The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About921114.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITY (BRINEWATER DISPOSAL) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, C/0 DAVE BRODY WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 25th day of November, 1992, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody, 1670 Broadway, Box 800, Denver, Colorado 80202, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District on the following described real estate, to-wit: Part of the SW4 of Section 19, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Dave Brody, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Special Review Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary Area Goals and Policies. The City of Fort Lupton has reviewed this proposal and has recommended approval of the request with specific conditions. The conditions are addressed in the Special Review Permit Development Standards. PL0888 921114 PI_OS ' c c. - pt„ f-I L,/ 19 h'1o7 B2,4 lr ny,-- SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY PAGE 2 b. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zone District and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. c. The use which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include irrigated agricultural production, residences, a nursery and the Platte River. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning. d. The property is located in the 100-year floodplain. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards address this concern. e. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. f. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to scheduling before the Board of County Commissioners, a road improvements agreement shall be approved by the Board. The agreement shall establish the haul route as Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 north to the entrance of this facility. No hauling on Weld County Road 25 north of the entrance shall be allowed unless access is restricted to the south. The agreement shall provide for paving of Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 to the entrance. 921114 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY PAGE 3 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a. A Flood Hazard Development Permit shall be approved by the Department of Planning Services' staff. b. A detailed diagram of the injection well which has been approved and permitted by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission shall be submitted to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division for review and documentation. c. A plan for a microseismic monitoring program shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 25th day of November, A.D. , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: fl BOARD fWcvie�;✓c y WELD COUNTY, COLORADO � Weld County Clerk to the Board EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (AYE) George Kennedy, Chairman BY: Q�,,��ir,,t EXCUSED Deputy Cler to the Board Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem APPROVED AS 0 FORM: `6�67�G C. W. Kirb ounty Attorney Gor ac W. I . We ster 921114 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, C/0 DAVE BRODY USR #986 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit is for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. The facility must provide an access control plan outlining all security measures to prevent unauthorized disposal, measures to be implemented in the event of unauthorized disposal, and including a list of all parties having access to the facility. The access control plan must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the Weld County Health Department prior to the operation of the facility. A log must be kept on site which contains documentation of all deliveries of waste to the facility. 4. A three-foot by four-foot sign shall be posted at the entrance gate listing wastes accepted, hours of operation, and twenty-four hour emergency telephone numbers. 5. The name of the facility at which the filters will be disposed, and copies of any required analysis, shall be provided to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 6. No disposal of waste, other than Class II, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency is permitted. Any change from the approved Class II use would require an amendment to this Special Review Permit. 7. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to Section 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on the site. 9. A spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. The surface area within the tank battery berm shall be constructed of at least a 24-inch compacted or in- situ earthen materials or other low permeability materials, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting these requirements is in place. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY PAGE 2 10. All chemicals stored on-site must be in locked buildings on an impervious surface, provided that manufacturer's recommendations for safe storage and handling are in accord. In any event, manufacturer's recommendations will take precedence. 11. Any required air emissions permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 12. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Weld County Flood Hazard Development Permit requirements. 13. Any analysis of waste will be forwarded to Weld County Health Department, Environmental Protection Division. The Division reserves the right to require additional, more extensive monitoring at a later date. 14. The surfaces around the disposal area shall be constructed of an impervious material and graded to insure that all spilled waste is contained within the unloading pad. 15. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the microseismic monitoring program approved by the Weld County Health Department. 16. The Special Review Permit shall not be transferable to any successor in interest to the subject property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for the operation of the facility. 17. The applicant shall comply with the road improvements agreement as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 18. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY PAGE 3 22. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown herein and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 921114 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 92-72 RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITY (BRINEWATER DISPOSAL) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY Z DAVE BRODY A public hearing was conducted on November 25, 1992, at 10:00 A.M. , with the following present: Commissioner George Kennedy, Chairman Commissioner Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem - Excused Commissioner C. W. Kirby Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy Commissioner W. H. Webster Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Shelly Miller Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Lanell Swanson The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 28, 1992, and duly published November 12, 1992, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Amoco Production Company % Dave Brody for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Lanell Swanson, Planning Department representative, entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. Ms. Swanson said the Planning Commission directed the Planning and Health staffs to work with Amoco prior to the Board of Commissioner's hearing to revise the Development Standards. She said they have all agreed upon 22 Development Standards, which need to be considered today. Ms. Swanson recommended adding a Development Standard requiring the applicant to comply with the road improvements agreement as agreed upon by the Board, David Brody represented the applicant and stated the facility will be operated out of the Fort Lupton office. The facility is for a well to dispose of water from approximately 800 wells in the area. The well has been approved by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; however, the related facilities need approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Brody explained there was discussion concerning whether the site needed to be manned, and it was determined that it did not. He thanked the Planning, Engineering, and Health staff for their cooperation, and he requested approval of the new Development Standards. Russell Arona, Amoco's engineering representative, explained the process of the facility and said all precautions have been taken. In response to questions of Commissioner Lacy, Mr. Arona said the area has a 6' chain link fence with barb wire, and a log in record will be maintained. An operator will be on site periodically, and the automation system will provide data to the Fort Lupton office. Mr. Brody said the site is privately used for Amoco's water disposal only. In response to a concern of Commissioner Kirby, Mr. Arona said the electrical building meets all fire standards, there are no combustion engines on site, and any problems will be reported to the Fort Lupton office. He said all waste is sent to a site in Adams County. After further discussion, Vern Butler, Environmental Supervisor for Amoco, said he worked with the Health Department and has no problems with the new Development Standards. Stacey Swingle, Amoco representative, said he worked with Allan Miller, Engineering Department, concerning the paving of Weld County Road 25, and Amoco agrees to pay up to $25,000 for asphalt. After further discussion, Mr. Swingle said Amoco agrees to pay for materials and the lay down of the asphalt, up to an amount of $25, 000. Mr. Morrison said this would need to be added to the proposed improvements agreement. In response to a question from Commissioner Kirby, Mr. Arona explained the condensate will be trucked off site. There was no public testimony offered concerning this matter. After further discussion, Commissioner Lacy moved to approve the request of Amoco Production Company for a Site Specific 921114 ccc , Pt RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY PAGE 2 Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the recommendations of the Planning and Health staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record, and the addition of Development Standard {{17 concerning compliance with the road improvements agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirby, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Morrison said the agreement should state that Amoco will pay up to $25, 000 toward the paving costs. He recommended approval of said agreement with changes to the second line of the third paragraph by inserting the words "and installation" after the word "materials" and "material". Commissioner Lacy said Weld County will take care of the base. Mr. Morrison read the entire language of the third paragraph of said agreement into the record. Commissioner Kirby suggested adding the word "asphalt" before the word "material". Said paragraph reads as follows: "In return Amoco Production Company agrees to pay the cost of the asphalt paving materials and installation up to a maximum of $25, 000 upon receipt of an invoice from the County showing the actual cost of the asphalt material and installation. " Commissioner Lacy moved to accept said road improvements agreement, and Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion. Mary Schafer-Malicki, Amoco representative, said they are agreeable to the changes in said agreement. The motion carried unanimously. This Certification was approved on the 30th day of November, 1992. I� APPROVED: ✓ /L%7 ATTEST Ul i'Avw BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS U/ V WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Cle k t the Board EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL By: G George Kennedy, Chairman eputy ler to theme EXCUSED Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem TAPE {{92-39 If7/42/1-47 C. W. Kirb DOCKET #92-72 a a PL0888 - -- 1 W. H. Webster 921114 ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1992: DOCKET U 92-70 - USR, SNYDER OIL COMPANY DOCKET U 92-72 - USR, AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, C/O DAVE BRODY DOCKET U 92-67 - USR, HOWARD FARMS, A COLORADO PARTNERSHIP DOCKET II 92-68 - USR, GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PLEASE write or print your name legibly, your address and the DOCKET U (as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING C,.-z.-cam.t� .. ti_:_va r i._ , .. `\.{'Ec,e:- e- NiN OC4 Lid-I: ,(0 0(l n , c. 24� i S : 1vr;b .( CF z: 1,f ciit - 1a 0 IE t3 t to•l�,,..ox `__ � tkc L\ Jt - Ft ,t. °O SC*X1 `ia - Z ,r) 13 �3gti' / �:w,•0t_ • ?2 /.s/=7r/, P,--.1 7 -0r ,l>y ,C /i;pr-:, IL. < ; -» /6i 0 41 /w t:atay. -f�111b r &to / b4ay.1, ('o sLiOz 9Z - /2 jSu;: c;C..♦ `iT E ' I .IN\n {Ioa be- Ct-, ‘St-4 .1 <r'2 .-J t? , c -2....) t 6th /+ v'"Z ,, 9/a /4466 Y. -t kr E F,Cg M i /i 47s",�t/ L4'✓Csmdv f-; C-4i. //-5e / 'j 2 -7(? �7on ,Wt'IA (o 13d '�-51- a ,, , )jo u >.c, I3r,y/-rr,'� Ii% cl e. C1 u 32111$ NOT I C E The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on November 25, 1992, conditionally approved a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the property and purpose described below. Conditional approval of this plan creates a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S. , as amended, for a period of three years. APPLICANT: Amoco Production Company % Dave Brody 1670 Broadway Box 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW* of Section 19, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado TYPE AND INTENSITY OF APPROVED USE: An oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District SIZE OF PARCEL: 2 acres, more or less Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of approval will result in a forfeiture of the vested property right. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN CLERK BY: a /n TO THE BOARD // .Q,�Li� -1kA__ J Deputy C prk to the Board PUBLISHED: December 3, 1992, in the Windsor Beacon AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO BODGE COUNTY OF WELD The Board of County Comnisslonere of Weld Cow*, Colorado. on November 26, I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly 1902, e�„ic Developrment plan sworn, say that I am publisher of and Special Review Permit for the propertyl and purpose WINDSOR BEACON described below. Conditional approval of this plan creates a vestedMick.88properlyTitle ie ht24 pursuant 5..lo a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said amended,te�or abperiod of three County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, yea,. in said County and State; and that the notice, of which APPUCANT:Amoco Production the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said Company%Dave Brody,1870weekly for/ successive weeks, that the notice Broadway.Box 800,Denver, Colorado 80202 was published in the regular and entire issue of every LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Part of number of the paper during the period and time of the swap of section te, publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a Township 2 North. supplement, and that thefirst publication of said notice West of the 8th P.M., 86 ti Weld County,Colorado was in said paper bearing the date of the TYPE AND INTENSITY OF ?, � day of APPROVED wOVED�USE:awl andr ______ , A.D., 199') and the last publication bearing the date of the disposal)in the A(AsdcaKaral) Zone David day of A.D., 19_ and SIZE OF PARCEL: 2 acres, mom orless that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published Faw eta abide by thetemw and and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 conditions of approval MI result consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the in a forfeiture of the vested date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a property d°N' newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate BOARD OF COUNTY printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved COMMISSIONERS, prior cts ar as in force.May 18, 1931,and all COUNTY,COLORADO // BY: DONALD D. WA CLERK TO THE BOARDRDEN, / BY: Shelly K.MIYer,l)epuy i. • P LISHER Published In the Windsor Beacon°n Decennia a.tilp2. Subscri 'd and sworn to before me this 7 day of eL 19 gr 7 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires 97027 2) / 9)970 . R s* r P NOT I C E Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. DOCKET NO: 92-72 APPLICANT Amoco Production Company % Dave Brody 1670 Broadway Box 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 DATE: November 25, 1992 TIME: 10:00 a.m. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW,' of Section 19, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton, east of Weld County Road 25, 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Betty Henson Deputy Clerk to the Board DATED: October 28, 1992 PUBLISHED: November 12, 1992 in the Windsor Beacon 921114 )t t r I MOM Purest*dm eerie bum it ' states cern*el Ilis Weld Cour* AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION a public haring aM he Mid it the Chambers of dm Bead el County comrdraw•a Weld STATE OF COLORADO Colorado,Wald 5� SS Centennial Street, � tFlor, COUNTY OF WELD Colorado,� All personsin In any IM mea*sib I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly r Interested n m.site tip4elfp h t i are regaled to sworn,say that I am publisher of mad me that Simard. WINDSOR BEACON shouteme p n1NI:Mrs Interested party de 1M presence of•coun Mat.to a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said make • record of the proceedI,y,n edd**le tea County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, taped record which whim kip in said County and State; and that the notice, of which dome the hewing,Ws DM m the board's Office shall he the annexed i3 a true copy, has been published in said advised n writing 04•uakaewn weekly for _successive weeks, that the notice h line. T e noel pew to the was published in the regular and entire issue of every ry hewing. dial� number of the paper during the period and time of thsrequselbq p•ty•.. publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a BE IT ALSO KNOWN lathe supplement, and that the first publication of said notice le and mute so cell*lythe in said paper erthe date of the Weld County. Ne ale% was P bearing Commission m•Yl»•gKtWVid. In ins Board u a the t lKir ► " day of �-4-Co , A.D., 19 Jy and Boerd of fFWnty 1--- Commissioners,bawled ki the the last publication bearing the date of the Weld County CeMemM Corer, 915 10th Street,Third Floor, Greeter,Colorado. day of , A.D., 19_ and that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published DOCKET 0242 continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 APPLICANT:Awes*Products consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the Conpafly%Dees Stet*'WO Br 800,Denver, date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a Coke*IC032 newspaper within'the meaning of an Act to regulate OA1B:Mawrrt5r24IW2 printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved May 18, 1931,and all prior cts r as in force. nME.1R00 as* REQUEST: A She Speolile Development Plea W BPeold Reet•wPmM for arie3rdtW support facility Inethelt A ti �tll P USHER Zone DMdn LEBALDESCRIPT IK Pan. SubSCry' d and sworn w to before me this /7 day of Me SW1/4 oi'.hop"IS, of (/ ant-4 Townshlp 2 Nevi.Rmil N. Wee of the 5th P.Y.,Weld �/�j � Camay,cdm'ade Al . 71slvvo •LOCATION Approximately 2 NOTARY PUBLIC Woo northwest of the City of ,t Fort Lupton, ea* of Weld My commission expires GN Z , 14q e.,- County Road 26,'1503 Hat (� / north of Weld CpKayRdsd la BOARD OF COUNTY NTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY,COLORADO'. .. BY: DONALD D.WARDEN, WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD BY:Betty Herren,Deady ChM H1he Board • Published aones in dui atm B a 111 sill 12. • 921114 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket #92-72, was placed in the Unted States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this 4th day of November, 1992. te Deputy Clerk t the Board Richard Hein 6386 Weld County Road 18 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Edmundson, Inc. 469 Oswega Court Aurora, Colorado 80010 Glen R. and Leta L. Horton 360 E. Wyoming Avenue #183 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Margaret Ann Kelley 187 Sagemont Circle Parachute, Colorado 81635 Mary Jane Montoya 586 Stout Street Craig, Colorado 81625 El Sol Oil Company HC 12 Box 298 Rockford Bay, Idaho 83814-8224 Amoco Production Company % Dave Brody 1670 Broadway Box 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 92 114 mEmORAnDUm 1119€ To Lanell Swanson, Planning Date November 19, 1992 COLORADO From John Pickle, Healtb : /� Subject: Amoco Production Co. USR -986 Please review the attached memo from Vern Butler, Environmental Supervisor, Amoco. As he indicates, we have discussed this matter. Rather than reword Developement Standard ak 17, I suggest we accept this memo as compliance with Developement Standard 1! 17. Let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you for your attention. j ul )c‘j lli NOV 2 01992 Weld Count,Planning 921114 E�h bd. 1-f MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN S. PICKLE DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1992 DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES WELD COUNTY I � FROM: VERN W. BUTLER V a% ENVIRONMENTAL RVISOR AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY SUBJECT: MICROSEISMIC MONITORING PROGRAM FOR WATTENBERG DISPOSAL WELL #1 As discussed over the telephone today I contacted Mr. Paul Osborne, Water Management Division, EPA, Region VIII, in Denver regarding the seismic monitoring program for the Class I Wright Disposal Well. Mr Osborne indicated the EPA will be working with the USGS Earthquake Center at Golden to periodically review seismic data for a 200 kilometer radius of the Wright well. Amoco' s disposal well is well within that radius. In the event abnormal seismic activity is detected in the earthquake data the EPA will be contacting Wright' s to establish additional monitoring. As you and I agreed this same review would be applicable to Amoco' s disposal well. Thus the EPA review program would meet your needs for a microseismic monitoring program for Amoco' s disposal well. In the event the review indicates abnormal seismic activity around Amoco' s disposal well Amoco and the Weld County Health Department will work out a more detailed monitoring program. I would suggest item 17 of the Planning Commission' s Development Standards be rewritten to read, " In the event monitoring of the proposed Class I Wright' s Water Disposal Well by the EPA and U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Center indicates increased microseismic activity at Amoco's disposal well site, the Weld County Department of Health can require a microseismic monitoring program to verify such seismic activity. " 921114 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody USR-986 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. The facility must provide an access control plan outlining all security measures to prevent unauthorized disposal, measures to be implemented in the event of unauthorized disposal, and including a list of all parties having access to the facility. The access control plan must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the Weld County Health Department prior to the operation of the facility. A log must be kept on site which contains documentation of all deliveries of waste to the facility. 4. A 3-foot by 4-foot sign shall be posted at the entrance gate listing wastes accepted, hours of operation, and twenty-four hour emergency telephone numbers. 5. The name of the facility at which the filters will be disposed, and copies of any required analysis, shall be provided to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 6. No disposal of waste, other than Class II, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. Any change from the approved Class II use would require an amendment to this Special Review permit. 7. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on the site. 9. A spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. The surface area within the tank battery berm shall be constructed of at least a 24-inch compacted or in-situ earthen materials or other low permeability materials, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting these requirements is in place. 921114 6( -I- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 10. All chemicals stored on-site must be in locked buildings on an impervious surface, provided that manufacturer's recommendations for safe storage and handling are in accord. In any event, manufacturer's recommendations will take precedence. 11. Any required Air Emissions permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 12. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Weld County Flood Hazard Development permit requirements. 13. Any analysis of waste will be forwarded to Weld County Health Department, Environmental Protection Division. The Division reserves the right to require additional, more extensive monitoring at a later date. 14. The surfaces around the disposal area shall be constructed of an impervious material and graded to insure that all spilled waste is contained within the unloading pad. 15. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the microseismic monitoring program approved by the Weld County Health Department. 16. The Special Review permit shall not be transferable to any successor in interest to the subject property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for the operation of the facility. 17 . All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 18. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24. 6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 20. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations . 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 3 21. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 921114 Ail' mEmoRAnDum VIIV t To Lanell Swanson, Planning November 19, 1992 COLORADO ;7 ��//,� From John Pickle, Healih� Subject: Amoco Production /Co. USR - 986 A pertinent sentence was omitted from development standard #3 on the memo of November 18, 1992, regarding the proposed Amoco injection well, USR-986. Please correct development standard #3 to read as follows: 3. The facility must provide an access control plan outlining all security measures to prevent unauthorized disposal, measures to be implemented in the event of unauthorized disposal, and including a list of all parties having access to the facility. The access control plan must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the Weld County Health Department prior to the operation of the facility. A log must be kept on site which contains documentation of all deliveries of waste to the facility. Please feel free to make any changes you feel necessary. If there are further questions, contact Trevor Jiricek. iNOV 1 y 1992 Weld County Planning 921114 fit'',0 mEmORAf1DUm Wilk Lanell Swanson, Planning 7 November 18, 1992 To Me COLORADO John Pickle, Heald/ From / ' Subject: Amoco Production Co. - USR - 986 I have met with Vern Butler and others from Amoco Production Company with regard to their proposed injection well. After some discussion, we propose the following changes in the Development Standards: 1. Delete Development Standards 11 3,4,and 5. 2. Add a new # 3 as follows: The facility must provide an access control plan outlining all security measures to prevent unauthorized disposal, measures to be implemented in the event of unauthorized disposal, and including a list of all parties having access to the facility. A log must be kept on site which contains documentation of all deliveries of waste to the facility. 3. Change 11 8 to read as follows: No disposal of waste, other than Class II, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. Any change from the approved Class II use would require an amendment to this Special Review Permit. 4. Change li 12 to read as follows: All chemicals stored on-site must be in locked buildings on an impervious surface, provided that manufacturer's recommendations for safe storage and handling are in accord. In any event, manufacturer's recommendations will take precedence. 5. Any analysis of waste will be forwarded to Weld County Health Department, Environmental Protection Division. The Division reserves the right to require additional, more extensive monitoring at a later date. I have forwarded a copy of this memo to Lee Morrison. Please feel free to make any changes you feel necessary. If there are further questions, contact Trevor Jiricek. xc: Lee Morrison, Asst. County Attorney Vern Butler, P.E. , Amoco J ims2riv\c„,„ INOV 1 199In Esc_h , al-FE 921114 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVIEW/WORK SESSION REQUEST Paving of Road 25 to Amoco's Water Disposal Facility DEPARTMENT: Engineering DATE: November 19 , 1992 PERSON REQUESTING: Alan Miller, Utility and W-O-W Agent j Brief Description of the problem/issue: Earlier in the year, Amoco made a proposal to the Board to pay for the asphalt if the County paved road 25 to their new water disposal facility. It was decided that any agreement could better be handled through the Special Use Permit for the site. At this time, the Special Use Permit is set to be heard on November 25th. I have enclosed a letter from Amoco outlining the details up to this point in time along with a proposed agreement which they hope the Board might approve as a provision of the Special Use Permit. Amoco has indicated that the attached agreement may be changed if the Board feels that it does not address the original proposal which was made to the County. Planning has indicated to Amoco that an agreement needs to be made on the road improvements before the Special Use Permit can be issued. If the agreement is acceptable to the Board, Amoco may not need to have their hearing postponed to a later date. What options exist for the Board? (Include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options) : The Commissioners' decision is whether or not to accept Amoco's proposal with a maximum cost to Amoco not to exceed $25,000. Recommendation to the Board: Consideration of the proposal by Amoco: 921114 Initial: Approve Schedule RecommendationWork Session Other _ Lacy 7 — / / �'"' 1�`` v 21. .dc. ,-/ .2 , , /At ./ fL Kennedy /W,yz;w7 11 7aocv.