018 Warfield
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Dear Mr. Duckworth:
The Environmental Protection n) of the Weld alth
Department hascompleteda s review of g o
groundwater County
nitor ng da a for the eWeld
County Waste Disposal (WCWD) , as well as correspondence from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) , specifically a letter from
Stephen Laudeman to you, dated August 26, 1993. This letter states that the
CDPHE has determined "that WCWD has impacted the shallow groundwater in the
vicinity of this facility. . .
As you are aware, benzene has been detected in down-gradient monitoring wells on-
site. The level of benzene detected exceeds the groundwater organic chemical
standard as defined in "the Basic Standards For Groundwater", 3.11.0 (5 CCR 1002-
8) . Benzene is a suspected human carcinogen, according to the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Therefore, the presence of
this compound in the shallow aquifer is a threat to human health and the
environment. As a result, the Division, in cooperation with the CDPHE, is
currently considering notifying groundwater users in the area of the potential
impact to their water.
The Division requests that the facility develop a characterization and
remediation plan detailing the extent of contamination in the groundwater
downgradient from the facility. The plan should also address which specific
measures the facility intends to incorporate to insure that migration of
contaminants does not occur beyond the facility boundary.
The facility shall submit this material in a comprehensive document within sixty
(60)
) d (303) 35
days of
receipt
this
letter. If you have any questions, please contact
the Division
Sincerely,
Trevor fir cek Jeffrey Stoll, M.P.H.
Supervisor Director
Environmental Protection Services Environmental Protection Services
tj/132
cc: Steve Laudeman, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Glenn Mallory, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Keith Schuett, Weld County Department of Planning Services
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney's Office
Corbin Darling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Pickle, Weld County Health Department
•
Treri
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1660 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 2800
DENVER. COLORADO 80264
FACSIMILE: 303/831-1181
TELEPHONE: 303/831-1110
February 2, 1995
VIA FACSIMILE NO. 303-352-0242
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
Office of the County Attorney
Weld County Colorado
915 10th Street
P.O. Box 1948
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.
Dear Lee:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversations of January 30, and February 1, 1995.
First, I have forwarded to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners a letter requesting
a continuance and indicating that the date that you and I discussed, March 1, 1995, is
satisfactory. A copy of that letter was faxed to you yesterday. I was advised in a telephone call
to my office this morning by Keith Schuett (I did not speak with him directly) that "they will go
to the board meeting on February 8, 1995, and when they are called they will tell the Board it
has been moved to the March 1, 1995 Board meeting and (I) will get a Resolution from the
Board setting the March 1, date."
Keith Schuett's letter of January 27, 1995 indicates that the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners (the "Board") will be to review Special Use Permit 454 issued to Weld
County Waste Disposal, Inc. ("WCWD") concerning compliance with Development Standards
No. 1, 4, 11, 14 and 15 as approved by the Board on April 2, 1981 (the "Standards"). The
materials sent with Mr. Schuett's letter included a Memorandum from Jeff Stoll to Chuck
Conliffe dated January 6, 1995 (the "Stoll Memorandum"). The Stoll Memorandum cites ten
specific violations. I assume that the violations listed in the Stoll Memorandum are the items
to be addressed at the probable cause hearing before the Board. If there is a separate
specification of alleged violations, please forward it to me. I assume that you received a copy
of the Stoll Memorandum, but if not, a copy is enclosed with this letter as Exhibit 1.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
February 2, 1995
Page 2
The following is a response to the ten specific violations alleged in the Stoll
Memorandum. In reference to each violation rather than quote the Stoll Memorandum, I have
prepared a short synopsis of my understanding of the violation followed by my response.
VIOLATION 1. The Facility has impacted groundwater at the location in that test levels
of benzene in monitoring wells on site are in excess of groundwater standards.
RESPONSE 1. I believe that the letters from Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment ("CDPHE") cannot be relied on as dispositive of this issue. As is the case with
many other alleged violations, it is the position of WCWD that CDPHE did not follow State
statutes and in particular did not comply with the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-4-105(2) requiring
a hearing prior to the determination. CDPHE further posits that, as a result of the determination
made by CDPHE without hearing and without further appeal, WCWD is therefor subject to
Section 9 of the Solid Waste Regulations (6 CCR 1007-2) (the 'Regulations"). I strongly
disagree with CDPHE's legal conclusion.
The position of WCWD is that it has not impacted groundwater. In fact, the most recent
sampling event, which occurred on December 27, 1994, indicates that, in all wells, volatile
organic compounds are below detection limits. A copy of the December 27, 1994 water analysis
report and field chain of custody record is enclosed as Exhibit 2.
