HomeMy WebLinkAbout941410.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
®RG
t
BOARD OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
May 19 , 1993
IN RE:
SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR THE REVOCATION OF USR NO. 540
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in
interest, the above-entitled matter came for public
hearing before the Weld County Board of County Planning
Commissioners and Planning Commission on Wednesday,
May 19 , 1993, commencing at 10 :40 a.m. , at 915 - 19th
Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Vivian Over,
Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within
and for the State of Colorado.
IB R S BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
Registered Professional Reporters
Greeley (303)356-3306 Fort Collins 941410
710- II th-Avenue..Suite 106 I can TAM 419 Canyon Avenue. Sul
_. Greeley.Colorado 80631 FAX(303)356 3362 Fort Collins.Colorado 80521
2
1 APPEARANCES :
2 BOARD OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
3 W.H. (Bill ) Webster
Barbara Kirkmeyer
4 Connie Harbert, Chairman
Dale Hall
5 George Baxter.
6 WELD COUNTY LEGAL ADVISER:
7 Lee Morrison, Esq.
8 APPLICANTS:
9 Kenneth F. Lind, Esq.
Mike Cervi
10 Patty Deplazes
11 ALSO PRESENT:
12 John S . Pickle, Director Environmental
Protection Services
13 Keith Schuett, Current Planner
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
946056
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 MS . HARBERT: Our next item of business
3 will be the show cause hearing for the revocation of
4 User No. 540 .
5 Mr. Morrison, will you make a record, please?
6 MR. MORRISON: No. 93 is going to hearing
7 to show cause for revocation User 540 of north server
8 part of the northeast quarter, Section 26 and northwest
9 quarter of Section 25 , Township 5 north, Range 67 west,
10 Weld County, Colorado. Notice was published May 6th,
11 1993 in the Windsor Beacon and did describe issues
12 which, at the time, there was a finding of probable
13 cause to have a show cause hearing.
14 In summary, those involved in compliance,
15 whether or not there ' s been compliance with operations
16 Standard 1, 7-A, 7-H, 7-J, 8-A, 15 and 16 of User 540 .
17 MR. SCHUETT: Keith Schuett, Weld County,
18 Department of Planning Services .
19 This is Show Cause No. ZCH 97 and 98 ,
20 special permit USR 540 . Northern Colorado Brine
21 server. The legal description is part of the northeast
22 quarter of Section 26 , and part of the northwest
23 quarter of Section 25 , Township 5 north, Range 67 west
24 of the 6th P .M. , Weld County, Colorado.
25 The location is approximately one mile east
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
946056
4
1 of State Highway 257 , south of and adjacent to Weld County
2 Road 54 .
3 It is the opinion of the Department of
4 Planning Services ' staff that the following Standards ,
5 as approved for USR-540, have not been maintained in
6 compliance.
7 Operation Standards 1, 7-A, 7-H, 7-J, 8-A,
8 15 and 16 .
9 Operations Standard No. 1 states as
10 follows : The use shall be an oil and gas brine water
11 disposal and oil recovery facility as described in the
12 submitted application materials . No hazardous waste or
13 nonhazardous industrial waste shall be allowed at the
14 site. The facility shall be designed, constructed, and
15 operated to comply with the Colorado Department of
16 Health Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act
17 Title 30-20, Part 1, CRS 1973, as amended.
18 The use of the property has not been limited
19 to oil and gas brine water disposal and oil recovery
20 facility as described in the submitted application
21 materials . The use of the property has not been limited
22 to oil and gas disposal and oil recovery facility as
23 described in the submitted application materials .
24 Nonhazardous waste from Monfort and other facilities have
25 been disposed of at this site .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
946035
5
1 The facility has been used for oil field
2 equipment storage area. Frac tanks, other than two on
3 site for pond skimming, have been stored on site .
4 Materials other than brine water have been
5 disposed of at the facility. Receipt Nos . 40925 and 40862
6 indicate that motor oil and other materials were disposed
7 of at the facility.
8 The depth of all ponds is not consistent with
9 the application materials . The pond depth is not to
10 exceed 5 feet, 30 inches for freeboard or 6 inches for
11 salt accumulation, and 24 inches inches for brine water.
12 Ponds have not been maintained in compliance
13 with the minimum freeboard of 30 inches . Freeboard is a
14 part of the 5 foot pond depth from the top of the pond
15 liner, 30 inches of freeboard, 6 inches of salt
16 accumulation, and 24 inches of brine water.
17 The facility has accepted more waste than it
18 was designed for. The facility was designed for no more
19 than 2 , 000 barrels a day. The facility received as much
20 as 9 , 000 barrels of brine water in one day.
21 The facility received increased volumes of
22 waste without first amending the approved emission permit
23 90WE161 . The emissions permit 90WE161 states that the
24 production of brine water shall not exceed 10 , 000 barrels
25 per month.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
6
1 The facility was designed for a retention
2 time of 24 hours within the skim tanks prior to the
3 release into the ponds . Retention time of the brine water
4 has been as low as four to six hours with the amount of
5 water that the facility has received.
6 The facility has been cited for odor
7 violations , 2 . 1 . 2 of the Solid Waste Current Planner
8 Regulations . Seven odor violations have been issued.
9 There ' s a typo in that .
10 Operations Standard Number 7-A states : The
11 four evaporative ponds shall be engineer designed and
12 operated in accordance with the submitted application
13 materials and Use by Special Review Permit Plan Map.
14 All the evaporative ponds have not been
15 constructed in accordance with the submitted
16 application materials and Use by Special Review Permit
17 Plan Map. The size of the last pond constructed was
18 not constructed in compliance with the submitted
19 application materials, 30 inches for freeboard, 6
20 inches for salt accumulation, and 24 inches of brine
21 water.
22 Operations Standard Number 7-H states : A
23 gauge height indicator shall be installed in the
24 evaporation ponds . The gauge must clearly indicate the
25 depth of the brine water waste .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
7
1 The gauge height indicators that have been
2 installed do not accurately and clearly indicate the depth
3 of the brine water waste . The gauge height indicators, as
4 installed, only indicate a change in the surface elevation
5 of the brine water waste, not the depth of the brine water
6 waste in relation to the top of the pond liner.
7 Operations Standard 7-J states : An
8 aeration system shall be installed and operated on the
9 four evaporative ponds . In the event of an odor
10 problem emanating from the ponds , an odor abatement
11 program shall be instituted.
12 An approved aeration system has not been
13 installed on all ponds and a final odor abatement program
14 has not been submitted for review or instituted to
15 eliminate the odor problem. Seven odor violations have
16 been issued by the Weld County Health Department .
17 Operation Standard 8-A states : The dump and
18 skim tanks shall be engineer designed in accordance with
19 the submitted application materials and Use by Special
20 Review Permit Plan Map.
21 The application material states that the skim
22 tanks are to be designed to have a minimum retention time
23 of 24 hours . Due to the size and design of the existing
24 skim facility, and the amount of water received, the
25 retention time of the brine water was between four to six
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940058
8
1 hours .
2 Operation Standard Number 15 states : The
3 Use by Special Review shall be limited to the plans
4 shown hereon and governed by the Standards as stated
5 above and all applicable Weld County Regulations .
6 Any material deviations from the plans
7 and/or Standards as shown or stated above shall require
8 the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld
9 County Planning Commission and the Board of County
10 Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or
11 Standards are permitted.
12 Any other changes shall be filed in the
13 office of the Department of Planning Services .
14 The Use by Special Review site has not been
15 maintained in compliance with all Development Standards
16 and all applicable Weld County Regulations and amendments
17 to the approved plans have not been applied for.
18 Operation Standard Number 16 states : The
19 property owner and/or operator of this operation shall
20 be responsible for complying with all of the above
21 stated Standards . Noncompliance with any of the above
22 stated Standards may be reason for revocation of the
23 Permit by the Board of County Commissioners .
24 The property owner and/or operator of the
25 operation has not maintained compliance with all operation
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 94ti056
9
1 standards .
2 The Department of Planning Services ' staff
3 requests that the Board of County Commissioners
4 continue this show cause hearing to September 1 , 1993 .
5 This would allow the owner/operator to come into
6 compliance with all Development Standards and to
7 demonstrate the ability to maintain compliance .
8 I would also like to bring the board's
9 attention to the inspection report which was included
10 with the packet that I just submitted. The inspection
11 report does indicate that some of the items that were
12 listed as violations have been in compliance since the
13 last meeting, or have been brought up to compliance .
14 If the board would choose, I would read
15 that into the record, also.
16 MS . HARBERT: I think probably you should do
17 that so the audience also knows .
18 MR. SCHUETT: Inspection report for
19 northern Colorado Brine . The legal description is part
20 of the northeast quarter of Section 26 , and part of the
21 northwest quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North,
22 Range 67 west of the 6th P .M. , Weld County, Colorado,
23 Case No . USR-540 ZCH-97 and 98 .
24 The date of the inspection was May 18th.
25 The report that you were given is not the right report.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
10
1 MS . HARBERT: Is there a possibility that
2 this is the correct report with the wrong date?
3 MR. SCHUETT: No, ma 'am. I believe that it
4 is the wrong report .
5 MS . HARBERT: Would you like us to recess
6 for 5 or 10 minutes?
7 MR. SCHUETT: Do you have a copy of the
8 report that I gave you this morning, Mr. Morrison?
9 MR. LIND: Ken Lind, 1011 - 11th Avenue,
10 law firm of Lind, Lawrence and Ottenhoff . I have a
11 document entitled "Inspection Report" dated May 18,
12 1993 , which we received this morning at approximately
13 8 : 30 a.m.
14 MR. SCHUETT: That is the report .
15 MS . HARBERT: Could we recess for five
16 minutes while you make copies of that for us?
17 MR. LIND: I have notes on my copy, so, no,
18 it would not be all right to make copies of mine .
19 MS . HARBERT: You don't have a copy with
20 you?
21 MR. SCHUETT: I don't have a copy with me.
22 I could get one from the department.
23 MS . HARBERT: We' ll take a 10-minute recess
24 while this inspection report is delivered to us .
25 Let the record show that Mr. Webster has
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005s
11
1 joined the commission and is present.
2 MS . HARBERT: We ' ll reconvene the hearing
3 for the Northern Colorado Brine, and that ' s User 540
4 show cause revocation.
5 (Recess taken from 10 : 50 a.m. to
6 11 : 15 a.m. )
7 MS . HARBERT: Back on the record.
8 Apparently the inspection report still has
9 not arrived; however, I think we will go on. We do --
10 are running into a time constraint today, and I will
11 explain that .
12 When we set this show cause hearing for
13 today, we were not informed at that time that the State
14 Board of Health would be holding a rule-making hearing
15 today regarding Subtitle D, which I 'm sure most of you
16 in the audience are interested in.
17 It is of great importance that Mr.
18 Morrison, our legal counsel, and Mr. Pickle, our
19 environmental advisor, attend those hearings today, and
20 they start at 2 : 00 in Fort Collins, so we will carry
21 our hearing on through 12 : 30 and then adjourn.
22 We will have to pick this hearing up at a
23 different date . The commissioners agree that we will
24 pick it up on Monday at 1: 00 o 'clock. However, I 'm
25 understanding that there' s a conflict with the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
946056
12
1 applicant at that time, so we' ll have to agree upon a
2 time when we adjourn as to what we can do.
3 I might ask, Shelly, if you would put
4 Vickie on alert that we may need our calendar from
5 upstairs regarding that, too. Maybe not immediately,
6 but before she goes to lunch.
7 I believe our inspection records are here.
8 Keith, if you could quickly finish up your portion
9 here, I also think, or have been informed, that the
10 applicant has some people who will do a presentation
11 here from Texas, and therefore, it would be unfair to
12 call them back at a different time.
13 So we will, as soon as Keith finishes his
14 presentation, hear -- we will ask the applicant to make
15 a statement, and if they wish to have the people that
16 are here from out of state speak at that time, we may.
17 And I do apologize for this delay.
18 MR. SCHUETT: I also apologize for the
19 delay.
20 The inspection report named Northern
21 Colorado Brine. There are some other names listed;
22 Northern Colorado Brine and Eastern Plains
23 Environmental Service. The legal description is part
24 of the northeast quarter of Section 26 and part of the
25 northwest quarter, Section 25 all in Range 67 west, 6th
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940956
13
1 P .M. Township 5 north, Case No. USR-540 . ZCH-97 and
2 98 .
3 The property was inspected after reviewing
4 the approved Development Standards and application
5 materials . Trevor Jiricek, of the Weld County Health
6 Department assisted on the inspection. A video of the
7 property was filmed.
8 During this inspection it was determined
9 that the property is not in compliance with Operation
10 Standard No. 1, Operation Standards 7-H, 7-J, 7-I , 15
11 and 16 .
12 Operation Standard No. 1 states that the
13 use shall be an oil and gas brine water disposal and
14 oil recovery facility as described in the submitted
15 application materials . No hazardous wastes or
16 nonhazardous industrial waste shall be allowed at the
17 site. The facility shall be designed, constructed and
18 operated to comply with the Colorado Department of
19 Health Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
20 Title 30-20, Part 1 , CRS 1973, as amended.
21 The facility is not being maintained in
22 compliance with the existing Emission Permit No.
23 90WE161 . The emission permit states that production of
24 brine water shall not exceed 10, 000 barrels per month.
25 From April 14 to May 13, a total of 18, 835 barrels of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
14
1 brine water has been received at this facility.
2 Operations Standard 7-H states : A gauge
3 height indicator shall be installed in the evaporation
4 ponds . The gauge must clearly indicate the depth of
5 the brine water waste .
6 A gauge height indicator is located on all
7 ponds . However, the gauge height indicators do not
8 clearly indicate the depth of the brine water waste .
9 Operation Standard 7-J states : An aeration
10 system shall be installed and operated on the four
11 evaporative ponds . In the event of an odor problem
12 emanating from the ponds, an odor abatement program
13 shall be instituted.
14 The aeration system has been installed on
15 three ponds . A sprayer system has been installed on
16 two ponds . The sprayer system is to aerate the brine
17 water. The sprayer system was installed without proper
18 building permits being issued.
19 The sprayer system design and operation
20 plan is still being reviewed by the State Health
21 Department and the local health department . During the
22 inspection the sprayer system was in operation.
23 Mist from the sprayer was drifting outside
24 of the pond in which the mist was produced. The wind
25 did not appear to be excessive. The wind speed was
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
15
1 estimated to be approximately 10 miles an hour by Patty
2 Deplazes .
3 7-I states : The evaporation ponds shall be
4 kept free and clear of oil skims .
5 Oil skims was observed on the southwest
6 pond. Minor oil skims were observed on the northeast
7 pond also.
8 Operation Standard 15 states : The Use by
9 Special Review shall be limited to the plans shown
10 hereon and governed by the Standards as stated above
11 and all applicable Weld County Regulations . Any
12 material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as
13 shown or stated above shall require the approval of an
14 amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning
15 Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before
16 such changes from the plans and/or Standards are
17 permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the
18 office of the Department of Planning Services .
19 The Use by Special Review site has not been
20 limited to the plans shown and is not in compliance
21 with the applicable Weld County Regulations . The Use
22 by Special Review site is not in compliance with all
23 Development Standards and all applicable Weld County
24 Regulations and amendments to the approved plans have
25 not been applied for.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
16
1 Operation Standard 16 states : The property
2 owner and/or operator of this operation shall be
3 responsible for complying with all of the above stated
4 Standards . Noncompliance with any of the above stated
5 Standards may be reason for revocation of the permit by
6 the Board of County Commssioners .
7 The property owner and/or operator of this
8 operation has not maintained compliance with all
9 operation standards .
10 MS . HARBERT: Are there any questions at
11 this time? If not, will the applicant or their
12 representative come forward and present their
13 information.
14 MR. LIND: On behalf of the applicant, this
15 is a brief summary as to the presentation we are going
16 to give to you on certain aspects . I want to make very
17 clear at this time there is a settlement and
18 stipulation that is being reviewed by both the state
19 and the applicant, which does necessarily involve Weld
20 County, which is related to, basically, the odor and
21 the aeration system, as well as the oil skimmage .
22 Needless to say, that stipulation and
23 program, if entered into and agreed upon by all the
24 parties , basically takes care of the situation and,
25 more than likely, render any additional hearings
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91O056
17
1 needless, based upon the approval of that stipulation.
2 That stipulation has significant
3 advantages , legal mechanisms, on behalf of Weld County
4 as well as the state because it requires the applicant
5 to install some extremely expensive equipment upon the
6 site .
7 To better allow you to review that
8 settlement and stipulation, it directly relates to
9 Operation Standards 7-J and 7-I , which again is the
10 aeration system, and the alleged odor problem, as well
11 as the skimming.
12 What has been designed, after extensive
13 review, is basically a two-stage odor abatement
14 program, and we have seven gentlemen here from Texas
15 who have done extensive evaluation of the pond areas,
16 the various production and brine waters received on
17 site.
18 Those tests have just been completed at
19 various labs at the University of Texas . They do have
20 a complete program which is both an interim as well as
21 a long-term solution to the problems that we have and
22 are an integral part of the settlement situation.
23 The State of Colorado Health Department
24 does have some information, has had some review of
25 this . They have indicated that they' re in general
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94C956
18
1 agreement with the concept, but due to the fact that it
2 is in litigation, and it is only a proposed settlement
3 stipulation, I am not free to provide any additional
4 details to you at a public hearing concerning that
5 settlement.
6 However, to enable you to better analyze
7 and evaluate the odor abatement program and system
8 modification, we will present the information from the
9 individuals from Texas .
10 MR. MORRISON: We 're essentially taking
11 this evidence from Northern Colorado Brine out of order
12 in order to accommodate their schedule . If the hearing
13 proceeds, we ' ll go back to further evidence on behalf
14 of the staff of the county.
15 And also the fact that you're taking this
16 evidence shouldn't be interpreted as any kind of
17 position whatsoever on the stipulation including
18 whether or not you have the jurisdiction to enter into
19 that stipulation.
20 The evidence is also relevant on some of
21 the claims of noncompliance and, therefore, it 's
22 appropriate to be heard, but I just want to make sure
23 you're not viewing it as taking any position whatsoever
24 on the stipulation.
25 MS . HARBERT: Thank you.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940956
19
1 MR. LIND: Madam Chairman, I also need to
2 add, this should not be interpreted that we are
3 agreeing that the county has any jurisdiction of any
4 type related to the odors, as well as emissions permit,
5 because we have issues of preemption by the state, as
6 well as -- and Air Quality Control Commission stay is
7 statutory.
8 So it's merely to give you additional
9 information. And I am in agreement with Mr. Morrison
10 that this does not bind you to any particular decision,
11 other than providing you with information.
12 MS . HARBERT: Mr. Lind, I would just like
13 to clarify your explanation concerning the suit or the
14 hearing for your client that is about to take place
15 with the state, is that in regard to the letters we
16 received from Hobbs , Trout & Grailey, the client ' s
17 attorney from Denver from May 14th and May 17th.
18 MR. MORRISON: Those are related to the
19 preemptions and the stay issues; that is correct .
20 MS . HARBERT: Thank you .
21 MR. BURROWS : Ronnie Burrows, 2713
22 Cumberland Road, Odessa, Texas, currently owner of the
23 Permian Pipeline & Construction Company. What I know
24 about systems is from being in a petroleum company on
25 a consulting basis for about 4-1/2 years .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9-16056
20
1 They called me in and I helped in design
2 and was project coordinator including pipeline, water
3 injection systems , so on and so forth.
4 What we're proposing in this project is a
5 state-of-the-art, two-stage separating system of
6 chemical enhancement, totally separating the oil from
7 the water, kill the soil, and we' ll be down to probably
8 50 parts per million oil to water mixture .
9 These systems have been used in the oil
10 fields for many, many years . They are proven to work.
11 We have proposed as to the -- we want to spend the
12 money to fix the thing and do it right, and that
13 basically is our proposal .
14 I have put these systems in before, and
15 they do work. It ' s relatively a simple procedure.
16 MS . HARBERT: I 'm sorry, I did not get your
17 name, sir.
18 MR. BURROWS : Ronnie Burrows .
19 MS . HARBERT: Are there any questions for
20 Mr. Burrows?
21 MR. SCHUETT: You 're saying that it will
22 reduce something to 50 parts per million. What is that
23 that is being reduced?
24 MR. BURROWS: The separation of oil to
25 water.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
21
1 MR. BAZE : My name is Curtis Baze. I work
2 for a company called Aquaness, that 's a division of
3 Hughes -- well, I should say, Aquaness Chemical and
4 that ' s a division of Hughes , and we treat oil field
5 water; that 's what we do . I have treated water in New
6 Mexico, some in Colorado, all over Texas, and what
7 Ronnie said, as far as being simple, it is simple.
8 I will say this , I have looked at the
9 system that ' s out there at the present time . It does
10 need work, from what I have seen. From what Ronnie has
il proposed as far as the system goes right now, they are
12 going into two pits as holding pits , then going into a
13 large pit .
14 There was a skim when I was out there,
15 which is a major part of the problem. You have a
16 twofold odor problem there . You have, one, the
17 hydrocarbon; two, bacteria.
18 In other words , we have to eliminate both
19 of those to eliminate the problem. The system and the
20 chemical treatments that we're proposing will eliminate
21 both those problems . The system that Ronnie has
22 proposed is going into a line lighter that will heat
23 the oil to help separation.
24 As of my tests so far, we have separated
25 the oil and water within five minutes . We've tested
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91O156
22
1 the products to do this . And I have proposed a
2 three-phase treatment where we can go in and treat, as
3 the water comes in, to break the motion which is called
4 an emulsion.
5 After that point, after we come out of the
6 two pits , we will treat again to break -- bring the oil
7 out of the water. Right now, we have what we call a
8 water -- or oil in water emulsion. The oil is
9 entrained in the water. That ' s why its getting out to
10 the pits and causing skim.
11 At the points that it leaves the two pits ,
12 we can treat the water there and bring the oil in the
13 system that Ronnie has designed. And this is only in
14 conjunction; they can't work separately, except to a
15 minor degree, on both parts .
16 What he was saying about the 50 parts per
17 million, that we can get the water to where, when it
18 goes into that pit, we only have 50 parts per million
19 oil in the water, which is minor. The last test we ran
20 we had 7 , 000 parts per million, which is very
21 noticeable, and we can eliminate the oil within five
22 minutes out of this water.
23 That eliminates one part of the problem.
24 The other part would be eliminated at the juncture
25 where we go into the holding pits , or the major pits,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94 ;056
23
1 the first pits as you go outside. At that point, we
2 need to eliminate the bacteria. We 're going to have to
3 oxidize that situation to make sure that we can kill
4 any bacteria in there .
5 All of these products that I 'm talking
6 about are nonhazardous . They are not going to create a
7 problem as far as the water's concerned. They all
8 correct over a period of time, and you will hear from a
9 gentleman here in a minute that will talk about some
10 bacteria or -- well, I will let him get into that .
11 I know that we can treat this water where
12 the odor is 90 percent less than it is now. I also
13 know that, at some point, we can get this water where
14 it can possibly be used for irrigation. We can clean
15 this water up that much.
16 And the reason why I know this is I have
17 done this for 20 years . I treat water in New Mexico
18 right now that we -- same or similar situation. We
19 treat the water going into much smaller pits , 10, 000
20 barrels a day, much smaller pits , on an Indian
21 reservation.
22 This water goes into a creek where the
23 cattle drink, and it ' s quality water, so we can do the
24 job. And Mr. Cervi has -- I have no connection with
25 Mr. Cervi . I met him for the first time yesterday, and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
24
1 he has asked my opinion. These are the recommendations
2 we made to him. We can do it, and hopefully we will
3 get the opportunity.
4 Any questions?
5 MS . HARBERT: Are there any questions?
6 MR. WEBSTER: From my understanding, one of
7 the ponds is constructed in error to an unusual depth.
8 Is that a problem for you as far as oxidation?
9 MR. BAZE: No, sir. We will oxidize before
10 the water gets to that pit. Hopefully, what we have in
11 the first pit will be a swimming pool type situation,
12 where when we go into the second pool we have quality
13 water. I can' t say that honestly to you that we could
14 ever -- I wouldn't recommend my kids drinking the water
15 out of that pond, but I will say this , that it will be
16 quality water and could possibly be used for
17 irrigation.
18 I would say that it probably would behoove
19 Mr. Cervi to test the water on occasion before he does
20 that; in other words, at intervals .
21 MR. WEBSTER: Your treatment system does
22 not include the problem as far as an aeration problem?
23 MR. BAZE: No, sir. I do think it helps .
24 I do think that it helps , and I think that they need to
25 keep that in the system.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
25
1 MR. WEBSTER: But you're not involved in
2 that?
3 MR. BAZE: No, I 'm not.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. That ' s all
5 I have .
6 MS . KIRKMEYER: Your system in chemical
7 treatment, has it been done in Colorado?
8 MR. BAZE : Yes, ma'am. We do do it in
9 Colorado; however, it ' s not on this level . I do some
10 in southern Colorado around Durango, but they are very
11 small, according to this system. So I can't even
12 compare those two .
13 But it does go downstream and goes into
14 production water, then it goes into a stream. We 're
15 not looking at a thousand barrels a day.
16 MR. WEBSTER: The standard set by this
17 operation is supposed to be 2 , 000 barrels a day?
18 MR. BAZE: Yes, sir.
19 MR. WEBSTER: It 's been taking a size 9
20 from what we understand. Is your system designed to
21 handle the 2 by standard?
22 MR. BAZE: The system has to work in
23 conjunction with the system in Mr. Burrows ' system, and
2.4 we can -- at that time, if he puts that in, it could
25 carry 10 or 12 , 000 barrels easily, easily. And treat
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9100:56
26
1 it as well as -- well, better than the 2 , 000 barrels
2 that are being treated now.
3 I can promise you that .
4 MR. WEBSTER: Do you have present
5 construction facilities for Mr. Burrows?
6 MR. BAZE : Yes .
7 MR. WEBSTER: Of this capacity?
8 MR. BAZE: Yes , sir, we treat 20 to 30, 000
9 barrels of water.