• : /6Q, r Kirby 6 L Harbert �l ty� ��A., Webster ', -:4'—'J ��(9---7:. 7L.,t-E r ,, - G,'�?, C,1 I�j �C rpm- 673-, 4.:( V -:- 7/74."`. (;716 AM/amm:wksess.am cc: Commissioner Webster George Goodell, Director of Road and Bridge Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney Drew Scheltinga, Weld County Engineer File Amoco Road 25 t 921114 AGREEMENT This Agreement is by and between Amoco Production Company and Weld County Board of Commissioners in regard to the paving of County Road 25 from County Road 18 to the entrance of Amoco ' s Water Disposal Facility in the SW1/4 , Section 19 , T2N, R66W, Weld County, a distance of approximately 1750 feet. Weld County agrees to prepare the road base and to lay asphalt paving to normal County Road Standards for this 1750 feet of roadway. In return Amoco Production Company agrees to pay the cost of the asphalt paving materials up to a maximum of $25, 000 upon receipt of an invoice from the County showing the actual cost of the material. Signed on behalf of Amoco Production Company: Mary L. Shafer-Malicki Date Operations Foreman Ft Lupton Operations Center Signed on behalf of the Weld County Board of Commissioners: Date 921114 AMOCO Amoco Production Company 9'lir Fort Lupton Operations Center 1313 North Denver Avenue Post Office Box 187 Fort Lupton. Colorado 80621 303-857-6636 Board of County Commissioners Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Paving of Road 25 to Amoco' s Water Disposal Facility Dear Commissioners: By letter of August 7 , 1992 Amoco Production Company proposed a plan to pave County Road 25 from County Road 18 to the entrance of Amoco ' s proposed Water Disposal Facility in the SW1/4 , Section 19 , T2N, R66W, Weld County. By letter of September 4 , 1992 , Mr Alan Miller, R-O-W and Utility Agent, Department of Engineering, Indicated this proposal was discussed with the Board of County Commissioners at their August 31, 1992 meeting. The Board was interested in furthering the proposal but the agreement for paving the road 25 should be handled through the Special Use Permit referral process. Subsequently Amoco submitted an Application for a Special Use Permit which was heard by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1992 . A Resolution of Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Case USR-986) has been issued by the Planning Commission. A hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for 10: 00 A.M. on November 25, 1992 . Item 3 of the Planning Commission' s recommendations indicates a road improvement agreement shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a provision of the Special Use Permit. Amoco has not received a proposed agreement from the County so we have drafted the attached simple agreement. We believe the attached agreement represents our understanding and agreement with the Weld County Department of Engineering. We would propose that this agreement be made a part of the Special Use Permit considered in Case No USR-986 (Docket 92-72) . If acceptable to the County Ms. Shafer-Malicki will sign the agreement at the Hearing on November 25th. If there are any questions on this matter please call Stacey Swingle at 303/894-6608 or Vern W. Butler at 303/830-4699 . Sincerely, Stacey Swingle Production Foreman SetTP 4)-44.>14- 921114 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 20, 1992 Page 5 Jean Hoffman moved Case Number USR-980, Howard arms, a Colorado Partnership, be forwarded to the Board of County ommission s, with the Conditions of Approval, Development Standards, with the a ditio of Development Standard Number 5, and subsequent renumbering of the remai 'n Development Standards, with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for ap val. Bud Clemons seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked the s retary poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decisio . Richard K el - yes; Jean Hoffman - yes; Bill O'Hare - yes; Judy Yamaguc - yes; Juliett Kroekel - yes; Don Feldhaus - yes; Bud Clemons - yes. Mot' n carried unanimous Judy Yamaguchi, Bill O'Hare, and Don Feldhaus tha ked the Howards for allowing this type of use o their property in an area where here are no other options. CASE NUMBER: USR-986 NAME: Sas Company, c/o Dave Brody ADDRESS: 1670 Broadway, Boxy800, Denver, CO 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19 , T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton, east of Weld County Road 25, 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. Dave Brody, Attorney, representative, Amoco Production Company, introduced Russel Orona, Stacey Swingle, Vern Butler, and Mary Shafer-Malicki of Amoco Production Company. Dave Brody explained that Amoco has 800 wells in production at this time, 700 of them located in Weld County. There are a substantial amount that also produce water and the proposed facility will dispose of this water through a disposal well already permitted through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This well was drilled in June of 1992 and Amoco is now asking for approval of the above-ground facilities. Russel Orona, gave a detailed, technical presentation, showing the operation process of the proposed above-ground facility emphasizing Amoco' s dedication in exceeding existing requirements for better environmental protection. Members of the Planning Commission had numerous questions regarding the operation of this facility, the fact it was proposed as an unmanned facility, and the quality of the water being sent into the disposal well. Stacey Swingle, Vern Butler, and Mary Shafer-Malicki, Amoco Production staff, were available to answer questions. The Chairperson asked if the applicant agreed with the Planning staff' s recommendation. Dave Brody expressed concerns about verbiage in Condition of E\Lj Mbrr L- 921114 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 20, 1992 Page 6 Approval Number 3, and Development Standards 4, 5 , 8, 12, 17, and 18 . The Planning Commission determined these concerns would need co be discussed and resolved with Weld County Health Department, Weld County Engineering, and the Department of Planning Services, prior co the Board of County Commissioners' Hearing. The Chairperson explained co Dave Brody chat with the absence of a County Attorney during these proceedings and the extent of the applicant' s concerns the Planning Commission would either have to continue this application or vote to forward or deny it as presented. Dave Brody said they would like to go forward as recommended by Planning Services staff, and resolve concerns at a later date. The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Bud Clemons moved Case Number USR-986 , Amoco Production Company, be forwarded with an amendment to verbiage in Condition of Approval Number 3, " No hauling on Weld County Road 25 north of the entrance shall be allowed unless access is restricted to the south", with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval. Bill O'Hare seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Jean Hoffman - yes; Bill O'Hare - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes; Don Feldhaus - yes; Bud Clemons - yes. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfull u mi ed, Sharyn Ruff Secretary 921114 _I Il n.., .. .v � BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY CbMMItBIONEAS Moved by Bud Clemons that the following resolution be introducredE£dr passage, with the amendment to Condition of Approval Number 3, by the WadTdodnty Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: USR-986 NAME: Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody ADDRESS: 1670 Broadway, Box 800, Denver, CO 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton, east of Weld County Road 25, 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary Area goals and policies. The City of Fort Lupton has reviewed this proposal and has recommended approval of the request with specific conditions. The conditions are addressed in the Special Review permit development standards. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural zone district and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. The use which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include irrigated agricultural production, residences, a nursery and the Platte River. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning. .441115 9??14 RESOLUTION, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 The property is located in the 100-year floodplain. Conditions of approval and development standards address this concern. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to scheduling before the Board of County Commissioners, a road improvements agreement shall be approved by the Board. The agreement shall establish the haul route as Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 north to the entrance of this facility. No hauling on Weld County Road 25 north of the entrance shall be allowed unless access is restricted to the south. The agreement shall provide for paving of Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 to the entrance. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a Flood Hazard Development permit shall be approved by the Department of Planning Services' staff. a detailed diagram of the injection well which has been approved and permitted by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission shall be submitted to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division for review and documentation. a plan for a microseismic monitoring program shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. 921114 RESOLUTION, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 Motion seconded by Bill O'Hare. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Richard Kimmel Jean Hoffman Bill O'Hare Judy Yamaguchi Juliette Kroekel Don Feldhaus Bud Clemons The Chairperson declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on October 20, 1992. Dated the 2 October, 1992. Sharyn . Ruff Secretary 921114 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody USA-986 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. A manager, knowledgeable in operating an injection well, shall be on-site when the facility is in operation. 4. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and the system shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The septic system shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 5. A safe and adequate fresh water supply shall be available on the facility premises. 6. A 3-foot by 4-foot sign shall be posted at the entrance gate listing wastes accepted, hours of operation, and twenty-four hour emergency telephone numbers. 7. The name of the facility at which the filters will be disposed, and copies of any required analysis, shall be provided to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 8. No disposal of hazardous waste of any type shall be permitted at any time. The facility shall receive only those liquid wastes which have been reviewed and approved by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, and any other applicable agency. Any change from the approved Class 2 use would require an amendment to this Special Review permit. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 10. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on the site. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 11. A spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. The surface area within the tank battery berm shall be constructed of at least a 24-inch compacted or in-situ earthen materials or other low permeability materials, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting these requirements is in place. 12. All chemicals stored on-site must be stored in locked buildings on an impervious surface. 13. Any required Air Emissions permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 14. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Weld County Flood Hazard Development permit requirements. 15. Grab samples of wastewater accepted at the facility must be obtained monthly and analyzed for constituents to verify that only approved waste is accepted. Analysis of all samples obtained at the facility shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review. 16. The surfaces around the disposal area shall be constructed of an impervious material and graded to insure that all spilled waste is contained within the unloading pad. 17. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the microseismic monitoring program approved by the Weld County Health Department. 18. The Special Review permit shall not be transferable to any successor in interest to the subject property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for the operation of the facility. 19. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 3 22. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 23. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 921114 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant: Amoco Production Company Case Number: USR-986 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1. Application 4O pages X 2. 1 Application plat 1 page X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation X 5. DPS Surrounding Property Owner's Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. October 15, 1992, referral from the City of Fort Lupton including August, 1992 correspondence with Environmental Protection Agency X 12. September 25, 1992, referral from Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company X 13. September 3O, 1992, referral from Weld County Engineering X 14. October 6, 1992, referral from Weld County Health Department X 15. September 21, 1992, letter to applicant X 16. 1 letter of objection from Robert Airhart X I hereby certify that the 16 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on October 23, 1992. Cu ner STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIScij , , —day of 1 .' SEAL OTARY PURL C O ., My Commission Expires � COmmiaiGiiF.f09PP5Yui�;(21,1993 EQ Odd•. ♦ J : v < • as w i t F- 7 ! O . %r QM L./ X �i,,i3�, 921114 l - EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case L4 SIC, — alnecc U wa-cLuek,.n..,_ "10 Exhibit Submitted By Exhib3-Description /D/d_3/c/5LB. 1c' w-r LiLCs7✓✓h�� 10/45, C. A 4 .H to C 9v .�6 U,, I�t�r ' " f VV ""/ a E. 9)-(th Pith n Ls 3, 4-, 5 dtatiloApipt 119,0 G. 1 (L&n (htr1, �Qta/,� _.2othpnwit,Sent ark H. PL,° iapt -Mime) hi : 11631. n..e _.tt L r-.t fa n w p�t1(�,2 S J. (� K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. X. Y. Z. 921114 DATE: October 20, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-986 NAME: Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody ADDRESS: 1670 Broadway, Box 800, Denver, CO 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton, east of Weld County Road 25, 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary Area goals and policies. The City of Fort Lupton has reviewed this proposal and has recommended approval of the request with specific conditions. The conditions are addressed in the Special Review permit development standards. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural zone district and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. The use which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include irrigated agricultural production, residences, a nursery and the Platte River. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning. The property is located in the 100-year floodplain. Conditions of approval and development standards address this concern. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. 921114 RECOMMENDATION, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to scheduling before the Board of County Commissioners, a road improvements agreement shall be approved by the Board. The agreement shall establish the haul route as Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 north to the entrance of this facility. No hauling on Weld County Road 25 north of the entrance shall be allowed. The agreement shall provide for paving of Weld County Road 25 from Weld County Road 18 to the entrance. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a Flood Hazard Development permit shall be approved by the Department of Planning Services' staff. a detailed diagram of the injection well which has been approved and permitted by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission shall be submitted to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division for review and documentation. a plan for a microseismic monitoring program shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. 921114 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody USR-986 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. A manager, knowledgeable in operating an injection well, shall be on-site when the facility is in operation. 4. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and the system shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The septic system shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 5. A safe and adequate fresh water supply shall be available on the facility premises. 6. A 3-foot by 4-foot sign shall be posted at the entrance gate listing wastes accepted, hours of operation, and twenty-four hour emergency telephone numbers. 7. The name of the facility at which the filters will be disposed, and copies of any required analysis, shall be provided to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division. 8. No disposal of hazardous waste of any type shall be permitted at any time. The facility shall receive only those liquid wastes which have been reviewed and approved by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, and any other applicable agency. Any change from the approved Class 2 use would require an amendment to this Special Review permit. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 10. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on the site. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 2 11. A spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. The surface area within the tank battery berm shall be constructed of at least a 24-inch compacted or in-situ earthen materials or other low permeability materials, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting these requirements is in place. 12. All chemicals stored on-site must be stored in locked buildings on an impervious surface. 13. Any required Air Emissions permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 14. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the Weld County Flood Hazard Development permit requirements. 15. Grab samples of wastewater accepted at the facility must be obtained monthly and analyzed for constituents to verify that only approved waste is accepted. Analysis of all samples obtained at the facility shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review. 16. The surfaces around the disposal area shall be constructed of an impervious material and graded to insure that all spilled waste is contained within the unloading pad. 17. The property shall be maintained in compliance with the microseismic monitoring program approved by the Weld County Health Department. 18. The Special Review permit shall not be transferable to any successor in interest to the subject property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for the operation of the facility. 19. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 921114 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-986 Amoco Production Company, c/o Dave Brody Page 3 22. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 23. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 921114 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST/ 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CASE # U 5 R. cf (D THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: STACC7 D • Sv3 i M C IC: NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN L'7)42 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) ii 6-6 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS I (ol" DAY OF / /0`� ice`" 'it , 19 p a SEAL fn NOTARY P IC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES fia/7 /9S p LAST DAY TO POST SIGN IS: // / 7 , 19!d PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' OFFICE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 921114 LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: October 13, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-986 NAME: Amoco Production Co. , c/o Dave Brody ADDRESS: 1670 Broadway, P.O. Box 800, Denver, CO 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit for an Oil and Gas Support Facility (brinewater disposal facility) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 14, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25, 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. SIZE OF PARCEL: 2 acres, more or less. POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for review of this Special Review permit is listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services staff has received responses from the Weld County Engineering Department and the Weld County Health Department. One letter of concern was submitted from a surrounding property owner prior to the submittal of the application to the Department of Planning Services. 921114 7/1 yGyyAA - • Ny6y6' - :. ,._ • 3• :. • rec„,_ • r , r7tl • • . 5 a. !p� EWAIT . 0 !•%on. I � ` • ! I[l I •:. ‘--;\ a 91 Irlyic;:d .. I I' I.1 I H 1 �i4a a )0 , ' I Fl ! .\ =s .LJ a;,tl ion E iLLE k• xx r• . •..0.-1 z. 20 a 'n x I n x�/ 1. e 2 . �'f•Its E - J _—. /(\ —`.~1 xs • a yy'(/� !.(1`y xs =� ^ z, l • /1 za xs xs 1• x• ,13 • 1 x. _--.•j• •• - _ •_ -_ _�_ • _ _ - ' • •'r' o 'o�i 1 1 oz �t H • -• - I > •�. � 1 � •.�� '�12' Ii.I , oN 1 r o`er c' I • 1.„._ I I! Fri r - -, r till . ! j x. ` • • za RI1 a !g _ 1 X, x. n . .°• • xx xs t °�.\ x° r 'I - •RgTOCA• a. I ;� °•'I '° 1 • R•NCAETT a _, a • x> !, s° • ° .. v _, =a. • a° lichig • '40154)1 =r E1=.. rt%:2!,.. �-.t.'" 1 iC\ at1 . l. • • IS•M r.•C,,toi .\ • 1, 11 t•OPT WPTON r \Si •• 9�.• ip • o • — 1/ f •! —s rm.. •� \ 14 ni .•VV►... -. • 1 1. 9] • •• • —/ > c° a• ' ci: . . ( . 1 iii r !• • ° Id . • • vs• • •. 11 ( { poL � — i2q. • >= P� gyp II;I ; I1/ Iz I _�•I� n , • s� ! wi izi" a•� J iI ._- •t I •9 ACRY i• _ 1 / ! 1z • • •• \iru• 7 . 1 i E. J G •71'11 l• • ilit 1 •• � • '5 I Hi FI , • r REE 0 �. .• '�' •\\111 x 4CR65 _ - z•, - .."- _ ., I!j O. I• iic • VS-- I 01•v f 9 , ' r •rte . °' SI °rus ( / 2 x°(/ x (\ xi 0Lanx • •r * • _ _ u a " � _�.1��°" • I° :4i• � - _ T• FMIe I ii •,� fat: m ; I• it c ae•• 1" • > s• 1 LI 1P°' t., xa.,_.°„ --�� % W -i.I x" \ 1 ."R 66W. ~ I >. ,I, Li [R.65 W.; t 1_-> . % ° •. d C 0 . U N Tx Y 921.4 Q /•' J °f O ' . 9i__.. nn PIC n-, 90 11 'I"I 'IC 'iZ __'A dl d3 AS d7 d0 51 It -,tCN\ __,c \ . 2 III •P••: (\\\_ '14) I'14ea�•°P _) Bab 4 56 IV il :ill. ') P I ; '� it 'd one/ .. Iu m 111 �r 1 1 p .o °.I- = \\- ‘It I • . 4844 _1 _BM 4861 _� \, ]"—�— :A�... III i --___. 'i� II W 6': . •. �n• 1 •u© I II > gp0 a �1 k 1 4650 _-\_ o -- II I u a I 1 $ 1 4950 / • III s,—�VOllN Y i- ', 5? 4854 • Bar / . Jl_ u ° �axss .,� 187 J • Lan. ii 1 � (.. H n 4., "' 19 , 20 \ .74C.: . j A iil 0 � i_. °' i0� � I 4900 6 2��' r J ys 19 n9 as oaeo ( �� l 4882 11, ,/ `� ae� %sera O o °,. ( 1 o .�. ✓.. _ - - • .I ' BM • 4881 /; r _ 4867 7 ..I • 4917' \y\ .19 �i - 4882 • Pl rter Sell' o, u e 1�Jj (I/r\ �� '� i 1, c ` °,\ W f_P73130 •° ° 29 i , ' 1 / 8 Q O \'1 I D I Cr I' x� r �680 r - � VVVI ')17 BM _4892 0 • ilir Q J��p IM . p ) 1e�et ll ▪ 2 921 "2� ▪ 01 4. W p'i^lr`..a ..jj rt . ry6y'' A w )!�! . 6 ......4„,..-- '''*la y ,�( 4U- A .CI4 _'n 4•.FY }•44rr•' ti' r•••:,.:„,- 44. { ! il"- �1Ypp f �$ c l4.. „,a 4.. t*..-3.-. .Y' ••• • r. r1'�' ,w • sa''' AA .1.;.;,:.,„, :. ,..4...'t.—.i i..,-,t4...` r. ! :1 .: '1,�-! • x'. f. • •M _ J ♦, r yys 3 i 'flY' ^t 1;!, r y 5 3 t ; ; 4 • v ' � :, a rw t **-:4... yS'�-` ,/tl .4t �* F.P -±„..,:.,:., t '‘,..',..44,t.„ �...« T4. t. I, y F '�' R. M3 $ T A a V t: t a it o J € 4: i 4, - ; x �,. rtoil ' " �r Al *t' y : r C rt f. 1 4 ? ç ;;'4?R 41 t '*AIL $,,��+{ t ii t 'apron r• ) t . 4 in t;..! . :ill ji s• el . , • • t .V • vt . • 5rw�{ 'f�FS.. b tF� :i' • #kt ps`t'"sa `a x -11 G`..,,.... ; .,: ::..,.. .... ....,,,, ,,, ,, .. , , r 1.7 •46 Via> % • .. tt..:\: . :.,. .., . 5:. 4t L .‘•• tit" 4 T *CI T ..`.. 3X. x .. / ,' itr r „.1,`t .. y. 3 • y// yy 't�,, °'`" - #< P s! < 43x' ! „ r fk`yF :./A i Y••, ' t J Y • t L jj ''++33 i • l ._ f •� .+�" ", +�1 k t, •+ 3, 1 z 'f7• . ':. li. I„. ;041 * ' 1 ` 1 i js 1 tr I a • r fi n .. ---' I t• s ..,,,A.,,.. ?' 's 741* t P+ FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-986 DATE OF INSPECTION: September 25, 1992 APPLICANT' S NAME: Amoco Production Company REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support and service facility (brinewater injection) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19 , T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Ft. Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and north of Weld County Road 18. LAND USE: N Irrigated agricultural production, residence. E Irrigated agricultural production, Platte River. S Irrigated agricultural production, residence, nursery. W Irrigated agricultural production, residence. ZONING: N A (Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) COMMENTS: Access if from Weld County Road 25 which is a gravel road. The special review area is surrounded by a chain-link fence with 3 strands of barbed-wire on top. There is a gas well and some pipe on the property at this time. The site is mostly graveled. There are no other improvements on site. Current Planner 921114 REFERRAL LIST NAME: Amoco Production Company CASE NUMBER: USR-986 REFERRALS SENT: September 21, 1992 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: October 2, 1992 COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES Attorney _Ault '-X Health Department Brighton Extension Service Broomfield •-X Emergency Management Office Dacono Sheriff' s Office _Eaton . X Engineering Erie _Housing Authority _Evans _Airport Authority Firestone Building Inspection • X Fort Lupton Frederick STATE _Garden City Division of Water Resources Gilcrest Geological Survey Greeley Department of Health Grover Highway Department Hudson Historical Society Johnstown Water Conservation Board Keenesburg X Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey La Salle FIRE DISTRICTS Lochbuie Ault F-1 Longmont Berthoud F-2 _Mead Briggsdale F-24 Milliken Brighton F-3 New Raymer _Eaton F-4 Northglenn X Fort Lupton F-5 Nunn Galeton F-6 Platteville Hudson F-7 _Severance _Johnstown F-8 Thornton La Salle F-9 Windsor Mountain View F-10 Milliken F-11 COUNTIES Nunn F-12 Adams _Pawnee F-22 _Boulder Platteville F-13 Larimer Platte Valley F-14 Poudre Valley F-15 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Raymer F-2 US Army Corps of Engineers _Southeast Weld F-16 USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service Windsor/Severance F-17 Federal Aviation Administration _Wiggins F-18 Federal Communication Commission Western Hills F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS OTHER ' X Brighton Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. Fort Collins • X Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Greeley Tri-Area Planning Commission Longmont West Adams COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER - X Juliette Kroekel 921114 cn DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES U G7 PHON E OOM 3564000,EKL 4400 t j V 915 10th STREET I SEP 2 8 1992 GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 1 C i1'c:d co "6•1°tanning COLORADO September 21, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Amoco Production Company for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. The parcel of land is described as part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by October 5, 1992, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Brian A. Grubb, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3 . X We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: / z—r , ' Agency: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Date: 9-25-92 921114 mEmoRAnDum h iDe Brian Grubb To Planning a COLORADO From Drew Srbeltinga Subject: AMOCO Production Company. USR - 986 A haul route should be established to serve the site. It should be WCR 25 from WCR 18 north to the entrance, which is a distance of approximately 1,700 feet. No hauling on WCR 25 north of the entrance should be allowed. When AMOCO was considering a facility at this site, they approached the Board of Weld County Commissioners regarding paving. Copies of letters dated August 7, 1992, from AMOCO and September 4, 1992, from Weld County are attached. An agreement should be reached between AMOCO and the Board of Weld County Commissioners to pave WCR 25 from WCR 18 to the entrance. DS/pds:mgrubb cc: Commissioner Webster File USR-986 0 OCT 0 1 1992 CJ Wald County Planning 921114 A '6v mEMORAnDUM WilkTo Weld County Planning Date October 6, 1992 COLORADO From John S. Pickle, Director E.P,.B: SubjeetCase number: USR-986, Name: Wa'ttenberg Salt Water Disposal #1 Environmental Protection Services has reviewed this proposal; the following conditions are recommended to be part of any approval: 1. A manager, knowledgeable in operating an injection well, shall be on site when the facility is receiving waste. 