VIOLATION 2. The Facility has accepted hazardous waste on four previous occasions.
RESPONSE 2. WCWD denies that it has accepted hazardous waste not within its
permitted waste stream. Drilling fluids, produced waters and other waste associated with the
exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are solid
wastes which are not hazardous waste. 6 CCR 1007-3, Section 261.4(d)(5). In the four instances
referred to in various previous correspondence, in each instance, a waste characterization was
completed by the generator or hauler, and that was submitted to Weld County Health Department
("WCHD"). In each instance, the request to take the waste stream contained waste with exactly
the same chemical constituents and characteristics as the drilling fluids, produced waters and
other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas
or geothermal energy which were within the permitted waste stream. In each instance, WCHD
approved the taking of the subject wastes. These wastes were taken in 1991 and 1992. In 1991,
the waste stream received from Mesa Oil, Approved Oil Services and Lowry Air Force Base
represented 1.65% of the total waste received by WCWD during 1991. In 1992, the waste stream
received from Approved Oil Services constituted 0.18% of the total waste received by WCWD.
VIOLATION 3. The Facility has been issued a Notice of Violation of Odor Emissions
by the Air Pollution Control Division of CDPHE.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
February 2, 1995
Page 3
RESPONSE 3. The Notice of Violation issued to WCWD was dated August 16, 1994
and a conference concerning the alleged violation occurred on August 30, 1994. Since that date,
no further action has been taken by the Air Pollution Control Division of CDPHE. Since a
compliance order has not been issued which would incorporate the findings of fact, finding a
violation to have occurred, pursuant to C.R.S. § 25-7-122(b), WCHD is premature in relying on
the Notice of Violation as a finding that a violation did, in fact, occur. Further, no civil penalties
can be assessed or collected until a compliance order has been issued pursuant to C.R.S. § 25-7-
115 and the compliance order has been violated.
VIOLATION 4. The Facility previously applied waste which had been received into the
Facility on the Martin property.
RESPONSE 4. I am uncertain as to the alleged violation. If the alleged violation deals
with soils remaining on the Martin property, the soils were deposited on the Martin property from
the WCWD facility by Mr. Martin and he should be a party for any such action for cleanup. If,
on the other hand, the alleged violation concerns the soils that were removed from the WCWD
facility, deposited on the Martin property, then, at the expense of WCWD, were scraped up and
carried back to the WCWD facility. That waste has subsequently been disposed of in a Subtitle
D landfill.
VIOLATION 5. Pond C has been observed to have floating oil scum on the surface.
RESPONSE 5. WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations and even if subject
to Section 9, WCWD is not in violation of the Regulations. Section 9.7.5 of the Regulations
provides as follows:
"All impoundments operated as evaporative treatment or disposal
facilities shall be maintained as free as possible from oil and other
surface scum."
A 10% to 15% coverage by scum contained by one or more buoys is reasonable for this
operation. WCWD currently has a two buoy system to limit scum and sweeps the area at least
daily to contain the scum.
VIOLATION 6. The Ponds or Facilities are not equipped with depth gauges to
determine the depth of waste to the nearest five one hundredths (0.05 of a foot).
RESPONSE 6. SUP-454 Development Standard No. 11 provides as follows:
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
February 2, 1995
Page 4
"The operator shall provide measuring devices in all lagoons which
will not damage the bentonite lining. Said devices shall be easily
accessible and easily visible to the Colorado Department of Health
and Weld County Health Department."
WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations. WCWD is in compliance with Section
11 of the Development Standards. There are sufficient depth gauges for measuring the free board
limit on site. The type of depth gauge suggested by WCHD would compromise the integrity of
the bentonite lining.
VIOLATION 7. Monitoring Wells 5, 6, 8 and 9 were not equipped with locks.
RESPONSE 7. WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the locks on Monitoring Wells 5. 8 and 9 were changed shortly after receipt of the
letter of October 25, 1994. Well 6 has been abandoned and either has been or is in the process
of being shut-in.
VIOLATION 8. Erosion within the Ponds has been observed at the Facility.
RESPONSE 8. WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations. As indicated in
my response dated November 23, 1994 addressed to Glenn F. Mallory and Stephen F. Laudeman
concerning the Notice of Violation dated October 25, 1994, WCWD denied that erosion is
occurring in Pond C. What was observed then and what is the current status is that a sandy
deposit is being through put to Pond C because of the accumulation of sludge in the receiving
pit. A careful examination of the facility by WCHD will confirm this statement.
VIOLATION 9. The Facility does not maintain adequate records on site.