10 MR. WEBSTER: And the facilities?
11 MR. BAZE: Yes , sir. Granted -- now, I
12 have never -- to be honest with you, yes , we treat the
13 water. I have never really had someone question on an
14 odor problem. We do on water quality as far as what
15 the quality of that water is, but as far as the odor
16 problem, we 've never had a question on that part .
17 However, when you have a swimming pool or a
18 quality water, you have no odor problem.
19 MR. WEBSTER: That was my next question.
20 Do you feel that if your system works at what you're
21 stating to that quality of water, then you will not
22 have an odor problem?
23 MR. BAZE : This is correct .
24 MR. WEBSTER: That ' s your professional
25 opinion?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94C95C
27
1 MR. BAZE: Yes . I will also add that we 've
2 tried to put in a temporary situation that I have
3 recommended to Mr. Cervi where we can treat the water
4 and abate a lot of the odor at this point the way he's
5 set up now. It will not do the job totally, I will say
6 that .
7 In other words, I 'm saying that my system
8 and the mechanical system have to work together.
9 That' s all there is to it . To get 100 percent
10 efficiency, they have to work together. We can do
11 some, and they can do some .
12 MR. BAXTER: If I understand the procedure
13 that you're talking about, the equipment and chemicals
14 you 're using is to treat the new water coming in?
15 MR. BAZE : Yes, sir.
16 MR. BAXTER: This has no effect on what is
17 there on the pond now?
18 MR. BAZE : Yes, sir. We have discussed
19 treating the water that ' s in there now. In other
20 words, Mr. Cervi has expressed to me that' s what he
21 wants to do, treat the water that is there now to
22 eliminate the problem. We 've discussed several
23 options , one of them you ' ll hear in just a minute from
24 another man.
25 Another option is to run the water -- pump
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
` 'r3nr.-
� ad J
28
1 it back through the system. Once we get started with
2 rebuilding the system, run it back through the system,
3 and you can do part of that now with a chemical
4 treatment program; however, it ' s not going to do the
5 job 100 percent.
6 We can probably eliminate 30 or 40 percent
7 of the odor just with the chemical program.
8 MS . HARBERT: I have a question. If this
9 were -- if you were contracted by Mr. Cervi to install
10 this system, how long would it take to implement it,
11 and could he continue to take 2 , 000 barrels a day while
12 you 're doing that?
13 MR. BAZE: Are you talking the temporary
14 system or the full-blown?
15 MS . HARBERT: Full-blown.
16 MR. BAZE : As far as the temporary system
17 goes in the oil treatment, we can as to that in two
18 weeks . As far as the full system itself, it would
19 probably be -- Ronnie, 90 days?
20 MR. BURROWS: Five to six weeks, I will
21 say.
22 MR. BAZE : Five to six weeks .
23 MS . HARBERT: Two weeks on the temporary
24 system and five to six weeks on the permanent facility?
25 MR. BAZE: Yes , ma 'am.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910056
29
1 MS . HARBERT: The second part of my
2 question is, what does he do with the 2 , 000 barrels of
3 brine a day that he is taking now while you're doing
4 that?
5 MR. BAZE : We ' ll have to treat that
6 chemically when we 're bringing in the water . Yes ,
7 we're overloading the system, but treating it
8 chemically is going to speed the process up to the
9 point that, well, he eliminates probably 40 percent of
10 the problem, even bringing in some of the water that ' s
11 there now.
12 MS . HARBERT: That 's the water that ' s there
13 now. As you're doing this over this five or six weeks,
14 can they continue to bring it in at this time?
15 MR. BAZE: Yes . Yes, ma'am. We can do a
16 better job than he's doing at this point, even doing
17 that .
18 MR. WEBSTER: Providing he stays with the
19 2 , 000 and not 9 , 000?
20 MR. BURROWS : The way his system is now,
21 that ' s correct .
22 MR. MORRISON: What company did you do the
23 work in the Durango area for?
24 MR. BURROWS : That ' s a small company, and I
25 don' t directly deal with them. I will not be selling
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94C056
30
1 the product to Mr. Cervi . I did not know the name of
2 the company. I know the name of the company for New
3 Mexico . That was a smaller deal and I went with my
4 customer and told him what to do . And I don' t remember
5 the name of them.
6 I do remember in Durango, Colorado. The
7 one in New Mexico is Hospah Indian Reservation, and for
6 American Exploration. The chemical company was Oil
9 Field Company.
10 MR. MORRISON: I have a request of you and
11 Mr. Lind.
12 Do you have CVs or other resumes for these
13 individuals that you can provide, and then company
14 references?
15 MR. LIND: We can provide you both
16 individual resumes, company CVs , as well as references,
17 probably not later than next week, Tuesday or
18 Wednesday.
19 MR. MORRISON: I would appreciate that. Is
20 it the treatment -- two stages of treatment treats the
21 salinity or only the oil and bichromial problems?
22 MR. BAZE: We 're not treating the
23 salinity. When you say brine water, this is not
24 particularly brine water, the way I view it . The
25 average chlorides out there --
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910056
31
1 Where is Pat? What was the average
2 chlorides?
3 MS . DEPLAZES: They average between 13 and
4 17 , 000 .
5 MS . HARBERT: Would you repeat that so it
6 goes on the record.
7 MR. BAZE : The average chlorides out there
8 is 13 to 17 , 000 . That is not considered a heavy brine
9 or -- it ' s very light, actually. You can get -- you
10 know, we deal with brine in 50 or 60, 000 .
11 MR. MORRISON: Your representations as to
12 future use of that are dependent on a use that would
13 accept that level of salinity?
14 MR. BAZE: Yes , sir that 's true .
15 MS . HARBERT: What could you use that water
16 for with that level of salinity?
17 MR. BAZE: That level of salinity, I would
18 have to look at that . I don't really know. That water
19 that we' re dealing with now in Farmington is probably 7
20 or 8 , 000 chlorides . So I will have to look at that.
21 It could be used for irrigation, but I don't know. I
22 can't answer that question honestly.
23 I will say the quality will be -- as far as
24 clean water, will be good.
25 MS . HARBERT: Are there any other questions
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9nCMa6
32
1 for Mr. Baze?
2 (No response. )
3 MR. BURROWS: Ronnie Burrows again.
4 If there was some way to show you what the
5 system entails and exactly how it ' s going to work --
6 MS . HARBERT: Shelly, do you know where our
7 easel is?
8 MR. BURROWS: Basically, what we 're going
9 to do is , the existing 850-barrel unloading pit, this
10 is where the trucks unload, and the water goes to 1780
11 barrels holding pit . At this point, unless we have a
12 chemical injection, then it will come out and we will
13 pull it out with a 6-inch, run it through a filter
14 system, run it through a preheater, bring the
15 temperature up.
16 The hotter it is , the better separation
17 we 're going to get as far as oil to water mixture . The
18 chemical that they inject is going to enhance the
19 separation. From the time -- as far as figuring
20 retention time -- from the time it enters the preheater
21 until it comes out of the preheater, from the time it
22 goes in to the time it comes out, you have
23 approximately 4 minutes, based on 1500 barrels an hour.
24 This system is designed to handle 18 , 000
25 barrels a day. Then when it comes out of the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
33
1 preheater, you ' ll notice another chemical pump will be
2 injecting chemicals in it one more time to pop this
3 thing up to make it really work.
4 From the time it goes into the two-stage
5 separator, approximately 12 minutes retention time from
6 the time it goes in until it goes out . Now, we only
7 need anywhere from 6 to 7 minutes for the whole system
8 to work, for the thing to separate, for the thing to do
9 what it ' s going to do .
10 Now, while this separation is happening,
11 the solids are falling to the bottom, the whole
12 interface -- the oil comes out into holding tanks , the
13 water goes to the ponds . At this point, when it comes
14 out, the water is in real good shape . That' s where
15 we 're getting down to 50 parts per million. This thing
16 is totally automated, all on computers , and does it
17 basically itself .
18 Now, as far as the buildup of solids and
19 the possibility of the falling over and getting back
20 into the pits is pretty much going to be an
21 impossibility because at a certain time that we have it
22 set, these things are going to flush themselves . The
23 filter and the tank will flush themselves . The solids
24 will fall out and go to a holding tank, which is a
25 contained system.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9 C 05
34
1 At that point, you' ll notice another
2 chemical pump is here . That 's where the oxidation will
3 be injected into the solids that fall out in the
4 holding tank. It takes oxidation approximately three
5 hours to turn this into pure dirt, no contamination
6 whatsoever. It simply dumps it back into the pit as
7 pure dirt, no contamination whatsoever.
8 The system is as simple as it can be. It ' s
9 only a two-phase separating system, chemical three
10 different places . As far as the separation. And then
11 we have also another chemical of oxidation to be
12 injected into the solids to fall out . Then,
13 consequently, everything's clean.
14 MS . HARBERT: So the dirt goes back into
15 the holding pond; is that correct?
16 MR. BURROWS : we can either put it in
17 there, or put it on the ground and plant tomatoes in
18 it.
19 MS . HARBERT: If you put it in the pit,
20 wouldn' t it fill it up with dirt rather than with
21 water?
22 MR. BURROWS : After a period of time there
23 will be a buildup, but this water, according to the
24 tests that we 've taken, samples that we 've taken,
25 doesn't really have that much solid in it.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9'10056
35
1 MR. WEBSTER: You mentioned your first step
2 was a filter?
3 MR. BURROWS: Yes, sir, that ' s correct.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Where does the filter
5 material -- what do you do with that? What' s in that
6 filtered material , and where do you go with that?
7 MR. BURROWS : Are you talking about what
8 the filter's made out of?
9 MR. WEBSTER: No, what you filter out.
10 MR. BURROWS : What is filtered out, you' ll
11 notice -- with this being filtered here, you ' ll notice
12 that once it backwashes itself, it goes back into the
13 holding tank. This tank is constantly -- chemical is
14 constantly being injected into it. Okay.
15 We ' ll never let this stuff get loose . Once
16 it backwashes , it goes back into the holding tank. It
17 will be -- the chemical will hit it again, put it right
18 back through the system. Eventually it will fall out,
19 oxidation will take place, and once it ' s done, it 's
20 done, it ' s over with.
21 MS . HARBERT: You say this is a simple
22 system, but yet it ' s pretty complicated, and it has be
23 computer driven and all that type of thing and
24 chemicals and what have you .
25 What level of technology does a person have
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9?.006
36
1 to have to run this system?
2 MR. BURROWS : You could run it in two
3 hours .
4 MS . HARBERT: I 'm questioning that .
5 MR. BURROWS: We could actually teach you
6 to run the system in two to three hours .
7 MS . HARBERT: What if it breaks down?
8 MR. BURROWS : If it breaks down? If one
9 function does not work, the system automatically shuts
10 itself down. All power is taken away. It will not
11 accept anything. An alarm system will go off, a
12 flashing light will -- the person that ' s living out
13 there, it will automatically call him on the telephone,
14 tell him the function did not happen. It will turn the
15 electricity off, and it will not reset itself . It has
16 to be manually reset.
17 MR. WEBSTER: The other day I toured an
18 injection well system that's going in, a new system.
19 Is this a similar type? It sounds familiar to me, the
20 heating and taking the oil off . Is this the same type
21 of system that you would use in an injection?
22 MR. BURROWS: Certainly.
23 MR. WEBSTER: Instead of putting it in the
24 pond, you could eject it?
25 MR. BAZE : That ' s correct . And eventually
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
37
1 the EPA will have it where you have to have the water
2 down, and they won't let you inject it back in the
3 ground. So consequently, we have to go to these type
4 systems to stay ahead of the government because --
5 MS . HARBERT: I would like to go back to
6 the technical operation of the system shutdown and
7 something' s wrong with it and it has to be manually set
E again.
9 What can break down? How does it get
10 manually reset again? I mean, can an ordinary person
11 do that, or does it take a technician? What if there's
12 a part that needs to be replaced, or what happens?
13 MR. BURROWS: No, there won't be any parts
14 that have to be replaced. It ' s an automatic system and
15 has basically its own timers . If it does have a
16 malfunction, then it will tell the person where the
17 malfunction is . So he will make the system do what
18 it ' s supposed to do. He will know what the problem is .
19 But really, there ' s not a problem. The
20 only way this thing will shut down is if the jet system
21 inside these tanks flushing the solids to the holding
22 tank was not to work. That's our main concern, because
23 we don' t want this interface to be interrupted where
24 we 're talking bad material here .
25 MR. WEBSTER: The material that you 're
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
38
1 dealing with is highly corrosive, isn't it?
2 MR. BURROWS : No, sir.
3 MR. WEBSTER: It' s not?
4 MR. BURROWS: No, sir. In this particular
5 instance.
6 MR. WEBSTER: You might have a high
7 maintenance --
8 MR. BURROWS: No.
9 MR. WEBSTER: -- to the system?
10 MR. BURROWS: No, no . All this stuff is
11 going to be internal . Even if there was a corrosion
12 problem, the internal system will protect the tanks,
13 internally insulated for the condition. As far as the
14 separating procedure that takes place, all we need is
15 40 degrees Fahrenheit; but the hotter we get it, the
16 faster the separation is going to take place.
17 The whole thing doesn't take but about 18
18 minutes at 40 degrees . If we got it up to 80 degrees,
19 it would happen in like six minutes .
20 MS . HARBERT: I don't know if this is a
21 legitimate question or not, but what is the cost of
22 putting this system like you have up there in?
23 MR. BURROWS : The cost of this system is
24 approximately $250 , 000 .
25 MR. WEBSTER: What is the source of heating
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
91C053
39
1 for this?
2 MR. BURROWS : Propane.
3 MS . KIRKMEYER: Just to be clear, since you
4 have a filtering process , there will not be any
5 material for this process that will be needed to be
6 disposed of off-site?
7 MR. BURROWS: No. The oxidation will take
8 care of it .
9 MR. MORRISON: Is the temperature you're
10 referring to the ambient air temperature?
11 MR. BURROWS: Temperature of --
12 MR. MORRISON: 40 degrees Fahrenheit is all
13 you need to reach --
14 MR. BURROWS: That's it, that' s it .
15 MR. WEBSTER: Chemical costs are included?
16 MR. BURROWS : Oh, yes -- the chemical cost
17 is separate . Mr. Cervi is spending a considerable
18 amount of money to clean the system up. This thing is
19 really -- anything that ' s bad will be oxidized and
20 taken care of .
21 MS . HARBERT: Are there any other questions
22 for Mr. Burrows?
23 MS . KIRKMEYER: You said he designed the
24 system to accept 18, 000 barrels per day?
25 MR. BURROWS : That ' s correct .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
40
1 MS . KIRKMEYER: Yet it can only accept
2 2 , 000 barrels a day for the permit. Why do you design
3 the system for 18, 000?
4 MR. BURROWS: Because that's not what
5 Mr. Cervi requested. He wanted an overkill, if you
6 will . He wanted to build a system that would assure
7 himself that there would not be a problem, that the
8 separation would take place . This is a lot more system
9 than he needs , but he ' s spending a lot of extra money
10 to ensure that it 's done right .
11 MR. MORRISON: Do you run the water in the
12 existing ponds through this system?
13 MR. BURROWS: Certainly.
14 MR. MORRISON: Is that something you
15 recommend?
16 MR. BURROWS : Yeah. We have talked about
17 that, and that would probably --
18 MR. MORRISON: He indicates that -- my
19 question was , Can you run this water in the existing
20 ponds back through the system?
21 MR. WEBSTER: They have to get it cleaned
22 up.
23 MR. BURROWS: Not necessarily. These ponds
24 will be cleaned up with mild mediation.
25 MR. WEBSTER: Yeah, but they are already
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910156
41
1 contaminated, in and out?
2 MR. BURROWS: Mild mediation will take care
3 of that . We' ll tell you about that in a minute. As
4 far as cleaning ponds, you know, the way they are,
5 there ' s a possibility about the time this system was
6 installed and taken care of , the mediation of the
7 tanks, that we may not have to run it back through the
8 system.
9 But my understanding of what Mr. Cervi ' s
10 going to do, he' s going to monitor this thing very
11 closely, and once final mediation is done --
12 MR. WEBSTER: I don't expect this is a
13 facility that will handle 1800 -- thousand, that after
14 it ' s installed with 12 , 000 , he' s going to be back in
15 here asking for an increase in allowance of capacity?
16 MR. BURROWS: I don't know what he's going
17 to do with that.
18 MR. WEBSTER: You better not speak to that .
19 MS . HARBERT: Any other questions for
20 Mr. Burrows?
21 MR. BAZE : We made a mistake earlier on the
22 average chlorides . They were 6700, which is
23 definitely -- if we can get the water clean as we can,
24 that will be definitely used as irrigation water.
25 MS . HARBERT: So it needs to be 67?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
42
1 MR. BAZE : 6780 per million, 67 , 000
2 milligrams per million.
3 MR. HALL: That ' s currently?
4 MR. BAZE: On the produced water, that
5 would be an average.
6 MR. HALL: You would treat that down to --
7 MR. BAZE: No, the chlorides are constant .
8 Unless you go into a reverse osmosis system, you can't
9 remove chlorides . That is acceptable on chloride as
10 far as irrigation water. If you run an analysis on
11 your drinking water at home, you' ll probably be close
12 to that .
13 MR. MORRISON: 6700 or 67 , 000?
14 MR. BAZE : 6700 .
15 MS . HARBERT: That's the saline; is that
16 correct . That ' s the saline count for the water?
17 MR. BAZE: No, ma'am, I can't say that that
18 would be a saline. I would say that ' s an average on
19 produced water.
20 MR. MORRISON: In layman' s terms, that 's a
21 measure of salinity?
22 MR. BAZE: Yes , sir, that 's true .
23 MS . HARBERT: Any other questions?
24 MR . ELDER: John Elder. I 'm 721 West
25 Elgar, Midland, Texas, vice president for National
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9W056
43
1 Parakleen Company.
2 Take a look at Quickway International
3 Company operating in seven states in the United States .
4 We have an office in Denver, by the way. We're in
5 Indonesia, Mexico and Indochina. Our company' s main
6 focus is on the use of microbes, and we treat oil wells
7 and bowel remediation work.
8 One of the largest projects is on the
9 coast . But in the interest of time, I want to address
10 the situation that we have at the Northern Colorado
11 Brine unit. At the present time, we have one pond out
12 there that had some oil entrained in the water.
13 You have basically two odor problems with
14 the water. One of the problems is due to the odor
15 emitted by SRBs . You have another problem that exists
16 with whatever odors are emitted by the hydrocarbons .
17 We can address both of these problems in place with the
18 use of microbes .
19 Our products are completely safe for the
20 environment . They can be dumped in rivers or streams .
21 We ' re not controlled by the EPA because it ' s a totally
22 naturally occurring microbial system.
23 We test the water, come up with a formula
24 that we can treat. We blend the bacteria into a water
25 solution and spray it on these ponds , and the bacteria
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9W056
44
1 are designed to attack the SRBs and to oxidize the
2 hydrocarbons that are on the pits now.
3 What we've seen is dramatic reduction in
4 the concentration of the salines and the fluids after
5 we treat them. We've seen a rapid decrease in odor
6 with this treatment as well . We believe no deeper than
7 these pits are that we can treat them with application
8 and significantly reduce the odor within two to three
9 weeks .
10 We've done this in several areas . It' s
11 very evident to anybody that ' s seen news reports of oil
12 spills and other places that this is an accepted
13 procedure, and it' s also environmentally safe . I 'm
14 prepared to treat these pits immediately, on
15 Mr. Cervi 's direction, in order to begin the process in
16 this interim period while this new equipment is being
17 installed so that we can directly attack the alleged
18 odor problem intact now.
19 It ' s my understanding once this equipment
20 is installed that there absolutely is not a need to
21 treat these tanks because basically the water that goes
22 into these tanks will be clean at that point .
23 What you have when you treat wells, you
24 have well fluids that are used in the stimulation
25 process . You have a hodgepodge of bacteria, some good
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3410056
45
1 and some bad.
2 Most of the bacteria is sulphite-producing
3 bacteria, so we pinpoint that by the use of this
4 process . It ' s becoming more and more accepted that we
5 can administer on tanks and hopefully clean the tanks
6 up to an acceptable level where we would not be able to
7 run it through the system. But we 're prepared to do
8 that through tamping. If we can't reduce the solids to
9 a particular point, that's acceptable.
10 This is what I feel like is a good plan in
11 the interim to address what might be in the pits now.
12 MR. WEBSTER: Your system has nothing to do
13 with this system?
14 MR. ELDER: No, sir. Basically my system
15 is to clean up for the situation that' s out there now,
16 and what I have seen is not as bad as a lot of things .
17 What we generally deal with is, you have these open
18 sludge pits in Utah and different parts of the United
19 States , even Mexico.
20 I 've been to southern Mexico. I am doing a
21 project down there where they have sludge pits and you
22 have contamination two or three feet in the ground.
23 And we bio-remediated that out of ground and waters
24 too .
25 Nature provides us with naturally occurring
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9I0056
46
1 bacteria that automatically mediates . We grow cultures
2 of it in a naturally occurring enviroment and add
3 nutrients and inject oil-eating microbes as well .
4 We attack it from a threefold situation.
5 It ' s neat technology and widely accepted because it's
6 environmentally safe, too .
7 MR. HALL: Can you explain the spraying
8 process? Is there a danger of overspray?
9 MR. ELDER: You can take this microbe
10 process and spread it on the ground and let cattle
11 drink it . It ' s completely environmentally safe to
12 people or animals or anything. You can spray it on
13 your yard at home . That will make your grass grow. It
14 has nutrients in it .
15 MR. WEBSTER: Do you think this process ,
16 with the facilities out there, could be cleaned up in,
17 say, 30 days?
18 MR. ELDER: I don't think it' s going to be
19 done in 30 days . Actually, it ' s kind of complicated.
20 The bacteria permeating the water and microscopic
21 bodies of oil that are entrained in that oil, the
22 bacteria brings that to the surface . Oil and water
23 interface entrained.
24 As the summer comes on, heat makes that oil
25 and water separate. The oil comes to the top and the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
47
1 bacteria speeds that up.
2 I talked to our -- we have a PhD in
3 microbiology in Texas , and he thinks within three weeks
4 we can have a rapid decrease in odor and within 60 to
5 90 days , we can see a marked difference in the quality
6 of the water in the pond.
7 We 're talking about a 10-acre pond, so
8 that 's a lot of fluid to treat .
9 MS . KIRKMEYER: How soon are you prepared
10 to start your plan?
11 MR. ELDER: I can start tomorrow. We have
12 an office in Denver, and we can be right up here.
13 MS . HARBERT: You would guess around three
14 weeks to reduce it down to where the odor was
15 tolerable?
16 MR. ELDER: Yes . What we can do is take a
17 sample of the water from the pit and do testing on it
18 to show the amount of contamination. When I say
19 "contamination, " I mean dissolved solids, is what
20 happens to them.
21 MR. WEBSTER: At this point you have not
22 taken samples?
23 MR. ELDER: Yes , I have, and there will be
24 a report coming to you on a preliminary basis . Bear in
25 mind that this is a clean-up for whatever situation is
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9 003
48
1 out there now.
2 Once the system is in order, there ' s an
3 oxidation system that injects the chemical that kills
4 the bacteria within this process that eliminates the
5 need for it later on in the pits .
6 It ' s my understanding that whatever odor
7 may be present from these pits , two things , SRBs and
8 hydrocarbons . So basically you' ll have, for all
9 intents and purposes, fresh water with no odor, and
10 that 's what we're striving for.
11 MS . HARBERT: Do you feel that the pits
12 would be cleaned up well enough that those odors would
13 no longer be there after you finish and after this is
14 installed?
15 MR. ELDER: Yes, ma'am.
16 MS . HARBERT: There is not going to be any
17 residue left that will get under the summer sun and
18 cause more odor?
19 MR. ELDER: I think, with the process we 're
20 proposing, it will expedite this procedure, bring the
21 trapped hydrocarbons to the surface so they can be
22 oxidized.
23 When you say "odor, " what do we define as
24 odor? I think it will be well within the limits of the
25 state and county at that point .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
49
1 MS . HARBERT: In your personal definition
2 of odor, is there an odor out there?
3 MR. ELDER: I will be honest with you . I
4 have traveled basically all over the world when I was
5 associated with another service company prior to my
6 affiliation with this company here, and being from
7 Midland and Odessa, Texas where we have hydrogen
8 sulfide and produced fluids , this is not anything like
9 what we experience in Texas and Wyoming and other
10 areas .
11 I worked for three years in Mission, and
12 there was quite a bit of -- and I would not classify
13 this as bad compared to our producing areas in the
14 nation, no, ma'am.
15 MS . HARBERT: Any other questions?
16 MR. ELDER: Thank you very much.
17 MR. LIND: Ken Lind, on behalf of
18 applicant.
19 So there ' s no question what you're looking
20 at is probably a half million dollar project that the
21 applicant is prepared to undertake . Your question, the
22 cost of what we call the permanent system, we have
23 estimated that to be approximately $300, 000 , with the
24 engineering and installation of the new equipment, and
25 it could go up to $350, 000 .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
310056
50
1 The bio-remediation is a separate matter.
2 Again, we're looking at less than a hundred thousand
3 dollars for that project.
4 To clarify the question if the
5 bio-remediation does not work to take care of the
6 existing water in the ponds , yes, those -- that pond
7 water will then be run through the new system to get
8 rid of what remains of any hydrocarbons .
9 And that 's the reason for the answer that
10 we don't know at this time . We believe the
11 bio-remediation will take care of it . If it doesn't,
12 as soon as the new system is completed, it will receive
13 water from the pond on a pond by pond basis to run
14 through that system to result in clean water being in
15 the ponds .
16 Of course, then we get rid of the water
17 just by evaporation. What we plan to do, again, all of
18 the testing that has been done, it does appear that the
19 water, after going through the system is an irrigation
20 quality water, so the expectation is we' ll be able to
21 sell that water to the neighboring farm for pivot
22 irrigation onto his crops .