2. An individual sewage disposal system, is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 3. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 4. A safe and adequate fresh water supply shall be available on the facility premises. 5. A detailed diagram of the injection well which has been approved and permitted by the Oil and Gas Commission must be submitted to the Weld County Environmental Protection Division for review and documentation. 6. A 3-foot by 4-foot sign shall be posted at the entrance gate listing wastes accepted, hours of operation, and twenty-four hour emergency telephone number. 7. The facility at which the filters are intended to be disposed, must be provided to the Weld County Environmental Protection Services Division, including copies of any required analysis. 8. No disposal of hazardous waste of any type shall be permitted at any time. The facility shall receive only those liquid wastes which have been reviewed and approved by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, and any other applicable agency. 9. Maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80db(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. v ca OCT 0 7 1992 ca Weld Cr jly ng 10. Fugitive dust must be controlled on this site. 11. A spillage retention berm shall be required around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. 12. Any required Emissions Permits must be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 13. The surface area within the tank battery berm shall be constructed of at least a 24" compacted or in-situ earthern materials or other low permeability materials, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1X 10-7 cm/sec. The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting these requirements is in place. 14. All chemicals stored on site, must be stored in locked building on an impervious surface. 15. The entire facility must be designed and built in accordance with Weld County's Flood Hazards Development permitting requirements. 16. Grab samples of waste water accepted at the facility must be obtained monthly and analyzed for constituents to verify that only approved waste is accepted. Constituents to be specified at a later date. Analysis of all samples obtained at the facility must be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review. 17. The surfaces around the disposal area shall be constructed of an impervious material, and graded to insure that all spilled waste is contained within the unloading pad. fre 18. A microseismic monitoring program is recomnoided. 19. The Colorado Department of Health may require other conditions be met upon review by their staff. hd OCi 0 7 1992 11 Weld Cooepd Planning 921114 • l1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 ' 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 C. COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 20, at 1: 30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for the property described below. Approval of the request may create a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Law. APPLICANT: Amoco Production Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19 , T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED USE: Oil and gas support and service facility (brinewater disposal) . LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and approximately 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. SIZE: 2 acres, more or less The public hearing will be held in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on October 20, 1992. Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services , Room 342, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 - Phone - 356-4000, Extension 4400. Judy Yamaguchi, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Windsor Beacon To be published one (1) tim 0 ber 1, 1992 Received by: Date: C' l 921114 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have placed a true and correct copy of the surrounding property owners and owners and lessees of minerals in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in Case Number USR-986 for Amoco Production Company in the United States Mail, postage prepaid First Class Mail by letter as addressed on the attached list. this 23 day of September, 1992. 921114 Aft ;‘ , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)3564000,EXT.4400 ID 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 COLORADO October 21, 1992 TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY/MINERAL OWNERS CASE NUMBER: USR-986 There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 20, 1992, at 1: 30 p.m. , in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request of: NAME: Amoco Production Company FOR: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Reveiw permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricutural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and approximately 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. Your property is within five-hundred (500) feet of the property on which this request has been made. For additional information write or telephone Brian A. Grubb, Current Planner. 9 1 II 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE MINERAL OWNER Amoco Production Company USR-986 Richard Hein 6386 Weld County Road 18 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Edmundson, Inc. 469 Oswega Court Aurora, CO 80010 Glen R. and Leta L. Horton 360 E. Wyoming Avenue #183 Las Vegas, NV 89104 Margaret Ann Kelley 187 Sagemont Circle Parachute, CO 81635 Mary Jane Montoya 586 Stout Street Craig, CO 81625 El Sol Oil Company HC 12 Box 298 Rockford Bay, ID 83814-8224 92,1114 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property SW ' o4 Set- l9 Tate 1R66W 601 P.m . STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners' of property (the surface estate) within five hundred feet of the property under consideration This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty days of the applicationis submission date. loco C 1' The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this tie Jday 4Qwsber , 191,1„ by SIfaee.1 D. Jw A.1 it 41 *mot o PRoovc4% o4J Cs, - (13 WITNESS my hand and official seal. d MY Commission expires: /o3/eah Notary Pu lic My Commission Expires: /e1/a4s 321114 NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION # 1'S i l r r A I: ii f� 786 Ul�ld C,o 1✓:7 Fi L -I900-20'OS Ednivndsee,„ tilt 469 Cans o Ct.Auree< , CO 80010 1309- 1900-.20-04 Glen R. and Le c, L. 1-14orf-eh 360$ E. Wy01n1h3 4w #J83 Las US94sj NV Idll-2400 -10-09 89104 921114 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property cit.] 4 04 SeL19 TaN R6eW 6 &% P. VV1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land under as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. .tit ow AG r The foregoing -I instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this Lo_ —day of > C p+&P\ b e e , 19ja. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: ) a/a R S Notar Pub 921114 VY1 i heral Owners Stu v Sec IS T21tl R66 W 6 + 410. M. {Nlarjoret /inn )'<elley 187 Sa5en'ioh-t Cir, P4rachuteiCo 8/6-7S Mary Stine Yl1oy {oyc,. S86 St-dot- _S+I-r'et 0-O/5 , CO 8 /6-2S CJlrcrrtve In-Eeresb CI Sol Oil Cohip4ny He 12 Box 298 Rockearo l 'Qy Coeur Dales/se , ID 8381N- 8 ? ? 9 921114 • �ti DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000,EXT.4400 I 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 C. COLORADO September 21, 1992 Amoco Production Company c/o Dave Brody, Attorney at Law 1670 Broadway, P.O. Box 800 Denver, CO 80202 Subject: USR-986 - Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district on a parcel of land described as part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Brody: Your application and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at the present time. I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for October 20, 1992, at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members might have with respect to your application. It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Fort Lupton Planning Commission for its review and comments. Please call Dave Yamada at 356-9225, for further details regarding the date, time, and place of this meeting. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the Ft. Lupton Planning Commission Meeting to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application. It is the responsibility of an applicant to see that a sign is posted on the property under consideration at least 10 days preceding the hearing date. Sometime prior to October 9, 1992, you or a representative should call me to obtain a sign to be posted on the site no later than October 10, 1992. The sign shall be posted adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way. In the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, the applicant shall post one sign in the most prominent place on the property and post a second sign at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. Your sign posting certificate must be returned to the Department of Planning Services' office on or before the date of the hearing. 921114 Amoco Production Company USR-986 Page 2 The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four (24) hours before the scheduled hearing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services' office before the Planning Commission hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Respectfully, r'7127 Brian A. Grubb Current Planner BAG/bjs 921114 41k �`l Southern Oak MAA2 :Inv .is ness field Coellt Unit February 14, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUIRED (See Attached List) File: RRJ - 018 - WF Hein Disposal Well No. 1 Water Disposal Well Weld County, Colorado This letter is to advise you that Amoco Production Company is requesting approval from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to drill and complete the subject well for the purpose of disposal of produced water. The proposed well location is 427' FWL and 2102 ' FSL of Section 19, T2N, R66W in Weld County, Colorado. Amoco plans to drill and complete the subject well in the Lyons Formation located approximately 9000 to 9500 feet below the ground surface. The well will be used to dispose of produced water from area Codell/Niobrara, Sussex, J Sand and Dakota wells. The wellbore will be steel cased and cemented from total depth to surface to protect all sources of drinking water and hydrocarbon bearing horizons. Anticipated injection rate will be less than 3000 barrels of water a day (BWPD) , with a maximum surface injec- tion pressure not to exceed 2500 pounds per square inch (PSIG) . Estimated average injection rate and pressure is 1500 BWPD and 1500 PSIG. If the proposed injection horizon proves unsuitable for our water disposal needs and is commercially nonproductive, the well will be plugged and abandoned per the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. Please note that you have 15 days from receipt of this notice to request a public hearing should you believe you will be adversely affected or aggrieved to the authorization of the Hein Disposal Well No. 1 for the purpose of water disposal. To file for a public hearing, contact the following agency in writing: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 1589 Logan Street, Suite 380 Denver, CO 60203 Amoco Production Company 1670 Broadway Post Office Box 800 Denver. Colorado 80201 (303)830-4323 921114 You may also request additional information on the water disposal well application from the Commission office. Sincerely, cc: J. W. Hawkins - Building J. A. Beckstrom - Building L. D. Henderson - Ft Lupton 921114 irTzs --- I , I i : i .'' Ft &; Z:.i z — H • ^ �D ¢ •-d . !� �i « Psi▪ �/1 N L u. 0, H 00 N — �� a `, q _ a w ®J O 7 :i 4.-: ■ h • O d7 U � _ • a11 O • H 3 — d a a C W M �. Pa O• E+•• aPPC CO W i . a H 1 C W •tF'clii_ C 0 O J o°m p ice• d L Ifi� o o z o 0 « E C 82 co a. E O U c o W.O r u Om J m O 15 xlg a. do O Yu h ,W v Eoc �I ; r �:uefriA. ; `-/ ewe ,-ct. .fie ct,i2a., Cox-C9 -17\ G Ct- c`l &Wt. -n-b24#-LA ()Lob_ gvtth,-, at() fucc(g L{f 1 6 41_25- /C0--c eiot,71 .Ca a5C,7 - 047—y G ( a rum cO{ 44deudo ()Ai ifteeocleau 9 921114 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION tionagf2WWW-Alitei STATE OF COLORADO The Weld County Planning SS Commission will hold a public COUNTY OF WELD hearing on Tuesday,October 20,at 120 p.m.forte Puraaee of considering a Site Specific I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being Development Plan and a duly Special Review permit for the sworn,say that I am publisher of , property described below. Approval of the request may create a vetted property right WINDSOR BEACON pursuant to Colorado Law. APPLICANT:Amoco Produddan a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said Company County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: an or in said County and State; and that the notice, of which the SW4 of Section 10,T4N, the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said R66W of the 8th P.M.,Weld County.Colorado• weekly for _successive weeks, that the notice TYPE AND INTENSITY OF was published in the regular and entire issue of every PROPOSED USE:Oil and gas number of the paper during the period and time of support and service facility publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a (Winona,deposal). supplement, and that the first publication of said notice LOCATION:Approximately.2 was in said paper bearing the date of the miles northeast of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 26 and /Of day of let° , A.D., 1912_ and apprmdmately 1000 feet north of Weld County pow It the last publication bearing the date of the Sig:2 acres,more or leas day of , A.D., 19_ and The public hearing will be held that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published In the Weld County Commissioners'Hearing Room continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 First Floor, Weld County consecutive weeks,in said County and State, prior to the Centennial Center,Cf l6 nt.Tenth Street, Greeley,. date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a Colorado. Comments a ot4ealom related newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate to the above request should be audmdw in writing to the Weld printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved county Department of Planning May 18, 1931,and all prior is r as in force. Services,016 Tenth Street, Room 342,Greeley,Colorado • 00631,before the above date or • presented at the public hearing on October 20,1002. P LISHER Copies of the application are available for Pate inlander`In the Department of Planning SubScri and sworn to before me this 3-2 TAE day Services, Room 342, Weld Of. �- - County Centennial Center,015 19� Tenth Street,Greeley,Colorado 00631 . Phone• 356.4000, in-79140 Ewession 4400. . NOTARY PUBLIC Judy Yamaguchi,Chairman, Weld County Planning /\y, Cemmieeton My commission expires y-•^-'g 17/ Z _ /ff ,7�'. Published in the Windsor V Beaten on October 1,1992. JU • N0V 0 4 1992 C.3 — Weld Count,Planning • 921114 ritarlit? ® p DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES K y+ ri ' ttNP ED PHONE 003)356-4000,EXT.4400 ' 915 10th STREET • ` GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ry 2 2 1991 COLORADO C0L0.0tL&GASC0IS•C0MM. September 21, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Amoco Production Company for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. The parcel of land is described as part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by October 5, 1992, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Brian A. Grubb, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. XY.7C We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: / U. 0 2 Agency: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Date: October 14, 1992 ca hat., \ 0CT 2 6 19922 Weld Coa^. Planning 91114 • tt DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)3564000,EXT.4400 915 10th STREET II ID GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 C. COLORADO September 21, 1992 CASE NUMBER: USR-986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Amoco Production Company for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an oil and gas support facility (brinewater disposal) in the A (Agricultural) zone district. The parcel of land is described as part of the SW4 of Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton; east of Weld County Road 25 and 1800 feet north of Weld County Road 18. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by October 5, 1992, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Brian A. Grubb, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3 . We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests . 4. ;/ A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: We, kBEIi 2nQ'-tthe ,f_baistedk prcu-fiwtagtdrutabPx eendtA fl-' d/a 5acele )'Ate tm/ Ad&teend, • 5. Please/ refer/ c`-Gt/ to the enclosed letter. ��n Signed: fili / ''G C6 rna.,,,_ Agency: PictitellajP",�l ht YK( 'ArY�nlh/>BXJ �i �t LI Date: /00/9 0CT 26 1992 Weld Caart f Planning 9%�1114 FORT 1+ OF (G to . . (ttp of fort 'Lupton 18 ' 36 _ _ P.O. BOX 148 COUNTY OF WELD 130 S. McKINLEY AVENUE FT. LUPTON, CO 80621 (303) 857-8694 C0L0R 00 October 15, 1992 Jrr1IIi�� 7 Weld County Colorado \V OCT 1 6 19,4 f Department of Planning Services � 915 10th Street Wele r: cr ,h;i Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs : On October 13, 1992 , the Fort Lupton Planning Commission met to discuss your referral related to Case Number: USR-986 . Representatives from Amoco Production Company presented the plan and answered questions . The application is for a Special Use Permit for a brine water disposal facility to be constructed approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Fort Lupton. The described use of the facility for disposal of brine water by injection into a 9200 foot well does not present a problem with Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plan, and we have no concerns related to this use. Our concerns come from future problems that may occur. I am sure that you are aware of the recent problems with the Suckla Farms injection well . The EPA allowed the well to be upgraded from a Class 2 to a Class 1, allowing hazardous wastes to be injected into the ground. We are concerned about any injection well following the same line in the future. Paragraph 3 of the Disposal Well Agreement (WATER QUALITY) allows Amoco sole discretion as to the quality, amounts and source of materials injected into the well . The Lease Agreement can be transferred to new ownership. At one time, Amoco was the owner of the well at Suckla, and the new well could be headed for the same end. Because of our concerns we hereby request that the Weld County Planning Commission issue the Special Use Permit with the following restrictions : A. ) That the facility be limited to disposal of brine water only; B. ) That the facility be restricted to Class 2 use, and any change in use would cause the Special Use Permit be revoked; C. ) That any transfer of ownership or transfer of lease would cause the Special Use Permit to be revoked; D. ) That the Special Use Permit be made non-transferable. 911.114 We feel that restrictsng the Special Use Permit in such a way will discourage any attempt by future owners to alter the use of the facility. Members of the Fort Lupton Planning Commission plan to attend your meeting and be available for comment. Sincerely, 41r- J Meyer Chairman Fort Lupton Planning Commission 921114 RELcIVEn �!.RJG 1 0 1992 .#' er"4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 4c PROF August 6, 1992 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Thomas A. Speicher Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202-2405 Re: Suckla Farms, Inc. Docket No. : COS-1516-2115 UIC Appeal No. 92-8 Dear Mr. Speicher: Enclosed is a petition received July 27, 1992 , asking the Agency to review Region VIII's UIC permit determination in this case. The petition was filed by Suckla Farms, Inc. To assist the Environmental Appeals Board in deciding whether the matters raised by Petitioner should be reviewed, please have your staff prepare a response that addresses Petitioner's contentions and whether petitioner has satisfied the requirements for obtaining review under 40 CFR §124 . 19. Include a certified index of the administrative record with the response, together with relevant portions of the administrative record (if not already attached to the petition) . Unless another date is agreed upon, file an original and one copy of these materials no later than September 8, 1992 , and send a copy of the response and the certified index to Petitioner. Please note that all submissions, including the materials due by September 8, 1992 , shall reference the appeal number above and are to be filed with the Environmental Appeals Board, see 57 Fed. Reg. 5320 (Feb. 13, 1992) , at the address indicated below: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Office of the Administrator Environmental Appeals Board (A-101) 401 M Street, SW Room 1145 (West Tower) Washington, DC 20460 * Printed on Recycled Paper 9f1114 2 By copy of this letter, Petitioner is also advised of the filing requirement. The office is open for business during the hours of 8: 00 A.M. to 4: 30 P.M. , excluding weekends and federal holidays. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, n Belden Legal Staff Specialist Enclosure cc w/o encl: Adam Babich Attorney at Law 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 3 , Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 w/encl: Eugene S. Reynolds Mayor _ City of Fort Lupton P.O. Box 148 130 South McKinley Avenue Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Max H. Dodson, Director Water Management Division U. S. EPA, Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202-2405 Bessie L. Hammiel Headquarters Hearing Clerk Room 3708 (A-110) 921114 •1 ADAM BABICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1515 Arapahoe Street (303) 820-4497 Tower 3, Suite 1100 FAX.: (303) 820-4425 Denver, Colorado 80202 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS and CERTIFIED MAIL • July 17, 1992 The Honorable William Reilly, Administrator, U.S. EPA 401 M Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20460 RE: PETITION FOR REVIEW OF EPA PERMIT #C01516-2115 Dear Mr. Reilly, Enclosed please find Suckla Farms,Inc.'s petition for review of EPA UIC PERMIT #C01516-2115. Very truly ours, pm Adam Babich • 921114 BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETITION FOR REVIEW OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC) PERMIT • FINAL DECISION OF EPA, REGION VIII RE: CLASS I INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL WELL.PERMIT WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL, INC. SUCKLA FARMS #1, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO EPA PERMIT #C01516-2115 PETITIONER: SUCKLA FARMS, INC. 4468 Weld County 19 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 (303) 857-4282 PREPARED BY: Adam Babich COUNSEL FOR SUCKLA FARMS, INC. 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 3, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 820-4497 • Submitted: July 17, 1992 921114 Petition For Review of Class I Industrial Waste Disposal Well Permit • #C01516-2115 Petitioner: Suckla Farms, Inc. Page 2 Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.19, Suckla Farms, Inc. hereby petitions for review of the above-listed permit decision. INTRODUCTION EPA Region VIII ("the Region") erred in granting a Class I injection well permit to Wright's Disposal Inc. ("Wright's"). The injection well at issue is located on the property of the petitioner, Suckla Farms, Inc. ("Suckla"), which opposes the permit. Suckla made timely comments to the Region (see Attachments A & B) and appeared at a public hearing held by the Region. All issues raised in this appeal were raised in Suckla's attached comments. This Petition presents questions that contain important policy considerations and raises issues on which the Region clearly erred. Additionally, the Region failed to respond to comments adequately. PETITION FOR REVIEW I. I was an abuse of discretion for the Region to issue Wright's a permit to dispose of waste on Suckla's$roperty after Suckla demonstrated that Wright's has no right of access to do so. The Region's permit decision sets an alarming precedent. The Region has granted Wright's a permit to inject toxic waste into groundwater beneath private property, despite the fact that the property's owner has demonstrated that Wright's has no legal right of a cep to the property to engage in such conduct.' Many of the toxic substances at issue are "hazardous substances" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Others are subject to the Oil Pollution Liability Act. Thus, Wright's injection of Class I waste 'The lease at issue is included with Attachment B. 921114 Petition For Review of Class I Industrial Waste Disposal Well Permit #C01516-2115 Petitioner: Suckla Farms, Inc. Page 3 into property owned by Suckla, will subject Suckla to potential liability for a groundwater and soil cleanup. By issuing a Wright's a permit to dispose of waste on property that Wright's does not own and to which Wright's has no legal right of access with respect to Class I waste, the Region wastes taxpayers' money on a wholly speculative undertaking and forces Suckla to incur substantial legal fees to prevent Wright's trespass on Suckla's property. There is no clearer example of a government bureaucracy imposing needless costs and an unreasonable risk of liability on a private business for no legitimate public purpose. Once Suckla demonstrated the Wright's had no right of access to dispose of Class I waste on Suckla's property, it was a clear abuse of discretion for the Region to proceed to issue the permit. II. Because Wright's has no legal access to the property, Wright's cannot operas'. a Class I well without risking public drinking water supplies. As a practical matter,because Wright's has no legal access to Suckla's property to engage in conduct related to Class I waste, Wright's cannot operate a Class I well in a manner that will protect the public. Wright's has no legal access to comply with permit conditions or abate problems. More significantly, Wright's does not own or control the property over the area to be influenced by the injection well (the area of influence) and, thus, is in n4 position to protect the area from future inconsistent uses. Wright's Disposal cannot commit to providing institutional controls, such as a warning in property records for future generations, because the applicant has no control of the property. Under these circumstances, drinking water sources cannot be protected. 971114 Petition For Review of Class I Industrial Waste Disposal Well Permit #C01516-2115 Petitioner: Suckla Farms, Inc. Page 4 III. The Region failed to respond adequately to comments. Suckla commented that Wright's has no legal right to enter the property for Class I waste purposes and thus cannot meet permit conditions or protect against inconsistent uses of the property. The Region responded, obscurely, that "EPA's review of the information submitted indicates that the permittee's right of access to dispose of waste not generated from oil or gas production does not appear to affect the ability of the operator to access the leased facility to carry out required monitoring and downhole testing of the well." Responsiveness Summary at 5. The Region's response does not adequately address the comment. Suckla demonstrated conclusively, and EPA did not argue, that the lease agreement between Wright's Disposal and Suckla Farms, Inc. is limited to a well "for the purpose of injecting brine for disposal into the Lyons formation." Wright's has no general right of access to Suckla's private property other than that specifically set forth in the agreement. The Region's statement that the issue "does not appear to affect the ability of the operator to access the leased facility [for Class I purposes]" is wrong on its face and is completely unsupported. Because the lease agreement does not authorize such access, Wright's has no legal ability to enter the property for any Class I purposes. The Region simply ignored Suckla's comment that Wright's cannot meet its burden of to demonstrate that it can operate the proposed Class I well without posing an unacceptable risk to underground sources of drinking water, human health, welfare and the environment because Wright's cannot protect against future inconsistent uses of the area of influence (such as oil exploration). The.Region also ignored Suckla's comment that issuance of a permit unfairly imposes liabilities for potential environmental contamination on Suckla, the property owner. 921114 l Petition For Review of Class I Industrial Waste Disposal Well Permit #C01516-2115 Petitioner: Suckla Farms, Inc. Page 5 IV. The Region unreasonably failed to impose conditions necessary to protect the public. It is undisputed that much of the waste governed by the draft permit would qualify as hazardous waste if it were from another source. See Memorandum to Tom Pike from Tom Burns re: Response to RCRA Hazardous Waste Determination Request of February 28, 1990 (Sept. 5, 1990) (Exhibit C to Attachment A). For example, the presence of large concentrations of benzene in much of this waste would cause it to qualify as hazardous under the Toxicity Characteristic test defined by 40 C.F.R. § 261.24(a). Thus, the Agency has already determined that the technical requirements applicable to hazardous waste are appropriate to protect drinking water sources from chemicals of a type found in the waste at issue here. The Agency has full authority to apply similar requirements to injection of these wastes under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9). The record establishes that Wright's operation has resulted in various surface spills and leaks. Wright's did not dispute the fact that spills occurred. The Region unreasonably failed to require a liner to protect the community from toxic spills on surface soils although the Region clearly had authority to impose such a requirement under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9). Since the chemicals at issue here are identical in kind and concentration to chemicals required to be managed in hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, a liner is a necessary and reasonable step to protect the public. Under 40 C.F.R. § 144.28(d) a bond must be sufficient to "clue, plug, and abandon" the well. The Region, in its draft permit and responsiveness summary, has only addressed the "plug and abandon" part of this requirement. Although not defined specifically by the regulations, "closure" clearly must include cleanup of any escaped waste, including surface contamination. a 40 C.F.R. § 264.111. Additionally, under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9), EPA should require that the bond be 92. 