RESPONSE 9. WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations. Further, Section
9 of the Regulations do not require maintenance of the records at the facility. WCWD maintains
adequate records and has, when requested, produced those records to CDPHE.
VIOLATION 10. There is evidence that water fowl may have perished after coming into
contact with impounded waste.
RESPONSE 10. WCWD is not subject to Section 9 of the Regulations. WCWD
acknowledges that the Notice of Violation dated October 25, 1994 made allegations that water
fowl had died after coming into contact with the impounded waste. No evidence other than the
assertion contained in the Notice of Violation has been received by WCWD and WCWD denies
that water fowl had perished after coming into contact with the impounded waste.
RICHARD D. JUDD, P.C.
Lee D. Morrison, Esq.
February 2, 1995
Page 5
Notwithstanding the foregoing, WCWD has erected numerous flags and other devices at the
Facility to prevent water fowl from coming into contact with the impounded waste.
Lee, if more specific information is required in response to any of the alleged violations,
as I indicated in our telephone conversations, I would be happy to meet with you and with
representatives of the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Planning Department
to resolve these matters.
The Stoll Memorandum seems to suggest that the show cause hearing procedure could
be used as a mechanism for reaching a voluntary compliance order. I do not see how that will
occur unless you could join the Environmental Protection Agency and CDPHE in the hearing
before the Board. WCWD has continuously evidenced its desire to cooperate in resolving these
issues and entering into a compliance order. However, as I have continuously also indicated,
WCWD is not going to be whip sawed by first entering into an agreement with the County, then
having the State say "no, that is not satisfactory", then negotiating an agreement with the County
and CDPHE (if possible), only to find that the Environmental Protection Agency will not sign
off on such an agreement. In my mind, a compliance order would deal with the specific issues,
tailored to this facility, which must be articulated to and addressed by WCWD. Any compliance
order should also have a specific method for notification of specific violations, a provision for
cure, then a provision for determination of alleged violations by an independent third party prior
to imposition of sanctions.
As I suggested in our telephone conversation of February 1, 1995, perhaps the Weld
County Planning Department and WCHD could articulate exactly what the facility should look
like and how it should be operated after the compliance order is negotiated and signed. From
that point, it seems we could work backwards to a compliance order.
I will look forward to your response.
Yours very truly,
ac.0-•
Richard D. Judd
RDJ/vab
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Don Shosky (via facsimile)
Mr. Howard Duckworth (via facsimile)
•
/ tr 4`f is r. .+r� `: +'7 _�q�!f �s+e'. ..� `i.',� .'•��'1 }�• .• ,
s.
11^!y„ • 'L •
} q-` '•
•
i �• �,Rl7i r
a 9 N
•
•
•
•
r?c-ildfyit Ex ii;b%t i''
•
•
. ,--:-...J.•_.:._ ,a,l‘w
L.., -.... y
•
]i.;
C
•
.� < +AI { ,-.,-..N4.:::...:.
f. •f+ • w i l is
,' ra C l 'till Ap f,. •.
ftf+ 5 j,"�r y'c",: 7.4-'''i�t irk • ; "gtsf ♦ x7 : 1
:l :,!:-141......:91 a. :i' �� •. r
%Fahr.
/t)p.spevici2/1-/ Z-7xhl'6;'/- /5
; k,x
ryas 0�
.ate• ^ ,� �.
-..... .„
�. ........ - .?`.� ... .ids' -
4. SFr
•
asse
RespctidErtl txh:bl1- l4
!Maui -leak •
•
• y ' 4
. 4. «r«
ja
•
r .
•
s... r
;
•
stir
•
k'espendent Sxh%bif 17
,..
k
I
I
•
•
Re pcAde,ii- Ex Alt:t is
�. �. - ,...„ • .. :„. . .
k .111,114,
E _
* 41111 . cl:I\ -
44
cars
4.
K'espo/l d eri f Exh;l,;t iq
THrkhollis
,T . "t w i 1
{ +..
I a I
I
y l
•
'I * V'r ,
/ 1 I af
y A
J
`
,
•
Aes pond enf &")ch%b:f ao
.;
:
bi
1'
it
5!
f
rilTli s R
it
_ ..iii•SI ,. _
-c Z_
arcs
._ a ",..,M. eli"•.,_ 4.......
teEs,)ovide.IJ 4;e, / a/
. ..er'' h........,:alk• rapt
c 41 /'a`� --e ,cam
r
�t�' "� "i!. kph 'n 1 a,;�..
_ a i� v; w�s" �r ..fir Tt
ar
i
temalakissibb...
,gespdndent txh%b f do?
Hello