23 We have the possibility also of selling the
24 water to a Greeley irrigation company because we have a
25 pipeline which leads to the facility from the ditch
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9 IC056
51
1 company so that would, again, open their water quality
2 tests .
3 So we do have an option other than just
4 evaporation, and that is the plan. So, yes , it ' s an
5 extremely expensive project . The odor standard back
6 which is contained in the settlement stipulation with
7 the state of Colorado, is the 15 to 1 threshold. That
8 would then become enforceable in court by both the
9 county as well as the state, and any violation results
10 in preagreed significant penalties, fines to be paid to
11 the state .
12 So, due to the penalties , the low
13 threshold, the cost of the system, needless to say,
14 there' s great incentive to make sure that it does
15 operate and take care of the problem.
16 So that 's basically what is being presented
17 and has been reviewed by the state. So, yes, would he
18 have both an existing remediation problem for the two
19 months that it takes to put the new system on line,
20 which is the bio-remediation, and then the new system
21 goes into operation; and if the bio-remediation has not
22 worked on the existing ponds to a satisfactory degree,
23 that water will be run through the system.
24 MR. MORRISON: Is it your plan to commence
25 the bio-remediation program, regardless of the outcome
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9M956
52
1 of any of these other systems?
2 MR. LIND: Yes . We 're prepared to commence
3 that Monday.
4 MS . KIRKMEYER: Your system needs to have
5 state approval?
6 MR. LIND: The system for that
7 bio-remediation does not have to have --
8 MS . KIRKMEYER: No, I meant the aeration.
9 MR. LIND: The new system will be approved
10 by the state, yes .
11 MS . KIRKMEYER: So you are saying that,
12 yes, it does need state approval?
13 MR. LIND: Yes . They have to grant
14 approval in the stipulation.
15 MS . KIRKMEYER: Does the Weld County Health
16 Commission need to approve?
17 MR. LIND: Yes . Weld County has to approve
18 it . In fact, that is a specific term of the settlement
19 between the state and the applicant, which is that Weld
20 County must approve the settlement stipulation.
21 MS . KIRKMEYER: So when you are saying that
22 the applicants are prepared to undertake this system,
23 you're saying that they are ready to start the
24 bio-remediation and you're waiting to get approval on
25 the other plan?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
53
1 MR. LIND: Yes . The permanent program
2 does need the county' s approval , which is part of that
3 overall settlement, yes . So that' s why we wanted to
4 present this to you.
5 And we ' ll provide additional information to
6 the state because that stipulation is being reviewed
7 right now by the State Attorney's Office, the Colorado
8 Department of Health, and a draft copy has been
9 supplied to Mr. Morrison.
10 MR. SCHUETT: I have a question, actually
11 several .
12 MS . HARBERT: Anyone that has any questions
13 of these gentlemen that have come here from out of
14 state, we need to ask those in the next 10 minutes or
15 so .
16 MR . SCHUETT: The question I have centers
17 around costs and volumes . The special use permit is
18 pretty specific to the volumes involved. With this new
19 facility, and due to the cost, are they anticipating an
20 increase in the production to help pay for the
21 facility?
22 MR. LIND: That is also part of the
23 state-approved stipulation. It is not 18 , 000 barrels;
24 it is 10, 000 barrels, which is below the evaporation
25 facility or the evaporation capability of the site.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910156
54
1 MR. SCHUETT: But beyond what is approved?
2 MR. LIND: Yes , it would be from 2 , 000 to
3 10 , 000 .
4 MR. HALL: So that would take an amendment
5 to the USR?
6 MR. LIND: That is open to a question that
7 has been discussed. It is our belief that, due to the
8 fact that this would be a stipulation entered into
9 between the state, the county and the applicant, that
10 it could be construed as a minor change because of the
11 stipulation.
12 MR. SCHUETT: I think the planning staff
13 based its opinion on this . We feel that an increase in
14 that amount of water would be considered a major change
15 to the special use permit because there are other
16 impacts beyond just the water. We have traffic impact
17 and others that need to be addressed.
18 So I think that that ' s something that the
19 board should be made aware of , that we do feel that
20 that would be a substantial increase and would be a
21 major change to the special use permit .
22 MS . HARBERT: You don't have anyone here
23 from engineering at the moment, but I would say that
24 we 've already had a big traffic problem out there at
25 the moment . So that would be a big impaction.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
55
1 MR. MORRISON: Procedurally, that issue
2 really can be determined by your board in the course of
3 these proceedings .
4 MS . HARBERT: Can or can't?
5 MR. MORRISON: Can, because you have a
6 violation here, and if that is an issue that is not a
7 substantial change, you can find that as a violation in
8 this proceeding. You can make that determination.
9 I 'm not asking you to make that judgment
10 now; I 'm saying that ' s within this violation
11 proceeding. You ' ll ultimately make that judgment.
12 MS . HARBERT: Whether that's a major
13 violation?
14 MR. MORRISON: Yes .
15 MS . KIRKMEYER: That's a stipulation on the
16 18 , 000 barrels plan between the state and county, and
17 this plan, if we were to accept 18 , 000 barrels --
18 10, 000 barrels .
19 MS . HARBERT: It 's designed for 18 , but
20 they are asking for 10 .
21 MR. MORRISON: I think the point is in this
22 proceeding, you would have to determine whether it
23 needs an amendment to the permit in order to -- the new
24 level for the amount of waste that will be taken, this
25 process you're in now.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3096
56
1 MR. SCHUETT: I think we need to look at --
2 there 's more than Weld County Planning Department that
3 needs to reviews it . The air quality, State Health
4 Department that needs to review it . The solid waste
5 disposal division would also need to review that .
6 MR. MORRISON: I agree. I 'm not asking the
7 board to make a judgment right now. I 'm just telling
8 them that it ' s ultimately going to be their judgment
9 because this is a violation proceeding, whether it is
10 or not based on everyone else's recommendation,
11 including my department 's .
12 MR. HALL: Mr. Lind, can you speak to the
13 sprayer system that is apparently being sold on two
14 ponds and how this new project would be affecting that?
15 MR. LIND: As I understand it, the new
16 project basically has no effect upon the existing
17 aeration system. What you have, three of the existing
18 ponds have the old aeration system which is , in
19 essence, a bubbler system. Two of the ponds have the
20 new misting system. The main purpose of those is , one,
21 to increase evaporation, as well as to help oxygenate
22 the water.
23 The new system basically does not need
24 assistance from aeration; however, that will continue
25 to help as far as evaporation of the water that' s in
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
57
1 the pond, as well as help oxygenate. So the existing
2 aeration system is a minor player in the new system.
3 MS . HARBERT: Now, which system are you
4 talking about? Are you talking about the bubblers that
5 are in the pond, or the sprayers that are in the pond?
6 MR. LIND: Both systems .
7 MS . HARBERT: Or the nozzle that shoots up
8 into the air?
9 MR. LIND: Maybe Keith can handle that, the
10 nozzle that shoots up into the air.
11 MR. SCHUETT: I think that 's been removed.
12 The single nozzle that was spraying on the pond, when I
13 was out there Tuesday, it was removed.
14 MS . HARBERT: That ' s not to be replaced?
15 MR. LIND: Right, there 's just a bubbler,
16 the old and the new aeration system, which is the
17 misters . Those will remain in place .
18 MR. SCHUETT: I should bring up, too, that
19 the staff is still reviewing that sprayer system and
20 final approval of that design and operation has not
21 been concluded.
22 MS . KIRKMEYER: Have they received a proper
23 building permit?
24 MR. SCHUETT: They have applied for them,
25 but they have not been released. As soon as we get the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
58
1 review completed, and if it ' s determined not to be a
2 major change, then the permit would be released. But
3 at this time, they have not been released.
4 MS . HARBERT: Well , I guess I have a little
5 bit of a problem with all this tied together because we
6 certainly aren't familiar with this system that the
7 gentlemen proposed to us today, and I would like to
8 make sure that it works on 2 , 000 gallons a day before I
9 approve it to do any more than that .
10 I think we're being asked to vote on a shot
11 in the dark.
12 MR. LIND: I think that can be taken care
13 of in your settlement stipulation.
14 MR. BAXTER: Maybe it's a legal question
15 and not the right place for it, but do I understand you
16 right that you feel that this stipulation basically, in
17 most cases , overrides anything that we do here?
18 MR. LIND: I wouldn't say it overrides what
19 you do here, but it is an integral part of what takes
20 place here, yes, sir.
21 MS . KIRKMEYER: Would someone clarify what
22 the stipulation is .
23 MR. MORRISON: The stipulation was drafted
24 as a settlement between the Air Quality Division and
25 Air Quality Commission and Mr. Cervi 's company as a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 94005
59
1 resolution of the odor violations that have been
2 brought and are at midstream in the administrative
3 process , some due for hearing by the commission on
4 August 20th in an appeal .
5 And, just like a stipulation in a court
6 proceeding, there can be a settlement between the
7 parties about the issues in that odor violation
8 proceeding, you know, the issues have been raised on
9 the appeal as to the applicable standards that the
10 state should be using, the methodology of the sampling,
11 some other issues . And the state has proposed
12 penalties and compliance schedule and the stipulation
13 is proposed to resolve those things .
14 And in addition, because the county' s
15 involved as both the inspectors functioning as an agent
16 for the state and because of this permit process , I 'm
17 not sure where the request came from, whether it was
18 from Mr. Cervi ' s representatives or the state 's . The
19 request was made that the county be a signatory to
20 agreement in order to try to resolve it amongst all
21 involved entities .
22 MS . HARBERT: Being a signatory is one
23 thing, but telling us what we 're going to sign is
24 another. I don't know that we have had any input into
25 this at all, unless Mr. Pickle has been consulted, and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
60
1 now we 're being told that this is a settlement between
2 these two, and it includes us .
3 MR. MORRISON: No, it 's proposed to include
4 -- no one has represented that the county could or will
5 sign the agreement, nor has the state given their
6 feedback. It is proposed to deal with these various
7 issues, including installation of the new system and
8 resolution of the odor violations .
9 And, no, you haven't had enough time,
10 either from a technical sense or from a legal sense,
11 to review it and know if it 's something that you could
12 or want to participate in. Mr. Pickle hasn't had that
13 opportunity.
14 MR. PICKLE : I wanted to -- John Pickle,
15 Weld County Health Department .
16 We have -- I have been at these meetings
17 and some of that we aren't at liberty to discuss, and I
18 won't get into those, but in reviewing these things
19 that we 've brought up today in the hearing, I feel very
20 strongly about the issue of the major change, and I
21 have brought that up to the attention of the state
22 authorities .
23 They went along with that, that we
24 considered that a major change . I don't think that --
25 this is certainly not -- you stop me, Lee, if I inform
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9'.10056
61
1 the commissioners too much -- but I don't think it 's a
2 foregone conclusion of the state . It' s very early in
3 the process , and I have not had time to review any of
4 these documents that the stipulation came in with
5 yesterday, in a proposed settlement .
6 And I have been providing comments back to
7 the attorney general from the county standpoint, and I
8 just wasn't going to copy that to you because of the
9 nature of it, but we have had input .
10 And based on the things that we discussed
11 here today, I can say that we did feel that was a major
12 change to be considered, to require separate hearings .
13 And I think another comment to the solid
14 waste division has been ignored in this, and they have
15 a part to play in the other violations , but the solid
16 waste division is also responsible to review all these
17 plans .
18 I have received a few things over the last
19 two days, and certainly I don't have time in two days
20 to adequately review those documents , and I don't
21 question the abilities of the gentlemen from Texas, but
22 I know the solid waste division hasn't reviewed these,
23 either.
24 They need to be informed on these because
25 it ' s not our policy to issue a separate recommendation
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
310356
62
1 from the solid waste division. They provide technical
2 input to us .
3 All along, we 've urged Mr. Cervi to include
4 them because they are a part of this process , and I
5 don't think -- I don't know if they have been included
6 or not .
7 So I want to comment a little bit about
8 some of those things .
9 MR. HALL: Correct me if I am wrong, but
10 we 're not being asked to agree to the stipulation
11 today, at this proceeding.
12 MR. MORRISON: No . And before the
13 presentation was made, I noted that that evidence was
14 relevant to the issue of the violation of not having an
15 adequate abatement plan standing alone from the issue,
16 whether that stipulation is ever reached.
17 So that 's why it was appropriate to hear
18 that evidence. It goes to the evidence of the
19 abatement plan.
20 MR. HALL: I think we 're hung up on an
21 abatement plan, and I don't think that 's what we ' re
22 here for.
23 MR. MORRISON: No, it ' s premature .
24 MS . HARBERT: Due to the time involved, I
25 would ask again if there are any other questions that
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940.056
63
1 you need to pose to the gentlemen here from out of
2 state .
3 I think that we will adjourn this hearing
4 at this time, and we will settle on a time that we can
5 reconvene . Did you get the calendar -- I meant to
6 continue --
7 MR. LIND: If I could comment, I wanted to
8 address Mr. Hall 's question.
9 You're not being asked to approve a
10 stipulation today. It must go through a settlement
11 approval situation. This works between the applicant
12 and the state, which would be reviewed by all the state
13 divisions that are involved in it .
14 We must coordinate with the Colorado
15 Attorney General . We can't separately approach the
16 solid waste division, other than through the Colorado
17 Attorney General 's office at this time because of the
18 litigation that is in process . We're bound by rules of
19 ethics not to do that.
20 Once we arrive at the proposed settlement,
21 then, yes , it comes back to you for county input . And
22 if you have any revisions or changes , then it works
23 back through the reverse cycle; it goes back through
24 the state, back through the applicant.
25 That is a normal procedure under numerous
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940956
64
1 parties in litigation or a lawsuit . So everybody does
2 get input . It ' s just a matter of, as it gets worked
3 out and brought down.
4 I would suggest, as far as scheduling, that
5 you need to give some time to this settlement and
6 stipulation to be reviewed for all parties , because it
7 does have a bearing on what took place here. And as
8 far as time goes , I want to let you know that I am out
9 of the country starting next week, through June 19th.
10 MS . KIRKMEYER: Are you the only employer
11 that ' s handling the applicant?
12 MR. LIND: As far as the county procedure,
13 I am. Mr. Hobbs is counsel for Mr. Cervi, who will be
14 working on the stipulation and settlement . So he would
15 be working on that while I am gone.
16 I basically would have no input, or need to
17 have any, as far as the settlement stipulation. But I
18 would need to be available as far as coming back to you
19 for a review or continuation of this hearing.
20 MR. HALL: Do we have any kind of time
21 frame on this , on all of this process? Is it six
22 months ' or two months ' review of the stipulation
23 process?
24 MR. MORRISON: Well , ultimate deadline was
25 to get it completely resolved prior to the August air
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940956
65
1 quality control meeting. You can encourage the
2 process . The existence of this hearing has created a
3 strain on the fax machines the last two days, so
4 certainly your scheduling would encourage further
5 developments, I 'm sure.
6 MR. LIND: We 're interested in having
7 settlement stipulation as soon as possible because the
8 sooner everybody is in agreement, the sooner we can put
9 in the new equipment, which takes care of the problem
10 that much sooner.
11 So that ' s what we're interested in.
12 MS . KIRKMEYER: We're also interested in
13 making sure that Northern Colorado Brine is in
14 compliance . They are collecting 9 , 000 barrels a day,
15 or over 180, 000 a month. That 's the major concern to
16 me .
17 MR. LIND: That ' s obviously part of
18 everything.
19 MS . HARBERT: Well , apparently the first
20 day that we would have open, then, would be June 23rd.
21 Do you see -- or are you capable of knowing whether the
22 stipulation would be settled by then?
23 MR. LIND: I can't tell you for sure
24 because of numerous parties, but I would be hopeful
25 that it would be in stage by that time. We're close to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
66
1 a stipulation or there won't be a stipulation.
2 I think that's probably a fair estimate,
3 that on June 23rd, we can come back to you and say,
4 yes, we have most of the issues resolved, or we don't
5 have most of the issues . If we 're very close to that,
6 we always have the opportunity to reschedule them for
7 another time.
8 MS . HARBERT: I have another question --
9 and you may want to refer to Mr. Cervi on this -- but
10 would he still continue to begin the microbe treatment
11 Monday morning, regardless of whether we extend this or
12 not?
13 MR. MORRISON: The question is whether the
14 Health Department had concerns about doing that,
15 enough time to comply.
16 MR. PICKLE : We have not had time to review
17 that treatment . And not only that, but it creates
18 problems from this stipulation agreement with the
19 review of the solid waste division. If they can't
20 review it by then, I don't know whether we can.
21 MR. MORRISON: Microbial treatment is not
22 part of the stipulation.
23 MR. PICKLE: That ' s fine then. Then the
24 solid waste division, upon their and our review, I
25 think that would be appropriately initiated.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
67
1 MR. LIND: I would like to comment to
2 that .
3 One, there ' s no approval by the County
4 Health Department or the solid waste division necessary
5 for the microbial treatment or micro-remediation,
6 however you want to call that, the longer that is not
7 done, the longer it takes .
8 We are required, under the standards, to
9 constitute an odor abatement program, so this is part
10 of that program.
11 MR. SCHUETT: I disagree with that. I
12 believe that development Standard 15 is specifically
13 stating that the Use by Special Review shall be limited
14 to the plans shown hereon and that Weld County
15 regulations and any material deviation from the plans
16 or standard as shown or stated above shall require the
17 approval of amendment .
18 If this is considered to be a minor change
19 to the approved plan, so be it, but we still need to
20 review that and make that determination.
21 MS . HARBERT: Have you seen the plan at all?
22 MR. SCHUETT: I received some stuff this
23 morning. I have not had a chance to review it in
24 detail as to what it is .
25 It is our opinion that this was not part of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910056
68
1 the original plans that were submitted and reviewed as
2 special review Permit No. 540 . We feel that that would
3 need to be reviewed prior to instituting that plan.
4 MR. HALL: It seems to me that we 're off
5 track a little bit . It seems that we 're -- that you go
6 about the permit plan of treatment for the injection or
7 the chemical injection of the total plan, but what I
8 think you asked Connie is the remedial, the in-between
9 plan.
10 And the microbial treatment, micro-remedial
11 treatment, to take care of the odor problem that 's
12 existing right now is not the major plan that
13 everybody' s been talking about up here .
14 MR. SCHUETT: I realize that . I still feel
15 that any time it changes from what was in the original
16 submission that the facility is to be -- the use of the
17 oil and gas disposal and covered facility as described
18 in the submitted application materials . These things
19 were not submitted as part of the original application
20 materials . I feel that they do need to be reviewed
21 prior to substituting those.
22 MR. MORRISON: John, how long would it take
23 you to review that, just the microbial treatment?
24 MR. PICKLE: Well, three to five days .
25 Well, that is true . It depends on the stuff that ' s
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005s
69
1 submitted.
2 Some of the stuff that 's come in, there ' s
3 been speculation about what caused that to begin with.
4 Some of that doesn't explain the odors . I haven't seen
5 anything in writing about what the bacterial and
6 chemical reactions are. I would like to know what
7 those are .
8 That hasn't come in as of yet in writing,
9 but it depends upon the quality of what comes in. But
10 we could certainly review it -- expedite the review.
11 I can't speak for the solid waste
12 division. I could ask them to expedite it .
13 MS . HARBERT: Could you review that, do you
14 think, by next Wednesday, the 26th?
15 MR. PICKLE : I could try my best, yes,
16 ma ' am.
17 MS . HARBERT: I guess my concern is the
18 neighborhood and the odor abatement and it 's just drug
19 on and on, and we're trying to fix that problem. And I
20 understand why we're hung up here with continuation and
21 so on, but the neighbors are still out there suffering,
22 and I would like to see something done for them
23 before -- just because we 're caught up in a technical
24 thing doesn't mean that they still need to suffer from
25 it .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
910956
70
1 If the bio-remediation plan is -- would at
2 least alleviate that problem, I would like to see that
3 started immediately.
4 MS . KIRKMEYER: John needs the opportunity
5 to read that.
6 MR. PICKLE: If that division doesn't go
7 along with something that may -- we don't know what the
8 impact of it would be to the system. We haven't -- I
9 won't get into that . I will expedite it .
10 Our concern is the same, Commissioner.
11 We 've spent a lot of time on that facility, and a lot
12 of money, and we would certainly like to solve some of
13 the complaints that have arisen.
14 MR. MORRISON: Two days from approval, can
15 you commence operations?
16 MR. LIND: I have no problem with that .
17 Again, I will need to stress we are going by Operation
18 Standard 7-J that states in the event of an odor
19 problem emanating from the ponds, a program will be
20 instituted. There ' s nowhere in this approval
21 considering the operation standards that states subject
22 to the approval of the Weld County Health Department .
23 In fact, this was discussed. I presented
24 this original application before the Weld County
25 Commissioners back in December of 1983, I believe, or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
71
1 possibly 1984 . So I 'm quite familiar with it . I have
2 the records -- the evidence from that .
3 At that time the county basically indicated
4 if there' s an odor problem, it 's your problem, not our
5 problem.
6 We are happy to provide information to the
7 Weld County Health Department, but I must also tell you
8 that the cooperation or the lack of cooperation we have
9 had from the County Health Department has been a
10 significant. problem. As an example --
11 MR. MORRISON: Wait a minute . I need to
12 defend our position on this .
13 Let me -- can I make one statement? If you
14 feel that your legal position is such you don't need
15 anyone ' s approval to do it, then you do so at your own
16 risk.
17 If I were in your shoes , I would be willing
18 to wait a few days to get the Health Department to
19 review it for greater protection for your position.
20 You make that choice . All I 'm trying to get to is to
21 give Mr. Pickle the opportunity to look at that and see
22 if there ' s something that 's going to present a problem
23 without unduly delaying it .
24 So if you choose to proceed without his
25 review, that' s your risk. If he reviews it and finds
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
72
1 it acceptable, then you will commence, at the latest,
2 two days after he 's accepted.
3 MR. LIND: That ' s acceptable .
4 MS . HARBERT: Lee, I would like to make a
5 clarification. Some of these operations standards were
6 changed, were they not, from when Mr. Cervi purchased
7 the property in about ' 89 or ' 90? I don't know if
8 Mr. Lind was with us at that time or not, but we heard
9 this when Mr. Cervi purchased the property.
10 He came before the commissioners at that
11 time, and I believe that there were changes made at
12 that time on some of the standards and conditions .
13 MR. MORRISON: There was a hearing for
14 change of operator.
15 MR. SCHUETT: They were not necessarily
16 changes in the special review permit development
17 standard, but there were certain statements made as to
18 the operation and the ability to operate .
19 MR. MORRISON: So that might have a bearing
20 on the interpretation of those provisions that
21 Mr. Cervi put a different spin on than occurred in
22 1983 . We may go on for the rest of the week on these
23 issues .
24 MR. HALL: I move to continue this to
25 June 23rd.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
73
1 MR. BAXTER: Second.
2 MS . HARBERT: Do we need to state in there
3 that they need to --
4 MS . KIRKMEYER: I think we need to state
5 that the bio-remediation plan needs to be to John by
6 Friday, complete, and upon approval, if that happens ,
7 then they can start their plan.
8 MS . KIRKMEYER: That ' s what I want to do.
9 That means another 30 days that these people are going
10 to live with the odor problem.
11 MR. LIND: We can submit it by Friday, yes .
12 MR. HALL: I would incorporate that
13 amendment in my motion.
14 MS . HARBERT: Do I have a second?
15 MR. BAXTER: Second it .
16 MS . KIRKMEYER: Is that amended already
17 with the second?
18 MR. BAXTER: Yes .
19 MS . HARBERT: Moved by Dale Hall and
20 seconded by George Baxter to continue the hearing to
21 June 23rd, and that the applicant submit a
22 bio-remediation plan to our Health Department were in
23 two days .
24 is there any discussion.
25 All those, then, in favor say "Aye. "
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
74
1 ALL: Aye.
2 MS . HARBERT: Opposed?
3 No one. Motion is carried. We ' ll
4 reconvene at 10: 00 o 'clock on June 23rd.
5 (The hearing concluded at 12 : 30 p.m. ,
6 May 19 , 1993 . )
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
75
1 STATE OF COLORADO)
2 ) ss . REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF DENVER )
4 I , Vivian L. Over, do hereby certify that I
5 am a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
6 within the State of Colorado.
7 I further certify that these proceedings
8 were taken in shorthand by me at the time and place
9 herein set forth and was thereafter reduced to
10 typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a
11 true and correct transcript .
12 I further certify that I am not related to,
13 employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or
14 attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the
15 result of the within proceedings .
16 In witness whereof, I have affixed my
17 signature and seal this 16th day of June, 1993 .
18 My commission expires July 22 , 1995 .
19
20 ‘1/... atetm, ,
Vivian L. Over, CSR
21 1873 South Bellaire Street, Suite 1220
‘OAN 0fr6it Denver, Colorado 80222
22
z3 NOTARY
PUBLIC
24 cc>. O�
25 9TFOF CO\--(5
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
OYiliiau(rv1 . 76
BOARD OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
Volume II June 23, 1993
IN RE:
SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR THE REVOCATION OF USR NO. 540
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in
interest, the above-entitled matter came for public
hearing before the Weld County Board of County Planning
Commissioners and Planning Commission on Wednesday,
June 23, 1993, commencing at 10: 57 a.m. , at 915 - 10th
Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Judith Payne Kelly,
Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public
within and for the State of Colorado.