1114 Petition For Review of Class I Industrial Waste Disposal Well Permit #C01516-2115 Petitioner: Suckle Farms, Inc. Page 6 sufficient to cover liability from accidental sudden and non-sudden releases. This is necessary to insure that accidental releases do not migrate to drinking water sources. Moreover, since many of the chemicals found in "nonhazardous" industrial waste of this type are identical to the chemicals found in hazardous waste, EPA should use its 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) authority to require financial responsibility consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart H. The Region failed to respond to the "closure" issue in its responsiveness summary. CONCLUSION Wright's Disposal Inc.'s permit application fails to meet the standard of 40 C.F.R. § 144.12. The Region abused its discretion and made clear errors in deciding to issue the permit. The Region also responded inadequately to comments. Review of this case is particularly appropriate because of the Region's action in granting a permit over the objections of the property owner, even after the owner demonstrated that the applicant had no legal right of access to the property to implement the permit. For all of the reasons set forth herein and in Attachments A & B, which are incorporated by reference, the Administrator must reverse the Region's decision and deny the application. Respectfully submitted, veL, Adam Babich • 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 3, Suite 1100 • Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 820-4497 COUNSEL FOR SUCKLA FARMS, INC. 921114 ADAM BABICH r r ' • WATER RR ATTORNEY AT LAW (303) 820-4497 1515 Arapahoe Street - FAX: (303) 820-4425 Tower 3, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202 HAND DELIVERED • December 20, 1991 John A. Carson U.S. EPA, Region VIII UIC Implementation Section, 8WM-DW 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202-2405 RE: UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC) Second Set of Supplemental Comments on Draft Permit Class I Nonhazardous Industrial Waste Disposal Well Suckla Farms #1, Weld County, Colorado (EPA Permit #COS1516-2115) Dear Mr. Carson, On behalf of my client Suckla Farms, Inc., I submit this second set of supplemental comments. Attached to these comments as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference, are the results of Geraghty & Miller Inc.'s review of the Draft Permit. Geraghty & Miller is a nationally known and respected firm of experts on groundwater protection. A statement of the firm's qualifications is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. INTRODUCTION As the permittee,it is the burden of Wright's Disposal Inc. to demonstrate that it can operate the proposed Class I well without posing an unacceptable risk to underground sources of drinking water,human health, welfare and the environment. Wright's Disposal has failed to meet this burden. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must deny the permit on this basis. As noted in my December 5, 1991 comments, Wright's Disposal Inc. has no legal right of access to dispose of industrial waste on the property of Suckla Farms, Inc. By issuing a permit under these circumstances, EPA would be wasting taxpayers' money on a wholly speculative undertaking and would force Suckla Farms ATTACHMENT A 921114 John Carson Page 2 to incur the expense of seeking judicial relief to prevent disposal of industrial waste in the well. EPA has full authority to deny a permit on this basis or to defer any further action on this permit until such time, if any, that Wright's Disposal obtains legal access to dispose of industrial waste on the property. EPA's draft permit does not require Wright's Disposal to post a bond, or make other financial provisions, to clean up contamination caused by its activities. EPA has full authority to require such a bond. Moreover, since the industrial waste at issue may include "hazardous substances," as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(the Superfund Act), EPA or the State of Colorado may ultimately seek to hold Suckla Farms, Inc. liable for contamination caused by the activity of Wright's Disposal Inc.. Under these circumstances, EPA should require Wright's Disposal to post a bond to cover any necessary cleanup costs. EPA has issued a draft permit that addresses the bare minimum conditions set forth in the regulations for "generic" Class I nonhazardous wells. Under the regulations, however, it is EPA's duty to "impose on a case-by-case basis such additional conditions as are necessary" to protect the public. In this case, many of the substances covered by the draft permit would qualify as "hazardous waste" but for legal exemptions based on the origin of the waste. From a public health standpoint, there is no difference between the substances covered by the draft permit and hazardous waste, since the same chemicals and the same concentrations are involved. Accordingly—based on the characteristics of the industrial waste at issue —EPA should impose the same technical requirements on disposal of these materials as would be imposed on disposal of hazardous waste. EPA has full authority to provide these protections to the residents of the Fort Lupton area and Weld County. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to issue the draft permit as written. No permit should be issued until the permittee can demonstrate that it has legal access to the property and that underground sources of drinking water, and the public, will be protected fully. DETAILED COMMENTS I. WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE PUBLIC AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES WILL BE PROTECTED. After a scientific review of the permit application, the draft permit and the administrative record, Geraghty & Miller concluded that: 921114 John Carson Page 3 [T]he permittee has not adequately demonstrated the ability to operate the Suckla Farms # 1 well without unacceptable risk to underground sources of drinking water and human health. Exhibit A at p. 4 (emphasis added). All of the reasons cited by Geraghty & Miller for its conclusion are incorporated by reference into these comments. A. It is the burden of Wright's Disposal to prove that its operations will protect the public. The basic standard which must be met by any underground injection permit is that: No owner or operator shall construct, operte, maintain convert, plug, abandon, or conduct any other injection activity Liss, any injection activity not otherwise prohibited] in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may ... adversely affect the health of persons. 40 C.F.R. § 144.12(a) (emphasis added). See also 40 C.F.R. § 144.1(g) ("no injection shall be authorized by permit or rule if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into Underground Sources of Drinking Water ..."). Further: The applicant for a permit shall have the burden of showing that the requirements of this paragraph are met. 40 C.F.R. § 144.12(a) (emphasis added). Under the plain language of§ 144.12, the applicant must show that all of its operations related to the injection activity will be conducted to protect the public. Clearly, the term "operate," in § 144.12, includes the conduct of surface operations such as containment of spilled liquids and leaks from equipment and vehicles, transportation of waste, and conduct of the actual injection. 921114 John Carson Page 4 B. Wright's Disposal has failed to show that its surface operations, and transportation associated with the facility, will protect the public. The administrative record contains ma analysis of the risks posed by transportation of large volumes of industrial wastes through the community over dirt roads The record is replete, however, with comments from the public demonstrating that transportation associated with current operations already has had unacceptable impacts to the community. If the draft permit is finalized, such transportation problems will increase. As noted by Geraghty & Miller, Wright's Disposal's secondary containment is not sufficient to protect sources of drinking water. Exhibit A at 4 10. The containment provides no barrier to infiltration of spills into groundwater. Moreover, public comments have demonstrated that the ground surrounding Suckla Well # 1 is always wet from the constant leaking and spilling of injection fluids. Without an adequate containment system, including a liner and groundwater monitoring, the injection poses an unacceptable risk to public health. EPA has full authority to require Wright's Disposal to address this problem. Under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9): The Director shall impose on a case-by-case basis such additional conditions as are necessary to prevent the migration of fluids into underground sources of drinking water. Emphasis added. Moreover, 40 C.F.R. § 144.27(b)(1) specifically authorizes EPA to require ground water monitoring. EPA cannot meet its mandate of adding necessary conditions to prevent migration of fluids into drinking water sources without addressing the risks posed to drinking water sources from surface spills. C. Wright's Disposal has failed to show that faults in the area of the well will not result in movement of contaminants into a drinking water source. To meet its burden under § 144.12; the applicant must provide sufficient geological information to demonstrate that there are no faults in the vicinity of the well that could provide pathways for movement of injected fluids into drinking water sources. As noted by Geraghty & Miller, Exhibit A at 4 1, Wright's disposal has not met this burden and has not provided sufficient information to assess the presence 921114 John Carson Page 5 of faults. There is no other information in the administrative record establishing that the vicinity of the well does not contain faults. Instead, EPA, in its draft permit, assumes with no adequate basis that there are no faults in the area. EPA has full authority to require Wright's Disposal to conduct geologic investigations and submit an accurate description of geologic strata into which injection is to take place. 40 .C.F.R. § 144.27 (a) & (b)(3) (EPA may require the applicant to submit "information as deemed necessary" including but not limited to geological information.). D. Wright's Disposal has failed to show: where the injected fluid will migrate; how far it will migrate; or how fast it will migrate. As demonstrated by Geraghty & Miller, Exhibit A at IV 5 & 6, there is not enough information in the record to determine what will happen to the injected fluid. • EPA's conclusion that only a 1/4 mile radius from the well would be influenced was based on faulty assumptions. Geraghty & Miller concluded: [Tihe area contaminated by the injection may ultimately be much greater than a 1/4 mile radius from the well. Exhibit A (emphasis added). Also, "additional characterization or modelling of the Lyons would be necessary to predict the ultimate fate of the injected fluids." a E. Wright's Disposal has failed to show that the proposed injection will not pose an unacceptable earthquake risk. The Colorado Geologic Survey has already noted that, to demonstrate the safety of the well, Wright's disposal should conduct a microseismic monitoring program. ,S Letter of William P. Rogers to Wes Potter (Feb. 9, 1990). Wright's Disposal failed to carry out this investigation. Exhibit A, 112. Seismic activity could result in contamination of drinking water sources. 40 C.F.R. § 144.27 gives EPA full authority to require a microseismic investigation. F. Wright's Disposal has failed to demonstrate that future uses of the surrounding property, including future exploration activities, will not cause the injected fluid to migrate into drinking water sources. These is nothing to prevent future activities, including oil and gas exploration activities, from causing the injected fluid to migrate. Wright's Disposal does not own 921114 John Carson Page 6 or control the property over the area to be influenced by the injection well (the area of review) and, thus, is in nn position to protect the area of review from future inconsistent uses. Wright's Disposal cannot commit to providing institutional • controls, such as a warning in property records for future generations, because the applicant has n control of the property. Under these circumstances, drinking water sources cannot be protected. H. EPA SHOULD NOT ISSUE WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL A PERMIT TO DISPOSE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE ON SUCKLA FARM'S PROPERTY WHEN WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL HAS NO RIGHT OF ACCESS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH WASTE. Attached as Exhibit A to my December 5, 1991 supplemental comments is the lease agreement between Wright's Disposal and Suckla Farms, Inc.. The agreement is short and unambiguous. It is clearly limited to a well "for the purpose of injecting brine for disposal into the Lyons formation." Suckla Farms,Inc.has granted Wright's Disposal n right of access to inject the nonhazardous industrial fluids addressed by the draft permit. 40 C.F.R. Part 144 does not require EPA to issue permits that are wholly speculative. 40 C.F.R. § 144.31(d) requires that the completeness of an application be judged independently of other permit applications; it does not require that the application be judged independently of a legal right of access to the property or common sense. It is a waste of EPA's time and resources and taxpayers' money for EPA to issue a permit to inject waste into property which the applicant does not own and to which the applicant has no legal right of access with regard to the activity to be permitted. Moreover, as demonstrated above, this issue is directly relevant to EPA's mandate to protect underground sources of drinking water. Without the property owner's cooperation, the activity will pose a risk to drinking water sources because the applicant has no control over the area of review and cannot prevent incompatible uses of the property. Moreover, the applicant will have no right of access to minimize adverse impacts as required by 40 C.F.R. § 144.51(d). Under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9), EPA should require that the applicant demonstrate a right of access to the property to address any need for corrective action that arises in the future, to establish adequate containment facilities, to conduct appropriate monitoring and to prevent incompatible uses of the property. Without a legal right to dispose of industrial waste on the property at issue, and to preclude incompatible uses of the property, the applicant cannot meet its burden of showing that the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 144.12 are met. 9 : 1114 John Carson Page 7 III. THE BOND REQUIRED BY THE DRAFT PERMIT IS INSUFFICIENT. Under 40 C.F.R. § 144.28(d) a bond must be sufficient to "close, plug, and abandon" the well. EPA, in its draft permit, has only addressed the "plug and abandon" part of this requirement. Although not defined specifically by the regulations, "closure" clearly must include cleanup of any escaped waste, including surface contamination. CL 40 C.F.R. § 264.111. Additionally, under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9), EPA should require that the bond be sufficient to cover liability from accidental sudden and nonsudden releases. This is necessary to insure that accidental releases do not migrate to drinking water sources. Moreover, since many of the chemicals found in "nonhazardous" industrial waste of this type are identical to the chemicals found in hazardous waste, EPA should use its 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) authority to require financial responsibility consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart H. Much of the so-called "nonhazardous" waste governed by the draft permit may meet the definition of "hazardous substances" under the Superfund Act. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14). Thus, in the future, EPA or the State of Colorado may attempt to hold Suckla Farms, Inc.,the owner of the property, liable for cleanup of any releases. See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1). If EPA issues the permit — over the objections of Suckla Farms, Inc. — the Agency should, in fairness, specifically release and indemnify Suckla Farms, Inc. from any liability for releases caused by Wright's Disposal's mistakes. Since it is unlikely that the Agency would view such a release or indemnification as a realistic option, EPA should deny the permit, or at least require a bond sufficient to cover any liability. IV. EPA SHOULD REQUIRE WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL TO MEET THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE. Much of the waste governed by the draft permit would qualify as hazardous waste if it were from another source. See Memorandum to Tom Pike from Tom Burns re: Response to RCRA Hazardous Waste Determination Request of February 28, 1990 (Sept. 5, 1990) (Exhibit C). For example, the presence of large concentrations of benzene in much of this waste would cause it to qualify as hazardous under the Toxicity Characteristic test defined by 40 C.F.R. § 261.24(a). Thus, the technical requirements applicable to injection of hazardous waste should be applied to injection of the waste governed by the draft permit under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9). The Agency has already determined that the technical requirements applicable to hazardous waste are appropriate to protect drinking water sources from chemicals of a type found in the waste at issue here. 921114 John Carson Page 8 CONCLUSION Wright's Disposal Inc.'s permit application fails to meet the standard of 40 C.F.R. § 144.12. Accordingly, the EPA must deny the application. I request that you notify me directly of any permit decision. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, v Adam Babich 9:=1114 AWGERAGHTY Exhibit A , r& MILLER, INC. any Environmental Services Ground Water Engineering Hydrocarbon Remediation Education December 20, 1991 Mr. Adam Babich Attorney at Law 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 3, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Babich: Per your request, Geraghty &Miller, Inc. has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft Permit No. COS1516-2115 issued to Wright's Disposal, Inc. authorizing the conversion of the Suckla Farms # 1 Well from a Class II brine disposal well to a Class I nonhazardous industrial waste disposal well. Based on that review, Geraghty & Miller submits the following comments: 1. It is stated in the Statement of Basis that correlation of well logs in the vicinity of the Suckla Farms # 1 disposal well indicates that no faulting is present above the injection zone (the Lyons Formation). However, attempts at well correlation using borehole geophysical logs are, at best, highly interpretive and cannot be considered conclusive. Also, the fact that there are no other wells in the immediate area that penetrate the Lyons Formation makes it virtually impossible to evaluate if the Lyons Formation encountered in the Suckla Farms # 1 Well is intercepted by a fault. Thus, it is unknown if there are faults in the immediate vicinity of the Suckla Farms # 1 Well. Faults may provide preferential pathways for injected fluids to migrate into underground sources of drinking water through stratigraphic units that would normally act as confining units. 2. Concerns over the potential of increased seismic activity resulting from the injection of waste fluids into the Lyons Formation through the Suckla Farms # 1 Well were expressed by the Weld County Department of Planning Services to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS). As a result, CGS proposed that a microseismic monitoring program be designed and implemented in the vicinity of the disposal well. The monitoring program was never initiated. • The fact that no major seismic disturbances have been detected during the time that the Suckla Farms # 1 Well has been in operation as a Class II disposal well does not rule out the possibility that continued injection may result in increased seismic 1099 18th Street, Suite 2100•Denver, Colorado 80202•(303) 294-1200-FAX (303) 294-12121171114 GERAGHTY&MILLER, INC. Mr. Adam Babich December 20, 1991 Page 2 activity. The Draft Permit will allow an increased injection rate into the well. The previous average daily injection rate was 1,200 barrels of water per day (BWPD). The permittee has requested that the maximum injection rate be 2,100 BWPD with an average rate of 1,700 BWPD. The Draft Permit states that "the injection rate shall not be limited, but in no instance shall the injection pressure exceed that listed in Part II, Section C, Item 4". If faults are present in the immediate area, the increased injection rate may trigger seismic activity. 3. The area of review (AOR) considered in this permit application is a fixed radius of 1/4 mile around the well. This is the minimum AOR required in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). No evidence was found during a review of the records on file at the EPA Underground Injection Controls (UIC) office in Denver, Colorado that would indicate an attempt was made to determine a zone of endangering influence (CFR 40 146.6). The zone of endangering influence method of determining the AOR may be more suitable than the minimum 1/4 mile radius determination. Conclusions in the Draft Permit that are based on the fixed radius method AOR should be reevaluated using an AOR calculated from the zone of endangering influence method. 4. An updated well record review should be undertaken to ensure that no new test wells have penetrated the Lyons formation since the permit application was initiated. The Spindle oil field is still an active producing area and as such may be subject to renewed exploration efforts. The extent of the review should use the zone of endangering influence AOR. 5. The total volume of injected fluids allowed under this permit (27,672,353 barrels) was based on a calculation of the volume of fluid required to fill a cylinder with a 1/4 mile radius, a height equivalent to the thickness of the injection zone (142 feet) and containing porosity of 20 percent. However, a review of porosity logs over the injection zone interval indicates that the average porosity is much lower, probably averaging 5 percent. At 5 percent porosity, the amount of fluid that would fill the 1/4 mile radius cylinder would be much less (approximately 6,900,000 barrels). Also, the distribution of porosity in the injection zone is nonuniform, indicating the potential for preferential pathways within the injection zone. Injected fluids will not uniformly fill up a cylindrical area, but rather will move along preferential pathways that result from lithologic variation within the Lyons Formation. The area contaminated by injection may ultimately be much greater than a 1/4 mile radius from the well. 6. Injection pressure, the natural hydraulic gradient and lithologic variability will ultimately determine (aside from other extenuating circumstances such as faulting fracturing, well failure, etc.) the direction and distance that the injected fluids will migrate and the horizontal and vertical distribution of those fluids. The injected fluids will migrate away from the wellbore due to the imposed injection pressure at the 921114 GERAGHTY& MILLER, INC. Mr. Adam Babich December 20, 1991 Page 3 wellhead and also due to the natural hydraulic gradient that exists within the Lyons aquifer. Because there are no other wells penetrating the Lyons aquifer in the immediate area, the direction and magnitude of the natural gradient is unknown. Lithologic variability within the Lyons could result in drastic changes in hydraulic properties of the aquifer. The combined effects of the injection pressure, the existing hydraulic gradient and lithologic variabilities will ultimately control the migration path of the injected fluids. Additional characterization or modelling of the Lyons would be necessary to predict the ultimate fate of the injected fluids. 7. Numerous references are made throughout the Draft Permit and the Statement of Basis to the effect that the Suckla Farms #1 Well must demonstrate mechanical integrity, through appropriate testing, prior to commencement of injection as a Class I well. Because of the potential risk to underground sources of drinking water in the event of well failure, it would be more appropriate to conduct these mechanical integrity tests prior to issuance of the permit. 8. The Draft Permit states that Wright's Disposal, Inc. has a letter of credit for the amount of $5,400 to cover the cost of plugging and abandoning the disposal well at the termination of the permit. This amount does not include costs associated with the cleanup of potential surface spillage or contamination that might occur on the facility from ruptured storage tanks, natural disasters, etc. 9. Although a contingency plan has been filed by the permittee, it is not included with draft permit. Furthermore the contingency plan is deficient with respect to containment and cleanup of surface spillage and potential contamination of the shallow ground-water aquifer that is a an underground source of drinking water (the Arapahoe Formation). The conditions of the permit do not provide adequate protection (such as a liner or monitoring wells) to ensure that the underground source of drinking water is not contaminated through activities associated with the operation of the injection well which include the transfer and storage of wastes at the facility. 10. Based on the diagrams provided in the Wright's Disposal, Inc. contingency plan, there is insufficient secondary containment for the 400 barrel surge tanks. The secondary containment provided is only 40% of a single 400 barrel surge tank. Furthermore, the existing secondary containment does not provide adequate protection for the underground source of drinking water because there is no liner present to prevent infiltration of spilled liquid wastes into the underlying aquifer. 