B R IS BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
. \_2 Registered Professional Reporters
940056
Greeley (303)356-3306 Fort Collins
710- 11th Avenue.Suite 106 1 800-546 1306 419 Canyon Avenue,Suite 220
Greeley. Colorado 80631 FAX(303)356.3362 Fort Collins.Colorado 80521
77
1 APPEARANCES:
2 BOARD OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
3 W.H. (Bill) Webster
Barbara Kirkmeyer
4 Connie Harbert, Chairman
Dale Hall
5 George Baxter
6 WELD COUNTY LEGAL ADVISER
7 Lee Morrison, Esq.
8 APPLICANTS
9 Kenneth F. Lind, Esq.
Patty Deplazes
10
ALSO PRESENT
11
John S. Pickle, Director, Environmental
12 Protection Services
Keith Schuett, Current Planner
13 Shelly Miller, Deputy Clerk
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
78
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 MS. HARBERT: We will now hear the Special
3 Review Permit No. 540. This is a show cause hearing.
4 MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, this is
5 Docket No. 9322, Northern Colorado Brine, care of Mike
6 Cervi. This is a hearing to show cause for revocation
7 of USR No. 540, located in part of the northeast
8 quarter of Section 26 and part of the northwest quarter
9 of Section 25, all in Township 5 North, Range 67 West,
10 of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
11 Notice of the initial hearing, which was
12 held May 19th, 1993, at 10: 00 a.m. , was by publication
13 on May 6th, 1993, in the Windsor Beacon. At that time
14 the matter was continued to this date.
15 I 'd remind the board that certain testimony
16 was given by the staff at that time, and then we took
17 testimony out of order from Mr. Cervi' s
18 representatives, so that you still are in a position to
19 hear more testimony from the staff regarding the basis
20 for proceeding with the show cause hearing.
21 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
22 MR. SCHUETT: Keith Schuett, Department of
23 Planning Services. I did inspect the property
24 yesterday. I did notice a major -- or a change in the
25 uses out there. Odor was one of the things that was
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
79
1 noted to be reduced greatly from what was out there
2 before. Also during that inspection, there were a
3 couple of other minor things that were observed, such
4 as weeds are now growing 12 inches or taller. However,
5 some of them did appear to have been sprayed with
6 something to -- they weren't looking as healthy as what
7 they used to be. However, others did not appear to be
8 sprayed.
9 I would say that the items that were listed
10 as the show cause, there are some items listed in there
11 that indicate that there were noncompliances. I guess
12 we can get into that if the board so chooses.
13 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Pickle, do you have
14 anything to add to that?
15 MR. PICKLE: Trevor Jiricek of our staff
16 also accompanied Keith on the inspection. Trevor noted
17 that there are still two minor areas of noncompliance
18 with what we had before. One is the depth of the water
19 at Pond D. It exceeds 30 inches. Maintaining this
20 depth in the pond violates Operation Standard No. 1,
21 USR 540, and the D and O, design and operations plan,
22 as was approved in CD.
23 Northern Colorado Brine should apply for an
24 amendment to Weld County to amend both of these
25 documents. Minor amounts of skim -- again, minor
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
80
1 amounts of skim were still open -- still present on the
2 pond. Again, these are minor. And there were two
3 other issues that, while not noted previously, were
4 noted conditions. And I wonder if I should introduce
5 those or bring those up now.
6 MS. HARBERT: I think probably so. Is that
7 correct, Lee?
8 MR. MORRISON: Well, you wouldn't be able
9 to consider those at this hearing as a basis for
10 revocation. I mean, if they've not been previously
11 noticed for this hearing, they can't be the basis for
12 the revocation. I mean, the concern I would have is
13 that to accept that evidence, you have to distinguish
14 that the evidence is properly noticed for the hearing.
15 MS. HARBERT: I guess no.
16 MR. HALL: Did I understand you, Keith, to
17 say that you have noticed concerns from the previous
18 violations?
19 MR. SCHUETT: I 've noticed some changes.
20 MR. HALL: Changes?
21 MR. SCHUETT: Right. I 'm not a certified
22 nose, but there was an individual that was out there.
23 But I could tell a difference in the odor from previous
24 inspections. There was less odor yesterday.
25 MR. HALL: Are there any other standards
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
81
1 that are not being complied with?
2 MR. SCHUETT: There are still standards as
3 far as the ones that were listed with the original show
4 cause dated May -- let me get the right date here.
5 May 19th. And they were items that were listed as
6 noncompliance with the Development Standard 1, 7-A,
7 7-H, 7-J, 8-A, 15 and 16. And some of those rely on
8 previous uses or past uses, such as receiving materials
9 that were not appropriate; storage of materials
10 on-site; again, receiving items that were not
11 appropriate; the depth of pond, as Mr. Pickle stated;
12 concern about freeboards; accepting more materials than
13 what was approved through the special review permit;
14 accepting more materials than what was allowed through
15 the air emissions permit; the retention time not being
16 complied with through the retention tanks; odor
17 violations; the construction of the last pond not
18 complying with the approved plans; gauge height
19 indicators not being installed. The gauge height
20 indicators are now installed.
21 Aeration system being installed -- an
22 approved aeration system being installed. There is an
23 aeration system and a sprayer system installed on the
24 site. Retention time, again, with the skim tanks. And
25 then No. 15, where it indicates noncompliance with the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
82
1 development standards and maintaining compliance with
2 the standards.
3 So there are items that were identified as
4 not being in compliance. USR does require that the
5 operator maintain compliance with all standards at all
6 times.
7 MR. HALL: So the standard of the accepting
8 of production is 2, 000 barrels a day, maximum; is that
9 correct?
10 MR. SCHUETT: The Use by Special Review
11 permit allowed for 2,000 barrels per day. However, it
12 also requires compliance with other standards or
13 regulations. And the air emissions permit allowed for
14 10, 000 barrels per month.
15 MR. HALL: When you made your inspection
16 yesterday --
17 MR. SCHUETT: Yes, sir.
18 MR. HALL: -- what were your findings on
19 that?
20 MR. SCHUETT: The facility maintains or is
21 still accepting between 1700 and 1900 barrels per day.
22 So they still are taking in more than two -- or more
23 than what was allowed under the air emissions permit,
24 but are taking in less than what was identified in the
25 Use by Special Review permit of the 2, 000 barrels per
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
83
1 day. And they've been doing that for the last -- I
2 believe the last month or more.
3 MR. HALL: So how are they taking in more
4 than the emissions permit? Because of the aggregate
5 amount totally, 10, 000 barrels per month?
6 MR. SCHUETT: 10,000 barrels per month,
7 yes, is the total amount that the air emissions permit
8 allowed. They are taking in between 1700 and 1900
9 barrels per day. So in a five-day period, they would
10 be taking in approximately the amount that the air
11 emissions permit would allow.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: I 'm sorry, I missed
13 something. So you' re saying -- could we maybe just be
14 specific as to which operation standards they're in
15 compliance with now and which ones they are in
16 noncompliance with at this time? From the probable
17 cause hearing, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
18 eight -- nine operations standards that we found
19 probable cause on, and that' s why we have the show
20 cause hearing.
21 MR. SCHUETT: What I was trying to point
22 out to Mr. Hall is that there are standards that
23 indicate that they have to maintain compliance.
24 Previous inspections have indicated that there were
25 noncompliances of those standards. When I inspected
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
84
1 the property yesterday, the only ones that appeared to
2 be in concern were the amount of water being taken in
3 exceeding the amount allowed through the air emissions
4 permit, and that' s basic -- there was minor skim on the
5 pond, which it says there is supposed to be no skim on
6 the pond.
7 MS. KIRKMEYER: That would be Operation
8 Standard No. 1, you're still saying they' re in
9 noncompliance on at this point? That' s the -- how much
10 water the facility can accept?
11 MR. SCHUETT: Yes. Yes.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: And the retention time?
13 MR. SCHUETT: They are in compliance with
14 that today, because of the gallons that they are taking
15 in.
16 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Operation Standard
17 No. 6, then, has to do with the fencing and --
18 MS. KIRKMEYER: We eliminated that.
19 MS. HARBERT: Yeah, that one is . . .
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: So Operation 7-H is the
21 gauge height indicator. You' re saying at this point
22 they are in compliance?
23 MR. SCHUETT: They are installed, yes.
24 MR. BAXTER: The skim is not a development
25 standard, or it is?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
85
1 MR. PICKLE: It is.
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: What about Operation
3 Standard No. 8-A, the dump and skim in the tanks shall
4 be engineered and designed in accordance with the --
5 MR. SCHUETT: They are today taking in the
6 appropriate amount of water so that it will have a
7 24-hour retention time.
8 MS. HARBERT: And that' s 8-A, is that --
9 MR. SCHUETT: 8-A.
10 MR. MORRISON: For clarification, the
11 volume problem is not because of the standards in the
12 Use by Special Review. It' s because of the current
13 limitations in the air emissions permit.
14 MR. SCHUETT: That' s right.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: So we eliminate -- what
16 about 7-J, then, that an aeration system shall be
17 installed and operated on the four evaporative ponds?
18 MR. SCHUETT: There is an aeration system
19 on three of the ponds and a sprayer system on two of
20 the ponds.
21 MS. HARBERT: Does the sprayer -- does the
22 sprayer system fit the criteria for an aeration
23 system? I mean, it states an aeration system shall be
24 installed.
25 MR. SCHUETT: Okay. There is a facility
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
86
1 that is installed that is --
2 MS. HARBERT: Equal or better?
3 MR. SCHUETT: -- may increase the aeration
4 in the ponds. However, we have not received an
5 operation plan on the system, how it works, how it' s
6 going to operate, how it ' s going to be maintained.
7 MS. HARBERT: So we're not in compliance,
8 actually, with 7-J?
9 MR. SCHUETT: The standard says it has to
10 be installed. It is installed. We would -- we would
11 prefer to have additional information on that facility.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: Operation Standard 7-I is
13 the evaporative ponds shall be kept free and clear of
14 oil skims.
15 MR. SCHUETT: There is minor oil skim on
16 the ponds. However, I don't believe that was listed as
17 a development -- or as a standard on the show cause
18 hearing.
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: Well, it was from the
20 probable cause hearing. And the only one we eliminated
21 at the probable cause hearing would have been Operating
22 Standard No. 6, which had to do with the fence.
23 My other question, then, also, is Operation
24 Standard No. 3, which was from the probable cause
25 hearing: There should be one point of ingress and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
87
1 egress to the facility from Weld County Road 54.
2 MR. SCHUETT: There is only one.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: Okay.
4 MS. HARBERT: Are there any other questions
5 for staff?
6 MS. KIRKMEYER: I have one question. When
7 I was reading through here, through the operation
8 standards, at one point I read that the facility is
9 actually designed to accept no more than 500 barrels
10 per day. Is that at the same time, or has that been
11 changed?
12 MR. SCHUETT: There was an original
13 application that did state that. That application was
14 amended. And when it was approved, it was approved
15 using the amended plan, which was the 2, 000 barrels per
16 day.
17 MS. KIRKMEYER: So at this point you're
18 saying the facility is designed to accept no more than
19 2, 000 barrels or --
20 MR. SCHUETT: Yes, 2, 000 barrels per day.
21 MR. HALL: What are the hours of
22 operation?
23 MR. SCHUETT: 24 hours a day.
24 MR. HALL: Seven days a week?
25 MR. SCHUETT: Seven days a week.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
88
1 MS. KIRKMEYER: To your knowledge, has
2 Northern Colorado Brine ever temporarily closed their
3 facility themselves? Have they done that?
4 MR. SCHUETT: In the records of the water
5 being received, there are some days where they received
6 no water. So whether they temporarily closed, that' s
7 what I would assume, that, yes, they did.
8 MS. HARBERT: And were those following the
9 probable cause hearing?
10 MR. SCHUETT: No, I don't believe they
11 were. I believe one of the days was before.
12 MS. HARBERT: And you have not received any
13 written --
14 MR. SCHUETT: We received some preliminary
15 information on the sprayer system.
16 MS. KIRKMEYER: During the probable cause
17 hearing, you had concern about appropriate records not
18 being maintained on the site. Is that still a concern?
19 MR. SCHUETT: The records that I observed
20 during the inspection yesterday did appear to be
21 appropriate.
22 MS. KIRKMEYER: Okay. Also, you noted back
23 at the probable cause hearing that there were six frac
24 tanks, other than the two on-site for pond skimming.
25 MR. SCHUETT: There are only two on-site at
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
89
1 this time.
2 MR. BAXTER: I 'm not sure when the
3 appropriate time is to bring it up, but there was quite
4 a bit of discussion in our other one about how to
5 remediate the problem, and it was the introduction of
6 chemicals and stuff. Is there -- was there anything
7 you observed that this was being done or been done, or
8 was that --
9 MR. SCHUETT: I did not see anything out
10 there yesterday as far as implementing chemicals.
11 Whether or not they are still implementing chemicals,
12 they may be.
13 I believe there was some discussion about
14 introducing hydrogen peroxide into the water, but I
15 didn't observe that.
16 MR. MORRISON: At the last meeting, the
17 discussion was about a bacteriological treatment, and
18 there was a review by both of your staffs of that, of
19 that temporary abatement measure; is that correct?
20 MR. SCHUETT: That' s correct. You may want
21 to ask the applicant or his representative whether or
22 not that was done or how effective it was. I don't
23 have any information on that.
24 MR. PICKLE: We have reviewed that plan and
25 approved it and forwarded it on to the applicant and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
90
1 his attorney and Commissioner Harbert. So it was
2 reviewed and approved. I don't -- I 'm not as -- there
3 was an indication of Mr. Cervi, in a conversation that
4 I had, that he did implement the plan.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Yesterday there, was the
6 aeration system working?
7 MR. SCHUETT: The aeration system was
8 working, and the sprayer was working on one of the
9 ponds.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: Were any scentometer
11 (phonetic ) readings taken? Did the health department
12 do that?
13 MR. PICKLE: Yes, we did take scentometer
14 readings yesterday and again this morning. Yesterday
15 it was 15 to 1, which is right at the standard. And it
16 was taken at -- I don't recall the exact time, but I
17 have that information on record, taken by Laurie Exby
18 of our staff, who is a certified nurse. She did take
19 one this morning.
20 My understanding was it was -- it was
21 acceptable. I don't recall -- was it -- it was 7 to 1,
22 which would be acceptable.
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: Also, another question I
24 have from the probable cause hearing, the health
25 department had concern about the contaminated soils
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
91
1 being stored on the site. Did you inspect those? Are
2 they still out there? Did we alleviate that problem?
3 MR. SCHUETT: I believe they've been
4 removed or taken care of. I did not observe them at
5 the same location where I observed them before.
6 MR. PICKLE: Trevor didn't indicate they
7 were still present on his report here.
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: So they've been removed and
9 taken care of properly?
10 MR. PICKLE: Right.
11 MS. HARBERT: I think -- go ahead.
12 MR. MORRISON: Well, go ahead and ask any
13 further questions.
14 MS. HARBERT: Are there any further
15 questions for staff?
16 (No response. )
17 MS. HARBERT: Go ahead.
18 MR. MORRISON: I might note that there has
19 been provided, in an earlier draft placed in the
20 record, a proposed stipulation and agreement involving
21 Northern Colorado Brine. And the earlier version
22 involved the Weld County Air Pollution Control Division
23 and the Solid Waste Division of the state health
24 department. There has since been a draft, dated 6-22
25 of ' 93, that will be placed in the record that began as
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
92
1 a proposed stipulation.
2 That stipulation, the parties to that are
3 proposed to be Northern Colorado Brine and the Air
4 Pollution Control Division, and the county would not
5 directly be a party to that as proposed. If the board
6 wants, at this time, to get more information on that,
7 or ask for more information from the respondent on that
8 so --
9 If you have any questions you want to get
10 resolved before we proceed into the full taking of the
11 evidence, now might be a good time to do so.
12 MS. HARBERT: I guess I want to know who
13 put this stipulation together. Did this come from
14 Mr. Cervi' s people or . . .
15 MR. MORRISON: I don't know who else
16 participated. I know that at least initial drafting
17 was done by Mr. Cervi, and the exchanges have been
18 presently between the Attorney General, representing
19 the Air Quality Division, and counsel for Mr. Cervi.
20 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions
21 regarding the stipulation and agreement?
22 MR. BAXTER: Obviously there' s a question
23 about capacity, when we go beyond the -- when we start
24 talking about 300, 000 barrels and stuff like this.
25 Where is -- where -- when we are -- I guess I 'm asking
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
93
1 a legal question. Where are we involved in that? What
2 input do we have in that?
3 MR. MORRISON: Well, your input is that the
4 2, 000 barrels a day is a current provision of your
5 special use permit. An agreement between the Air
6 Pollution Control Division and Northern Colorado Brine
7 doesn't change that, even though they might have an
8 agreement that more would be allowed. I think you have
9 to address whether changes can be accomplished from
10 that existing permit without requiring a complete
11 amendment process to the special use for Use by Special
12 Review.
13 The stipulation is directed at the
14 violations that have been cited under the odor stat --
15 odor regulations of the state, and they propose to deal
16 with the existing citations as well as an
17 implementation of a further odor abatement program, and
18 provide penalties for failure to install as proposed,
19 and penalties for future violations.
20 They also resolve issues as to what
21 standard is appropriate for judging the operation.
22 That is, if the stipulation is not reached, those
23 issues would be addressed, at least in part, at the
24 August 20th Air Quality Control Commission hearing.
25 And one of those issues raised by Northern Colorado
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
94
1 Brine is whether the 15 to 1 standard is the
2 appropriate standard rather than a less stringent
3 standard. And the stipulation, if entered into, would
4 stipulate that the 15 to 1 is the appropriate standard.
5 MR. LIND: Madam Chair?
6 MS. HARBERT: Just a minute, please.
7 (Pause. )
8 MS. HARBERT: Well, I guess I don't
9 understand the difference here. Of course, we just got
10 this document about 20 minutes before this hearing, but
11 I don't understand Item 3 and Item 4. It states in
12 Item 3 that it' s including a request to allow a
13 production level up to 300,000 barrels per month. And
14 then over on the next page, in the second paragraph of
15 Item 4, it goes back to the production limitation of
16 10, 000 barrels per month and 2, 000 barrels per day.
17 I guess I haven't had enough time to go
18 through and digest this enough to see what relation
19 this has.
20 MR. MORRISON: The correlation is that, in
21 4, they are agreeing to accept the compliance order
22 which has been issued to them by the water -- no, by
23 the air quality people, dated April 21st, which limits
24 their input to 10, 000 barrels per month. The Air
25 Quality Division would be agreeing not to enforce that
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
95
1 while the agreement' s in effect and while they are
2 reviewing the possibility of a modification.
3 MS. HARBERT: Do they have to come before
4 us, then, for that modification?
5 MR. MORRISON: The modification discussed
6 in this agreement has to do with the air emissions
7 permit, which is currently even more restrictive, in
8 terms of input, than our permit is. So Paragraph 4,
9 then, ties back to 3, that the division would be
10 agreeing to consider modification and not to withhold
11 it unreasonably to go to 300, 000 barrels per month,
12 which is the 10, 000 barrels a day.
13 And that, again, is -- I mean, they tie
14 together, but the determination of the division doesn't
15 determine your position. But the division will be
16 considering whether or not to increase the emissions
17 permit to that 10, 000 barrels a day. And they will
18 have the benefit of, as I understand it, the
19 installation of the new equipment running at the lower
20 input for a period of time before making a decision as
21 to whether to allow the higher volume.
22 MS. HARBERT: So we wouldn't have any
23 jurisdiction over them increasing this to 300, 000
24 barrels a month? It goes to the Air Quality Control?
25 MR. MORRISON: No. There' s two separate
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
96
1 permits, and we still have jurisdiction over the volume
2 under the Use by Special Review. This agreement only
3 addresses the air quality permit, over which we
4 function under a contract.
5 John' s people do inspections, but
6 ultimately the decisions on those violations are made
7 by the Air Quality Division and then the Air Quality
8 Commission. I think, you know, if you want to ask
9 Mr. Lind about it, they also want to address the issue
10 with respect to the county limitation on volume.
11 But this agreement does not purport to do
12 that on its face. It clearly is important to your
13 considerations, because it ties in, and they also have
14 to comply with state laws. If they independently reach
15 an agreement with the Air Quality Commission, then that
16 becomes the permit under which you judge whether
17 they're meeting that standard.
18 MS. KIRKMEYER: So, in essence, they could
19 have this agreement signed with the state and we still
20 have our USR. One agreement can say they can collect
21 10, 000 barrels a day and, you know, redo their
22 emissions permit, yet our agreement says they can only
23 get 2, 000 barrels a day, so anytime they exceed the
24 2, 000 barrels a day, they'd be out of compliance, if we
25 don't change our USR permit that they have with us?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
97
1 MR. MORRISON: If it' s a substantial, yeah,
2 variance from the existing permit, yes. There are two
3 separate things. And obviously, the respondent may
4 have some comments on trying to keep the two
5 consistent. But they do have to meet both, both
6 permits.
7 MR. HALL: Paragraph 7, I have a question
8 on that. I guess to me it says that this stipulation
9 shall constitute a full and complete settlement of all
10 matters, and then it' s as issued by the division and
11 Weld County. Regarding -- is that just regarding the
12 emissions?
13 MR. MORRISON: Reg 2 is the Air Quality
14 Commission' s regulation pertaining to odors. It should
15 not, and I don't think it could, because there wouldn't
16 be a signatory to this effect, the local health
17 department' s involvement, and the other issues before
18 you.
19 I think the other thing you have to keep in
20 mind is that a further complication to you being able
21 to reach a decision today on the whole issue is that
22 there have been appeals of the violations to the Air
23 Quality Commission. And I would not encourage you to
24 make a decision today that relied on the past air
25 quality violations, when those violations have not yet
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
98
1 gone through the administrative appeal process.
2 The problem is, if you were to determine to
3 revoke your permit based on a violation that' s not yet
4 finally administratively determined, and the Air
5 Quality Commission reversed the staff ' s position, you
6 would have revoked the permit based on a fact that no
7 longer is -- you know, is no longer true.
8 I think that may in part have been why
9 Mr. Schuett, his original recommendation, recommended
10 no final decision until September.
11 Is that correct?
12 MR. SCHUETT: That' s correct.
13 MS. HARBERT: Are there any other questions
14 for staff or legal counsel?
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: What process has the odor
16 violations gone through up to this point, then? There
17 must have been some ruling at some point for an appeal
18 to be happening.
19 MR. MORRISON: Right. There are notices
20 given when a violation is detected. There' s an
21 informal local --
22 MR. PICKLE: Conference.
23 MR. MORRISON: Conference is the term.
24 It' s an informal hearing that is taped, and then a
25 determination made in consultation with the state. Or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
99
1 actually the state has final decision authority of
2 whether or not to make a determination of violations.
3 Is that the proper term?
4 MR. PICKLE: Correct.
5 MR. MORRISON: When the determination of
6 violation is made on this informal conference process,
7 then notice is given to the violator that they have
8 certain rights of appeal within the administrative
9 system. And at least on -- I 'm not sure how many.
10 Two? I believe two are --
11 Do you know, Mr. Lind?
12 MR. LIND: I believe it' s two.
13 MR. MORRISON: Two of them have been
14 requested to be heard by the Air Quality Commission at
15 the August 20th hearing. In the meantime, Mr. Hobbs,
16 who is also counsel for Mr. Cervi, started this process
17 of trying to reach a stipulation with the state, which
18 is not uncommon in these air quality proceedings, that
19 would do away with the necessity of the August 20th
20 hearing.
21 MS. KIRKMEYER: So weren't there seven odor
22 violations, or were there only two?
23 MR. MORRISON: There were more than two. I
24 don't know how many there were.
25 MS. KIRKMEYER: What' s happening to the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
100
1 other odor violations, then, that are not going through
2 this appeal process?
3 MR. MORRISON: John, can you respond?
4 MR. PICKLE: There are some more recent
5 violations that are still awaiting the compliance order
6 from us, our division, and the State Air Quality
7 Division. And I think that' s the major holdup.
8 MR. MORRISON: There are none that have
9 been heard by the Air Quality Commission?
10 MR. PICKLE: None as of yet.
11 MR. MORRISON: The two that are getting
12 there are the issue, and the others are in the
13 pipeline. Depending on what the commission does with
14 what' s the applicable standard, that could change
15 whether those that they' re following would still
16 continue to be pursued.
17 If the commission ruled against the
18 division' s position on that and accepted a less
19 stringent standard, I would expect the division would
20 withdraw some of those.
21 MS. KIRKMEYER: But right now the
22 applicable standard is 15 to 1?
23 MR. PICKLE: That' s correct. And, of
24 course, who would know what the commission will decide
25 on that, but division staff feels quite confident in
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
101
1 the 15 to 1.
2 MR. MORRISON: And this stipulation is
3 proposed to deal with all pending violations, resolve
4 all of those. And again, it is not -- it is not
5 uncommon for these matters to be resolved by -- by
6 stipulation, which includes a corrective action.
7 I believe the earlier submittal to you,
8 which I think was dated June 2nd, also contained a copy
9 of a stipulation that was entered into with ConAgra,
10 that resolved the air quality violations at that
11 facility near Greeley.
12 MS. HARBERT: Are there any additional
13 questions of staff at this time?
14 (No response. )
15 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Lind, or the owner or his
16 representative, please state the case.
17 MR. LIND: Again --
18 MR. MORRISON: Excuse me. Before -- are
19 you asking Mr. Lind to go into his full presentation?
20 Do you want any further discussion on the stipulation?
21 MS. HARBERT: That' s what I asked, just --
22 I mean, were there any other questions.
23 Does anyone have any other questions
24 regarding the stipulation?
25 MR. BAXTER: Not at this time.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005s
102
1 MS. HARBERT: Do you know of any that we
2 should -- anything else we should know about?
3 MR. MORRISON: Well, I guess maybe you
4 ought to ask Mr. Lind if he wanted to address the
5 stipulation before going into his full presentation.
6 MS. HARBERT: All right. Well, we can do
7 that, then. Thank you for keeping me straight on
8 that. Okay.
9 MR. LIND: Ken Lind, 1011 - 11th Avenue,
10 Greeley, on behalf of the applicant, Northern Colorado
11 Brine.
12 Yes, I would like to first discuss with you
13 this settlement agreement. I think I can shed a lot of
14 light on how it has developed and what its purpose is.
15 And in addition to that, my discussion of the air
16 quality settlement agreement also relates to a
17 resolution with Weld County specifically concerning the
18 issue of the volume. They are related.