9211 ! . GERAGHTY& MILLER, INC. Mr. Adam Babich December 20, 1991 Page 4 Based on the above comments, the permittee has not adequately demonstrated the ability to operate the Suckla Farms # 1 Well without unacceptable risk to underground sources of drinking water and human health. Sincerely, GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Errol P. Lawrence Staff Scientist `rPucC Anthony D. Truschel Principal Scientist/Office Manager 97:1114 Exhibit B . GERAGHTY & MILLEN INU., Environmental Services • . GENERAL - STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS OVERVIEW GERAGHTY & MILLER SERVICES Geraghty& Miller, Inc. is one of the Geraghty&Miller has extensive experience covering all as- oldest, largest, and most experienced pects of water supply,environmental investigations,engineering environmental consulting firms in the and remediation,particularly in support of industrial and commer- cial sites, municipalities,and waste disposal facilities. The fol- nation. The firm has been providing en- lowing services are integrated to meet the requirements of vironrnental consulting services both in CERCLA, RCRA, SDWA, CWA, CAA and other federal, state the U.S. and abroad since 1957 and and local environmental programs today has a staff of more than 950. Ap- Environmental Contamination Investigation Services . proximately one third of the professional _ :. Monitoring program development - staff have more than 10 years of expe- - Construction . rience in the environmental field. System design r. Geraghty & Miller is a full-service Data collection firm capable of investigating and reme Geophysics dieting environmental problems in all Water and soil sampling • • media Over the years, the complex Air titer quality • • challenges introduced by new, more Data interpretation stringent regulations and the advent of Geocnem�stry new investigative and remedial tech- - Environmental statistics; l g : - Modeling _ nologies have resulted in the firm ex- - - Laboratory evaluation/data validation panding its services to meet clientneeds Environmental and Remedial Engineering Services in addition to the development, man- - • Feasibility studies: • agement,and protection of ground-water • Conceptual and final design; . supplies, Geraghty & Miller provides Water, soil and air treatment systems services in engineering design, hydro- - 'Land disposal facilities . carbon recovery, air-quality evaluation, - Containment systems soil and ground-water remediation, - Ground-water recovery • computer modeling, 'geophysics, risk • Construction management assessment, and community relations. - . :• Operational assistance .. • With more than 40 offices located Hydrocarbon Services throughout the United States and : • Investigations abroad, Geraghty & Miller's staff pro- • Remedial design and construction vides integrated consulting services to • • Operation and maintenance its clients. Spill response ' r , 9.21114 . Water Supply Services niques are routinely applied, including data collection, inter- • Ground-water exploration pretation, modeling and monitoring systems. National lead- • Wellfield design and development ' ership also includes water supply exploration, development • Evaluation of surface water availability and management • Regional ground-water planning . Engineering. The firm's engineering staff has over 100 • Wellhead protection •. professionals specializing in water and waste related areas. - Project emphasis includes water and wastewater treatment, Well design and hydraulics ' feasibility studies,engineering design,remedial action plans '• Water supply management and construction management. The group works very closely with the ground-water staff during the assessment process, • Regulatory Support Services - . and in the development of cost-effective remedial strategies.. • RCRA, HSWA, CERCLA,TSCA, SDWA, • and UST negotiations Hydrocarbon Assessment and Remediation: The . firm's hydrocarbon'services staff has over 100 professionals, • ARARs,ACLs and cleanup standard determination including leading experts in the U.S. specializing in subsur- face hydrocarbon recovery, remediation and UST compli- Superfund procedures- NCP compliance • lance management:The group was chosen by the American • Site assessments/property transfers • . Petroleum Institute (API) to assist them in updating Publica- • Compliance audits. tion 1628: "Assessment and Remediation of Underground_ Permitting Petroleum Releases Air Quality.The firm's air quality group consists of a team Specialty Services . . of professionals that addresses facility design,permitting,op-? • Air quality eration and remediation issues including ambient sampling- . • Bioremediation and testing of stacks, trial bums and remedial systems. A • Community relations dedicated laboratory facility and air dispersion modeling ca- • Data base management/GIS pability have been established to support these efforts. . ' • Geostatistics Modeling. The firm's modeling group specializes in • Geophysics quantitative analysis of complex aquifer systems and the • . migration of inorganic,organic and radionuclide constituents • Litigation support/expert testimony in the subsurface. The professionals in the group possess • Modeling - considerable experience in diverse hydrogeologic settings • • Property transfer assessments .. and in-depth knowledge of advanced computer technologies. • iability laboratory The group was established to provide a focal point for ground-. • • Remedial technology trea water modeling within the firm and works closely with other • Risk assessment Geraghty& Miller professionals.The group has also devel- • Surface/stormwater management oped and marketed commercial computer software pack • Subsurface injection (UIC permitting) ages. . • Toxicology Risk Evaluation.The firm's risk evaluation group iscom- • Waste minimization/pollution prevention posed of toxicologists and risk specialists who prepare public Wetlands management health and environmental risk assessments that focus on the analysis and communication of hazardous waste-related Specialty Products toxicity,fate and exposure data. This important client service Computer software . area is applicable to all major federal and state environmental • Training seminars and public health-based laws including CERCLA, SARA, RCRA, CM, CWA, NEPA, UST&TSCA. Risk assessment • Remediation equipment has emerged as a useful tool to assist in property transfers, liability audits,due diligence compliance,and in determining . GERAGEITY & MILLER CAPABILITIES . rational cleanup levels for contaminated sites. Litigation sup-. - ' Geraghty & Miller's commitment to full-service port, expert testimony, and risk communication are other environmental capability is reflected in the firm's de- major service areas provided by the risk evaluation group. velopment of key specialty Divisions and Groups: Community Relations. The firm's community relations • Ground Water. The firm is recognized intema- service is designed to assist clients in developing and imple-,. tionally as a leader in ground-water services ranging meriting environmental communications programs that fulfill from assessment of g round-water quality to develop-., their program goals and are responsive to both regulatory. ' ing cleanup methodologies. State-of-the-art tech- 'agencies and the community.Geraghty&Miller's educational 2 9��111 # • • • 'and publishing experience in the environmental field, cision Making seminars are highly respected in the in- combined with its technical expertise,makes its person- dustry. In addition to these national seminars, the firm -nel highly qualified to plan and implement effective corn- has presented dozens of private seminars, including rnunity relations programs •pollution prevention,to a range of industrial and govern • • Geophysics. The firm's geophysics group offers a mental concerns. These seminars have been delivered wide range of geophysical techniques to service diverse • to more than 20,000 attendees in the last decade. hydrogeologic targets. The group has extensive expe- . Geraghty& Miller groups operate as a team,draw- hence, the freedom to select from many methods, is ing on the combined experience of personnel nationwide • familiar with the most up-to-date geophysical software, to provide full-service consulting to clients. and interpretation techniques;and is well-versed in new methods and enhancements to proven technologies. • The firm can also provide geophysical well logging ORGANIZATION AND STAFF services. • The Geraghty & Miller corporate organization is Waste Minimization. The firm's waste minimiza- designed to provide effective coordination of the firm's • tion group provides services involving pollution preven- multi-disciplinary staff and to foster effective"team build- tion,toxics use reduction and waste minimization. The ing"that has proven successful in responding to client group is committed to help industry avoid future clean- requirements. The firm's organizational structure for ups and to reduce dependency on end-of-pipe pollution projects is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Expertise required for control strategies by modifying process designs and ma investigations is available regardless of a project's loca- terial handling procedures. • tioh. Consistency in investigatory,analytical,and report- Bioremediation. The firm's bioremediation group ing techniques is maintained by strict company-devised • provides total bioremediation capabilities including quality assurance/quality control procedures, uniform • bioscreening and biotreatability evaluations conducted data and report formatting, and the development and in our laboratory, pilot and full-scale bioremediation utilization of a comprehensive and fully functional per- ,projects; biosystem design and engineering, and sonal computer database system. Cost-effective corn- .. consultation to address the diverse requirements of the munications and data-transferring procedures are prac- fir's clients.-The group is currently involved in over a ticed throughout the firm's network of offices via com- dozen full-scale bioremediation projects ranging from puter links (electronic mail and linked CADD systems), petroleum hydrocarbons to chlorinated organic solvents. facsimile machines, and electronic connections to na- Water Information Center. Through its publishing tionwide data bases. subsidiary, Water Information Center, Inc. (WIC), Ger- Geraghty& Miller is comprised of five regions sup- aghty & Miller has a capability unique among environ ported by the family of Geraghty & Miller offices as mental services firms; that is,the ability to produce and illustrated in Exhibit 2. This'facilitates cost-effective distribute, worldwide, printed materials in a form and utilization of national corporate resources as required by manner equal to the highest professional standards of project schedules and needs. the publishing industry.WIC's publications include Water One of the firm's primary objectives is to maintain the Resources of the World, Groundwater Pollution in Eu- high standards of its services by utilizing experienced • rope,Water Atlas of the U.S , and the acclaimed, new, professionals in the fields of hydrogeology, chemistry, second edition of The Water Encvclpedia. WIC also engineering,and related disciplines. Geraghty& Miller publishes three highly-regarded, subscriber supported has demonstrated the capacity to manage hundreds of newsletters:The Groundwater Newsletter,Water News- environmental projects simultaneously by effectively ' ' letter, and International Water Reoort• applying a staff consisting of more than 600 profession- , Senior Experts: A group of the firm's most expert- ' als. Of these, more than 200 have advanced degrees enced senior personnel has been placed at the disposal with an equivalent number having at least 10 years' of the firm's clients. This group,which is experienced in experience in environmental investigations.This level of all of the service areas covered by Geraghty & Miller, experience is unequaled in the environmental field where specializes in expert witness services,litigation support, senior professionals are difficult to find and retain. conflict resolution,and high-level technical support and Staff resources available throughout the U.S. are • guidance to clients and to the firm's technical staff: Not illustrated by specialty areas in Exhibit 3. Many of only have staff members demonstrated and applied their Geraghty&Miller's senior staff are nationally recognized skills and knowledge over many years, they have also in their field of expertise. Geraghty.& Miller routinely demonstrated the ability to communicate that knowledge staffs projects with personnel from multiple regions, as to people at all levels. made-cost-effective by our unique corporate manage- National Seminars.The Fundamentals of Ground-. - .merit organization and as dictated by the demands ofthe Water Contamination and Remedial Strategies and De- ' .project; • GERAGHTY & MILLER CLIENTS very diverse industry experience and knowledge includ- ing the following: Geraghty & Miller has conducted thousands of in- vestigations,.including ground-water exploration,devel- • Petroleum ipment and management,and evaluations of the poten- • Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals tial for contamination from industrial and manufacturing • Manufacturing processes,chemical and sanitary landfills,lagoons and • . Mining & Metals surface. impoundments, mining operations, oxidation • - ponds, septic systems, sludge disposal areas, under- Utilities ground tanks and pipelines, stormwater drainage sys- • Retail & Services tems, and other waste handling facilities. The firm has • Food, Beverages&Wood Products been involved with more than 120 Superfund sites on • Transportation behalf of potentially responsible parties as illustrated in • Financial, Insurance & Real Estate Exhibit 4. Involvement in these projects has encom- • Waste Disposal passed the full range of CERCLA - SARA activities including negotiation of work scopes, RI/FS implemen- • Federal, State& Municipal Government tation, remedial design, remedial action management, • Law Firms . . and litigation support. - • In the last two years alone,the firm provided services Geraghty&Miller has provided environmental serv- to more than 1200 active clients,including half of the 40 ices to more than 3000 clients in the United States and largest domestic chemical companies,two thirds of the in more than 30 countries. In recent years,the firm has 30 largest domestic petroleum companies, and half of derived 90% of its business from large, private sector the 14 largest aerospace companies. While Geraghty& companies involved in industries that face complex Miller does not represent the USEPA or any other ground-water problems arid that must respond to a regulatory agency in an enforcement capacity, the firm variety of environmental regulations. The firm has pro- maintains excellent relationships with the regulatory vided services to approximately 125 of the Fortune 500 community through training*programs and d other non- companies. Geraghty&Miller's client base also reflects . enforcement related research projects.' PROJECT ADVISOR& PROJECT OFFICER PROJECT MANAGER - • TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALTY SERVICES 'SERVICES • SERVICES -_ -RISK EVALUATION: -GROUND-WATER ACCOUNTING _ -AIR QUALITY. -HYDROCARBON CONTRACTS - • -MODELING - : -ENGINEERING MIS. -. EXHIBIT 1 • GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. PROJECT ORGANIZATION - 4 90 11. EXHIBIT 2 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. OFFICE LOCATIONS • NORTHEAST . _ ' ANDOVER BFLIEVUE ALBANY HARTFORD NrrT LA P •iV1EW WEST CHESTER MPDIEAPOLIS• - • MROCHELLE PARK WESTERN MILWAUKEE MADISON• TROY MMIDWEST CHICAGO PITTSBURGH CLEVELAND WASHINGTONRENO BALT LAKE CITY - `: 1 '• • ANNAPOLIS urwAHAPD . RICHMOND DENVER• LAWRENCE• ST.LOUIS MID ATLANTIC TULSA• • RALEIGH . .. 'CRY OF _ OAK RIDGE _ INDUSTRY _ N -.. _ LIKEN ORANGE .PHOENIX ALBUOUEROUE - COUNTY. • _ •MIDLAND .. B ATLAMA _ _ •BIIIYBIONAY • SOUTH AST .. - �iACKsormLLE - . •. .. - HOUSTON - • _ ..: •PUERTO . . , - _ MELBOURNE. RICO •AUSfN _ - TAMPA . . PALMENS .. . EXHIBIT'3 OVERVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF RESOURCES •ENGINEERING-TOTAL PERSONNEL 142 Air Quality,'- Agricultural Chemical Civil ' • : Electrical Environmental Geological • Mining/Petroleum ' • Soils ,`` Structural• - GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES TOTAL PERSONNEL 391 Geochemistry • Geology Geophysics Hydrogeology. ' Hydrology Modeling APPLIED SCIENCES- TOTAL PERSONNEL 69 Chemistry Ecology Environmental Industrial Hygiene Microbiology Soils Toxicology SPECIALIZED& TECHNICAL SUPPORT-TOTAL PERSONNEL 98 Community Relations CADD Computer Graphics Drafting - Estimating Health &Safety Regulatory Specialist Technical Editing Technician QA/QC' • 4 y11i4 • EXHIBIT 4 rE� . GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. WA a rs • a?•SUPERFUND INVESTIGATIONS , 11. t's`twa r T, ?ry%)� Gti--� -. PERFORMED ON BEHALF OF •' :tilt-it-Wig MN • NY inA `OTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE OR )" A ," • ve .r F}*P'ht J,'"yi- . wi MI J • 'ALABAMA . . . e%e^o•_.4- : KS MO KY -Stauffer Chemical(Cold Creek),Bucks - -CA ^^ .. - •- • .- - • NC Stautler Chemical(La Moyne),Axis d 4 - ARIZONA OK "AR F • „' SC Luke Air Force Base,Glendale NM • - 'c y `. • Phoenix Goodyear Airport,Phoenix - • q -AL 'xTs'. : ARKANSAS - - - TX � #N Indusrial Waste Control,Fort Smith - .CALIFORNIA • _ R ��• Intel Corp.,Mountain View • • . • Intel Fab 3 Facility,Santa Clara • Intel Magnetic Storage Site,Santa Clara MICHIGAN • ' - .. Stringfellow Add Pits,Glen Avon Forest Waste Disposal,Otisville _ - • NORTH CAROLINA _ _ • • . Great Lakes Container,Pontiac - - JFD Electronics/Channelmaster,;Oxtord .. - • COLORADO - `-Hooker(Montague Plant),Montague. • .• Martin Marietta(Denver Aerospace),Waterton KL Avenue Landfill,Kalamazoo OHIO Rocky Mountain Arsenal,Adams County '_ OTT/Story/Cordova, Muskegon Chem Dyne,Hamilton - - ' • Springfield Township,Springfield Feed Materials Production Center(USDOE);Fernald CONNECTICUT - • .. Hannibal Hannibal Site,Monroe . . . Solvents Recovery Service,Southington MINNESOTA- • ' ' Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,Portsmouth - - • Koppers Coke,SL Paul South Point Plant,South Point - - DELAWARE 'Reilly Tar,St.Louis Park ' - Wright Patterson Air Force Base,Dayton . Tybouts Corner Landfill New Castle County . - Twin City Arsenal,Minneapolis - T.Zanesville Municipal Well Field;Zanesville- FLORIDA - MISSOURI OKLAHOMA - Agnioo Chemical Company,Pensacola Conservation Chemical Co.,Kansas City .: Hardage/Criner,Griner City Industries,Inc.,Orlando• ' - • Lake City Army PLT,Independence .. ' Davie Landfill,Davie• . • Solid State Okada,Republic. - OREGON ; . lolfngsworth Solderless Terminal,Ft Lauderdale Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co.,The Dallas' ' I kxncetead AFB . _ . .NEBRASKA -.- NL/Gould/Doane Lake,Portland , Kassauf-Kimerlirg Battery,Tampa' - Hastings Ground Water,Hastings - - ' Montco Research Products,Inc.,Hollister 4 - .PENNSYLVANIA . . - Harris Corporation,Melbourne '. NEW HAMPSHIRE ' . - - Chemical Leaman,Cottsville • . NAS,Jacksonville ` - Mali&Goss/Kingston Steel Drum,Kingston'+ • SEQUA Corporation,Dublin . .. ' . PkketMlle RD Landfill Jacksonville - - - - Taylor RD Landfill,Seiner NEW JERSEY RHODE ISLAND• ' Zelhwod Ground Water Contamination,Zellwood - American Cyanamid,'Bound Brook - Davis Liquid Waste,Smithfield -- • _Chemical Leaman,Bridgeport . Pidllo Farm,Coventry . - " : , Cinnaminson Ground Water Contamination, Stamina Mills,North Smithfield . Labounty Site,Charles City . . Cinnaminson Township - - Western Sand&Gravel,Bunileville Otturirwa Works Landfills,Ottumwa D'Imperio Properly,Hamilton Township . , ' ' ' -Red Oak Landfill,Red Oak Fair Lawn Well Field,Falr Lawn SOUTH CAROUNA •' Florence Land Recontounng tJF,Florence Township Begun%Lagoon,Fountain Inn: ' . ILLINOIS - . - - • Gems Landfill,Gloucester Township •-- - - ": - • Outboard Marine,Waukegan Helen Kramer Landfill,Mantua Township : - ' TENNESSEE • • _ Velsldol Chemical(IL),Marshall Jackson Township UF,Jackson Township• . • Murray-Ohio Landfill,Lawrenceburg• - Jis Landfill,Jamesburg/S.Bmnsvick • - • ' -•Oak Ridge Reservation(USDOE),Oak Ridge . ' INDIANA Kin-Buc Landfill,Edison Township Y•12 Plant,Oak Ridge - Lakeland Disposal Service,Claypool - - Upari Landfill,Pitman . '• . -- ' :. ••, K-25 Plant,Oak Ridge . . . Main SL Well Field,Elkhart . Matlack,Inc.,Woolwich Township - - ' ' Norlhsde Sanitary t/F,Zionsville ' " NL Industries,Pedricktown . TEXAS. . - Old CityLandfill,Columbus - Price Landfill,Pleasantville . ' . Brio Landfill,Houston 4 . Presolite Battery Division,Vincennes . : Scientific Chemical Processing,Carlstadt _ 'Odessa Chromium.Odessa - - . Seymour Recycling Corp.,Seymour Swope Oil&Chemical Co.,Pennsauken UnNersal Oil Products,E.Rutherford , . VIRGINIA • --• • ,; KANSAS - - . ' •. - • . .•Avtex Fibers,Inc.,Front Royal - - Strother Field Industrial Park,Cowley County - NEW MEXICO- - - . ' South Valley,Albuquerque -• - WASHINGTON : • KENTUCKY' Harbor island,Seattle- . - ;.B.F.Goodrich,Calvert City . NEW YORK • , ' Western Processing,Kent •' - - Blydenburgh Landfill,Town of Islip - Wyckoff Company,Eagle Harbor • LOUISIANA Brewster Well Field;Putnam County . • . Petro-Processors, Scotlandville GE Moreau,South Glens Falls WISCONSIN - - . _ • Love Canal,Niagara Falls Kohler Landfill,Kohler '• MARYLAND • Malta Rocket Fuel Area,Matta - Master Disposal Service Landfill,Brook ied Limestone Road,Cumberland . Old Bethpage landfill Oyster Bay Sheboygan Harbor&River,Sheboygan . . Olean Well Field,Olean .Wausau Ground-Water Contamination,Wausau . MASSACHUSETTS - Pollution Abatement Services Site,Oswego , . .. . .:. Charles-George Reclamation UF;Tyngsborough • . Syosset Landfill Oyster Bay.: , , WES T WT VIRGINIA- (:`Wells G&H,Wotum. , •- - Volney Municipal Landfill,Town of Volney.. ." Mobay Chemical,New Martinsville ,. r • GERAGHTY & MILLER •= • OFFICE ADDRESSES AIKEN,SC 803-649-3981 HOUSTON,TX 713-266-6867 PLAINVIEW, NY 516-249-7600 - 830 Colony Parkway • 5847 San Felipe St. - 125 East Bethpage Rd. Aiken,SC 29801 • - Suite 310 • ,. : • Plainview, NY 11803 • Houston,TX 77057 - ALBANY, NY.' ' 518-452-7826 • - - PORT TOWNSEND,WA 206-385-7258 ' 24 Madison Ave. Extension - INDIANAPOLIS, IN 317-684-3480 42 Prospect Ave. • - -Albany, NY 12203 101 West Ohio St. . ,.Port Townsend,WA 98368 . Suite 1450 ANDOVER, MA 508-794-9470 Indianapolis, IN 46204 _ • PUERTO RICO -. 809-725-2304 One Corporate Dr. - . • 809 Fernandez Juncos Andover,MA 01810 . . JACKSONVILLE, FL 904.363-0664 Santurce, PR 00907 • . 8936 Westem Way - ANNAPOLIS, MD - 301-224-8777 Suite 7 RALEIGH, NC - 919-781-8199 180 Admiral Cochrane Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32256 3724 National Dr. , - Suite 300-. :. Suite 228 - ' Annapolis, MD 21401 - LAWRENCE, KS " 913-841-7641 Raleigh, NC 27612 • - 900 Massachusetts SL ATLANTA, GA 404.952-2489 Suite 600 . - - - '•Cross Pointe 11 919.571.1662 300 Gaileria Parkway Lawrence,KS 66044 2840 Plaza Place • - . Suite 400 - . - - - - Suite 350 " Atlanta,GA 30339 - _- MADISON,WI - - 608-276-9370 Raleigh, NC 27612. . - - . . - - 2740 Ski Ln, AUSTIN,TX 512-479-6934 Suite 102 RENO,NV 702-827-1440 111 Congress Ave. . - .Madison,.WI 53713 . 3270 Neil Rd. Suite 830, - •- . Suite 101.- ' Austin;TX 78701 . MELBOURNE, FL" • 407.951.2931 Reno,NV 89502 • 1801 Penn St. • - - - - BATON ROUGE, LA. - 504-292-1004 - Suite 7 -- ' - RESTON,VA 703-476-0335 2900 West Fork Dr. - - - Melbourne, FL 32901 • • 1895 Preston White Dr. ' _ Baton Rouge,LA 70827 .. - -MIDLAND,TX- . 915-699.1381 Reston,VA 22091 t 7 _ .1030 Andrews Hwy.- BELLEVUE,WA 206-644-7226 Suite 120 RICHMOND, CA :415.233-3200 ... 14655 Bel=Red Rd.' Midland,TX 79701 `'1050 Marina Way South ' . Suite 202 - - . - Richmond,CA 94804- . - .Bellevue,WA 98007 . MILWAUKEE;WI. 414-276-7742: • 126 N.Jefferson St. - ROCHELLE PARK,NJ 201-909-0700 . BIRMINGHAM, AL. - 205.985.4253 Suite 400 `"'201 West Passaic Street - -. .•'3 Riverchase Office Plaza' Milwaukee,WI 53202 - Suite 300' - Suite 100 .- - - . Rochelle Park,NJ 07662 Birmingham,AL 35244 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-339-9434. ' _ - 105 South Fifth Ave. - SALT LAKE CITY,UT 801.575.5134 . - ' 'CHICAGO, IL- . 312.263-6703 Suite 350 - "5 Triad Center - - 75 East Wacker Dr- Minneapolis, MN.55401 • - Suite 750 . Suite 1100 - Salt Lake City,UT 84180 • ' Chicago,IL 60601 NEWTOWN, PA . 215-968-7755 - - . . 105 Terry Dr. - . ST.LOUIS,MO 314.739.4844 CITY OF INDUSTRY,CA :818.965-4048 . Suite 114 , 3300 Rider Trail South .. _- 17800 Castleton St. Newtown, PA 18940 - Suite 510 Suite 175 St.Louis,MO 63045 ' ' City of Industry,CA 91748 OAK RIDGE,TN . 615.481.3000 255 South Tulane Ave- TAMPA, FL - 813.961.1921 CLEVELAND, OH.. 216-648.8212 . Oak.Ridge,TN 37830 14497 North Dale Mabry Hwy. • 5005 Rockside Rd. - - Suite 115 Suite 600 . . ORANGE COUNTY, CA . 714.753-0444 '. 'Tampa.FL 33618 .. Independence, OH 44131 _ 1 Technology Dr, - .. - ' - Irvine,CA 92718 -TROY,MI 313-524-9030 CORPUS'CHRISTI,TX 512.883-1353 50 West Big Beaver Rd: ' • -. 1700 American Bank Plaza - PALM BEACH . 407-694-0300 Suite 245 ' . Corpus Christi,TX 78475 - GARDENS,FL - - Troy,MI 48084 - 11382 Prosperity Farms Rd- DENVER,CO ' ' 303-294-1200 :Suite 125 - TULSA,OK - 818.664.9900 '109918th St. Palm Beach Gardens,FL 33410 5100 East Skelly Dr. • Suite 2100 - . - - Suite 1000. - Denver,CO 80202 PHOENIX,AZ ' • - 602-496.0025 Tulsa,OK 74135 • 9831 South 51st St- DUBLIN, OH - 614-764.2310 Suite D136 - ' ' WASHINGTON;PA;. • 412-225-8615 ' 6209 Riverside Dr. - . Phoenix,AZ 85044 • Washington.Trust Bldg; Dublin,OH 43017 , . Suite 429 " • PITTSBURGH, PA 412.826-3636 Washington, PA 15301 - • HARTFORD, r CT • -, 203.249-7231 `1050 William Pitt Way -• - " . -' - - . . - ' -• City"Place WEST CHESTER,PA''. 215-692-29'44. ... ': - •- - `Pittsburgh;PA 15238 ':� Suite 3100 .' -- '610 Willowbrook Lane= _ , Hartford,.CT 06103 - West Chester;PA 19382 4• •• • Exhibit C UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P • REGION VIII 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 • DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405 • Ref : 8 HWM-RI Date: September 5 , 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Pike , Chief UIC Implementation Section FROM: Tom Burns, Chief 8 HWM-RI , CO/MT Section SUBJECT: Response to RCRA Hazardous Waste Determination Request of February 28 , 1990 We apologize for the extreme delay in responding to your request of February 28 , 1990 . A combination of changes in staff personnel and the complexity of this issue, coupled with additional regulatory promulgations, created numerous delays . Mike Gansecki of my staff researched this issue. The issue is complicated by the fact that RCRA waste definition rules, UIC -considerations , UST rules, LDR rules , the TCLP promulgation, and some chemistry assessment were involved. ' The attached table summarizes the information developed in assessing your determination request. As we understand the request and the data, a number of oilfield wastewater streams involved in an Underground Storage Tank cleanup were sampled for RCRA hazardous waste characteristics . Flashpoint and pH can be used to assess flammability and corrosivity characteristics, • while the BETX analysis -can be applied to considerations under the recently promulgated TCLP rule (FR, 55 , #61 , pp. 11799-11876 , March 29, 1990 ) . The first and primary consideration under RCRA regulations is whether the wastes are hazardous. From the information presented, it appears that these are wastes (with the possible exception of the skim pit storage of anti-freeze) , are oilfield . production and development wastes . 40 CFR Section 261 .4( b) ( 5 ) reads as follows: • "The following solid wastes are not hazardous wastes• ( 5 ) Drilling fluids, produced waters and . other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas or_ geothermal energy. " 921114 If it is established that the sampled waste streams are in fact excluded as hazardous wastes, then neither the land disposal restrictions , TCLP rule, nor the other characteristics apply. For your information, the attached table .shows how the wastes would be considered under the characteristics ( including TCLP ) , if the wastes were under consideration as potentially hazardous. All would fail the TCLP for benzene ( D018 ) , and all but sample stream #2 , would also fail the flammability characteristics test. The brief description given in your memo suggests that the operator of the skim pit ( sample #3 ) may have been or be storing/disposing of anti-freeze . Ethylene glycol itself is not a listed hazardous waste. It ' s chemical properties in the pure state do indicate potential flammability. For this reason, the table identifies this waste stream as potentially regulated. However, with the inordinately high levels of BETX in at least one of the two ground water samples ( almost 10% BETX by weight ) , these volatile aromatics are very likely to cause most of the flammability. It could be somewhat difficult to sort out the low flash point differences due to the ethylene glycol . The table also lists the status under land disposal restrictions (LDRs ) for these potential characteristics. For wastes restricted by flammability ( D001 ), there are a number of different treatability groups specified under the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions (FR, 55 , # 106 , pp. 22520-22720, June 1 , 1990 . For liquid wastewater streams with less than 10% total organic carbon, the rather cryptic "DEACT" or deactivation is specified as the treatment method. It essentially means that the flammability characteristic must be removed. This could be accomplished by blending/treating in a wastewater treatment system, other biological treatment, and perhaps chemical treatment ( see pp. 22543-22545 of the above cited Federal Register ) . The ground water waste stream identified as 1482-U shows some surprisingly high levels of BETX, and very close to the 10% D001 cutoff . Above this level, incineration or product recovery are the required BADT under the land disposal restrictions. Certainly, the owner/operator should consider recovering some of this product at these levels, if there is sufficient volume. While all the samples fail the TCLP for benzene (D018 ) , there are currently no land disposal restrictions in effect. EPA must promulgate such standards within six months of promulgation of new waste codes. However, if the Agency does not do so in this time frame, the wastes are not prohibited from land disposal . • Jim Rakers in the UST program was asked to review this determination. He pointed out another RCRA/UST consideration: 2 9:1114 Under the recently promulgated TCLP rule, petroleum- contaminated media also fall under the 261 . 4 exemption: "The following solid wastes are not hazardous wastes • ( 10 ) Petroleum-contaminated media and debris that fail the test for the Toxicity Characteristic of 261 . 24 and are subject to the corrective action regulations under Part 280 of this chapter . " Since this is a UST cleanup, it appears that the media ( such as ground water and soils ) are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C, and hence the land disposal restrictions . Jim pointed out that, by contrast, leaks from an above-ground storage tank would be subject to Subtitle C and I rules and LDRs . These wastes would then also be subject to UIC rules , if injected. Please contact Mike Gansecki (x1510 ) of my staff if you need further assistance on this matter. Attachment FCD:September 5 , 1990 :maga 3 • 91114 STATUS OF SAMPLED OILFIELD WASTES SAMPLE WASTE IDENT SAMPLE RCRA RCRA CEA.RACTERISTICS LDR NTIMRFR MFTYMM S'ATuIS FV'R11 - CQMOS2 TCLP3 RFTTRICTFD?4 #1(1480) Oilfield wastes water Exemption Yes Wash pit 261.4(b)(5) D001 DEACT No No Yes (Benzene- Not at D018) present #2 (1481) Oilfield wastes water Exemption No No Truck wash 261.4(b)(5) No No Yes Not at (Benzene- present 0018) #3(1482-L) Ground Water water Exemption ND . ? Oilfield Wastes 261.4(b)(5) ND Skim Pit? Yes Not at D018 present' #3(1482) Ground Water water Exemption Yes - DEACT/INCIN Oilfield Wastes 261.4(b)(5) D001 No No ND ? Skim Pit? #3 (1482-U) Ground Water water Exemption ND ?� Oilfield Wastes 251.4(b)(5) ND Yes Not at DO18 present x3(1482) Skim Pit water Potentially Yes DEACT/INCIN. Anti-freeze RCRA regulated, D001 Disposal if flammability due to anti-freeze 1 RCRA-regulated as a characteristic D001 if flashpoint <140°F 2 RCRA-regulated as a characteristic D002 if pii>. 