19 I realize it is very confusing, because you
20 have some joint jurisdiction with the state, you have
21 some overlapping jurisdiction, and then there is some
22 jurisdiction that you don't have which the state has,
23 and also the reverse, which you have which the state
24 doesn't have. So I ' ll try and clarify that.
25 I will be referring to the draft which was
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
103
1 presented to you this morning, which is dated, and
2 states, Revised 6-22-93. So I would like you to follow
3 along with that, and I will be able to refer you to
4 certain pages and paragraphs.
5 This stipulation is the latest. It is
6 authored by both Mr. Hobbs as well as by the Attorney
7 General ' s Office of the state of Colorado. And I
8 believe this is probably about the ninth draft and
9 revision. I have been informed that this does
10 incorporate now specific language which the Attorney
11 General ' s Office has decided upon. It is probably
12 about 99 percent completed, having accepted the
13 language from the Attorney General ' s Office with some
14 very minor changes.
15 So the Attorney General ' s Office has not
16 yet reviewed this final draft, because it will depend
17 on the status of today' s hearing and what you, as the
18 Board of County Commissioners, does as to how it will
19 proceed.
20 What I would like to first mention, this
21 draft has been submitted to you and is being made part
22 of the public record. It is the proposed settlement
23 agreement between the state and Northern Colorado Brine
24 concerning the alleged odor violations, both those that
25 have been registered and up through the date, I
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
104
1 believe, June 2nd. What this provides us with is a
2 vehicle to settle everything, and would allow Weld
3 County, as well as Northern Colorado Brine, to
4 incorporate this settlement into an odor abatement
5 program which is proper pursuant to this show cause
6 hearing.
7 The development and operation standards
8 which govern this facility in Weld County, under one of
9 the standards, have a requirement for initiation and
10 development of an odor abatement program, and I believe
11 that incorporation of this settlement stipulation into
12 a separate agreement between Northern Colorado Brine
13 and Weld County will definitely fit under the odor
14 abatement program, which we must present, and would
15 resolve some of the differences and concerns that now
16 exist between the state as well as Weld County.
17 I will give you a little more detail on
18 that, but first I want to very briefly review with you
19 this settlement agreement and point out some of the
20 very critical and significant items. If you turn to
21 Page 2, Paragraph 3, the first item in the third line
22 does state the order for compliance with the 15 to 1
23 standard.
24 Now, that is very important. That is a
25 fairly low odor threshold. It is just above a
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
105
1 residential odor, which is 7 to 1. And this agreement
2 then would govern this facility, from this day forward,
3 at the 15 to 1 standard. That is in deference to the
4 industrial standard of 127 to 1, which Mr. Hobbs is of
5 the opinion is applicable at this time, due to the fact
6 that this is an industrial facility.
7 Contrary to Mr. Pickle' s comment that the
8 state is confident that the 15 to 1 applies, Mr. Hobbs
9 is equally confident that the 127 to 1 applies, which
10 means that that will be a legal issue, both before the
11 Air Quality Commission and, depending upon their
12 ruling, would then be an issue going through the courts
13 as to what standard would apply.
14 However, if this settlement agreement is
15 adopted and accepted, there is no longer any question.
16 The 15 to 1 standard applies, and that' s it. Now --
17 MS. HARBERT: So there could be no legal
18 ramification of that later on?
19 MR. LIND: No. This is a settlement, and
20 it states that the standard which applies is 15 to 1.
21 So that does resolve the significant issues between the
22 parties, obviously one of which Weld County is
23 concerned with.
24 Jumping to Paragraph No. 4, on Page 4, part
25 of this settlement agreement does incorporate a very
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
106
1 stringent and tight schedule for the installation and
2 operation of the new heater-treater equipment. Very
3 briefly, July 10th, the final design is completed.
4 July 12th, Northern Colorado Brine must place a deposit
5 and firm contract to order this new system.
6 On July 21st, construction of the new
7 equipment takes place or should commence. Then on
8 September 28th of 1993, complete construction and
9 start-up must be effected. Then there is approximately
10 a two-week period, from September 28th until
11 October 11th, for testing and fine-tuning. And on
12 October 11th, the state would do a final compliance
13 inspection to assure that the new equipment is
14 operating properly and would meet the 15 to 1
15 standard.
16 Now, this schedule, those are
17 last-available dates. In other words, construction of
18 the equipment starting July 21 and actual completion
19 and start-up September 28th, we are hopeful that that
20 actually can be completed approximately
21 September 14th. The engineering firm in Texas which
22 has designed this system, and installed them in other
23 areas, believes that they can have everything completed
24 in six weeks rather than the eight weeks. Their
25 original estimate was eight weeks.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
107
1 So, again, this is going along with the
2 last possible date. But we believe it can be
3 accomplished sooner. So these guidelines,
4 requirements, are very stringent. And I will explain
5 to you the ramifications if they are not followed.
6 Now, jumping back to Page 3, and the last
7 four lines above Subparagraph A, which Mrs. Harbert
8 commented about, I can explain what that means. During
9 the interim period, which means the interim period from
10 the date that this settlement agreement is signed by
11 all of the parties, through October 11th of 1993,
12 Northern Colorado Brine would be permitted, and could
13 not exceed, to receive the 2, 000 barrels per day, which
14 is the USR standard of 2,000 barrels per day.
15 That paragraph does recognize that the
16 existing emissions permit, which was originally
17 approved at 500 barrels per day, is in error and should
18 have been 2, 000 barrels per day. And that does
19 indicate that in this paragraph.
20 So during this interim period, Northern
21 Colorado Brine is limited to 2, 000 barrels per day.
22 They cannot exceed that.
23 Now, if you will turn again back to Page 2,
24 and the eight lines just above Paragraph 4, that is
25 also a significant item. What this means, during this
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
108
1 interim period, again from the date this agreement is
2 signed, through October 11th of 1993, Northern Colorado
3 Brine must meet the 15 to 1 air standard. If the
4 15 to 1 air standard is violated, there are penalties
5 and provisions for that standard.
6 The purpose of that is to ensure to both
7 the county as well as to the state that the interim
8 actions that have been taken by Northern Colorado
9 Brine -- i.e. , specifically the bacterial remediation
10 program -- will continue, and gives assurance to the
11 county that if there is a violation during this interim
12 time, that there is a substantial penalty to be paid by
13 Northern Colorado Brine.
14 Those are all detailed, if you will turn to
15 Page 4, in Paragraphs B and C. Paragraph B states that
16 within 30 days of the execution of this agreement,
17 Northern Colorado Brine will pay the sum of $8500 to
18 the state and bas -- basically to the state through the
19 Weld County Health Department, as a settlement of the
20 existing air violation allegations.
21 In addition, at Paragraph C, Northern
22 Colorado Brine will pay $1500 per violation per day for
23 any violation from the date of this agreement through
24 October 11th of 1993. Again, that would be a violation
25 of the agreed-upon 15 to 1 standard.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
109
1 So if on July 20th the reading is 31 to 1,
2 that would then result in a violation during the
3 interim period, and Northern Colorado Brine would be
4 required to pay the $1500 penalty.
5 And again I want to stress that that is
6 during the interim period of time. And that means that
7 standard is applicable before the new equipment is
8 installed and before the new equipment is operating.
9 Needless to say, that' s a significant incentive to keep
10 the existing odor abatement program in effect, which, I
11 might add, is having a significant impact.
12 The results of that bacterial remediation
13 have been significant. I think anybody in the health
14 department, planning, even on-site, can tell you that
15 it has been very effective.
16 Now, there' s even more substantial
17 penalties in relation to this. If you turn to Page 6,
18 Paragraph 6, the time schedule which I presented to
19 you, the July 10th, July 12th, construction start-up
20 date, completion date, in the event those are not
21 complied with, there is also a $500-per-day penalty
22 that must be paid for each and every day that is not
23 complied with for this time schedule.
24 What we're really looking at here, it was
25 the state ' s concern -- and again, it' s obviously the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
110
1 county' s concern -- to get the odor abatement program
2 into effect as soon as possible, to make sure that it
3 is installed and working properly.
4 So you have the potential of $2, 000 per day
5 for violations and for failure to comply with the
6 start-up and operation schedule.
7 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind, before you go
8 forward, we have about 10 copies of that agreement that
9 Mr. Jiricek has if members of the audience want to get
10 a copy of that to help follow this.
11 MS. HARBERT: Thank you for having that
12 done.
13 So what I 'm hearing here is that if this
14 schedule on Page 4 is not complied with, it' s a
15 $500-a-day penalty?
16 MR. LIND: That is correct.
17 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
18 MR. BAXTER: I have one question for that.
19 How is this -- is this normally tested daily? The
20 health department, does it test it daily?
21 MR. LIND: No, it' s not tested daily.
22 MR. BAXTER: Just when it happened to be
23 tested?
24 MR. LIND: Right. We do frequent testing,
25 but it' s generally not tested daily.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9400S5
111
1 The next significant part of this
2 agreement --
3 MR. HALL: Mr. Lind, who is responsible for
4 determining that you're in compliance with this time
5 schedule? Is it the state?
6 MR. LIND: Right now under this agreement,
7 the state would be.
8 MR. HALL: So the state is who you would be
9 paying the penalty to?
10 MR. LIND: Right, right.
11 MS. HARBERT: What' s that money used for?
12 Do you know?
13 MR. LIND: I cannot answer that point,
14 Mrs. Harbert. I believe it' s used -- it goes into
15 their general budget. Okay. It goes into the state
16 general fund. But again, that kind of flows back to
17 the state health department through their budgeting
18 procedure.
19 The next significant part of this is on
20 Page 2, again at Paragraph 3. And this will answer
21 your questions concerning the 300, 000-barrel-per-month
22 schedule instead of the 60, 000-barrel-per-month.
23 What this provides for in this Paragraph 3
24 is that the 10, 000-barrel-per-day or the
25 300, 000-per-month limitation does not go into effect,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
112
1 and cannot be effected, until Northern Colorado Brine
2 first demonstrates to the division' s satisfaction that
3 the new equipment installed will meet the 15 to 1
4 standard.
5 So how this works, it' s kind of a fail-safe
6 for both the county and the state. Execution of this
7 agreement requires Northern Colorado Brine to install
8 the new equipment. While that equipment is being
9 installed, the 15 to 1 standard must be met. After the
10 equipment is installed and operating, the 15 to 1
11 standard must again be met, because the penalties and
12 fines continue.
13 If that 15 to 1 standard is met, and it is
14 satisfactorily shown to the state that the new
15 equipment will meet the 15 to 1 standard, then the
16 300,000-barrel-per-month limitation goes into effect.
17 If the new equipment does not meet the 15 to 1
18 standard, then the 300, 000-barrel-per-month limitation
19 would not go into effect.
20 So what this indicates is the confidence of
21 both the Texas engineering firm, as well as Northern
22 Colorado Brine, that the new equipment will work,
23 because we're going to expend approximately 300 to
24 $350,000 for this new equipment and its installation.
25 If it doesn't work, we have a lot of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
113
1 equipment sitting out there to only process 2, 000
2 barrels per day, which, needless to say, would be a
3 significant economic loss to the applicant.
4 Another very significant part of this
5 agreement is on Page 8, at Paragraph 8, which indicates
6 that this agreement can be enforced in the District
7 Court for Weld County. What that means, that is a
8 short-circuit route. There are no longer
9 administrative appeals going through, first, air
10 quality, air emissions, anything like this. The state
11 can take this directly to Weld County District Court
12 for immediate filing and review and enforcement.
13 So that probably saves, depending on state
14 administrative schedules, anywhere from six months to a
15 year of time. So, in effect, it is a quick-reaction
16 procedure.
17 Now, from both a legal standpoint and from
18 my standpoint as a lawyer, I can tell you that this is
19 not a favorable agreement to Northern Colorado Brine.
20 I have a very difficult time imagining what more the
21 county or the state could want from a similar
22 agreement, because, one, you have a strict construction
23 schedule. Two, you have substantial penalties for
24 either failing to comply with that construction
25 schedule or by violating the agreed 15 to 1 standard.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
114
1 And finally, you have a very short
2 enforcement proceeding, which is the Weld County
3 District Court.
4 I think, most importantly, that this cures
5 a problem. What we have, needless to say, this
6 county -- and it' s not just the county. It' s the
7 state. We have a brine disposal problem. The
8 production is here. When crops are removed this fall,
9 starting probably middle of October to the first part
10 of November, through February of next year, we are
11 going to again have a significant increase in
12 production, probably more production in Weld County
13 than was even realized this past year.
14 You can tell that by looking at the permit
15 applications for drilling with the oil and gas
16 commission. You can also check that with drilling
17 companies. Most drilling companies are under contract
18 and tied up for virtually the next two years. So the
19 drilling in this county is not going to slow down.
20 It' s going to increase.
21 Somebody, whether it' s private industry,
22 the state or the county, is going to have to provide
23 some facility for the safe disposal of production
24 water, brine water. That is what is the key criteria
25 here.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
115
1 Right now, about 25 percent of revenues in
2 this county, and most taxing entities, are coming from
3 oil and gas production. So it' s not a situation where
4 we can sit back and say, yes, let' s wait and see what
5 develops or slows down. There is too much taxing
6 revenue, money involved to ignore.
7 The reason for these strict time guidelines
8 is timing is critical. We have to have this facility
9 in proper operation with the new equipment probably
10 middle of October, end of October, to meet this fall
11 through spring -- I 'm going to call it a drilling
12 rush.
13 We also have provided to you a fairly
14 simple three-page explanation of how the new equipment
15 operates. When you read that, it is very simple.
16 Basically what you have, it' s newly designed equipment
17 that' s been around for a few years.
18 What we have on-site is equipment that' s
19 now 10 years old, but the technology is basically
20 20 years old. So we're trading 20-year-old equipment
21 for new equipment that has been used in other states
22 and localities, used effectively.
23 And that, again, is an example to you of
24 the confidence that both Northern Colorado Brine as
25 well as the Texas engineering companies have and that
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005s
116
1 is why they are agreeing to this time schedule as well
2 as to the significant penalties.
3 I can assure you that the Texas companies
4 are well aware of these penalties, the significant
5 potential that they have for legal liability if the
6 equipment does not work properly. They, again, are
7 aware of those penalties. The time schedules, they can
8 meet them.
9 Now, as far as Northern Colorado Brine,
10 Northern Colorado Brine is basically prepared to enter
11 into this agreement, but we need to work this agreement
12 and have it worked through Weld County so that we're
13 not in a similar situation as we are now, of what Weld
14 County has is different from what the state has, and
15 vice versa. So we have to tie them together.
16 Now, under the odor abatement program,
17 which is part of the existing Use by Special Review,
18 Northern Colorado Brine and Weld County can enter into
19 an agreement which adopts by reference this agreement.
20 In other words, we attach this as part of our agreement
21 with Weld County, with some refinements.
22 This gives the county then enforcement
23 authority along with the state. So not only would the
24 state have the authority to go into Weld County
25 District Court to enforce the compliance construction
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940058
117
1 guidelines, the 15 to 1 standard, the penalties, but
2 Weld County could do that. So that gives you some
3 significant jurisdiction and power that you presently
4 do not have. And it also ties Northern Colorado Brine
5 into an identical proceeding with you as well as with
6 the state.
7 The one item that has been mentioned to me
8 in relation to the 300, 000 barrels per month is the
9 question that this may have on County Road 54.
10 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Lind, could we adjourn at
11 the moment -- I mean, not adjourn, but recess at the
12 moment? It is 12: 00 o'clock, and there are some of us
13 that have 12: 00 o'clock appointments. And come back
14 at -- is 1: 15 all right with everyone?
15 MR. HALL: 1: 15? All right.
16 MS. HARBERT: Would that be in agreement?
17 MR. WEBSTER: Is that your last point?
18 MR. LIND: I have just -- if I can have
19 about three minutes, I can finish up on this part.
20 MR. WEBSTER: I saw the length --
21 MR. LIND: I 'm down to the last page.
22 MR. WEBSTER: Don't turn it over.
23 MR. LIND: Okay. I won't turn it over.
24 Related to road improvements, it would be
25 my position that is a result or a necessary consequence
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
118
1 of the odor abatement program. And we can incorporate
2 a county-engineer-approved road improvement agreement
3 into our agreement to, one, give county enforcement
4 authority of this; two, to have the same standards
5 applicable for the county, and to have the county
6 engineering department review that and come back to
7 you, again at a public hearing, to say, yes, we've
8 reviewed it. Here' s what is related to our road
9 improvement agreement.
10 We're prepared to do this next week,
11 Wednesday, next week Friday, because the significant
12 items for an odor abatement program are right here, in
13 Page -- eight pages. We adopt this as part of the
14 county odor abatement program; we' re tied in; we' re
15 tied together with it. Everybody is there. We know
16 what the standards are, we know what the penalties are
17 for noncompliance, and we include the road improvement
18 agreement. And that would be another requirement for
19 Northern Colorado to comply with.
20 By doing this, if county engineering is
21 available and can get a program put together by next
22 Wednesday or next Friday, that would give the state and
23 Northern Colorado Brine time to comply with these
24 schedules and immediately get on with the new equipment
25 and to meet the very stringent odor requirements.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
119
1 MS. HARBERT: Thank you. We will recess.
2 I think maybe -- maybe we should come back at 1:30. Is
3 that all right, rather than 1: 15?
4 MR. WEBSTER: Make it 1: 15. I don't need
5 to stay for the program.
6 MS. HARBERT: We' ll come back at 1: 15,
7 then, if that' s all right with everyone. All right.
8 We will recess until 1: 15.
9 (The hearing recessed at 12: 04 p.m. , to be
10 reconvened at 1: 15 p.m. )
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
120
1 AFTERNOON SESSION 1: 18 p.m.
2 MS. HARBERT: We will reconvene the
3 probable cause -- or the show cause hearing for the
4 Northern Colorado Brine.
5 Mr. Lind, were you -- or let the record
6 show that all five commissioners are present.
7 Mr. Lind, were you completed with your
8 presentation?
9 MR. LIND: I did have several more comments
10 in relation to the settlement agreement, but that was
11 the main essence.
12 What I just wanted to reiterate is I think
13 it' s an excellent vehicle that ties the county, the
14 state together. They would all be on the same
15 wavelength on this thing. We'd know what was there.
16 We'd have an enforceable-in-court agreement, which
17 would have nothing to do with other violations.
18 In other words, this would be related to
19 the odor situation, which, of course, is, as far as I 'm
20 concerned, 99 percent of what we're dealing with. Many
21 of the other items that were out of compliance, and has
22 been indicated today are now in compliance, are
23 actually very minor. They're related to operational
24 issues.
25 We have no problem going along with the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
121
1 county' s recommendation of continuing those until
2 September 1st for review, which might be an excellent
3 choice. It would give us some opportunity to have the
4 air emission system calibrated, how it' s working. It
5 would give you a status report as to construction and
6 operations of the new equipment. So I think that would
7 tie in very good.
8 One possibility that I would suggest as far
9 as how to handle this -- obviously our proposal is
10 dependent on several items. One would be the necessity
11 of the county attorney and myself getting together to
12 draft a settlement stipulation that would be
13 enforceable with the county, incorporating the state.
14 We would need a little bit of time to do that.
15 So we could adjourn, again, for a week to
16 two weeks, depending on what the county' s schedule is,
17 come back, and at that time be able to present to you,
18 this is -- this is the settlement proposal put together
19 by our office, the county attorney' s office, and
20 incorporating the comments, as far as a road
21 improvement agreement.
22 And I realize that' s a short time schedule,
23 but we're dealing with a short time schedule that could
24 be then worked out, would give you time to review the
25 stipulation. We would then know exactly where the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
122
1 state is on the stipulation. It would give the
2 state -- I should say the county health department,
3 county planning department some time to review the
4 input with the stipulation, as well as the road
5 improvement agreement, if that is determined to be a
6 necessary part.
7 The one item that we could add to that,
8 which would also give the county some additional
9 incentive in reviewing that -- as you mentioned, the
10 penalties that are paid for violations, since that is a
11 state agreement, are paid to the state. We would
12 propose to add to that that if there is any violation
13 during that interim period which results in a $1500
14 payment to the state, that Northern Colorado Brine
15 would also have to pay $500 to the county for the same
16 violation. And in relation to the $500 penalty for the
17 scheduling, that we would propose that we pay $100 to
18 the county. So that way we're doubling the potential
19 violations.
20 We don't believe it should be as much money
21 as paid to the state, since the state does, in effect,
22 pay the county, as their agent, for review of these.
23 But that continues to give the county some incentive,
24 as well as the applicant incentive, to keep things
25 going on schedule and allowing you jurisdiction, as
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
123
1 well as some financial incentives, too, since you are
2 actually a reviewing agency.
3 So that would be my suggestion, would be to
4 give us a week, 10 days, 2 weeks to put together this
5 stipulation, and then go along with the county planning
6 department' s recommendation of adjourning for the
7 other -- which I note in the one report I have, they
8 basically considered these other two items minor, which
9 we can address at the conclusion of our comments here
10 on the settlement agreement.
11 But that would be our suggestion. And
12 that' s basically my conclusion. We'd be happy to
13 answer any questions.
14 MS. HARBERT: I guess what we need to
15 decide here on this stipulation is whether we want --
16 whether we want to accept it as is or whether or not we
17 feel that it' s a substantial change to the original
18 permit and where we want to go from there.
19 I think we should take probably public
20 input on the stipulation. And could you give us some
21 parameters on what we' re going to talk about, as far as
22 this -- this portion of the public input is?
23 MR. MORRISON: Well, I think anything
24 that' s in the -- I mean, we're dealing with the
25 specifics of the agreement that was discussed this
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
124
1 morning. And really the issue is whether the board
2 ought to pursue a means of trying to enter into this,
3 or incorporate this agreement in a broader agreement,
4 or whether the board ought to just proceed with the
5 violation proceeding.
6 The other part of that, as you know, is I
7 think the board, in order not to violate your own
8 process, would have to view these provisions in the
9 odor abatement plan as not -- not being a substantial
10 change to the existing permit.
11 What Mr. Lind has suggested, that you
12 address these issues of the odor abatement adequately,
13 and also address the issue of traffic, that there
14 wouldn't be any added impact to the neighborhood as a
15 result of the change. I mean, that ' s --
16 MS. HARBERT: But the stipulation also goes
17 ahead to say that it can be increased by a tremendous
18 amount, which would, to me, suggest that it very well
19 could be a major change.
20 MR. MORRISON: Well, I think that' s
21 something you have to judge. His argument, as I
22 understand it, is that you balance the fact that
23 there' s a greater volume versus a much greater degree
24 of treatment on the liquids as they come in, which is
25 the part that' s in here.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
125
1 And the part that' s not yet written is that
2 you also balance the increase in volume with road
3 improvements to, again, balance out the impact. And
4 the -- so the idea is that you have a permit that is no
5 more of an impact on the neighborhood with these
6 changes than it was before.
7 MS. HARBERT: All right. At this time we
8 will take public input regarding the stipulation that
9 was handed out this morning, the proposed stipulation.
10 If there' s anyone that would like to speak
11 for or against the proposed stipulation and agreement,
12 would you please come to the microphone and state your
13 name and address for the record, and your pros or cons.
14 In the essence of considering time, we will
15 ask that you not repeat things that have already been
16 said. That if you agree with someone that has spoken
17 before you, that you just so state that you agree with
18 whoever it was and what they said, and then take your
19 seat again, so that we don't have a lot of repetition
20 going on. Thank you.
21 MS. SAUER: Debbie Sauer. I live at
22 10993 Weld County Road 52, Milliken, and I live within
23 less than a mile south of Northern Colorado Brine.
24 I guess the one question -- the biggest
25 question I would have about the stipulation is the fact
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
126
1 that if, in almost 10 years of operation, this place
2 was built to handle 2, 000 barrels of brine a day, and
3 they cannot do that, how they can possibly put in
4 something to handle 10, 000 barrels of brine a day and
5 do it. Because at this point, the -- the track record
6 is such that they cannot be trusted. They have never
7 complied. They've always been in a state of
8 noncompliance.
9 So I don't see exactly how, by implementing
10 a $400, 000 system, that this is going to be incentive
11 for them to comply. If there' s any way to cut corners
12 and to not do what you have to do, it would seem as
13 though their past history has indicated that that' s
14 what they do. There is no trust factor here
15 whatsoever. And I think that the -- the whole -- it
16 seems like the whole operation runs on a lot of trust.
17 I mean, there are things that you cannot be
18 policing them every day. And also the fact that it' s
19 an antiquated facility. That' s not what the industry
20 is looking towards as far as their disposal now.
21 They're much more interested in an injunction.
22 So I don't see why -- it seems like it
23 would just be a fruitless effort to put all this money
24 into something that is not even what industry is
25 interested in at this point. Plus, it takes very --
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
127
1 twice as much to dump there.
2 MS. HARBERT: Any questions for
3 Ms. Sauer?
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: I have a question. I guess
5 it' s not about this stipulation.
6 MS. HARBERT: It needs to be about the
7 stipulation issue.
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: I ' ll have to wait.
9 MS. SAUER: Okay.
10 MS. HARBERT: Come forward, please.
11 MS. VETTER: My name is Clara Vetter. I
12 live at 10724 Road 52, Milliken, just a mile south of
13 Northern Colorado Brine.
14 I guess one of the biggest things that' s
15 bothering me is this: If they' re not in compliance,
16 you fine them so much a day. But I don't know how
17 that' s going to help us that have to put up with the
18 odor. Because if you gave me a million dollars, I
19 would choose fresh air over money.
20 Money -- money doesn't mean that much. But
21 it seems to me like maybe, it' s my opinion, that what
22 I 've been hearing today, it' s -- as long as we pay out
23 this money and as long as we fine them for this and for
24 that, we're okay.
25 That' s not okay with us. We still have to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
128
1 smell it. I woke up this morning too dizzy to walk to
2 the bathroom. This is how the odor affects me. Now,
3 you stick your head in a bottle of glue, or whatever
4 these kids sniff to get high on, I would imagine if you
5 want to call it high -- I couldn't walk. And I was
6 also nauseated. And this is how it affects me when the
7 odor is strong. That was this morning, early this
8 morning.