12 or pHt 2 3 RCRA-regulated as characteristic 0018 if benzene > 500 ug/1. Other BETX species do not have characteristic limits. 4 Wastes are potentially LDR restricted only if they are first determined to be hazardous wastes. 4 9 21114 ADAM BABICH ATTORNEY AT LAW (303) 820-4497 1515 Arapahoe Street FAX: (303) 820-4425 Tower 3, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202 - HAND DELIVERED AT PUBLIC HEARING December 5, 1991 John Carson U.S. EPA, Region VIII UIC Implementation Section, 8WM-DW 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202-2405 RE: UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC) Public Hearing for Class I Permit Suckla Farms #1 Injection Well (EPA Permit #COS1516-2115 Dear Mr. Carson, On behalf of my client Suckla Farms, Inc. , I submit the following supplemental comments and request for an extension of the comment period. Attached as Exhibit A to this letter is the lease agreement between Wright' s Disposal and Suckla Farms, Inc. The agreement is limited to a well "for the purpose of injecting brine for disposal into the Lyons formation. " Suckla Farms, Inc. has granted Wright' s Disposal no right of access to inject the nonhazardous industrial fluids addressed by the draft permit. It would be arbitrary and capricious for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant Wright's Disposal a permit to inject waste into property which Wright's Disposal does not own and to which Wright' s Disposal has no legal right of access with regard to such waste. Indeed, it would be a waste of taxpayer's money and the Agency' s resources for EPA to continue work on the permit until such time, if any, that Wright' s Disposal obtains a contractual right to dispose of Class I waste at Suckla Farms. Attached as Exhibit B are documents from Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission files. These documents are examples of the surface contamination problems, and potential groundwater problems, caused by Wright's Disposal 's operations. If EPA were to grant a permit, the permit must be changed to prevent such problems from arising in the future. Additionally, the permit must be changed to require Wright' s Disposal to provide reports of all surface spills and other releases, and results from all required monitoring, to the public in an information repository in the Fort Lupton area and ATTACHMENT B 921114 John Carson Page 2 to EPA. Suckla Farms, Inc. has not had an adequate opportunity to review the draft permit or to discuss its concerns with Wright' s Disposal. Moreover, EPA failed to provide adequate notice of this hearing and these proceedings in a local newspaper. Accordingly, Suckla Farms, Inc. requests that the comment period be extended for an additional sixty days, until February 3, 1992. Thank you for your consideration of these supplemental comments and request. Very truly yours, 4.-471 dam Babich 921114 Exhibit A /l r. •• f • GENERAL LEASE Lease made this /c day of May, 1989 between Suckle Farms, Inc. , 4468 W. C.R. #177-76tt Lupton, Colorado, Hereinafter referred to as "Lessor", and Wright 's Disposal, Inc. , a Colorado Corporation, 1892 Denver Avenue, Fort Lupton, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee", to wit ; 1 . Lessor hereby leases to Lessee or his assigns Che premises described as a tract of Lwo acres or less, located in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, 2, 020 feet from West line , 500 feet from South line, such being the identical premises previously leased by this Lessor to Amoco Production Company. Said lease to include all tanks, wells, and other improvements located OR such premises. 2. Lessee intends to utilize such premises as a location for an injection well for the disposal of brine water and shall therefore drill a new well to an approximate depth of 9, 500 feet for the purpose of Injecting brine for disposal into the Lyons formation. 3 . This lease shall be expressly contingent upon Lessee obtaining all permits as required, if any, from Weld County and from the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, or any other local , state of federal agency having jurisdiction. 4. Prior to commencement of any drilling operations, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2, 500. 001 as and for compensation in full for all surface damages to the premises resulting from Lessee ' s occupancy and drilling operations on said premises, which amount Lessor accepts as full and final payment, in advance, for any and all such damage . Payment once made shall be non-refundable. 5. The initial term of this Lease shall be for that period from the date of this Agreement until Lessee shall complete the drilling of the well to be placed on the premises. No rent shall be required during this period. Lessee shall diligently pursue completion of drilling of such well. 6 . Commencing with Lessee 's tirst injection of brine into the well to be drilled by Lessee, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2, 500. 00) per year as -rent for the permises. Such rent is to be paid in monthly installments of $208.34, commencing within thirty ( 30) days of drilling of injection well and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until Lessee shall no longer be able to operate such well in a reasonable, economical manner as determined by Lessee in Lessee 's sole judgement, but in no event for a term no longer than ten (10) years from the date of first injection of brine into the wall. Second 10 year lease to be renegotiated with a cap of $416 .68 per month. Suckla Farms, Inc. shall be entitle�etg of any oil produced from injection well. 11 P 09 • • 7. Lessee or his assigns , shall as an express :•.ondition of this Lease, continuing throughout its term, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all liability for claims, damages, or other injury of any sort, arising out of or occasioned by Lessee' s use of the premises , including but. not limited to any claims or suits related to disposal of brine water on the site. Indemnification shall include reimbursement to Lessor for costs and reasonable attorney' s fees incurred in defending or respor.-ling to any such claims , whether or not such claims have merit. 8. In the event of default by Lessee in any of the terms or conditions of this Lease , Lessor shall be entitled to terminate this Lease upon notice to Lessee as provided by law, and to possession of the premises. In the event suit ::hall be required for eviction, Lessor shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney' s fees and costs , if successful. 9 . Upon termination, Lessee shall be responsible for cost of capping all wells on the property and restoring the surface of the premises to the condition as found on the date of this . lease, reasonable ordinary wear and tear accepted. Lessee shall be allowed to remove all trade fixtures tram the premises. 10. Lessee shall have the right to install a 14 ft. by 40 ft. flat steel tank on the Southwest corner of facility. Lessee wilt also be allowed to remove or repair existing equipment at the facility. 11. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of the parties, their heirs, representatives and lawful assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this. Lease in Weld County on the day and year first above written. SUCKLA FARMS, 1 .C. :$, a/ . /.lug • Frank' J . SuCkla, Lessor WRIGHT'S DISPOSAL, INC. , A Colorado Corporation I Charles Wright, Lessee _7_ 921114 II` Exhibit B o t.entA.li,„7/„. • • it lit . ii n11 ' _ 1 1 N �OMMISSIi. iv J .. `1c..\5 ``c,. ' ��" �� ESOURCES .w , 4�n G +,1•./. C`-•l 3UILDING c. o P TO 1 `\T 1 I I S cA .- 1" Ir'\ t_c't1 .,.�, I-, \ :a.1-e_ •. - � 0203 ROY ROMER y 1 Governor t sc\- -e W . 5 -';F:tv\ e_oc5e a 9{„ s r o ,�-, �.e.. I-+ ( -4-\- r et..\r•., 4it,4 t e P. 1 1 4 , Wea ' OV%`LJ e Field ( ,b4,-�. -7, \,.r, p -- '-•]Q(0 - 29 ( 1 -- L\J • . Frank Suckla concerning K 1 the unloading of trucks at ,,S91.4 — `11e- 7e) — Or Upon inspection by the mined that when water is (916 - 931 M lity a certain amount of �57_ Y2o 2 • e hose to the tank is Pr:;�•\\k SQL.Ltq ,cipitation , this water is 40 i _ fields cultivated by Mr . /^ 1 4�:�,�t Caw I� r - on the north side of the o�.. + \ .r -a y .;.} grate sump system. As a r•r4 '.,.;,� � � -. c"�' `� a berm be constructed on I 1 �_ ... R _ \.az.. .1 contain the hose water `t -t" " ' �` " �" This should be done r etick_ ,"7- 6°b +D ehecle-'1.6� imp system similar to the oE '(�_J IL — / a v —fin. 2 (.4.7 v�` pad be constructed and in Iv e tanks on the south side this date without a sump ding these requirements , please contact me at ti 4-21UU . Very truly yours, Cci Olf eh1r,..Cx-c.o— Ed DiMatteo Sr . Petroleum Engineer ED:mc cc: Bob Van Sickle, P .E. , Files ( #0048e) 9" 1.t.' STATE OF COLORADO ulL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUITE 380 LOGAN TOWER BUILDING !J WILLIAM R. SMITH 1580 LOGAN STREET Director DENVER, COLORADO 80203 DENNIS R. BICKNELL ROY ROMER 1 Deputy Director (303) 894-2100 Governor April 12 , 1990 • Mr . Robert Fullop Wright ' s Disposal, Inc. 9270 Quitman St . - Westminster , Colorado 80030 Re: Truck Unloading Problems Suckla Farms Injection Well #1 SE NW Sec. 10 — T1N — R67W, Spindle Field Weld County, Colorado Dear Sir : The Commission was contacted by Mr . Frank Suckla concerning water run off problems associated with the unloading of trucks at the Suckla Farms Injection facility. Upon inspection by the Commission area engineer , it was determined that when water is unloaded at the south side of the facility a certain amount of water is put on the ground when the hose to the tank is uncoupled . When there is sufficient precipitation, this water is carried off-site and on to the wheat fields cultivated by Mr . Suckla . Hose water from trucks unloaded on the north side of the road is collected by cement and metal grate sump system. As a temporary measure, it is required that a berm be constructed on the south side unloading site which will contain the hose water and prevent it from running off-site . This should be done immediately. It is required, that a sump system similar to the one located on the north side of the road be constructed and in 4 use by May 12 , 1990 . Unloading into the tanks on the south side of the road will net be allowed after this date without a sump collection system. If you have any questions regarding these requirements , please contact me at 894-2100 . Very truly yours, eci Ed DiMatteo Sr . Petroleum Engineer ED:mc cc: Bob Van Sickle, P .E. , Files (40048e ) 9,7_1114 s`�` UNITED STMfES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ivN AGENCY % REGION VIII Y 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 iza Prof DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466 Ref: 8RC September 25, 1992 By EPA Custom Designed Express Mail Pouch Brenda H. Selden U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator Environmental Appeals Board (A-101) 401 M Street, SW Room 1145 (West Tower) Washington, DC 20460 Re: UIC Appeal Nos . 92-7 & 92-8 Class I UIC Final Permit Wright' s Disposal, Inc. Dear Ms. Selden: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of the Response of Region VIII to Petitions for Review and the accompanying Certified Index to the Administrative Record. The Certified Index of the Administrative Record indicates by asterisk those portions of the record that are being provided with this letter. For most of the items, one copy is enclosed. Two copies of Region VIII ' s Final Permit, Revised Statement of Basis, and Responsiveness Summary are enclosed. Copies of the Response and Certified Index are being sent to the parties listed below. If there is anything else you need, please do not hesitate to call me at (303) 294-7551 or (303) 293-1458 . Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Qgt MarSre J V Livingston Assistant Regional Counsel 9 f Printed on Recycled Paper 921 4a cc: with enclosures and by certified mail, return receipt requested: Adam Babich 1050 Seventeenth Street Suite 1730 Denver, CO 80265 David Yamada City Administrator City of Fort Lupton P.O. Box 148 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 • • • BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Suckla Farms, Inc. Petitioner ) Class I UIC Final Permit Wright' s Disposal, Inc. City of Fort Lupton, ) UIC Appeal Nos . 92-7 & 92-8 Petitioner RESPONSE OF REGION VIII TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW I. INTRODUCTION On June 16, 1992, EPA Region VIII issued a permit to • Wright' s Disposal, Inc. ("Wright" or the "Permittee") to dispose of Class I nonhazardous waste in the Suckla Farms #1 injection well in Weld County, Colorado. Suckla Farms, Inc. ("Suckla") and the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado ( "City" )have filed Petitions for Review of Region VIII' s permit decision. The following is • Region VIII' s response. II. ARGUMENT As stated in a recent underground injection control (UIC) administrative permit appeal decision by the EPA Administrator: Under 40 CFR Section 124 .19 (a) , there is no appeal as of right from the permit determination. Ordinarily, a petition for review of a UIC permit determination is not granted unless the determination is based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law or involves an important matter of policy or exercise of discretion warranting review. The preamble to the regulations states that "this power of review should be only sparingly exercised" and "most permit conditions should be finally determined at the Regional level * * 1 ... 9 1f14 * . " 45 Fed. Reg. 33, 412 (May 19 , 1980) . The burden of demonstrating that the permit conditions should be reviewed is therefore on the petitioner. Arco Oil and Gas Company, UIC Appeal No. 89-1. As discussed below, the two Petitions for Review fall short of this standard. A. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Region VIII' s permit decision was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law. Throughout its Petition for Review, Suckla argues that Region VIII erred in issuing the permit because Suckla, which owns the surface rights to the property surrounding the well site and has leased the property to the Permittee, does not interpret the lease to allow the disposal of nonhazardous Class I waste on the site. Suckla has cited no statutory provision or regulation, nor is EPA Region VIII aware of any, requiring EPA to deny the permit on this basis. Region VIII has made no determination as to whether Suckla' s interpretation of the lease is correct. To have done so would have been to determine rights and liabilities between private parties. EPA lacks authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) or its implementing regulations to assume such a role. Instead, EPA' s role in this matter, consistent with SDWA regulations, has been to determine whether and under what conditions nonhazardous Class I waste can be injected into the Suckla Farms #1 well without endangering underground sources of 5 drinking water (USDWs) . 2 921114 B. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Region VIII ' s permit decision was an exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration which the Administrator. in his discretion. should review. For the reasons explained below, Region VIII did not abuse its discretion in issuing the permit. The pertinent background of this case follows. Since 1989 , the Permittee has been authorized by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to inject Class II waste into the well in question. The Class II permit was issued by Colorado rather than EPA because EPA has delegated the Class II underground injection control program to Colorado. Because the Class I program has not been so delegated, EPA has retained the authority to issue Class I permits in Colorado. Accordingly, Wright' s Class I permit was issued by EPA. Under 40 CFR Section 146.5 (b) , Class II wells inject fluids "brought to the surface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas production and may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants which are an integral part of production operations. . . . " Class II wastes include those listed on page 10 of Region VIII' s Responsiveness Summary. Class I wells include hazardous waste disposal wells and "other industrial and municipal disposal wells. " (40 CFR Section 146 .5 (a) . ) The Suckla Farms #1 well has been permitted as a nonhazardous Class I well. 3 921.114 The lease between Suckla and the Permittee is Attachment B 1 to Suckla' s Petition for Review. Suckla argues that the lease allows the Permittee to operate a Class II but not a Class I waste disposal well on this property. Suckla did not object to Colorado' s issuance of the Class II permit in 1989 . It has objected to EPA' s issuance of the nonhazardous Class I permit. For the reasons stated in Part A, above, Region VIII declines to render a legal opinion as to whether Suckla' s interpretation of its lease is correct . In Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, below, Region VIII responds to the other arguments Suckla raised in Parts I, II, III, and IV of its Petition for Review. In Part 5, below, Region VIII responds to the arguments presented by the City of Fort Lupton. 1. Increased Liability for Suckla Suckla argues that because the Permittee has been issued a Class I permit, "Wright' s injection of Class I waste into property owned by Suckla, will subject Suckla to potential liability fora groundwater and soil cleanup" and "forces Suckla to incur substantial legal fees to prevent Wright' s trespass on Suckla' s property. " (Pages 2-3 , Suckla' s Petition for Review. ) Implicit in Suckla' s argument about increased liability is the assumption that the permit provides the Permittee a right of access that it would not otherwise have. The permit states otherwise. Part III.A of the permit, consistent with the requirement of 40 CFR Section 144 .51 (g) , provides, in part: Issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive 4 921114 privilege; nor does it authorize any injury to persons or property, any invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of State or local law or regulations . In other words, Region VIII ' s issuance of the permit does not increase the Permittee' s right of access. Suckla' s argument about increased liability is also based on an understanding that the wastes to be injected are hazardous . Please see part 4, below, for a discussion of this issue. 2 . Risk to Water Supplies Suckla has further argued that "because Wright' s has no legal access to the property . . . Wright' s has no legal access to comply with permit conditions or abate problems . " (Page 3 , Suckla' s Petition for Review. ) If the Permittee were unable to access the property for the purpose of meeting conditions in the Class I permit, then the Permittee also would have been unable to get access to dispose of Class I waste in the first instance. Thus, compliance with other . permit conditions relating to disposal of Class I waste would be irrelevant. As Region VIII indicated on page 5 of its Responsiveness Summary, if the Permittee disposes of Class I wastes in this well, having obtained access for at least that purpose, EPA will not recognize a claim of lack of access as a defense to compliance with any permit condition. Suckla' s arguments concerning access in no way diminish the responsibility of the Permittee to assure that, it will have sufficient access to comply _ with each permit requirement. 5 921114 Suckla argues that because the Permittee does not control the entire "area of influence, " the Permittee cannot "protect against future inconsistent uses, such as oil exploration. " However, the permit conditions are designed to prevent USDW contamination, thus avoiding the need for future protection against inconsistent uses . (See especially pages 13 and 14 of Region VIII' s Responsiveness Summary, discussing how the geologic confining zone and the required well construction serve to isolate the injected fluids from USDWs . ) Similarly, Suckla argues that the Permittee "cannot commit to . . . a warning in property records for future generations, because the applicant has no control over the property. " Even if such a notice were appropriate, Suckla has not explained why "control over the property" is necessary in order to file such a notice. 3 . Adequacy of Response to Comments . • Suckla claimed that a statement on page 5 of Region VIII' s response to comments concerning the right .of' access under the current lease for doing "required monitoring and downhole testing of the well" did not adequately respond to Suckla' s objections . Region VIII' s statement was intended to distinguish between access to dispose of waste and access to comply with permit conditions. If lack' of access meant that the Permittee could not dispose of Class I waste, the environment would be in no way threatened by Class I waste and there would be no consequent need . I to deny the permit . 6 921114 The issue of access is of greater concern with respect to complying with permit requirements such as monitoring and testing. It is inconceivable that Suckla (or, if access rights under the lease were litigated, a court) would allow the Permittee access for waste disposal but not for compliance with permit conditions. The Permittee is responsible for ensuring sufficient access to comply with the permit. In the event of noncompliance, EPA is prepared to exercise all appropriate remedies, including termination of the permit under 40 CFR Section 144 .40 (a) (1) and enforcement. Part III.E. 1 of the permit states, "Any permit noncompliance . . . is grounds for enforcement action, permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification. " As stated previously and in the Responsiveness Summary, EPA will not recognize lack of access as a defense to noncompliance with any permit requirement. Suckla also states that it "demonstrated conclusively, and EPA did not argue, that the lease agreement between Wright' s Disposal and Suckla Farms, Inc. is limited to a well ' for the purpose of injecting brine for disposal into the Lyons formation. '" Region VIII' s silence on the interpretation of the lease was not intended as an agreement with Suckla' s• position. Nor was it intended as a disagreement. As mentioned above, EPA is not the proper forum for interpreting contracts between private parties. Region VIII would reiterate that the permit is not intended as a legal interpretation of the lease. The permit: 7 921114 is solely a set of conditions for ensuring that Class I injection, if and when done, is done safely. 4 . Protective conditions Suckla argues that the permit should have had various protective provisions, due to a concern that much of the waste to be injected would be considered "hazardous" under 40 CFR Part 261 if not for 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b) (5) . Section 261.4 (b) (5) , adopted pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Section 6921 (b) (2) (A) , exempts " (d) rilling fluids, produced waters and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy" from the definition of "hazardous wastes . " Suckla' s argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the Section 261.4 (b) (5) exemption. This exemption applies to Class II but not Class I wastes. Under this exemption and pursuant to the 1989 Colorado Class II permit, the Suckla Farms #1 well already has routinely injected wastes that otherwise would be prohibited due to having hazardous characteristics . On the other hand, because the exemption does not apply to Class I waste, EPA' s Class I permit would add only waste that is analyzed and found not to be hazardous. (See page 7 of the Revised Statement of Basis and Part II.C. 6 of the permit. ) • Being nonhazardous, the new Class I wastes would be of less concern than what already is allowed to be injected in this well under the current Class II permit. 8 921114 Due to its erroneous concern about hazardous wastes, Suckla argues that the permit should have required a surface liner and a different type of financial bond. Region VIII did not consider a liner necessary, because the tanks and berm are adequate to contain any surface spills . (See page 6 of the Responsiveness Summary. ) However, in response to comments, Region VIII added a requirement for the operator to maintain the surface facility in order to prevent surface spillage. (See Part III.E.6 of the permit. ) Moreover, if any surface spills occur, EPA has the authority to issue emergency orders under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act in order to require cleanup. As to the bond, Suckla argues that it should have covered "closure, " not merely "plugging and abandonment, " in order to assure that any contamination would be cleaned up. Section II.F. 1 of the permit accomplishes this, because it requires "continuous financial responsibility and resources to close, plug and abandon the well . " (emphasis added) To further address Suckla' s concern over EPA' s authority to compel cleanups, 40 CFR Section 146 .10 (d) provides, EPA "shall prescribe aquifer cleanup and monitoring where [the EPA] deems it necessary and feasible to insure adequate protection of USDWs . " 5 . City' s Obiections Because the City of Fort Lupton' s Petition for Review adopted and incorporated Suckla' s petition by reference, EPA requests that the arguments set forth above be considered with i regard to the City' s petition, as well as Suckla' s. 9 921114 In addition, the City presented a City Council Resolution at the public hearing, which recommended that the well classification change be submitted to the Weld County Commissioners for action pursuant to the County' s zoning regulations . As indicated on page 4 of the Responsiveness Summary, EPA' s permit does not authorize any infringement of local laws or regulations. Hence the permit issuance should not affect this concern. The resolution also called for "studies . . . addressing all concerns, to be reviewed by all parties prior to final action by the approving agencies . " Although Region VIII staff believe that the well construction requirements and geology of the area assure that injected fluids will be safely isolated from USDWs, Region VIII did, in response to comments such as this, add a requirement to the permit for an environmental audit for evaluating the adequacy of facility operations and maintenance in preventing ground water contamination. (See Section III.E. 6 of the Final Permit. ) The resolution also stated that "the Environmental Protection Agency be put on notice that any detrimental effects to the City of Fort Lupton' s ground water supply through your agency' s approval of this classification change will; result in immediate action by this municipality to determine the loss or damage to the ground water and to rectify the problems. The costs shall be borne by the applicant and other responsible parties . " Region VIII responds that the protective provisions o€ 10 9/71114 the permit are expected to prevent any such damage from occurring and that the EPA' s authorities cited above should assure that the Permittee will correct any problems that do occur. III. CONCLUSION Region VIII did not make any erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law in its permit decision. Nor, considering the circumstances, did Region VIII abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the Petitions for Review should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Ma a Mar ret Livin ston Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. E.P.A. , Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 293-1458 Certificate of Service A copy of the preceding was sent by certified mail, return . receipt requested to each of the following: Adam Babich Counsel for Suckla Farms, Inc. 1050 Seventeenth Street Suite 1730 Denver, CO 80265 Date: V.25/52---( Cert. No. lP 779.- IP/ - 5'59 David Yamada City Administrator City of Fort Lupton P.O. Box 148 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Date: 74.5/51 Cert No. - 177 189 - rob by: 4. 11 921114 ;lnh?•s"' . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Lria REGION VIII 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466 • • CERTIFIED INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WRIGHT' S DISPOSAL, INC. SUCKLA FARMS #1 EPA PERMIT No. CO1516-02115 * Indicates documents included in package, other material available on request "The Denver Area Earthquakes and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Disposal Well" David M. Evans, The Mountain Geologist, V. 3 , No. 1: , 1975 (pp 23-36) "Late Cretaceous Growth Faulting, Denver Basin, Colorado" Colo. School of Mines, November, 1976 (20 pp) "Radius of Pressure Influence of Injection Wells" EPA-600/2-79- * 170, August, 1979 (pp 200) - . "Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection" USGS * Open File Report 87-331, June, 1987 (72 pp) Letter of Agreement between Amoco (mineral leaseholder) and Wright' s Disposal, Inc. (dated June 6, 1989) Copy of letter from Colorado State Engineer to COGCC listing USDWs at Suckla Farms #1 well site (dated July 6, 1989) "Geologic Structure, .Hydrology, and Water Quality of the Laramie- Fox Hills Aquifer in the Denver Basin, Colorado" USGS Publication Hydrologic Investigation Atlas No. HA-650 Copy of COGCC Final Approval letter to Wright' s Disposal, Inc. * to operate Suckla Farms #1 as a Class II injection well (dated August 2, 1989) Class I Permit Application submitted by Wright' s Disposal, Inc. * for Suckla Farms #1 injection well (received September 27, 1989) Copy of letter from Wright' s to Weld County: Application for a Certificate of Designation, Suckla Farms Injection Facility (dated October 12, 1989) Review summary of Wright' s Class I Permit Application by Paul r Osborne (dated October 30, 1989) • • Printed on Recycled Paper 9:71114 * Supplemental Answers to UIC Form 4 of permit application submitted by Wright' s (dated November 27, 1989) "OSWER Comparative Risk Project, Executive Summary & Overview" * EPA/540/1-89/003 , November, 1989 (64 pp) Letter to Frank J. Suckla (landowner) from Wright' s Disposal, * Inc. notifying Suckla that a Class I designation has been applied for with the EPA (dated January 26, 1990) Electric well logs of Suckla Farms #1 and surrounding wells (received February 10, 1990) Memorandum of February 28, 1990, from Tom Pike to RCRA with lab * analyses of fluids proposed for Class I injection submitted by Wright' s "Assessing the Geochemical Fate of Deep-Well-Injected Hazardous Waste" EPA/625/6-89/025a June, 1990 "Procedure for Conducting Pressure Fall-off tests of Injection Wells, " EPA Region V, Regional Guidance #6 Memorandum of September 5, 1990, from RCRA to Tom Pike with * evaluation of lab analyses of proposed fluids for Class I injection submitted by Wright' s Cenref lab analyses of Class II fluids being injected in Suckla * Farms #1 (dated January 22 , 1991) List of five potential sources of Class I fluids submitted by * Wright' s (dated May 13 , 1991) List of all oil companies currently delivering Class II brine fluids to Suckla Farms #1 (received July 3 , 1991) Program Overview-Underground Injection Control, Region VIII, Paul Osborne, August, 1991 * UIC Class I Draft Permit, with Statement of Basis, (issued August 15, 1991) Public Notice announcing issuance of Class I Draft Permit * (published August 21, 1991) Affidavit of Publication from The Denver Post (announcing issuance of Draft Permit) Affidavit of Publication from Longmont Daily Times Call (announcing issuance of Draft Permit) 2 971114 Affidavit of Publication from the Farmer and Miner in Ft. Lupton (announcing issuance of Draft Permit) Sixteen (16) written comments, received during the 30-day public notice period following the August 15, 1991 issuance of the Class I Draft Permit to Wright' s Disposal, Inc. , and publication of August 21, 1991 Public Notice Public Notice announcing Public Hearing to be held in Greeley, * Colorado on December 5, 1991 (date of publication November 5, 1991) Affidavit of Publication from Ft. Lupton Press (announcement of Public Hearing) Affidavit of Publication from Greeley Daily Tribune (announcement of Public Hearing) Affidavit of Publication from The Denver Post (announcement of Public Hearing) Computer list and card file of mailing addresses of all commenters on Draft Permit and attendees at Public Hearing Copies of all letters sent to commenters on Draft Permit * advising them of a Public Hearing in Greeley on December 5, 1991 (only one representative sample included) Sign-in sheet with names of people who attended the December 5, ]-991 Public Hearing in Greeley (46 names) Sign-up cards listing people (20) who requested to speak at the Public Hearing Data submitted by several members of the public at the Public Hearing in Greeley, Colorado, on December 5,. 1991: 1) Letter of Protest by Adam Babich with copy of lease agreement between Wright' s and Frank Suckla 2) Reliability of Underground Injection Wells - Report by * Rosemary Nusbaum (10 pp) 3) Letter of Protest: Weld County Department of Planning * Services 4) Earthquake Evaluation by .Colorado Geological Survey (11 pp) 5) Two letters of protest from private citizens 6) Geologic Hazard Area Map - Weld County 7) Resolution from City of Fort Lupton Official Transcript of Public Hearing on December 5, 1991, at Greeley, Colorado, recorded by Dorothy Fay Stonestreet (90 pp) 3 Y'r1114 Thirteen (13) written comments, received during the 15-day public notice period following the December 5, 1991 Public Hearing Computer Print-out from COGCC: All wells drilled in T1N-R67W, Weld County, and all wells drilled to Lyons Formation in Weld County (date February 24, 1992) Agenda of April 4, 1992 staff meeting with Water Management Division Director prior to issuance of Final Permit Calculation of Area of Endangered Influence - Paul Osborne (dated April 6, 1992) Computer print-out of earthquake data from the National Earthquake Information Center within a 300 kilometer radius surrounding the Suckla Farms #1 injection well (received May 26, 1992) Revised Statement of Basis to accompany Final Class I Permit, issued June 16, 1992 Responsiveness Summary to accompany Final Class I Permit, issued June 16, 1992 Final Class I Permit for Suckla Farms #1, issued June 16, 1992, * to Wright' s Disposal, Inc. Copies of all letters sent to commenters announcing issuance of Final Class I Permit, with instructions for submitting a petition (dated June 19, 1992 - only one representative sample included) Public Notice announcing issuance of Final Class I Permit and * opportunity for commenters and non-commenters to request an Administrative Review (published June 24, 1992) Affidavit of Publication from Ft. Lupton Press (announcing issuance of Final Permit) Affidavit of Publication from Greeley Daily Tribune (announcing issuance of Final Permit) Affidavit of Publication from The Denver Post (announcing issuance of Final Permit) Permit writer' s notes for preparation of Draft Permit: John Carson and Paul Osborne (January-July, 1992) • r 4 921114 Copy of Petition for Review of EPA Permit #CO1516-02115 submitted by Adam Babich on behalf of Suckla Farms, Inc. Copy of Petition for Review of EPA. Permit #CO 1516-02115 submitted by the City of Fort Lupton I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct Index of EPA Region VIII' s Administrative Record concerning the issuance of EPA Permit No. CO1516-02115 to Wright' s Disposal, Inc. for the Suckla Farms #1 well. Max Dodson, Director Wat Management Division • •U:S . Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 • • • • • 5 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AAT�LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CASE # e 4 SO THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: SrACEy 0 . Swrt.) (DfE NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN SIGNATURE OF A LICANT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS e/ DAY OF Ogr0gi1`-'" , 19 9v . SEAL NOT Y PURL C MY COMMISSION EXPIRES My Commission /Expires January 10,19,9,5 LAST DAY TO POST SIGN IS: /O/ /e//f- _ , 19 Z. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' OFFICE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 92111" USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone - 356-4000 - Ext. 4400 Case Number J-5 — 1s& Date Received 9 R 9 z Application Checked by Frrtxri Mylar plat submitted " Application Fee V7D0.0O Receipt Number je7t,r_3 Recording Fee Receipt Number I0 BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission concerning the proposed Major Facilities of a Public Utility Special Review Permit on the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: Gee A tta.c heel Section T N, R W LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review Permit is proposed: Section T N, R W Property Address (if available) �[ (� PRESENT ZONE OVERLAY ZONES 0 I \� TOTAL ACREAGE 'a acres 6 1992 PROPOSED LAND USE ri EXISTING LAND USE A9niavltvrul • Fo.rming Weld County PlsIMms4 SURFACE )!EE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USF, BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT: 1t Name: 1 ) 1e liana }-4e in Address: 6386 Weld County R4i9City Ft . Lupton Co Zip 80621 Home Telephone # ( :2na) a5? - 682s- Business Telephone n Name: Address: City Zip Home Telephone # Business Telephone # APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT jjf different than above) : Name: Dune. Qrady - /A-44arnay At L4‘41 Address: 1670 Itreara 10X SOO City Denver CO Zip 44d2aa Home Telephone i (330- 56?7 Business Telephone # List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: WL4rp are4• Akin Kelley Address: 187 ___ inert Glr City parachute, Co Zip 91634 Name: ytr►ory Jana 11/len{-oyee. Address: 586 S+ol-'f Si-i'eet} City C rat j CO Zip 6l6as I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD )STATE OF COLORADO ) /14-5--- "32 /t la T Signature er or thorize gent AL Subscribed and sworn to before me this day o J QLo 7 en ter 199g. NtjT� UB C My commission expires /a / a j 921114 APPLICATION FOR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT TO WELD COUNTY, COLORADO FOR THE WATTENBERG SALT WATER DISPOSAL #1 SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 9••1114 Application to Weld County. Colorado for Use by Special Review Permit Submitted By: Amoco Production Company Attorney for Applicant: David Brody Amoco Production Company 1670 Broadway, P.O. Box 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 September 15,1992 91114 FROM 05. 14. 1992. Or-50 F. 2 Wt cor. sec. 19 Legal Description Wattehbery J.W.D. UT #1 ILre bar in roadway Amoco Production :Company lk• Weld County, Colorado I.'" N i-• 65 3'114; I ;OB. Beat 435.3' TTT�� i r N t- -N1"40'W well— -75'— S1"36'E , 1 99.8' 132.7' 0 50 100 2.001 acres -N39"17'W Scale 1"-100' 112.0' • S55 O r I --N57"12'W "57'W 202.4' °G 101.4' co 8 N87°42'W 112. 1 ., i L access road ik-N3A"LA'E 176.0' d P0B. 782.3' South & 30.0'East a' k of Wt cor. d Legal Description Basis of Bearings: Bearings were determined based upon the West line of the SW} y of Section 19 T2N R66W 6th P.M. as bearing North and South with all other bearings m as being relative thereto; Commencing at a point which is 457.7 feet South and 65.3 0 feet East of the Wt corner of Section 19 T2N R66W 6th Y.M., thence East 435.3 feet. r; thence S1"36'E 132.7 feet, thence S55°57'W 202.4 feet, thence N87°42'W 112.4 feet, c thence N57°12'W 101.4 feet. thence N39°17'W 112.0 feet, thence N1°40'W 99.8 feet co `4 the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 2.001 acres. .o I Legal Description of CL access road Commencing at a point which is 782,3 feet South And 30.0 feet East of the Wt corner of Section 19, thence N38°18'E 176.0 feet to end of road. • Surveyor's Certificate I, Billy G. Holloway, certify that th ab plat is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I May 13, 1992 Register Land Surveyo No. 2853 IState of Colorado ' :isk S * 2853 *� ItSW cor. sec. 19 4,94........�J•�.• re—bar in roadway "•...,�F..a... • •••END•.221114 1. PROPOSED USE: Amoco Production Company "Amoco" has leased an area from Richard Hein in Weld County (Legal description: SW 1/4 Sec. 19 T2N R66W P.M.) for the use of a facility for disposal of water that is produced with oil and/or gas as part of normal operations of such oil and gas wells. The facility, hereafter the "Wattenberg Facility" or "Facility", will be used to treat, filter and separate produced water so that it can be injected into a well by means of a reciprocating pumping unit. The disposal well was approved and permitted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission and drilled into the Lyons Formation with an approximate total depth of 9200 ft +. The Wattenberg Facility will have water storage/separation tanks in a concrete containment diking as well as a skid mounted building that will house pumps and filters for water treatment before injection. The wellhead will be located approximately 150 ft. away from the skid mounted building. The total acreage of the Hein property is approximately 216 acres of which Amoco has leased 2 acres for the disposal site with one (1) acre used for the above ground facilities and well head and the other acre used for truck turnaround and delivery point. The property will remain in compliance with the existing agricultural zoning restrictions. 2. NEED FOR USE: Currently Amoco uses the Wright's, E-Vap, Roggen, and Weld County Disposal Facilities to dispose of its produced water and has determined that the Wattenberg Facility will be a more economic and environmentally sound option than those currently available. 3. EXISTING USES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: All surrounding areas are zoned agriculture and there are five residential dwellings within approximately one half mile of the Wattenberg Facility. There is a tree farm directly south of the proposed site; pasture land on the west side of the property across Weld County Road 25; and farm land to the north and east of the proposed facility. 4. DISTANCE TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN EACH DIRECTION: The nearest residence to the southwest is approximately 1/4 mile; no residences to the east and south; to the northwest approximately 1/2 mile and to the north approximately 3/4 mile. 5. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF USERS: The expected normal operation of the Facility will be 15 - 20 (80-100 Bbls ea.) water trucks a day during daylight hours only. 921114 6. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND HOURS OF OPERATION: It is anticipated that there will be no Amoco employees permanently operating the Facility. The Facility is designed to be unmanned with the exception of Amoco maintenance personnel and contract truck drivers. The facility will automatically be disposing of produced water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but will only be accepting water delivery during daylight hours. 7. WATER SOURCE FOR PROPOSED USE: Since the Facility will not be manned, a fresh water source is not required for the site. Fresh water will be trucked in and used to control any dust problems around the delivery and access points to the Facility. Since these two points to the Facility will be graveled, dust problems will be minimal. 8. ACCESS ROUTE TO BE UTILIZED FOR THE PROPOSED USE: All access to the Facility will be from Weld County Road 18 to Weld County Road 25. This will eliminate dust and traffic problems for residential properties along Weld County Road 25 north of the Facility. 9. TYPE, SIZE, WEIGHT AND FREQUENCY OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC: Vehicular traffic will consist of 80-100 barrel capacity water trucks with approximate gross vehicle weight of 54,000# each when full of water. The estimated number of vehicles a day is fifteen to twenty (15-20). The vehicles will be delivering during daylight hours only, seven (7) days a week. 10. SEWAGE FACILITIES: There will be no sewage facilities for the proposed site because it will be an unmanned operation. 11. FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES: There are no plans for any additional structures at the Facility. Fire extinguishers will be placed at strategic locations on the premises. 12. TYPE AND SIZE OF ANY WASTE, STOCKPILE OR STORAGE AREAS: There will be no stockpiling of any waste on the Facility. Storage/separation steel tanks (3 @ 1000 Bbl.) will be used to hold the produced water until it is disposed of down the wellbore. Condensate steel tanks (2 @ 300 Bbl.) will be used to store any condensate that is separated from the produced water. A sixth steel tank (1 @ 100Bbl.) will be used as a sump for the Facility. These six tanks will be periodically cleaned as required. As a result of the filtering process for the water, filters will become plugged, dirty filters will be disposed of offsite at an approved disposal facility. Chemical treating of the produced water is necessary to protect above ground equipment and wellbore 971114 material from corrosive elements. These chemicals will be stored onsite in 65 gallon barrels surrounded by a concrete, sealed containment dike. 13. STORM WATER RETENTION FACILITIES: A stormwater construction discharge permit is not required as the site is less than five (5) acres. The site would also be exempt from the Heavy Industrial Stormwater Discharge Permit until or unless a reportable spill of oil or water or other chemicals occurs during a storm runoff event. Therefore, there is no scheduled installation of storm water retention facilities for the water disposal site. If runoff occurs it will tend toward the east end of the site. 14. TIME SCHEDULE AND METHOD OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS, JUNK AND OTHER WASTES: Waste filters will come as a direct result of filter changeouts. These waste filters will be transported to a approved waste disposal site after they are taken from their filter vessels. Any other waste material will be disposed of by the use of trash cans and hauled away on an as needed basis. 15. LANDSCAPING AND EROSION CONTROL: Aesthetically pleasing landscaping will be accomplished by the planting of trees along the north side of the property. The tanks and building will be painted gray to blend in with the natural environment surrounding the facility. Erosion is not expected to be a problem because of the lack of a significant contour change within and around the site. 16. RECLAMATION PROCEDURES TO BE EMPLOYED UPON CESSATION OF THE USE BY SPECIAL USE ACTIVITY: Reclamation of the Facility area will be the return of the area to farmland in the event the area is abandoned. Equipment, tanks, and concrete diking will be dismantled and removed upon abandonment of the Facility. The well will be Plugged and Abandoned in accordance with COGCC Rules and Regulations. 17. TIME TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP: The disposal well for the Facility has been drilled and completed into the Lyons Formation. Pending the approval of the Use by Special Review Permit, it is estimated, after all of the necessary equipment is delivered, a time of 8 weeks (weather permitting) is necessary for the installation and start-up. 921114 18. STATEMENT RE: WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Facility is designed to be an environmentally preferred produced water disposal option versus what is presently available (evaporation pits, etc.). 2. The traffic impact will be acceptable since established, well- maintained, paved and gravel roads will be used to access the facility. A posted speed limit for contract and Amoco vehicles will be enforced by Amoco to ensure the safety of surrounding areas. 3. The Facility will only be visited during daylight hours for delivery and maintenance purposes. 4. The Facility is consistent and compatible with oil and gas development and facilities throughout the area, including wells, pipelines, tanks batteries and other disposal facilities. The Comprehensive Plan allows for mineral owners and lessees to have the right to develop their property. 19. CONSISTENCY WITH THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT: The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zoning District. Although the site use can be considered industrial, the site location is small enough to have little impact on the surrounding farm and pasture land and is in a relatively unpopulated area. The Facility is designed to be environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding areas. 20. EFFORTS TO CONSERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND: The site for the Facility was chosen on a small, irregular corner because of its relative inability to be properly flood irrigated. As a result, the irrigation (if any) is inefficient when compared to the rest of the quarter section. So. any negative impact to the surrounding agricultural areas is minimal. 21. PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECT OF HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: A 6'-0" chain link security fence is installed on the site to prevent any harm to either livestock or unauthorized personnel. If emergency assistance is needed, the site is serviced by the Ft. Lupton Fire Protection District. A concrete containment dike will be installed to 921114 contain any spillage that would occur in the tank battery and chemical storage area. Since both the tank battery and pump housing foundations are located within the 100 year floodplain, they will be designed and built in accordance with Weld County's Flood Hazards Development permitting requirements. 22. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USES: As stated above, the Facility is compatible with the other oil and gas development in the immediate area and throughout Weld County. The primary use of the surrounding land is agricultural, and the Facility will have minimal impact on such agricultural activities. 23. FUTURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA: The long-range future uses of the surrounding area is likely to be agricultural and mineral development. 24. FLOOD PLAIN, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AIRPORT OVERLAY: Since the proposed site is located within the 100 year floodplain, the Facility needs to comply with Weld County's Flood Hazard Development Permit. Amoco has consulted with Centennial Engineering to design for and meet the requirements of this permitting process and a permit application has been submitted. 25. PROOF OF WATER SUPPLY: No fresh water supply is required for the Facility because it will be unmanned. 26. COPY OF DEED: Amoco's surface lease from Mr. Richard Hein is attached hereto. 27. NOISE REPORT: The nearest adjacent landowner is 750 feet from the site, which is a sufficient distance to comply with the applicable standards regarding the electric pumps, which is the only source of noise at the Facility. 28. SOIL REPORT: Soil report by CTL Thompson and a description of the soil types from the Soil Conservation Service is enclosed herewith. 9;91114 HEIN LEASE AGREEMENT 97'1114 RI Southern N ti t Rockies January 16, 19.52 Business Unit Richard L. Hein 6386 Weld County Road #23 • Fort Lupton, CO 80621 BE: Disposal Well Agreement Dear Mr. Hein: This letter shall constitute the "Letter Agreer..ent" referenced in the attached Agreement between Amoco and.yo'a. dated Feb 7th , '-'199? (the "Agreement") . The payments referenced in section 4 of the Agreement stall be as follows: 1. Lease and Surface Damages -- Payment for the rental and u=e of the surface area, together with any and all areas, zones, formations or horizons of subsrface area utilized by Amoco pursuant to the Agreement and all damages to the surface of the Property, shall be in the amount of $20,000. 2 . Pipeline Right-cf-Way -- Payment for any and all pipeline riots-of-way shall be in the anour-t of S20.00 per rod. u 3 . Lesser hereby acknowledges receipt of $500 which shall be in addition to the above described amounts. The said ar..ount o shall be paid es described in Section 4 of the Agreement. tl _1 J 4. Amoco shall have the right and opportunity to extend the term for successive five (f; year periods by giving Lessor I- thirty (30) days prior written notice and by the payment of L . $5, 000. The above described consideration shall constitute full and adequate consideration for any and all natter; relating to � n- e aT operation of the Well and Amoco's use of property, rop_rtl, he other contemplated by the Agreement. Not withstanding any provision if this Letter Agreement, in the event that Amoco ,-1 elects not to proceed with the use cf the property. neither party r obligations and this Letter shall have any further rights cr 7 Agreement shall be null and void as cf the date that Amoco notifies Lessor that it elects to terminate the Agreement. You In1 shall cooperate with Amoco, and shall not object to oriiterfere ic fer.e 0-) with. such operation during the term thereof. The spec of this Letter Agreement shall remain confidential ±cr the entire cd term of the Agreement and neither party shall have the right to record this Letter Agreement or otherwise disclose this Letter Agreement or any of the terms hereLn contained in any natter whatsoever. alnico Pr*:uct an Conn.fl "Fro BriEAr y Fiat cam•8c..-3)) Cert.e•.C: ncc 8320 131339304J:40 i - 921114 93 wattenherc' Disposal Agreement 0 ) ?age 2 Jancary 16 , 1992 Pease indicate your concurrence vita the above by execttinc _n the space provided below: .,gocc ?P:DUC_:of'c7'fPACIt thisP_ED AN AGREED Tp �� 1932 by J-- �V\T!'y: : this day of ' Attorney-in-;Fact By a- /" ,4-...giu Richard. L. Hein. <—n F- a- J • - LL. 0 ri <_ 0-i -r �'- Is' 0.1 IT N•--1 ( Cl ?? 921114 CISPOSAL WELL ACRr1Et7T THIS AC-REEMBW: is made this itt day of El4-uary 1992, by and between Amoco Production Company (•Amoco•) , x670 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 50202 , and Richard L. Hein ("Lesso=') . 5386 Weld County Road #23, Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80521, and is based on the following premises: WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of the surface of a certain tract of land (hereinafter the "Property") located in Section 1S- T2N-R55W, Weld County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Amoco desires to drill and complete a well (the "Well") for the purpose of subscrface disposal of produced water from oil and gas wells located on the Property and/or water • produced from Leases and lands in the vicinity of the Property; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on all matters related to the drilling and operation of the Well, " NOW THEREFCEE, in consideration o: the above premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. LEASE: Lessor does hereby lease and :et unto Aroco those portions of the Froperty reasonabLy necessary for developing and operating the Well and related facilities (together with the right of ingress and egress) . Provided; however, after the coa.pLetion of drilling activities, and for the period of operations thereafter, the portion of the Property leased for the Well site shall not exceed two acres (that is, excluding the area used for any pipeline right-o=-ear granted to Amoco pursuant to Section 2 , below, and excluding the area for access to and from the Well) , and shall be located approximately 2102 feet from the south line and 427 LL feet from the west line of the above described Section 19. 0 _ 2. PIPELLNE RIGHT-C-F-WAY: In addition to the site for the Well, Lessor hereby conveys, grants, and assigns an easement and right-cf-way to Amoco for the purpose of constrcotion, maintenance and operation of one or more pipelines tc convey water to the ,Jell from any location on or cif the Property, and rights-of-wav shall be forty (40) feet in width. The length of said rights-of-way and pipelines shall be wit`tir. Ar..oco's reasonable discretion, as needed in =section pith operation of the Well. T cf water injected in 3 . WATER QUALITY: The amount and quality the Well, as well as the source thereof_ , and the particular "U zone :formation into which said water is injected, shall be within Amoco's sole discretion.. r_n j 921114 CO in 4. C j IOF: Simultaneously, with! the execution of thL CL Agreement, Amoco stall pay Lessor the consideration (Letternthe form cf a cashier's check) set forth in that agreement dated January 16, 1992 (the "Letter Agreement") , ich el be easements and rights-of-way,ll and adecuate surface damagen for the s described lease, if any, es described ;n the and any and a_'_ other damages, aowevsr, consideration for pipeline rights- Letter Agreement. Provided, Mali be pail `>,"-s'°f-�''a° :under Section 2, above) within thirty (20) days after completion cf construction of each such pipeline, and consideration for Lease (under Section 1, above) shall be paid within thirty ;33) days after the well is approved for water disposal by the appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies, and cansaderat_on for surface damages shall be paid. at any tine prior to Amoco beginning road and location ccnstructior. operations. 5 . T pl: This Agreement shall be effective as c the Walla abovedate te and stall continue for so long as operation, within Amoco' s discretion, not to oexceed1 nnt7 (20) years from the date of this age the right and opportunity to extend the Tern after twenty (20) years for successive fie (5) year periods by giving Lessor thirty (30) days prior written notice and consideration as set forth in -the Letter Agreement. pLt3uch and ti a xasnme as h OC1 We desires to abandon_ the Well, it shall and reclaim that f the Property disturbed by Amoco' s . _; operations pursuant to this t. iscomplywits all county, 6. CO ]?�LZAt; "3CE WZ v3w: Amoco s-�regulations. ,J state and federal laws and requ_ to assign this a. 7 . ASSIC� h`lE C' coo shall have the right to shall be Agreement in whole or in part. This Agreement Mies and • inding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties r their respective successors and assigns_ L� o right to record this i ? COAL G: Either party shall have t.te O P. Agreement to record l in the records of Weld County, Colorado, and shall have the further right, but not the obligation, rore surveys = tine to time one or more as-built accurately depicting and identifying the lease and easements m granted herein, under Sections 1 and above. Upon so .. recording, each such plat audio' survey shall be deemed to be J an aaendm.ent to this Agreement and incorporated herein. This Agreement is the final agreement 9- • vsr+1ENT_ and all prior oral and writtentwee auP '^d e� the parties and supersedes any - not be amendedm beTritten agreements. This Agreement shal' CQ except in writing signed by both parties. ri n 3 ) II 1 921114 m IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this j Agreement an the day and year first above wr_ttec. AMC CO FRobuctION :ONPMIT Le, By i By ! Attorney-in-Fact ReDert-He=st ' Richard '-. Hein r (�I I-- H H L� c :. C i2 7 nu iT i)1 1 � C .. 921114 0] •C_ 0- 4' EXHIETI "A^ AMOCO shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor by reason of any injury or death to any person or persons or damage to any prcp- erty arising out or by virtue of the operations of AKOCO._uncer the terms of this Agreement. • aa-PIODUCT CN CO • Richard L. Hein Attorney-in ?act STATE OF COLORADO ; CITI AND ss. COUNTY CF DENVER ) The foregoing instament was acknowledged ^refcre me ti 1 , 1992 by 1'rt«.'c:. Lop c;n- asi day of as Attorney-in.-Fact on � :alf of Amoco ?roduct_ion Corpar_y, a Delaware Corpo=atior-- • • h_tness try hand and official seal. &OTARI PC2LIC H ll My commission extire37 • L_ c STATE OF COLORADO 1 CITY AND : ss. CC7NTY OF DENVER ) = r instrument was acknowledged before me rrF The fo egQia` 41.C... Ca L X1!3 . this L day of to � 1992 by D' i Witness my hand and official seal. 4 4 .T ECT Y PUELIC My ca is,ian expires: S -. /ot�Q / 9S 321114 • 0J 05 ,• STATE CF C0LCAADO d CITY AND ss. comitY CF DEKVERme The foregoing instrument was acknaalecded tefore ae this 4.7t- day of L8 L , 1992 by re.