9 And again, when we had a rain a week or so
10 ago, it was unbearable, just absolutely unbearable.
11 My question is, if they can stop cigarette
12 smoking in public that affects our lives, then what the
13 heck do they think this is doing to us that have to
14 live within those places? Why can't it be moved? The
15 Lord only cares as long as they get it far enough from
16 people. And in all fairness --
17 MS. HARBERT: You need to just stick to the
18 stipulation agreement right now.
19 MS. VETTER: Okay. I knew I would get
20 off. But I had to let you know just how I felt. And
21 I 'm sorry. But you heard it. And I guess that' s all I
22 have to say.
23 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
24 MS. VETTER: Thank you.
25 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
129
1 Mrs. Vetter?
2 (No response. )
3 MS. HARBERT: If there is anyone else that
4 wants to speak, if you could get up here and save us a
5 few seconds' time, we'd appreciate it.
6 MR. EINING: My name is Bob Eining. I live
7 at 9476 Weld County Road, Milliken. I 'm like under a
8 mile west of Milliken, and I have a young son, and we
9 have three other neighbors around us. And all of us
10 totally agree that the brine plant should be just
11 dismantled and moved totally.
12 If you lived there all the time like we
13 have, the last few years, it' s just unbearable. And it
14 gets really annoying, too. And I can't -- and I have a
15 question on, if they raise the capacity, what is that
16 going to do with the volume of the odor? I mean, it
17 might be within specifications, but it seems to me it' s
18 going to be a lot bigger volume of odor, just traveling
19 all over, making the situation even worse, to me.
20 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
21 Mr. Eining?
22 MR. BAXTER: It' s the odor? Is what you
23 are -- you' re talking about?
24 MR. EINING: Yes.
25 MR. BAXTER: The odor?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
130
1 MS. HARBERT: Anyone --
2 MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, I don't -- I
3 think the measurement of the odor -- the measurement of
4 the odor is the dilution in the air. It' s not a
5 dilution according to the amount of the product. It' s
6 a measurement away from its site.
7 MS. HARBERT: I guess I have a question.
8 And that is, when you measure the odor in the air, and
9 you have given it 1 point -- or what was it? 1 point
10 something or other -- 7 point -- 15. 1. Okay. 15. 1 is
11 the standard.
12 And you've measured that and found that to
13 be true the last few dates; is that correct?
14 MR. PICKLE: The last two times we've
15 checked, it has been 15 to 1 and 7 to 1, which are
16 within the allowable limits.
17 MS. HARBERT: Do you measure that odor
18 right at the pond site, or do you go out away from it,
19 or where do you measure that odor?
20 MR. PICKLE: I don't do the measurements
21 myself, and I 'm not a certified measurer, but we
22 don't -- could you comment, Trevor?
23 MR. JIRICEK: I can try.
24 MR. MORRISON: The regulations provide it' s
25 not at the -- immediately at the source. It' s intended
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
131
1 to be a measurement of the impact, not of -- not of the
2 odor at the generating site. So it ' s done off the
3 site.
4 MR. JIRICEK: Trevor Jiricek, Weld County
5 Health Department. The odor means -- when we take
6 them, we take them as close to the property boundary as
7 feasible. So we normally take them from what would be
8 weld County Road 54 and 52 . If you have a north and
9 south wind, or if you go east to west, they're a little
10 more difficult to take. You have to -- you have to
11 take an up- and downgrade reading, if that makes any
12 sense.
13 So you kind of get a standard. So you take
14 an upgrade reading, so -- and you typically have no
15 odor. And then you'd go downwind, where you would
16 detect the odor.
17 MR. WEBSTER: You don't detect it at the
18 property line, then?
19 MR. JIRICEK: Very close, typically. We
20 take it from 54 .
21 MR. WEBSTER: 54 would be the property
22 line, but 52 wouldn't. It would be three-quarters of a
23 mile away, roughly?
24 MR. JIRICEK: Right. And depending on the
25 direction of the wind, that may be up- or downgrade on
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
132
1 that particular day.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Okay.
3 MS. HARBERT: Thank you, Trevor.
4 Mr. Eining, did you have any other
5 comments?
6 MR. EINING: No.
7 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
8 MR. SAUER: My name is Steve Sauer. I live
9 at 10993 Weld County Road 52. I guess I was just
10 unaware until this morning that you could negotiate a
11 penalty and change it to just kind of suit your needs.
12 We've heard of all the great things they' re
13 going to do to work this odor abatement, if they're
14 allowed to go to a much higher dump rate out there.
15 With that kind of rate coming in, you could easily pay
16 the smaller fines they want to pay and, you know,
17 absorb that without any real problem.
18 I just -- I think it' s wrong. I worry
19 about my children' s health. There' s a lot of other
20 children in that neighborhood, and I just think it ' s
21 unacceptable. That' s all.
22 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions for
23 Mr. Sauer?
24 (No response. )
25 MS. HARBERT: Okay. Thank you. Is there
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
133
1 anyone else in the audience that would like to speak
2 for or against this operation, or this stipulation and
3 agreement?
4 (No response. )
5 MS. HARBERT: I guess -- do you have any
6 rebuttal, Mr. Lind, that you would like to . . .
7 MR. LIND: Ken Lind, on behalf of the
8 applicant. We can respond very briefly.
9 This facility is actually designed for many
10 more than 2, 000 barrels per day. The capacity of the
11 equipment that will be installed can handle
12 approximately 18, 000 barrels per day, but that is not
13 what' s going to take place. It' s an overconstructed
14 facility.
15 The facility is not antiquated. Injection
16 has numerous problems. In fact, that is generally
17 considered to be a less desirable environmental
18 elimination of brine water, because, injection, you are
19 pumping materials back into the ground under high
20 pressure, and there are definitely questions as to
21 where exactly is that water going, is it going into the
22 right formation or not, so injection is not a sure-fall
23 method.
24 The best environmental procedure and the
25 best safety procedure is actually evaporation ponds.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940055
134
1 And evaporation ponds are the standard of the industry
2 in many states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, as well as
3 New Mexico, that have higher rates of production than
4 we do.
5 Part of the problem is the fact that the
6 heater-treater equipment is not doing the job. It is
7 not antiquated. It is equipment that is used in the
8 industry. But the new equipment is much better.
9 The source of the odors is mainly due to
10 the fact that the existing equipment cannot properly
11 remove enough of the bacteria -- I shouldn't say
12 bacteria, but hydrocarbons that are immersed in the
13 production water. So those hydrocarbons are coming
14 into the ponds, and the hydrocarbons then feed on
15 various microbial and other bacteria, which are
16 creating the odor.
17 The new system is designed to remove that.
18 And so by removing that, you don't have anything for
19 the bacteria to feed on. That is basically why, at our
20 last hearing, the engineering firms mentioned to you
21 that they fully expect to arrive at quality water.
22 So that the removal of the oil with the
23 water, clean water coming out at the other end,
24 evaporation is by far the simpler procedure, and much
25 more efficient. And then by controlling that oil, we
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
135
1 don't have the odor problem. That' s what this whole
2 program is designed to do.
3 It should also be understood that these
4 dollar penalties are not the exclusive remedy. These
5 penalties have absolutely nothing to do with other
6 enforcement action that the state has authority to do
7 or the county has authority to do under its home rule
8 charter or under the USR certificate of designation.
9 What we have is basically a stipulation
10 which establishes dollar amounts and parameters which
11 are an increase over what is currently allowed. So we
12 are actually increasing the county and the state' s
13 ability in jurisdiction.
14 MS. HARBERT: Are there any questions?
15 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind, is the agreement,
16 as supplemented by your proposal to pay penalties to
17 the county -- those interim ones would be at what
18 production level? They would pertain to what
19 production level?
20 MR. LIND: The interim between the date of
21 this stipulation and October 11th is limited to 2, 000
22 barrels per day.
23 MR. BAXTER: That' s my understanding. I
24 understood that, too. That for the penalties for --
25 everyday incentive is to stay within compliance, so you
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
136
1 don't pay the penalties?
2 MR. LIND: Well, okay. We cannot exceed
3 2, 000 barrels per day. That is a separate violation
4 under the county. The $1500 per day to the state and
5 the proposed $500 per day to the county would be for an
6 odor violation. But a -- if we accepted more than
7 2, 000 barrels in one day, that is a totally different
8 violation. And that would come under, then, the
9 county' s authority under this USR.
10 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Lind, at the present
11 time, you feel that the facilities are adequately
12 built -- I 'm talking about the pond structure, so
13 forth -- in order to handle 2, 000 barrels a day?
14 MR. LIND: Mr. Webster, with the existing
15 pond facilities, the acreage that is under the dikes,
16 it was calculated by Mr. Nelson that the facility could
17 actually receive approximately 20,000 barrels of water
18 per day. That is the evaporation that can be handled.
19 In fact, it may be such a situation that,
20 with the water evaporation, we may actually have to
21 close down the pond, because we may not have enough oil
22 receiving 10, 000 barrels per day to accommodate the
23 existing ponds. So, yes, it' s -- as far as evaporation
24 purposes, it is way overbuilt.
25 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Now, item two. The
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
137
1 facility designed by the Texas firm is calculated to
2 handle what?
3 MR. LIND: It will handle 18, 000 barrels
4 per day. Now, that doesn't do any evaporation. All
5 that does is separate.
6 MR. WEBSTER: Treatment and evaporation?
7 MR. LIND: Right. It separates
8 hydrocarbons and solids from the production water.
9 That is a fairly insignificant amount that comes out of
10 there, as far as barrels of oil per day. The
11 evaporation facilities can handle up to 20,000 barrels
12 per day. So it' s two different items.
13 MR. WEBSTER: I 'm a little worried when I
14 read that -- and we can talk about that here. But the
15 management systems put out by Arturro (phonetic)
16 somewhat bothers me a little bit, because they say that
17 it takes, you know, 12 to 20 minutes to heat the
18 product as it' s coming in. Another point, it says it
19 takes another 45 minutes, preheater, for the first
20 stage, and another 60 minutes for the second stage
21 heater-treater. I don't understand. This allows
22 approximately 500 percent of the necessary time for the
23 complete separation.
24 MR. LIND: I can explain that to you. The
25 system is a two-stage system. As designed, it takes
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
138
1 12 to 20 minutes to, one, heat and to inject chemicals
2 to actually separate the oil and other solids from the
3 water. However, this system has been designed to first
4 hold the brine water for 45 minutes in the heater
5 stage, then 60 minutes in the second stage for the
6 chemical injection for the solids.
7 The 500 percent means they have
8 overdesigned this time-wise by 500 percent. It is
9 designed to only take 12 to 20 minutes. However, they
10 have designed it to hold it for 105 minutes.
11 MR. WEBSTER: That' s the rate at 10, 000
12 barrels a day?
13 MR. LIND: Yes, sir. Well, that will be --
14 that could handle 18, 000 barrels per day.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Boy. I don't see how it
16 could get heated that fast.
17 MS. KIRKMEYER: I 'd like to basically
18 redirect Commissioner Webster' s question to either John
19 or Keith.
20 Keith, I asked you, Keith, earlier if the
21 ponds were designed for up to 2, 000 barrels, and you
22 said yes. I 'd like to know if you feel the ponds are
23 designed to hold any more than 2, 000 barrels a day.
24 MR. SCHUETT: I don't have that
25 information. The facility, when it was originally
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
139
1 designed, was set up for 2, 000 barrels a day. And I
2 think that was based on the average evaporation for the
3 area. I don't know.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: So it was originally
5 designed for 2, 000 barrels a day. It wasn't designed
6 to take any more barrels per day than 2, 000?
7 MR. SCHUETT: That' s correct.
8 MR. BAXTER: And it ' s the same number of
9 ponds today as it was originally?
10 MR. SCHUETT: Well, with the addition of
11 the one pond. There is one pond that has been added
12 recently. That was the large pond.
13 MS. HARBERT: So now we have four instead
14 of three?
15 MR. SCHUETT: We have five instead of four.
16 MS. HARBERT: Five instead of four. Okay.
17 MS. KIRKMEYER: John, do you have any
18 comments to add to that?
19 MR. PICKLE: No. No.
20 MS. HARBERT: I think I recall when
21 Mr. Cervi first applied for this permit, that they did
22 go into some elaborate evaporation calculations, as far
23 as our climate and weather and that type of thing was
24 concerned. So I would assume that if they were
25 designed for 2, 000 barrels a day, they came to that
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE 910056
140
1 conclusion through those calculations.
2 MR. LIND: Mrs. Harbert, if I could add
3 some additional information to that. The original
4 2, 000-barrel-per-day evaporation did not take into
5 account the aeration or misting system, which basically
6 doubled the evaporation just by itself. And then the
7 new pond, Pond No. 4, is significantly larger than the
8 others, and with its new misting system, again, has a
9 significant increase in the evaporation.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: Let me just real quickly.
11 If the ponds are exceeding the 30 inches, then they're
12 not necessarily evaporating correctly, are they?
13 MR. SCHUETT: I think as one of the
14 operators at the facility was saying yesterday, that
15 the deeper the pond is, the less evaporation that they
16 get off of it. So I don't know how much evaporation
17 they're going to get off the larger pond.
18 MR. WEBSTER: And the last pond, that was
19 built engineeringly incorrectly; is that right? Too
20 much depth?
21 MR. SCHUETT: Based on the application
22 materials, yes. The application materials were --
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: They can control the depth,
24 though, by how much brine water they put in the pond?
25 MR. SCHUETT: That' s correct.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
141
1 MS. KIRKMEYER: So the depth is still
2 supposed to be 30 inches, and they're still exceeding
3 that as of yesterday, from your inspection report?
4 MR. PICKLE: That' s correct. The other
5 point I want to make, if I could, regarding Mr. Lind' s
6 comments about the aeration and misting system, that
7 that has never been submitted to the county for review
8 and approval, and we don't have any idea how much that
9 will take care of. We have no data on that system.
10 And that is one of the other issues I
11 wanted to bring up as far as new data.
12 MR. WEBSTER: If -- would it be feasible --
13 and I don't know who to direct this to. Would it be
14 feasible to institute this program, this expenditure
15 for the system at the rate of 2, 000 barrels a day,
16 which is what you've so far approved, and add that
17 time -- let ' s say that the evaporation rates were what
18 they were expected to be; the odors were staying in
19 compliance, 15 to 1; we were not having any problems
20 from the surrounding area as to odor problems and so
21 forth. At that point, we stay in that mode for a
22 period of time, and then gradually -- gradually
23 increase the allowance up to where it would be able to
24 go to 10, 000 barrels a day, oh, for -- let' s say that
25 we started to run into a program -- or a problem, let' s
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
142
1 say, at 6, 000 barrels, or seven, or somewhere in
2 there.
3 That would be what that system would be
4 able to handle without causing any undue hardships on
5 the neighboring people. Would that . . .
6 MR. SCHUETT: I think I can address, you
7 know, one part of that just from the planning
8 standpoint. I think if the board were to do that, then
9 I think you would circumvent the Use by Special Review
10 process that the residents of Weld County rely on. And
11 that ' s having review and input into an application when
12 there is a substantial change to that permit.
13 And it ' s been staff ' s opinion that that
14 increase in the amount of materials is a substantial
15 change to the existing permit.
16 MR. PICKLE: If I could, I will just concur
17 with Keith on that, that the staff has looked at this
18 proposal, and we feel that that would be a substantial
19 change and would require additional hearings.
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: I just would like to be
21 clear. And I 'd like Keith and John to answer this
22 question.
23 I would like your opinion, if the amount of
24 barrels per day were to move from 2, 000 to 10, 000
25 barrels a day, do you feel that the ponds would need to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
143
1 be redesigned or there would be a need for additional
2 ponds?
3 MR. SCHUETT: I don't have enough
4 information. I 'm not knowledgeable enough of that. I
5 would -- I would need to know -- or we would need to
6 have information presented showing the amount of
7 evaporation that ' s expected, the volumes coming in. I
8 just don't have that information yet.
9 MR. PICKLE: Same.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: My other question, then,
11 goes back to the 15 to 1 standard. That' s the standard
12 that we are applying at this point, that we are giving
13 USR certificate of designation?
14 MR. PICKLE: Yes, ma'am.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: How did we come up with
16 that standard? How did we determine the standard would
17 be 15 to 1?
18 MR. PICKLE: That' s a state standard.
19 There' s different classifications, but that ' s a state
20 standard we apply to.
21 MS. HARBERT: At what classification?
22 MR. PICKLE: It' s not industrial. It' s --
23 do you have the term they use for that?
24 MR. JIRICEK: Is it for a manufacturer?
25 MR. PICKLE: It' s not a manufacture
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
144
1 standard. It ' s below the manufacturing standard.
2 But -- I don't have the classification in front of me,
3 but we did go over it at the state air quality hearing.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: At this point, according to
5 the state and Weld County, the 15 to 1 standard is --
6 applies?
7 MR. PICKLE: Yes, ma'am, most definitely.
8 MR. WEBSTER: At that time that that sample
9 was taken? And you said you had a 7 to 1 and a
10 15 to 1 --
11 MR. PICKLE: Yes, sir.
12 MR. WEBSTER: -- of the two samples? The
13 day that was taken at 15 to 1, was there any complaints
14 given by anybody in the area as -- that that was a
15 nuisance to them or a problem to them, as far as odor?
16 MR. PICKLE: The 15 to 1 that we took
17 yesterday, we did as a part of the inspection we did
18 before this hearing. It was just a part of the
19 inspection. The 7 to 1 this morning was as a result of
20 a complaint.
21 MR. WEBSTER: I guess I 'd have to get some
22 of the people back up and have them answer that
23 question, as to whether it was obnoxious to them
24 yesterday when it was 15 to 1.
25 MS. KIRKMEYER: We have a standard. The
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
145
1 standard is 15 to 1. Whether it' s obnoxious to anyone
2 or not, there' s still the standard.
3 MR. WEBSTER: I realize that. But that
4 concerns me, that maybe this 15 to 1 doesn't apply for
5 this type of -- the state standard of 15 to 1 is not
6 adequate, is what I 'm saying, trying to get at. Maybe
7 it should be 20 to 1.
8 MR. SCHUETT: Mrs. Vetter, I think, has
9 already testified that she had problems with odors
10 between yesterday and today.
11 MR. WEBSTER: That was yesterday when she
12 had the --
13 MR. SCHUETT: Well, this morning, she said.
14 And this morning -- the odor reading was 7 to 1 this
15 morning when they took it.
16 MR. WEBSTER: This morning?
17 MS. HARBERT: And 7 should be better than
18 15 to 1.
19 MR. BAXTER: 7 is worse.
20 MR. SCHUETT: That ' s also going to depend
21 on the direction in which the wind blows.
22 MS. HARBERT: Is 7 to 1 worse or better
23 than 15 to 1?
24 MR. PICKLE: 7 to 1 is better than 15 to 1.
25 MS. HARBERT: Because the industrial
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
146
1 standard is 127 to 1. That ' s what somebody said.
2 MR. PICKLE: Correct.
3 MR. MORRISON: That' s not exactly right,
4 because you also have to apply best available or best
5 practical. You can only take advantage of 127 to 1 if
6 you also allow technology to control the odor. There' s
7 a term, specific term. So it' s not -- not just that.
8 You also have to show you applied the appropriate
9 technology.
10 MS. HARBERT: But I 'm just -- I 'm just
11 saying whether the higher number is better or worse.
12 MR. MORRISON: It' s more smelly.
13 MS. HARBERT: More smelly, the higher
14 number, right?
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: I have another question for
16 the health department. Trevor is the one who does our
17 odor inspections?
18 MR. PICKLE: We have three certified noses.
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: Your certified air quality
20 odor inspections, do we have the Barnaby Chang
21 (phonetic) scentometer?
22 MR. PICKLE: We do.
23 MR. BAXTER: Sort of a follow-up question
24 to that. Maybe you can't answer it. But there' s some
25 question here about whether that standard is good
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
147
1 enough. Is there any way you can give us any
2 background as to how that standard was arrived at?
3 Is this something that' s been researched
4 and -- I mean, who establishes that 15 to 1, or did
5 establish that that' s okay?
6 MR. PICKLE: The state mandates the
7 standards that we use for different odor thresholds.
8 And that has been the one that they have indicated in
9 the past was the appropriate standard.
10 Again, I 've known -- you know, we're agents
11 of the state in that program. We weren't instrumental
12 in setting up the standards for the rules that govern
13 it, but the state feels confident that that' s an
14 appropriate standard for this facility. And they stood
15 by that through all this.
16 MR. MORRISON: Well, the rule -- general
17 rule was adopted by a hearing -- legislative process by
18 the Air Quality Control Commission at least 15 years
19 ago. They also have been asked to decide whether that
20 is the standard by law that should apply to this
21 particular facility. And that is the subject of the
22 August hearing, if the August hearing occurs.
23 MR. WEBSTER: So there is a possibility
24 that this 15 to 1 would not be adequate?
25 MR. MORRISON: It' s not a question of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
148
1 adequacy. It ' s a question of applicable.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Acceptable.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: Is it applicable, 15 to 1?
4 Is that what you're saying?
5 MR. MORRISON: Staff of the local and state
6 health department have taken the position that 15 to 1
7 is the applicable standard. The respondent has taken
8 the position that the industrial standard applies,
9 which is control technology and the more lenient
10 standard.
11 That' s an issue as a matter of law, not a
12 matter of judgment as to what should be applied for a
13 particular facility, but as a matter of law. That ' s
14 going to be heard by the commission, if it gets there,
15 in August. That is the issue that the respondent is
16 agreeing not to pursue if agreements are reached.
17 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I have no problem with
18 our people living within the statutes, 15 to 1 level.
19 But my question -- and you say that possibly it would
20 go to additional hearings, whether that' s -- that' s an
21 acceptable level, as far as the public, for this type
22 of product, apparently, that -- and the processing in
23 this manner by aeration and chemical treatment?
24 MR. MORRISON: And what I 'm saying is that,
25 legislatively, the general rules were determined. And
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
149
1 in order to change what ought to be the standard for a
2 category of sources, an amendment would have to be made
3 to those rules by the Air Quality Commission. It ' s not
4 an ad hoc thing which would be picked for each
5 facility.
6 MR. WEBSTER: I understand that.
7 MR. MORRISON: And so if there' s an issue
8 that this isn't stringent for this kind of facility,
9 that has to be addressed by the commission in a
10 legislative change to their own rules.
11 MR. WEBSTER: I understand.
12 MS. HARBERT: I guess what we need to do
13 now is to decide whether this is a substantial change
14 or whether we want to accept it the way it is.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: Do we have to make a motion
16 on that?
17 MS. HARBERT: I believe so.
18 MR. LIND: Ms. Harbert, could I make a
19 comment on that? What I was suggesting, and the
20 question raised by staff was, what are the evaporation
21 figures. Some of that information, we could provide,
22 because I think that may help the decision. And that
23 would be one item for us to review, as well as put
24 together a proposal for you during this 1-week, 10-day
25 interim period. I think that may have an impact on
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
150
1 whether you would consider that to be a major or a
2 minor change.
3 I think the other thing that ' s very
4 critical here is the fact of timing that we're looking
5 at. I have confirmed with the engineering firm that
6 they will not install this system during the winter,
7 because of fine-tuning and just construction problems.
8 So to say that we could not incorporate through the
9 show cause hearing as well as public hearings is going
10 to put us back to next spring, and will necessarily
11 result in the hearings taking place with the Air
12 Quality Commission, because we would not be able to
13 enter into an agreement with them without us
14 coordinating.
15 So those are a couple of the practical
16 problems that I wanted you to realize.
17 MR. MORRISON: Why not? Why couldn't you
18 enter into an agreement with the Air Quality without
19 agreement with the county?
20 MR. LIND: The basic reason for that is due
21 to the expense of the installation of the new
22 equipment. A 2,000-barrel-per-day operation is not
23 economically feasible for this facility. So it ' s
24 basically that simple. We cannot afford to expend
25 $350, 000 for 2, 000 barrels.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
151
1 MS. HARBERT: Well, I guess --
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: The thing -- I 'm sorry, go
3 ahead.
4 MS. HARBERT: No, go ahead.
5 MS. KIRKMEYER: Is the thing -- the odor
6 abatement plan or the plan that you're proposing, is it
7 necessary for 2,000 barrels a day?
8 MR. LIND: It' s probably not necessary for
9 2, 000 barrels per day.
10 MS. KIRKMEYER: Is it possible, then, to
11 design a program or an odor abatement plan that is
12 necessary that would work for only 2, 000 barrels a day?
13 MR. LIND: Due to the construction timing,
14 the expense of the equipment, it cannot basically be
15 downsized to save much money. That' s the situation.
16 MS. KIRKMEYER: Is there any other type of
17 odor abatement that would work for 2, 000 barrels a day,
18 and not more than 10, 000 barrels a month, by your
19 emissions permit?
20 MR. LIND: No. I mean, this has been
21 studied significantly. And the bacterial program is
22 basically what we call a band-aid approach. It is
23 something to handle an interim situation, but it does
24 not cure the problem.
25 In other words, the problem is the fact of
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
152
1 hydrocarbons not being adequately separated from the
2 water. And this is the equipment that will adequately
3 separate the hydrocarbons from the water.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: So by saying no, then
5 you're also saying that if you keep continuing to
6 collect 2, 000 barrels per day, you will always be in
7 noncompliance, because you will always have an odor
8 problem?
9 MR. LIND: That I can't tell you for sure.
10 I believe with our interim program we have accomplished
11 a lot. We don't believe we have that problem. But
12 it' s not going to cure it, because we have the water in
13 the problem -- I mean the water in the ponds that is a
14 problem right now. So I can't tell you for sure
15 whether it would continue to be an odor problem or not.
16 MR. WEBSTER: In earlier testimony, earlier
17 hearing that you and, I think -- well, it was the time
18 that the Texas people were here -- you were quoting
19 figures of somewhere between 400 to $500, 000 for this
20 facility. Would it be smarter to close this down and
21 take the $500, 000 and go someplace else?
22 MR. LIND: In our opinion, no, because of
23 the cost of siting, the cost of land, the compaction
24 and so forth that is required, as well as location.
25 You run into numerous problems.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
153
1 Geologically, this is probably one of the
2 most ideal sites in the entire county, due to its
3 substructure. And that was determined 12 years ago.
4 So that ' s not a practical answer.
5 MR. WEBSTER: The site material and the
6 ground, I can understand that it fits the bill, except
7 for its location to population. And that' s all I 'm
8 saying. Could you find, say, a location in the area of
9 the new landfill, south and east of this county, a
10 location with the same -- because of that landfill
11 being approved for compaction of soils and so forth?
12 And, of course, you're going to -- you're going to line
13 these cells anyway. Whether you could go down in there
14 and take that half a million dollars and just move it
15 down there and close the gates on this one.
16 MR. LIND: Well, a half million dollars
17 buys us the new equipment and the engineering to put it
18 in. That has no effect as far as constructing ponds or
19 other facilities.
20 MR. WEBSTER: No, I 'm saying that you
21 wouldn't have to do, possibly, because of its location
22 down there in relationship to population -- might not
23 have to spend the half a million for the chemical
24 treatment and heating of the product and so forth, but
25 simply the lagoon system with a proper aeration system,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
154
1 and size of -- the ponds down in that area, you could
2 get it done for half a million dollars.
3 MR. LIND: In my opinion, no, based upon
4 the experience as far as constructing the ponds. And
5 in fact, if you did that, just putting water -- the
6 brine water into ponds, you would actually be in
7 violation of the 15 to 1 standard, as we have
8 experienced, because that' s what our problem is.
9 Just putting the water into the ponds will
10 result in bacterial growth and so forth, which would
11 create it. So no matter where you put it, unless we
12 are actually given some type of a waiver from the
13 15 to 1 standard, we would be in violation of state
14 statutes, and we ' re back again.
15 MS. HARBERT: I think this is off the
16 subject, because that' s not what we're here to decide,
17 whether you should move it or not. We're here to
18 decide whether you're in violation of this particular
19 operation.
20 So I just had one question, and I 'm not
21 clear yet just how to state it, but we were talking
22 about finding this a substantial change and you not
23 wanting to go ahead with your operation of installing
24 the other equipment, if that were the case. And if it
25 were delayed, you would also delay the installation.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
155
1 So I guess my question to you is, is it
2 worth it to go ahead and take that risk or to go ahead
3 and have this -- the whole operation shut down, because
4 in the meantime, if you were doing that, and if you
5 could come back with an amended, it would at least show
6 us that you were doing something for that, to
7 accomplish the goals of -- our goals for you and the
8 15 to 1 and increased . . .
9 But I really feel like -- I personally
10 really feel like this is a substantial change, simply
11 because it does have a considerable impact on the
12 number of barrels that that would be accepting at a
13 later date.
14 MS. KIRKMEYER: Do we need to make a motion
15 on that substantial change, or do we just have to come
16 to a consensus? I 'm asking Lee.
17 MR. MORRISON: I think if you want to
18 proceed with the hearing, you should -- you can do that
19 by consensus, if you don't choose to act on the
20 stipulation or the proposal that the stipulation may
21 consider.
22 So if you want to just proceed by consensus
23 to the remainder of the hearing, you can do that.
24 MR. BAXTER: I have a question. If I -- if
25 I 'm hearing right, the applicant, this attorney here,
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
156
1 would like us to then, after we have gone through this
2 stipulation, looked at this, enter into a stipulation,
3 figure out in the next week, 10 days, with Weld County,
4 that would forgo a public hearing? Is that what -- is
5 that what you're saying?
6 MR. LIND: No, not to forgo a public
7 hearing. This week to 10-day time period would allow
8 us to put together a proposal with the county
9 attorney' s office, provide some additional information,
10 which would then come back to you for a public hearing
11 to review it at that time.
12 So, no, I 'm not asking that it not be
13 subject to a public hearing.
14 MR. MORRISON: Ken, am I correct you're
15 also saying that this is not intended to address issues
16 in the USR other than the odor?
17 MR. LIND: That is correct.
18 MR. MORRISON: So to the extent those
19 issues still are to be pursued, that would be a part of
20 a hearing process?
21 MR. LIND: Yes, that would be -- again, we
22 could either accept the planning department' s
23 recommendation of September 1, or any other date that
24 you would choose, so that would not foreclose those
25 items, no. This only relates to the odor situation.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
157
1 MR. MORRISON: Again, I don't want to
2 interject myself too much into this, but you've got a
3 duty to keep in mind that if you -- that I would advise
4 you not to revoke the permit today based on the odor
5 violations, because they're not finally determined.
6 MS. HARBERT: I understand.
7 MS. KIRKMEYER: But there are other
8 violations today.
9 MR. MORRISON: I 'm not -- you know, that' s
10 for you to --
11 MS. KIRKMEYER: There might be other
12 violation -- not violations, but there are other
13 problems.
14 MR. MORRISON: There are more allegations;
15 there are other issues. Mr. Lind indicates those would
16 survive the revocation of any agreement. Those could
17 still be further considered.
18 But I don't think you're going to be able
19 to make a final decision based on odor violations until
20 after, at the earliest, the commission meeting in late
21 August.
22 MR. BAXTER: Your feeling, Lee, is that we
23 could finish the public hearing here today or 10 days
24 from now on the whole issue? This doesn't put us in
25 any -- put us in any position that we can't act either
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
158
1 way?
2 MR. MORRISON: It is Mr. Lind' s
3 representation that this proposal would not affect your
4 ability to act on the violations other than the odor
5 violation, which --
6 Keith, which number would that be? I 'm
7 still a little unclear. In the probable cause
8 statement.
9 MS. KIRKMEYER: The odor violation, would
10 that be 7-J?
11 MR. SCHUETT: In Development -- or
12 Operation Standard No. 1, it is listed. It' s the last
13 item under No. 1, about the facility being cited for
14 odor violations of the solid waste regulations, and
15 then -- let me see. I thought there was another place.
16 MS. KIRKMEYER: 7-J, I think.
17 MR. SCHUETT: 7-J also addresses that.
18 MS. KIRKMEYER: Well, I would agree with
19 Commissioner Harbert that it is a substantial change,
20 that an odor abatement program shall be installed under
21 7-J. Also, under Operation Standard No. 16, the
22 property owner still has to comply with all of the
23 other standards.
24 So his odor abatement program, or plan or
25 whatever, does not comply with the other standards. So
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
159
1 I would think we would have to amend the permit or
2 amend those other standards, and that would be a
3 substantial change.
4 MS. HARBERT: Is there anybody else that
5 wants to comment on that?
6 MR. BAXTER: Well, I think it' s a
7 substantial change. I ' ll agree with that. I think it
8 is. I was just trying to get to how to would affect
9 the hearing process on that, how would we go forward
10 with the hearing process.
11 MR. MORRISON: On which issue? On which
12 issue?
13 MR. BAXTER: Both the show cause hearing,
14 to show any other cause.
15 MS. HARBERT: I think if you want to
16 continue with the show cause hearing, we can only
17 continue on those items that do not affect the odor,
18 such as the depth of the ponds and -- let me see if
19 there ' s anything else.
20 MR. SCHUETT: It would be based on most of
21 Item No. 1, except for the last one, and No. 4.
22 MS. HARBERT: We don't have a --
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: Well, he still wouldn't
24 have an odor abatement program, because we aren't
25 accepting this one today. So that would still have to
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
160
1 be worked on.
2 MS. HARBERT: Did you not say there was
3 still oil on the ponds; they had not been totally
4 skimmed today? Is that what you said earlier today,
5 John?
6 MR. PICKLE: That is correct, yes, ma'am.
7 That would be No. 7, Operation Standard
8 No. 7.
9 MS. HARBERT: And did you -- did you also
10 indicate that they had not been accepting more than
11 what they should, according to this permit here?
12 MR. SCHUETT: They have been accepting less
13 than the 2, 000 barrels per day, but have been accepting
14 more than the amount allowed in the emissions permit.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: That' s under Operation
16 No. 1.
17 MS. HARBERT: So if we wanted to go ahead
18 with the show cause hearing, those would be the only
19 things that we could discuss, rather than the odor?
20 MR. MORRISON: I would urge you not to base
21 a decision on the odor until -- I mean, what it amounts
22 to is if the state determines it' s not an odor problem
23 by law, then an odor abatement program is not, by that
24 standard, required.
25 I mean, that' s really the issue. If they
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
161
1 accept the more lenient standard, then you could be in
2 a position where an odor abatement program might not be
3 required by your own permit.
4 MR. BAXTER: But increasing the volume, no
5 matter how you look at it, the volumes we're talking
6 about is a substantial change.
7 MR. MORRISON: I 'm not -- I 'm not prepared
8 to tell you that one way --
9 MR. BAXTER: Could be construed as a
10 substantial change.
11 MR. MORRISON: Well, that' s a judgment you
12 have to make.
13 MS. KIRKMEYER: I agree.
14 MR. MORRISON: The concept is what impact
15 does the volume have on the -- does that have an impact
16 on -- that increases, because of the increased volume.
17 MR. BAXTER: But could we establish that at
18 a hearing, with expert testimony and all this? We
19 could establish whether that was indeed true?
20 MS. HARBERT: We could do that today.
21 MR. BAXTER: Yeah, continue this hearing,
22 or --
23 MR. MORRISON: I mean, you could -- it
24 escapes me now, but I think just the fact that one
25 number is bigger than the other doesn't make it
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005E
162
1 automatically a substantial change. The concept is,
2 does this affect the impact on the surrounding
3 properties from this operation.
4 MS. KIRKMEYER: But one number being bigger
5 than the other number is a substantial change, because
6 in the developmental standards we have certain
7 standards that are set. And if you're going to collect
8 10,000 barrels per day versus 2, 000 barrels per day,
9 which is allowed by our permit, that' s a change.
10 MR. MORRISON: It may be a change, but the
11 change needs to be -- make a difference in the impact
12 of the permit.
13 MS. HARBERT: I understand what you're
14 saying.
15 MR. BAXTER: You're talking about a
16 legal --
17 MR. MORRISON: A substantial change, yes.
18 But -- you know, you can change things within a permit
19 that don't have any impact on adjacent uses. And that
20 wouldn't be considered a substantial change, you know.
21 But if it does, then you've got to address it in an
22 amended permit.
23 You know, I 'm not telling you that a
24 number -- that the change in numbers is automatically a
25 substantial change.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
163
1 MR. BAXTER: You're saying it has to be an
2 increase in impact, in essence, no matter if the
3 volume? If it doubles or triples, if it doesn't change
4 the impact, then it' s not a substantial change?
5 MR. MORRISON: Right.
6 MR. SCHUETT: I think the terminology that
7 we should be using is not "substantial change, " but
8 "material deviation from the plans or standards as
9 approved. "
10 MR. MORRISON: I stand corrected. But
11 that' s -- my response to you is still the same. The
12 idea is --
13 MR. BAXTER: I see what you're saying.
14 MR. MORRISON: -- is this going to make a
15 difference to the impact. Then it has to be addressed.
16 MR. HALL: I have a question for Mr. Lind.
17 Essentially, as far as truck traffic, what type of
18 truck traffic are we talking about for 2, 000 barrels
19 per day?
20 MS. DEPLAZES: Patty Deplazes, consultant
21 for Northern Colorado Brine. The loads vary in size.
22 With 2, 000 barrels a day, we' re talking about an
23 average of 20 trucks per day. So if we went to 10, 000
24 barrels per day, we would be, you know, increasing that
25 an average of five times, up to a hundred trucks per
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
164
1 day.
2 MR. HALL: That seems pretty substantial to
3 me.
4 MR. MORRISON: That' s pretty substantial.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Those trucks only hold a
6 thousand, is that what you're saying?
7 MS. DEPLAZES: A hundred barrels would be
8 average.
9 MS. HARBERT: A truck holds a hundred
10 barrels?
11 MS. DEPLAZES: Yes, ma' am.
12 MS. HARBERT: John?
13 MR. PICKLE: Can I just comment, too, on
14 one other perspective? Is that all of these -- in the
15 past, we've -- this has been ignored, but the Solid
16 Waste Division has the opportunity to comment on these
17 changes, too.
18 And let me read you their idea -- their
19 definition of substantial change which would trigger a
20 new CD. And this is according to Solid Waste rules.
21 It means "any redesign or plan construction which would
22 significantly change the plan design performance of the
23 facility for solid waste disposal as originally
24 designated, " and so on.
25 I feel sure that the state would concur
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
165
1 that this would require -- would be a substantial
2 change and would require a new CD or an amendment to
3 the CD.
4 MS. HARBERT: Well, am I getting the
5 feeling from all five commissioners that this is a
6 substantial change?
7 George, do you feel this is a substantial
8 change?
9 MR. BAXTER: When we start talking about
10 that kind of volume to the roads, not necessarily to
11 the environment, to the roads, I would think so.
12 MS. HARBERT: Dan?
13 MR. HALL: Yeah.
14 MS. KIRKMEYER: Yes.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Yes.
16 MS. HARBERT: Okay. So we agree that it' s
17 a substantial change. Now I guess we need to know --
18 we need to decide among us how we are going to handle
19 the substantial change, whether you want them to
20 reapply for a permit, which I think is --
21 MS. KIRKMEYER: The way they would handle a
22 substantial change is they would have to amend their
23 permit.
24 MS. HARBERT: Right. They have to apply
25 for an amended permit. And then do we want to go ahead
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
166
1 with the show cause hearing, or do we want to postpone
2 that until we get the application for an amended
3 permit? Or do we want to go ahead and have the show
4 cause hearing, which we really haven't even started
5 yet, and make a decision there, and then they can
6 always come back with the amended permit?
7 MR. SCHUETT: Can I make a suggestion,
8 just --
9 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
10 MR. SCHUETT: I would suggest that we go
11 ahead with the show cause hearing today based on the
12 information that was presented at the May 19th meeting
13 and information presented today. If the applicant so
14 chooses -- and that would be up to the applicant' s
15 option, if they want to apply for the change or not.
16 That would be their option.
17 MR. LIND: Mrs. Harbert, may I comment?
18 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
19 MR. LIND: There' s one other possibility,
20 and that would be for us to actually review the system
21 with the Texas firm to see if there is a possibility of
22 down-scaling to the 2,000, or if that' s just not
23 feasible. Because I would also have to have some input
24 from the air quality panel or division as to what their
25 response is to just installing the new equipment.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
167
1 I think what we're looking at here, too, is
2 possibly too different items: one, installation of the
3 new equipment, which I believe would -- is definitely
4 not a substantial change, versus installation of the
5 new equipment and going to the 300,000 per month.
6 Those are definitely two different items.
7 So that would be something that I would
8 like to have some opportunity to review and check with
9 Mr. Hobbs, as well as the state. And that may have an
10 impact, too. So on that aspect, I would like to
11 adjourn until next Wednesday or whatever, because I
12 believe that would give us enough time to determine
13 that.
14 MR. SCHUETT: I have just one comment on
15 that. I think Mr. Lind already stated that this
16 couldn't be down-scaled. Maybe I was wrong, but I
17 thought that' s what I heard.
18 MR. LIND: That was --
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: That' s what I heard.
20 MR. LIND: That is my belief, that it could
21 not be down-scaled, because of the expense. But I
22 would like to confirm that, because I also need to get
23 the position of the state as to that possibility.
24 But if you want to proceed, I 've got
25 several thousand documents ready to present on the show
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
V 1V 1/Vy
168
1 cause hearing. So I 'm ready.
2 MS. HARBERT: In the meantime, I ' ll
3 apologize to the audience for the air quality control
4 in this boardroom. We're trying to fix it, but we're
5 not doing very well. And it' s due to the
6 construction.
7 MS. KIRKMEYER: I think if Mr. Lind has
8 that much information that he would like to give us on
9 the show cause hearing, that it may be that we could
10 start the show cause hearing today and continue it to
11 next Wednesday, so we could cover all the information.
12 It appears to me that might be necessary.
13 MS. HARBERT: Do I have consensus from the
14 rest of the board?
15 MR. BAXTER: Go ahead.
16 MS. HARBERT: All right. We' ll start
17 with -- do you have anything -- does staff have
18 anything more they want to contribute to the show cause
19 hearing?
20 MR. SCHUETT: I think the main thing that I
21 want to point out in the show cause comments is that
22 it ' s the applicant' s or the operator' s responsibility
23 to maintain compliance with all development standards,
24 and I think that' s what I want to point out.
25 There are items that have been corrected
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
169
1 and are not in compliance today, but -- however, it is
2 the operator' s responsibility and applicant' s
3 responsibility to maintain compliance with all
4 standards. And that' s the only point that I 'd like to
5 point out at this point.
6 And I would just ask that the show cause
7 comments be entered into the record.
8 MR. PICKLE: I would again concur with
9 Keith, that it does indicate that he should maintain
10 compliance. The record has not been that the facility
11 has.
12 MS. HARBERT: All right. Mr. Lind, would
13 you like to --
14 MR. LIND: Madam Chairman, I have one
15 question. I do have a hospital board meeting today,
16 which is scheduled for 4 : 15. Is there a possibility
17 that we could go until 4: 00?
18 MS. HARBERT: I think we can go until
19 4 : 00. We all have Stampede obligations this afternoon,
20 later, also. So we' ll go until 4: 00 o'clock, and then
21 if we need to continue, we will continue next Wednesday
22 at --
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: We have to agree to a
24 meeting time. We have hearings --
25 MS. HARBERT: We have three other
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
170
1 hearings. All right. We will continue at 1: 30 next
2 Wednesday afternoon.
3 MR. LIND: I 'm sorry, what time?
4 MS. HARBERT: 1:30 next Wednesday
5 afternoon. That would be June 30th, I believe.
6 MR. LIND: As a procedural matter, then,
7 everything to this point would basically be in relation
8 to the settlement agreement and stipulation, and then
9 from this point forward would be in relation to the
10 show cause hearing.
11 MS. HARBERT: Correct.
12 MR. LIND: As a preliminary matter, under
13 the Weld County Policies and Procedures section,
14 General Administration, Subject: Procedures for
15 Adjudicatory Type Hearings, which are dated March 23rd,
16 1992, on Page 66, there is a provision, under Paragraph
17 F, Subparagraph 2, which is related to bias of any
18 board commission, administrative body, department head
19 or other official.
20 At this time, I am going to object and
21 state the personal bias of Mr. Pickle, which I believe
22 does relate and goes to the entire health department,
23 and may then have some effect concerning their opinions
24 as well as procedures upon this. At this time, I am
25 prepared to present evidence, both documentary as well
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
171
1 as to present witness testimony, as to this personal
2 bias.
3 I would like to avoid that situation, if
4 possible, because that may not be necessary, depending
5 on what the status is of the show cause hearing.
6 However, to preserve that for the record, I would make
7 an offer of proof as to what we would present, and I
8 can also then preserve that in the event that this
9 would end up before the district court.
10 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind, don't you think
11 that provision relates to someone who is sitting as
12 part of the adjudicatory board and not for someone who
13 is the proponent of a staff position?
14 MR. LIND: No, I don't believe so, because
15 it talks about administrative body or of the department
16 head, and the presiding officer shall rule upon the
17 objection.
18 MR. MORRISON: Well, there are
19 circumstances in the county where the department head
20 might hold a hearing, such as the health officer might
21 hold an adjudicatory type hearing, where he' s acting in
22 a quasi-judicial proceeding. I guess I 'd advise you
23 that I don't think that that objection -- one, I 'm not
24 sure what remedy there is. I mean, Mr. Pickle is not
25 making the decision. I don't know that it -- it' s like
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
172
1 addressing one of the prosecutors in a criminal case,
2 saying they can't present evidence because they believe
3 someone to be guilty.
4 I just don't think this was intended to
5 deal with someone who is acting in an advocacy position
6 as opposed to a quasi-judicial position.
7 If Mr. Lind wants to put that -- you've got
8 it summarized in some fashion -- wants to put it in the
9 record, the board agrees to accept it, just so the
10 record is complete, that' s fine. My recommendation to
11 you is to deny that objection. Not on the facts, but
12 based on the rule itself. It doesn't appear to me to
13 apply to Mr. Pickle' s role in this.
14 Do you have documents you want to submit
15 into the record, Mr. Lind?
16 MR. LIND: I think instead of introducing
17 documents as well as taking evidence, it would be
18 adequate for me just to make an offer of proof to
19 preserve that for any court hearing. That way I could
20 bring it up before the court, which would then allow
21 the court to remand it back to the Board of County
22 Commissioners.
23 MR. MORRISON: I 'm not going to tell you
24 how to present your case. If that' s what you think is
25 appropriate.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94005s
173
1 MR. LIND: What we have, as far as an offer
2 of proof as to whether or not this is applicable or not
3 applicable, I have specific dates, witnesses and types
4 of statements made by Mr. Pickle as to the facility, as
5 well as to Mr. Cervi.
6 It is my opinion that those statements
7 definitely show a personal bias of the department head,
8 which can result in adverse consequences for a
9 hearing.
10 That would be my offer of proof. And I
11 believe that that would then involve items related to
12 Department of Health findings and procedures.
13 MR. MORRISON: Just to clarify --
14 MS. HARBERT: Does it make a difference
15 that Mr. Pickle is not the department head of the
16 Department of Health?
17 MR. MORRISON: Well, not to my opinion,
18 because I don't think it matters whether it' s -- this
19 is the department head or not.
20 But I guess for the record, Mr. Pickle,
21 will you describe what your job description is -- not
22 your description; your title -- and if in fact there is
23 someone else who functions in the role as department
24 head for the Weld County Department of Health.
25 MR. PICKLE: Yes. My name is John Pickle.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
174
1 I 'm the director of Environmental Protection Services
2 Division of the Weld County Health Department. As
3 such, I 'm under the supervision of Dr. Randy Gordon,
4 who is the health officer and the department head, who,
5 in turn, is responsible to the Board of County
6 Commissioners.
7 My understanding is that it' s my job to
8 recommend a course of action to the county or to make
9 recommendations in terms of environmental matters.
10 MS. HARBERT: Do you consider that an
11 adequate description?
12 MR. MORRISON: Yes.
13 MS. HARBERT: Thank you.
14 MR. LIND: Thank you very much.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: Do we need to make a motion?
16 MR. MORRISON: The rule provides that the
17 chairman then rules on that issue. Do you wish to
18 rule?
19 MR. BAXTER: Nobody said it would be easy.
20 MR. HALL: You make the big bucks.
21 MS. HARBERT: That' s why I get paid more,
22 right?
23 MR. WEBSTER: That' s the first time we knew
24 that.
25 MS. HARBERT: I would like to rule that we
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
175
1 will not consider that.
2 Is that correct?
3 MR. MORRISON: That' s correct.
4 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
5 MR. LIND: That' s fine.
6 Okay. We will go ahead and use as our
7 guideline a document that we received April 12th, 1993,
8 which is related and titled a Probable Cause
9 Determination. And then we have also been provided
10 with a preliminary document, which we received on
11 May 19th, 1993, for the show cause hearing under Case
12 No. ZCH-97 and ZCH-98. I don't know if there is a
13 final copy of that.
14 MR. SCHUETT: Which document?
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: I 've got a final copy.
16 MS. HARBERT: What' s the date?
17 MS. KIRKMEYER: May 19th.
18 MR. SCHUETT: That is the final copy.
19 MR. LIND: Okay. We have just been
20 informed that the preliminary is also the final.
21 First addressing Operation Standard No. 1.
22 And I believe this is correctly stated in both the
23 probable cause as well as the Use by Special Review
24 statement.
25 And Item No. 1 is the use of the property
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9^10056
176
1 has not been limited to the oil and gas disposal and
2 oil recovery facility as described in the application.
3 Nonhazardous waste from Monfort and another facility
4 have been disposed of at this site.
5 We are submitting into evidence -- Madam
6 Chairman, who will -- who will you have marking
7 exhibits?
8 MS. HARBERT: Mr. Morrison.
9 MR. LIND: Okay. We will first submit into
10 evidence a letter dated February 2nd, 1993, which
11 states that verbal approval had been received from the
12 Weld County Health Department for the receipt of the
13 hide wastewater from Monfort.
14 The February 2nd, 1993, letter further
15 states that no other wastewater has been received from
16 Monfort and that it has ceased.
17 We' ll mark that as Exhibit A. Or do you
18 want to use numbers?
19 MR. MORRISON: We're already up to NNN.
20 MR. LIND: Oh, we are?
21 MR. MORRISON: Let me take that back. Is
22 that correct?
23 We've already gotten that far. We' re at
24 NNN. If you want to start with numbers, would that be
25 acceptable to the department? It might facilitate
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
177
1 things.
2 MS. MILLER: Okay.
3 MR. LIND: We will go ahead, then, and
4 start with the numbers. And that will be No. 1.
5 To be submitted as an evidentiary exhibit,
6 No. 2 is a letter dated February 10th, 1993, which also
7 relates to the Monfort hide water, and further states
8 that no other waste except brine water and production
9 water from oil and gas operations has been received at
10 the facility.
11 Both of these have been in effect since
12 February, and were based upon receipt of a letter from
13 the county, and were taken care of in advance of the
14 probable cause hearing.
15 Again referring to the probable cause as
16 well as the show cause documentation, what we have
17 marked next is a statement that the facility is being
18 used for oil field equipment storage. Frac tanks other
19 than the two on-site for pond skimming are being stored
20 on-site.
21 To be marked as Exhibit 3 is a letter dated
22 May 17th, 1993, from the Weld County Department of
23 Planning Services, which relates to a request to locate
24 a 35-foot semitrailer on the permit area for storage of
25 tools. Staff has determined that the trailer is an
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
178
1 accessory structure and not a material deviation.
2 Building permits will need to be obtained prior to
3 locating the trailer. Must be installed in compliance
4 with all Weld County building code requirements.
5 Submitted as Exhibit No. 4, again is a
6 second letter dated May 17, 1993, from the Weld County
7 Department of Planning Services, related to frac tanks
8 located on the area. "The department has reviewed your
9 request to locate two frac tanks on-site to aid in pond
10 skimming. These additional two frac tanks would not be
11 a major change, provided that the frac tanks are not
12 kept on the property more than three months. The frac
13 tanks need to be removed on or before July 5th. "
14 Exhibit No. 5 will be a letter dated
15 May 5th, 1993, which is the request to the Weld County
16 Department of Planning for permission to keep the two
17 extra frac tanks on-site which were used for skimming
18 operations.
19 Exhibit No. 6 is a copy of a building
20 permit which is for the semitrailer to be on-site,
21 which is referred to in Exhibit No. 3, and that
22 building permit was issued May 17th of 1993.
23 The third item indicated under the probable
24 cause is materials other than brine water.
25 Specifically, motor oil was received at the facility.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
179
1 Marked as Exhibit No. 7 is a memorandum to
2 be submitted that indicates that all haulers were
3 notified that Northern Colorado Brine can only accept
4 oil and gas brine and production water. No other
5 wastes will be accepted without prior written approval
6 of the Weld County Health Department.
7 Since the date of the probable cause
8 hearing and the date of those two receipt numbers, no
9 materials other than production water and brine water
10 have been received at the site.
11 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind, could I --
12 No. 7 --
13 MR. LIND: It is not a very good copy.
14 MR. MORRISON: It' s not a very good copy.
15 MS. HARBERT: Did you say this is a letter,
16 or this is just a -- this is just a memorandum or
17 record, an internal one?
18 MR. LIND: Yes. Unfortunately, I do not
19 have a better copy of that document.
20 MS. HARBERT: I also have a question on
21 Exhibit No. 6. Either the bottom is cut off or it has
22 not been approved by the planning department.
23 MR. LIND: It has been issued, because the
24 trailer has been blocked and tied down. That' s the
25 best copy that I have.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
180
1 MS. HARBERT: The last signature that we
2 have on here is Mrs. Deplazes ' .
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: And I also was under the
4 assumption that the planning department doesn't issue
5 building permits when there are alleged violations.
6 MR. SCHUETT: I believe -- I believe this
7 permit was issued, but I would need to call and find
8 out. What' s the permit number?
9 MS. HARBERT: What' s the what number?
10 MR. SCHUETT: Does it have a permit number
11 in the upper right-hand corner?
12 MS. HARBERT: Oh, there' s a parcel number,
13 but there is no permit number up there.
14 MR. SCHUETT: Can I look at that, please?
15 MS. HARBERT: Yes.
16 MR. SCHUETT: I cannot say for sure whether
17 or not it' s been issued or not at this time.
18 MS. HARBERT: It' s been applied for but
19 perhaps not issued; is that correct?
20 MR. SCHUETT: I don't have any information
21 whether or not it' s been issued or not.
22 MR. LIND: We can state for the record that
23 the permit has been issued.
24 MS. HARBERT: Do you have the original?
25 MR. LIND: The original was mailed out.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
181
1 MS. DEPLAZES: The original was mailed to
2 the facility.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: Do you have the original
4 copy of this so we could look at it real briefly?
5 MR. LIND: I don't have the original
6 copy. I only have a copy of a copy. That will be
7 located, though, in the planning department and/or
8 building -- building inspection files.
9 MS. KIRKMEYER: I would request the staff,
10 before we next -- I mean, if we're going to continue to
11 next Wednesday, that you check on that building permit.
12 MR. SCHUETT: I will.
13 MS. HARBERT: Is that the extent of your
14 exhibits?
15 MR. LIND: Oh, no.
16 MS. HARBERT: Well, then speed it up a
17 little bit.
18 MR. LIND: I 'm going as fast as I can. We
19 have numerous pages that the county prepared, and I
20 have numerous exhibits to present.
21 Next relates to the depth of all ponds is
22 not consistent with the application materials. The
23 pond depth is not to exceed 5 feet (30 inches for
24 freeboard, 6 inches for salt, 24 inches for brine
25 water) .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
182
1 The exhibit to be marked No. 8 is a county
2 commissioner memo dated October 30th, 1992, to consider
3 a request for construction of a new pond at the
4 facility. This memorandum indicates that a majority of
5 county commissioners did request that a work session be
6 held concerning this new pond.
7 Exhibit No. 9 are the notes from a county
8 commissioner work session dated November 9th, 1992.
9 And I do need to read some material out of this
10 memorandum.
11 "Mike Cervi of Northern Colorado Brine has
12 asked to be allowed to construct a new pond. It would
13 be placed in the area shown on the USR plat for a
14 future pond. John Pickle stated that he has no problem
15 with the additional pond, but he is concerned about
16 overall odor problems. "
17 One violation resulted in an air quality
18 hearing being scheduled.
19 Operation Standard 7-J requires an odor
20 abatement plan in place, as well as an aerator.
21 Representatives admit aerators are not functioning
22 properly. In the last several days, PVC pipes have
23 been installed with copper units to improve aeration.
24 Odor is worse during autumn months due to
25 natural turnover of the ponds. Enzymes have been
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
183
1 added. Taking advantage of new technology for enzymes,
2 odors will be reduced. More waste is being generated
3 due to increased drilling activity.
4 Vern Nelson, a consulting engineer, was
5 engaged to work on the problem. Lee Morrison stated
6 the company needed to formulate a plan for the health
7 department to review. Ken Lind said the odor abatement
8 plan would be completed by November 16th. The board
9 agreed to issue building permits for the construction
10 of a new pond. However, Mr. Cervi will proceed at his
11 own risk, pending the outcome of the air quality
12 hearing.
13 MS. KIRKMEYER: Was this for construction
14 of the new pond? Was that for construction of Pond E?
15 MR. LIND: That is for construction of Pond
16 No. 4, which has also been identified, apparently, by
17 the county as Pond E.
18 MS. KIRKMEYER: Pond D?
19 MR. LIND: Pond E.
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: For clarification, John,
21 when you were talking about alleged violations, you
22 said the depth of Pond D.
23 MR. PICKLE: Pond E, I 'm sorry.
24 MR. LIND: So there is no confusion, the
25 actual numbering of the ponds is 1, 2, 3-A, 3-B and 4 .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056.
184
1 And the county has referred to Pond 4 as being Pond E.
2 MS. KIRKMEYER: Are you referring to Pond E
3 or Pond --
4 MR. LIND: Pond E and Pond 4 are the same.
5 Exhibit No. 10 is a copy of Building Permit
6 40207, issued November 17th, 1992. And our copy
7 machine did pick up some signatures at the bottom, but
8 I can't tell you the date, other than it was November
9 something, 1992.
10 This permit specifically states excavating
11 and grading to construct the fourth evaporation pond,
12 approximately 60, 000 cubic yards. Will also be putting
13 in aeration system.
14 Exhibits 11 and 12 are merely copies of
15 building inspections, the actual building permits that
16 were posted on-site.
17 MR. SCHUETT: Madam Chairman, could we have
18 just a five-minute recess, please, before we go on to
19 the next?
20 MS. HARBERT: Yes. Yes, we can.
21 MS. KIRKMEYER: It' s agreeable with me.
22 MS. HARBERT: Is that agreeable?
23 MR. HALL: I would enjoy that.
24 MS. HARBERT: We will stand recessed until
25 3:05.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
3ico&6
185
1 (Recess from 2:54 p.m. to 3: 11 p.m. )
2 MS. HARBERT: We will reconvene the show
3 cause hearing for Northern Colorado Brine, USR 540.
4 Let the record show that all five commissioners are
5 present.
6 Before we get started here, I would like to
7 change the date for the continuation of this hearing.
8 We stated June 30th, but we went upstairs and found
9 there' s a conflict with that. So we will continue it
10 on July 7th, at 10:30 in the morning.
11 Is that -- I didn't check that.
12 MR. SCHUETT: That' s not a good day for
13 myself, but maybe we can work something out.
14 MS. HARBERT: Well, we've run into a lot of
15 conflicts.
16 MR. SCHUETT: Go ahead.
17 MS. HARBERT: Chuck will be back at that
18 time. Will that be --
19 MR. SCHUETT: That will be fine.
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: Good for you, huh?
21 MR. MORRISON: Let the record reflect that
22 was a commissioner' s decision, not Mr. Schuett' s.
23 MR. WEBSTER: He didn't want that vacation.
24 MS. HARBERT: Okay. We had two or three
25 conflicts for next Wednesday, so . . .
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
186
1 All right. Mr. Lind, would you like to
2 continue?
3 MR. SCHUETT: I 'd like to -- just before we
4 get started, first of all, I would like to review the
5 exhibits before they're entered into the record.
6 Second of all, I would like to object to two of the
7 exhibits. Specifically -- or several of the exhibits.
8 Specifically, Exhibit No. 3, on the
9 trailer, the letter dated May 3rd, 1993, on the
10 trailer installation. I don't think it has any
11 relevance whatsoever with the materials that are being
12 talked about here.
13 Specifically, the item that is listed as
14 being a problem with the special use permit is that the
15 facility is being used for the storage of oil field
16 equipment, frac tanks specifically. The trailer in
17 which the letters reference are materials or items
18 being used on-site as part of the operation, totally
19 different items. And I feel that Exhibit No. 3, the
20 May 3rd, 1993 letter, should not be accepted into the
21 record.
22 I should also say that the letter from
23 myself to Patty Deplazes should also be stricken from
24 the record. I 'd also say that the letter dated
25 May 17th, 1993, also be removed from the record, and
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
187
1 anything in relation to those, such as building
2 permits, because they have no relevance whatsoever with
3 the storage of oil field equipment.
4 MS. HARBERT: What ' s the feeling of the
5 board?
6 MR. WEBSTER: I guess I would move that it
7 is -- that I would agree with the request of the
8 planning staff and that the exhibits be reviewed first
9 by the staff at a later time, prior to the July 7th
10 meeting, and entered into the record at that time.
11 MR. MORRISON: You're suggesting that we be
12 given that period of time in which to review them prior
13 to making any objections?
14 MR. WEBSTER: Yes.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: They wouldn't be entered
16 into the record yet.
17 MR. WEBSTER: And they be entered into the
18 record at that time. I don't know. That' s just . . .
19 MS. HARBERT: May I have your comments?
20 MR. MORRISON: Well, why don't you ask for
21 Mr. Lind' s comment on that.
22 MR. LIND: Well, I don't have any problem
23 if they want to review that beforehand. However, as to
24 their applicability, all of them are applicable,
25 because we do have a letter of violation from the
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
188
1 county concerning the trailer that says, You are in
2 violation.
3 So that goes to the very general item, for
4 example, of No. 15, that you've got to be in accordance
5 with the plans and specifications. So what we are
6 representing are --
7 MR. MORRISON: Can I --
8 MR. LIND: -- permits and copies of
9 everything that show we are in compliance.
10 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind, do you have -- I
11 mean, is the next hour going to be taken up with you
12 submitting . . .
13 MR. LIND: Yes.
14 MR. WEBSTER: That' s what I was trying to
15 expedite. And I guess my motion dies for lack of a
16 second.
17 MR. MORRISON: Well, is there any way that
18 you can provide those to the board with like a
19 one-sentence explanation for each, so that the
20 materials could be presented in a more expedited
21 fashion?
22 MR. LIND: On some of them I could, sure.
23 MS. KIRKMEYER: Some of the things that
24 he' s putting for exhibits have already been presented
25 at the probable cause hearing. Do they have to be
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
189
1 re-presented? Some of those letters are in -- they
2 gave out at the probable cause hearing.
3 MR. MORRISON: If someone wants to ask that
4 the record of the probable cause be incorporated into
5 the show cause, then that would eliminate the need for
6 resubmitting those.
7 MR. LIND: I don't have what was actually
8 submitted. And that was the probable cause hearing.
9 The one for the show cause hearing is actually the
10 record that a court would review. So I will find it
11 necessary to submit those. I 'm sorry that it' s such a
12 long, drawn-out procedure, but I really don't have much
13 choice in the matter.
14 MR. MORRISON: Okay. Do you have evidence,
15 other than those written documents to present, that you
16 could present today?
17 My point is, going through each document
18 and then getting into, you know, Mr. Schuett reviewing
19 it and all that, although that is a nice form for a
20 court, I think we have more freedom to be a little less
21 formal here.
22 If you were able to present a package prior
23 to the next hearing that would allow staff, then, to
24 review them and get right to the point at the next
25 hearing, and allow you today to present any oral
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
190
1 testimony . . .
2 MS. HARBERT: I think you're right. If we
3 could just have a packet, we could present the whole
4 packet as Exhibit 1 or whatever, and all of that
5 correspondence would be submitted, then, at that time,
6 rather than going through it item by item.
7 MR. MORRISON: I think they probably still
8 need to be individually numbered, in case there are
9 objections.
10 MS. HARBERT: That ' s fine.
11 MR. MORRISON: But if that could be
12 expedited in such a fashion . . .
13 MR. LIND: I could do that, present them as
14 a packet, then, individually numbered, that is
15 correct.
16 I 'm not prepared today, though, to elicit
17 oral testimony without having these documents
18 submitted. But I could hold that until July 7th.
19 MR. WEBSTER: That' s what my point was.
20 MR. LIND: Okay. So, sure, I could -- we
21 could adjourn until July 7th, and that would give me
22 time to put the packets together, submit them.
23 Actually, I can submit them ahead of time.
24 MR. WEBSTER: I would move -- I would
25 withdraw my first motion. Would move that we accept
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
191
1 Mr. Lind' s records and correspondence, papers,
2 whatever, until they are received in packet form to the
3 board, numbered -- I guess that ' s a necessary thing --
4 and at that time, for the July 7th board meeting, they
5 would be accepted into evidence for his position.
6 MR. SCHUETT: I have a question about
7 that. If we were to receive a copy of that prior to
8 the meeting, so that we would have sufficient time to
9 review that before the July 7th meeting --
10 MS. HARBERT: Good.
11 MR. SCHUETT: -- would that include a time
12 frame?
13 MR. WEBSTER: That would include that, or
14 you could have our copy initially or whatever.
15 MS. HARBERT: Would next Wednesday be an
16 adequate time for you to receive that, Keith --
17 MR. SCHUETT: I believe so.
18 MS. HARBERT: -- to review? Could we --
19 MR. WEBSTER: We haven't asked Mr. Lind the
20 time it takes him to do it.
21 MR. MORRISON: It was not my intention not
22 to take advantage of the time available today, but the
23 other thing I 'd ask is that that motion be clarified,
24 that you are not ruling on the evidentiary issues in
25 advance of seeing the documents. You will accept them
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
192
1 and then make a final determination.
2 MR. WEBSTER: We will accept them as his
3 evidence. Is that correct?
4 MR. MORRISON: Well, accept them as being
5 submitted.
6 MS. KIRKMEYER: We' ll except them as being
7 submitted.
8 MR. WEBSTER: But not as evidence. To be
9 reviewed.
10 MR. MORRISON: They are not evidence until
11 you have had a chance to hear objections.
12 MS. HARBERT: If Mr. Lind puts together a
13 packet and gets it to us for our review and the
14 planning staff ' s review by June 30th, the planning
15 staff cannot reject those. We would have to do it in
16 the regular meeting; is that correct?
17 MR. MORRISON: They can make objections to
18 you. Anything they didn't object to would be
19 considered admitted without further -- you know,
20 further discussion.
21 MS. HARBERT: Bill, I 'd like to suggest
22 that you withdraw your motion and that you reissue a
23 motion saying that we adjourn until July 7th, and that
24 Mr. Lind get a packet of his exhibits to us for review
25 by June 30th.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
193
1 MR. WEBSTER: I couldn't have said it any
2 better, and I so move.
3 MR. LIND: Could I have until Friday
4 instead of June 30th, though? That would be July --
5 MR. SCHUETT: 2nd.
6 MR. LIND: -- 2nd.
7 MS. KIRKMEYER: No, because we wouldn't
8 have time to review it.
9 MS. HARBERT: We wouldn't come back to work
10 until Tuesday, and Tuesday -- to do that.
11 MR. LIND: How about Thursday, July 1?
12 Because I 've got a lot of copying to do to submit the
13 packets already.
14 MS. KIRKMEYER: Basically, you were ready
15 to submit them all today, so basically it' s just a
16 matter of getting them all together and numbering
17 them. I think June 30 is enough time to get them all
18 together.
19 MR. LIND: Well, in addition to that, I
20 should have the courtesy of having a response from the
21 planning department of what they're objecting to in
22 advance also.
23 MS. HARBERT: Well, then, what I ' ll do is
24 I ' ll ask you to get them to us by June 30th, and that
25 the planning department respond by Friday, July 2nd.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
194
1 MR. SCHUETT: Friday is a holiday.
2 MS. HARBERT: It won't be --
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: It won't be until Tuesday,
4 July 6th. And we are not going to see them until then
5 either.
6 MR. LIND: How about Monday?
7 MR. MORRISON: I 'm not sure that you're --
8 that there' s any obligation to advise which ones
9 there' s an objection to. I mean, that might be
10 courtesy . . .
11 MS. HARBERT: I don't think we can do that
12 until we come to the hearing.
13 MR. MORRISON: But it needs to be
14 accomplished. In terms of a matter of courtesy, that' s
15 fine. I don't think there is an obligation to do it
16 until it' s presented to you.
17 MR. LIND: On the same hand, I don't think
18 there' s any obligation on my part to provide them in
19 advance to the planning department. I mean, I 'm trying
20 to be a little fair here also, I mean, in all honesty.
21 MS. HARBERT: I 'm interested in having them
22 myself, not the planning department. And we just about
23 have to have them by June 30th because of the long
24 weekend. So if we could just have a packet by
25 June 30th, that would --
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
195
1 That' s all we're going to ask. And we' ll
2 see that the planning department has one also. And can
3 you submit that to us -- I was going to say, if copying
4 is a problem, what do we do?
5 If you' ll submit the packet to us by
6 8: 00 o'clock on Wednesday morning, we can get it --
7 MR. LIND: Then that makes it Tuesday.
8 MS. HARBERT: -- we ' ll get it duplicated.
9 MR. MORRISON: Kinko' s is open on Wednesday.
10 MR. LIND: So you're going to present it to
11 the planning department. On the same hand, if I 'm
12 presenting my evidence ahead of time, then I should
13 have the opportunity to be able to respond.
14 I mean, we come to show cause hearings or
15 probable cause hearings, and for a 9:00 o'clock
16 hearing, receive a document at 8:30 in the morning.
17 Now, that doesn't give me any opportunity.
18 MS. HARBERT: We have received yours at
19 8:30 in the morning also. In fact, it was later than
20 that.
21 MR. LIND: Or even today I get some at
22 11: 10, which doesn't give me much of an opportunity to
23 prepare anything.
24 MS. KIRKMEYER: How many exhibits do you
25 think you have, approximately?
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
196
1 MR. LIND: I would submit in excess of a
2 hundred, maybe 150.
3 MS. KIRKMEYER: And you already have your
4 exhibits ready, though, to enter into the record today?
5 MR. LIND: I am marking some and adding,
6 deleting some as I go along, but yes, basically.
7 MS. HARBERT: I guess if we want to come
8 back next Wednesday and sit here all day and listen to
9 exhibits, and Mr. Cervi doesn't mind expending that
10 kind of money to listen to exhibits, we can do that.
11 MR. WEBSTER: I think that ' s unnecessary on
12 both everybody' s part. I think that if Mr. Lind is
13 willing to submit his -- a copy -- or his exhibits to
14 us by June 30th, that' s adequate.
15 And as far as the planning commission, I
16 think that it' s our obligation to visit with our staff
17 people. And if they want to review it with us,
18 that' s --
19 MR. MORRISON: They can't review them with
20 you.
21 MR. WEBSTER: Can't review them with us.
22 MR. MORRISON: They can make reference to
23 the record. If you want --
24 MS. KIRKMEYER: He just wants the
25 opportunity to review them so he can be prepared for
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
9400&s
197
1 the hearing on the 7th, so we don't waste time with him
2 preparing during the week.
3 MR. LIND: The other way we can do it, I ' ll
4 be happy to submit them on June 30.
5 MR. WEBSTER: He can review them, but I
6 don't think it ' s necessary that he takes a position on
7 them item by item by item, because then that' s --
8 that' s unnecessary.
9 MR. MORRISON: Well, as I said, if there' s
10 no objection on the day of the hearing, they will be
11 considered admitted on July 6th. Ordinarily, most of
12 these things could come in without objection, so that' s
13 not an issue. I mean, what -- I 'm sorry I brought it
14 up now, but I thought I was going to be able to help
15 expedite things instead of going through document
16 through document.
17 MR. WEBSTER: Well, my motion still
18 stands. Do I get a second?
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: Could you clarify your
20 motion, please?
21 MR. WEBSTER: She made it, now. You need
22 to have me clarify it? I think the first thing I
23 remember she said --
24 MS. KIRKMEYER: Maybe Shelly could read it
25 back to us.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
94Q05G
198
1 MR. WEBSTER: We wish to adjourn?
2 MS. HARBERT: Do you have it?
3 MS. MILLER: I have adjourn until July 7th
4 and allow until June 30th to submit copies.
5 MR. WEBSTER: She ' s awful quiet over
6 there. I can't hear you with my bad ear.
7 MS. HARBERT: She said my suggestion, and
8 you made it into a motion, was that we adjourn until
9 July 7th, and that a packet of exhibits be presented to
10 us on June 30, by no later than June 30.
11 MR. WEBSTER: That' s exactly the way I
12 wanted it.
13 MS. KIRKMEYER: I second that.
14 MR. LIND: That' s fine.
15 MS. KIRKMEYER: But I have some questions,
16 though.
17 MS. HARBERT: Well, if you want to amend
18 it, do.
19 MS. KIRKMEYER: No, my question is, will
20 Keith or Trevor have to go out and reinspect this place
21 before the next hearing?
22 MR. MORRISON: Probably. They're going out
23 there frequently, anyway.
24 MR. WEBSTER: Going out there all the
25 time. That' s their job.
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
199
1 MS. KIRKMEYER: Well, then I would ask that
2 the planning department and the health department, when
3 they go out and do their inspection, that we also
4 receive copies of their inspection report. It' s easier
5 for us to look at those --
6 MR. MORRISON: Do you routinely give a copy
7 of your field inspection to the operator at that point?
8 MS. KIRKMEYER: Well, they haven't been
9 doing the inspections until the day before, so that' s
10 why Mr. Lind hasn't been receiving any copies until
11 that morning, morning of the hearing.
12 MR. MORRISON: It ' s a catch-22, because if
13 you inspect too early, then there ' s always a question
14 of whether the inspection results are still applicable
15 to the circumstance.
16 If you inspect on Tuesday, the 6th, is
17 that -- you' ll provide at least your handwritten notes
18 at that time; is that right?
19 MR. JIRICEK: Absolutely.
20 MR. MORRISON: Can you do that? Will you
21 be doing the inspection, Mr. Schuett?
22 MR. SCHUETT: I will be doing the
23 inspection. My normal procedures are that I review it,
24 and then I go back to the office and then write it up.
25 And then the copy is given to either the operator or
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
34005c
200
1 whoever is concerned at that time.
2 MS. HARBERT: Would you -- on the 6th,
3 would you take a hand -- would you hand deliver a copy
4 and see that a copy is delivered to Mr. Lind' s office,
5 please?
6 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Lind has a fax.
7 MS. HARBERT: Or fax it to him or
8 whatever --
9 MR. SCHUETT: Yes, ma'am.
10 MS. HARBERT: -- so that he gets it on the
11 6th? Thank you.
12 MS. KIRKMEYER: And I also have another
13 question for the health department. Has the state
14 health department done any inspections since the
15 May 14th inspection? Are we aware of any? Or, no,
16 they haven't done any?
17 MR. PICKLE: Not to my knowledge. The last
18 one was a Roger Doak inspection. I forget the exact
19 date. That may have been the May 14th.
20 MS. KIRKMEYER: Could we also request of
21 the state health department to do an inspection before
22 then?
23 MR. JIRICEK: You can request.
24 MS. KIRKMEYER: That' s why I say --
25 MR. PICKLE: Yes, we can make a written
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
340056
201
1 request.
2 MR. LIND: I would like to add, before you
3 adjourn on this, that when we reconvene on July 7th,
4 that there is the possibility that there will be a
5 stipulation in effect with the state. And it may have
6 some bearing on that hearing on the 7th, because like I
7 indicated, we will be checking as to the equipment and
8 whether or not some economic studies make it
9 economically feasible to go with the 2, 000, to later
10 submit an amendment.
11 So if that takes place, we may end up
12 adjourning this even on the 7th, so it may not
13 necessarily take place on the 7th.
14 MS. HARBERT: Okay.
15 MR. WEBSTER: It' s a possibility.
16 MS. HARBERT: It ' s a possibility.
17 MR. LIND: Sure.
18 MS. HARBERT: All those -- all those in
19 favor, say aye.
20 THE BOARD: Aye.
21 MS. HARBERT: Opposed?
22 (No response. )
23 MS. HARBERT: Motion is carried. This
24 hearing is continued until July 7th, at 10: 30 a.m.
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
202
1 (The hearing adjourned at 3:33 p.m. ,
2 June 23, 1993. )
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
203
1 STATE OF COLORADO)
2 ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF DENVER )
4 I, Judith Payne Kelly, do hereby certify
5 that I am a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
6 Public within the State of Colorado.
7 I further certify that these proceedings
8 were taken in shorthand by me at the time and place
9 herein set forth and was thereafter reduced to
10 typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a
11 true and correct transcript.
12 I further certify that I am not related to,
13 employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or
14 attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the
15 result of the within proceedings.
16 In witness whereof, I have affixed my
17 signature and seal this 1st day of July, 1993.
18 My commission expires June 13, 1994.
19
20 „ , )
�. Ja / L
h Payne'KelQy, RPR, CM �
21 ��'
22 P v .
23
24
25
BILLINGS REPORTING SERVICE
940056
Hello