�..OAR1tSC4 Attorney-in-Fact on behalf of Amoco Production Company, a Delaware Co_pctatior. Witness my hand and offinial seal. //,l NOTARY PU IC My commission expires: 5/0.0q4 STATE O? C.roLcA.A taa ss. COUNTY O? Ujt.L,4 `The foregoing irst=cma t as i tn°�edged before re tzis • irday of ffeRJreu 1992 by , i tt Fitness m,; hand and official seal. NAEY y 0 My commission expires: la / Ar (fl +S • 321114 SOIL ANALYSIS/DESCRIPTION 921114 CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WATER DISPOSAL FACILITY FORT LUPTON, COLORADO o t Esc= �o ? 213 go 1 /7 pa Prepared for: Amoco Production Company 1670 Broadway, P.O Box 800 Denver, Colorado 80201 Attention: Mr. Russel D. Orona Job No. 18,860 June 15, 1992 921114 1971 WEST 12TH AVENUE • DENVER,COLORADO 80204 • (303)825-0777 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 FOUNDATIONS 3 FLOOR SLABS 4 BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 5 LIMITATIONS 5 FIG. 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG. 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG. 3 - SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGS. 4 AND 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 921114 SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Water Disposal Facility northwest of the intersection of Highway 85 and County Road 18 northwest of Fort Lupton, Colorado. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site in order to provide foundation recommendations for the proposed facility. The report includes a description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, recommended foundation system, allowable design soil pressures and recommended design and construction criteria for details influenced by the subsoils. The report was prepared based on data developed during our field and laboratory investigations as well as our experience. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Subsoils found in our borings consisted of 2.5 feet to 4.5 feet of silty clays underlain by interlayered sands, clays and gravels. Sedimentary sandstone bedrock was encountered in TH-1 at depth of 45 feet. The near-surface silty clays have a low swell potential. Groundwater was found in both borings at depths of 4.5 feet and 5 feet. 2. We recommend lightly loaded spread footings or mat foundations for supporting the proposed structures. Excavation should be minimized by setting floors and foundations as high as practical to limit influence of groundwater. Foundation design criteria are presented in the report. 3. We believe slab-on-grade floors can be used at this site with a comparatively low risk of movement. 4. The ground surface around the buildings and tank farms should be sloped to provide rapid runoff of water away from the structures. 921114 SITE CONDITIONS The site is located approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Highway 85 and County Road 18, northwest of Fort Lupton, Colorado (Fig. 1). The ground surface was generally flat and covered with weeds and grasses. The South Platte River is about 0.4 mile east of the site. We understand the site is within the flood plain of the river. Adjacent areas are being used as farm land. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand the proposed water disposal facility will consist of a sump unloading point, a tank farm with plan dimensions of 50 feet by 100 feet and a dike perimeter, and a pump house which will be raised on a stem wall above the existing grade. The dike will be a concrete wall and may be 3 to 4 feet high. According to the information provided by the Structural Engineer, the tank farm will house three tanks,two will be 22 feet in diameter and 1,000 barrels in capacity, and the third tank will be 16 feet in diameter and 800 barrels in capacity. The maximum slab load will be 1,000 psf for the first two tanks and 1,500 psf for third tank. No below-grade construction is planned. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling two exploratory borings at the location shown on Fig. 1. A graphic logs of the soil found in the borings and field penetration resistance test results are presented on Fig. 2. Subsoils found in our borings were 2.5 to 4.5 feet of silty clays underlain by interlayered sands, clays and gravels. Sedimentary bedrock was encountered at depth of 45 feet. Groundwater was measured in both borings at depths of 4.5 feet and 5 feet. 2 9('1.114 Field penetration resistance tests indicated the silty clays were medium stiff to stiff. A sample of silty clays tested exhibited 0.9 percent expansion when wetted under 1,000 psf applied vertical pressure. The clean to clayey sands were loose to medium dense based on field penetration resistance test data. Gradation testing of the sands indicated 3 to 31 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve). The swell-consolidation and gradation test results are presented on Figs. 3 through 5. Laboratory test results are summarized in Table I. FOUNDATIONS Our investigation indicates the proposed facility is underlain by slightly expansive silty clays and non-expansive sands. We believe lightly loaded footings or mat foundations can be used for supporting the tanks and pump house. Design and construction criteria for the foundations are presented below. 1. Footings or mats should bear on undisturbed natural soils or well compacted fill. Where soil is loosened during excavation or in the forming process for the walls, it should be removed and replaced with on-site soils compacted to at least 95 percent maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698) at ± 2 percent optimum moisture content prior to placing concrete. who. „ 4-tic op+iw«-m 2. Foundations should be di table soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Ea: —$oho Isistance data, we estimated the settlement I for this pressure to be about 1 inch. We will settle during construction as deadload: first application of liveloads. We recommenk be controlled and monitored. 3. Foundations should be well reinforced. We recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Reinforcement should be design by the Structural Engineer. 3 921114 4. We recommend minimum footing width of 16 inches for continuous wall footing and 24 inches by 24 inches for isolated column pads. Larger footings may be required depending upon foundation loads. 5. Foundations may be subject to lateral loads due to dike construction around them. We recommend using an "active" earth pressure of 35 pcf, a passive earth pressure of 200 pcf and a coefficient friction of 0.35 between concrete footings and natural subsoils in design. The "active" earth pressure assumes dike walls will be free to rotate; passive pressures assume backfill will be well compacted. 6. Three feet of frost cover is recommended for footings. We understand the tanks may be supported by a mat foundation which may be constructed near the surface as it is not considered sensitive to frost heave. 7. Free groundwater was measured 4.5 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface in our borings. We recommend setting foundation and slab elevations as high as practical to reduce risk water will be exposed in excavations; we advocate bottom of foundations be at least 2 and preferably 3 feet above the highest measured water level. 8. The completed foundation excavation should be observed by a representative of our firm, prior to placing forms, to verify the subsurface foundation conditions are as anticipated from our borings. FLOOR SLABS We anticipate slab-on-grade floors will be used for the pump house. The near- surface soils which will support the slab-on-grade floors include slightly expansive clays and non-expansive sands. Expansive clays are stable at their natural moisture content, but upon wetting will heave lightly loaded floors. We believe the risk of slab movement is comparatively low. Slab should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with a slip joint which allows differential movement between slabs and foundation walls. Frequent control joints should be provided to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends a maximum panel size of 15 feet in both directions. Exterior slabs shoul d be isolated from the pump house. These slabs should be well reinforced to function 4 921114 as independent units. Movements of these slabs should not be transmitted to the pump house foundations. BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding no below-grade construction is planned. If plans change, we should be informed to provide below-grade construction criteria. SURFACE DRAINAGE The risk of wetting of foundation soils can be reduced by carefully planned and maintained surface drainage. Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations and concrete flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the construction is completed. 1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavation should be avoided. 2. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the facility should be sloped to drain away from the facility in all directions. We recommend providing a slope of at least 6 inches in the first 10 feet. 3. Backfill around foundation walls should be moistened and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum ASTM D 698 dry density. 4. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extension should be provided at all discharge points. LIMITATIONS Our borings were drilled to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of foundation conditions. Variations in the subsoil condition not indicated by the borings are always 5 921114 possible. We should inspect foundation excavations to confirm soils are as anticipated from our borings. This investigation was conducted with that level of skill and care normally used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, or in the analyses of the influence of subsurface conditions or the design of the structure, please call. CTLTHOMPSON, INC. ui Liang ` Geotechnic I StaffEngineer Reviewed 0 701Ronald M. McOmber, P.E. Associate HL:RMM:kpo (5 copies sent) 1 cc: Mr. Ronald Cross Centennial Engineers 15000 West 64th Avenue, P.O. Box 1307 • Arvada, Colorado 80001 6 91114 sn-r r NTY RDA SOUTH —y PLATTE RIVER n m 3 x FORT LUPTON VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SCALE: 1"= 20' PROPOSED TANK FARM n PROPOSED III I FF_-__ ` - - - - - rA f"7 PUMP HOUSE To / TH-2 Ltl \ r Kij PROPOSED UNLOADING POINT r LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS p JOB NO. 18,860 9% ],14 A11 �! -1 0 - IFF, :1OIST. BROWN (CL) I 8/12 0 ; , WC=20.6NSE, WET, BROWN (SP OR SW) 5 = � DD=102 -200=31 5/12 'NN, RUST (SC) 10 r WC=12.6 rty 12/12 NSE, WET, BROWN (SP-GP) y WC=13.5 15 . -200=5 GRAY 18/12 20WC=10.30WN s+: W w _ I _ 30/12 NDICATES THAT B BLOWS OF A 140-POUND EGUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH 0.0. IN 26/12 NDICATES THAT 5 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND 30 EGUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.0-INCH C.D. ERAL INDICATES NUMBER OF DAYS ?FTF12 35 992 ITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CCNTINUCUS - 40 .ANATIONS, LIMITATIC'NS AND CONCLUSIONS ENT (%) 4.4 O. 200 SIEVE smitti- 45 dMIO 921114 - 50 7 6 5 4 3 . . _ . ._ . 2 1 0 EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT .� PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1 2 3 4 Z 0 N 2 5 L)5, W 84 6 Z 0 y N oe 7 Cd 0 O e 0.1 10 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF Sample of CLAY, SILTY (CL) NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 21 .4PCF From TH-2 AT 0.5 FEET NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT= 104 % Swell Consolidatipn Test Results JA.1141, JOB NO. 18,860 FIG. 3 V • HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN I MIN. '200 '100 '50'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3/8" 3/4' 1'h" 3" 5"6" 80 100 BO 20 O c tn TS z 60 40 2 w w 60 a 20 80 10 90 0 100 001 002 005 009 .019 037 074 149 297 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE I COBBLES Sampleof SAND, CLAYEY (SC) GRAVEL 1 % SAND 68 From TH-1 AT 4 FEET SILT&CLAV 31 % LIQUID LIMIT -- % PLASTICITY INDEX — % I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. I MIN. '200 '100 '50'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3/8" 3/4" 1X" 3" 5'6" BO 100 90 10 20 80 70 30 O z 40 z FA FA 60 i 0_ 50 Z 50 LT: 60 tIg d 40 30 70 80 20 10 90 100 0 001 002 .005 009 019 :37 074 149 297 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4]6 9 52 ±9.1 35.1 16 2 +27 200 0 4 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-RA-CI FINE I ^MEDIUM I COARSE 9NE ) COARSE 1 COBBLES Sample of SAND (Su/) GRAVEL 15 % SAND 80 From TH-1 AT 14 FEET SILT&CLAY 5 % LIQUID LIMIT -- PLASTICITY INDEX io , Gradation Test Results 921114 JOB NO. 18,860 FIG. 4 V HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3/8" 314' 1R" 3" 5-6" 8a 100 90 _. ....._.. ___. _ 10 20 80 70 . . 30 O 2 Z 40 z A a a c c w w 40 _.. _... 60 a. 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 100 001 002 005 009 .019 037 074 149 297 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4 76 9 52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200 0 42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE!N MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM i COARSE FINE I COARSE I COBBLES Sample of SAND (SP) GRAVEL 25 % SAND 72 From TH-2 AT 9 FEET SILT&CLAY 3 % LIQUID LIMIT - % PLASTICITY INDEX -- % I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3/8" 3/4' 1Yv" 3" 5"6' 8a 100 90 10 20 80 70 30 O 5, 60 40 2 a d 50 c E 50 Z 60 c ; 4c 30 0 80 20 ,0 90 SC 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 '49 297 590 1 19 2.0 2.38 4 76 9 52 19 1 3591 76.2 '27 200 042 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) E.NE I MEDIUM I COARSE F JE I COARSE I CC99LES SAND (SP) GRAVEL 25 96 SAND 71 ° Sample of From TH-2 AT 19 FEET SILT&CLAY 4 % LIQUID LIMIT __ ° PLASTICITY INDEX .° Gradation 9211144 Test Results JOB NO. 18,860 FIG. 5 CO 0. r. .� CCF L6 O r Cy V) (I)CI CL J J V) (/) V) r v v v v v a rILI -I ZZZZ in ten. coo U 0 Q Q Q y N O 0 0 U OGc00 } >: cdL] c zzzzz < zzzz can chi cal a 6UU6 _6chi u ' LA C9 IT O W CO 0 6 - a z 0 a I tx J nO. M N W m O 7 Cl, N _ . W pw ~ ZNI- >- EZ w z .. O oaW I— 0 mc.)CC � _ . i- O c5 R 03 :1 Z g U. °' O m o t ^ < < 2 gr � � Q =cf) I— O Z Y cm C z W Z O J W }_ CO Cfq In M V. C? r C. '-.. Z R r r "9 � � r � � N O M r Y I"= Tr Cr) Y CD Tr N O� V T CO Tr Intl ' O NNNNNN J p I I I I I I I I I I I = Z i-- H F- t--= F- 1- II-- F=- t-- F 9 1114 _ 9 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 7 brief description of the soil profile. In each description, The acreage and proportionate extent of each"map unit the principal hazards and limitations are indicated, and are given in table 4, and additional information on proper- the management concerns and practices needed are ties, limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many soil discussed. uses is given for each kind of soil in other tables in this The map units on the detailed soil maps represent an survey. (See "Summary of tables.") Many of the terms area on the landscape made up mostly of the soil or soils used in describing soils are defined in the Glossary. for which the unit is named. Most of the delineations shown on the detailed soil map are phases of soil series. Soil descriptions Soils that have a profile that is almost alike make up a soil series. Except for allowable differences in texture of 1—Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a deep, the surface layer or of the underlying substratum, all the well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in feet. It formed in old alluvium deposited by the major composition, thickness, and arrangement in the profile. A rivers. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that soil series commonly is named for a town or geographic show evidence of poor drainage. Also included are small, feature near the place where a soil of that series was long and narrow areas of sand and gravel deposits. first observed and mapped. Olney and Nunn, for example, Typically the surface layer of the Altvan soil is grayish are names of two soil series. brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface and light yellowish brown day loam and sandy clay loam layer or in the underlying substratum and in slope, ero- about 15 inches thick. The substratum is calcareous loamy sion, stoniness, salinity, wetness, or other characteristics sand about 6 inches thick over gravelly sand. that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a Permeability and available water capacity are soil series is divided into phases. The name of a soil phase moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. commonly indicates a feature that affects use or manage- Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is low. ment. For example, Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It slopes, is one of several phases within the Olney series. is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- Some map units are made up of two or more dominant ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, kinds of soil. Such map units are called soil complexes and and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 undifferentiated groups. to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, A soil complex consists of areas of two or more soils sugar beets, small grain, or beans. The high clay content that are so intricately mixed or so small in size that they and the rapidly permeable substratum slightly restrict cannot be shown separately on the soil map. Each area in- some crops. eludes some of each of the two or more dominant soils, All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- and the pattern and proportion are somewhat similar in rigation is the most common (fig. 4). Proper irrigation all areas. Midway-Shingle complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes, water management is essential. Barnyard manure and is an example. commercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and soils that could be mapped individually but are mapped as shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well one unit because there is little value in separating them. suited to this soiL Cultivation to control competing The pattern and proportion of the soils are not uniform. vegetation should be continued for as many years as An area shown on the map has at least one of the domi- shou planting. Trees that are best suited and nant (named) soils or may have all of them. Loup-Boel Pfollowing loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes, is an undifferentiated have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and group in this survey area. Most map units include small, scattered areas of soils hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, other than those that appear in the name of the map unit. lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. Some of these soils have properties that differ substan- tially from those of the dominant soil or soils and thus suitable for openland wildlife, including pheasant, cotton- could significantly affect use and management of the map tail, and mourning dove. Such crops as wheat, corn, and unit. These soils are described in the description of each alfalfa provide suitable habitat for openland wildlife, map unit. Some of the more unusual or strongly contrast- especially pheasant. Tree and shrub plantings and ing soils that are included are identified by a special sym- undisturbed nesting cover would enhance openland wil- bol on the soil map. dlife populations. Most mapped areas include places that have little or no This Altvan soil has fair to good potential for urban soil material and support little or no vegetation. Such and recreational development. The chief limiting soil fea- places are called miscellaneous areas; they are delineated tures for urban development are the shrink-swell poten- on the soil map and given descriptive names. Rock out- tial of the subsoil as it wets and dries and the rapid crop is an example. Some of these areas are too small to permeability of the sand and gravel substratum. Septic be delineated and are identified by a special symbol on tank absorption fields function properly, but in places the the soil map. substratum does not contain enough fines to properly 921114 8 SOIL SURVEY filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing. 60 percent of the unit. Aquents, which have a lighter Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass colored surface layer, make up about 35 percent. About 5 IIs irrigated. percent is Aquepts and Bankard sandy loam. 2—Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, These are deep, poorly drained soils that formed in well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 recent alluvium. No one pedon is typical. Commonly the feet. It formed in old alluvium deposited by the major soils have a mottled, mildly alkaline to moderately al- rivers. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that kaline loamy or clayey surface layer and underlying show evidence of poor drainage. Also included are small, material and are underlain by sand or sand and gravel long and narrow areas of sand and gravel deposits. within 48 inches. In places they have a gleyed layer in the Typically the surface layer of this Altvan soil is grayish underlying material. brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown Most of the acreage is subject to flooding. The water and light yellowish brown clay loam and sandy clay loam table is at or near the surface early in spring and recedes about 14 inches thick. The substratum is calcareous loamy to as deep as 48 inches late in fall in some years. sand about 5 inches thick over gravelly sand. These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. Permeability and available water capacity are Some small areas have been reclaimed by major drainage moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. and leveling and are used for irrigated crops. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is low. The potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It sacaton, switchgrass, and western wheatgrass. Saltgrass, is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- sedge, rush, and alkali bluegrass are also prominent. ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, Potential production ranges from 3,000 pounds per acre in and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 favorable years to 2,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, range condition deteriorates, the switchgrass, alkali sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Land leveling, ditch sacaton, and western wheatgrass decrease and saltgrass, lining, and installing pipelines may be needed for proper sedge, and rush increase. water application. Management of vegetation should be based on taking All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seed- rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- ing is difficult and costly because numerous tillage prac- mereial fertilizer are needed for top yields. tices are required to eliminate the saltgrass sod. Windbreaks and environmental plantins of trees and Switchgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, tall shrubs commonly grown in the area are are generally well wheatgrass, and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. They suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing can be seeded into a clean, firm seedbed. Seedbed vegetation should be continued for as many years as preparation usually requires more than 1 year to possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and eliminate the saltgrass sod. A grass drill should be used. have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and Wetland wildlife, especially waterfowl, utilize this unit. hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, The wetland plants provide nesting and protective cover, lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. as well as some food. The nearby irrigated cropland, This soil can produce habitat elements that are highly suitable for openland wildlife including pheasant, cotton- where wildlife obtain much of their food and fmd protec- tail, and mourning dove. Such crops as wheat, corn, and tive cover, makes this unit valuable to both wetland and alfalfa provide suitable habitat for openland wildlife, openland wildlife. especially pheasant. Tree and shrub plantings and Openland wildlife, especially pheasant, use this unit for undisturbed nesting cover would enhance openland wil- cover and nesting. Deer fmd excellent cover in some dlife populations. areas. This Altvan soil has fair to good potential for urban These valuable wildlife areas should be protected from and recreational development. The chief limiting soil fea- fire and fenced to prevent encroachment and overuse by tures for urban development are the shrink-swell poten- livestock. They should not be drained. tial of the subsoil as it wets and dries and the rapid These soils have good potential as a source of sand and permeability of the sand and gravel substratum. Septic gravel. Capability subclass VIw; Salt Meadow range site. tank absorption fields function properly, but in places the 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded. This nearly level substratum does not contain enough fines to properly map unit is in depressions in smooth plains and along the filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing. bottoms of natural drainageways throughout the survey Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass area. Aquolls, which have a dark colored surface layer, Ile irrigated. make up about 55 percent of the unit. Aquepts, which 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum. This have a lighter colored surface layer, make up about 25 nearly level map unit is on bottom lands and flood plains percent. About 20 percent is soils that are well drained of all the major streams in the survey area. Aquolls, and soils that have sandstone or shale within 48 inches of which have a dark colored surface layer, make up about the surface. 921114 12 SOIL SURVEY This soil has good potential for urban and recreational Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The development. Increased population growth in the survey cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked area has resulted in increased homesite construction. The pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can chief limiting soil features for urban development are the be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape shrink-swell potential of the subsoil as it wets and dries cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- and the limited ability of this soil to support a load. Septic tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- tank absorption fields function properly, but community ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- sewage systems should be provided if the population den- land wildlife, for example, deer and antelope, can be at- sity increases. Because of the moderately rapid permea- tracted by managing livestock grazing and reseeding bility of the substratum, sewage lagoons must be sealed. where needed. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass This soil is not suited to urban or recreational develop- Ile irrigated. ment because of the flood hazard. Capability subclass 10—Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This IVw irrigated, VIw nonirrigated; Sandy Bottom land is a deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on flood range site. plains at elevations of 4,450 to 5,000 feet. It formed in 11—Bresser sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is stratified recent alluvium along streams and rivers. In- a deep, well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,700 cluded in mapping are numerous sand and gravel bars to 4,800 feet. It formed in alluvium deposited by the and small areas of noncalcareous soils. South Platte River. Included in mapping are small areas Typically the surface layer of this Bankard soil is of soils that have sand and gravelly sand in the lower brown sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying part of the substratum. material to a depth of 60 inches is pale brown calcareous Typically the surface layer is grayish brown sandy loam sand stratified with thin lenses of sandy loam, loam, and about 11 inches •thick The subsoil is brown and yellowish fine gravel. brown sandy clay loam about 19 inches thick. The sub- Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water stratum to a depth of 60 inches is loamy sand. capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or Permeability and available water capacity are more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or low. more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is This soil is suited to limited cropping. It is sandy and low subject to flooding. Pasture is the best use. Tall wheat- This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It grass, tall fescue, and annual sweetclover are some of the is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area includ- most suitable crops. Light, frequent irrigation by furrows ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and flooding is best. Commercial fertilizer improves the and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 amount and value of forage produced. to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, The potential native vegetation is dominated by sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- switchgrass, indiangrass, sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, tices are needed to maintain top yields. sideoats grama, needleandthread, and blue grama. Much All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- of this range site includes other soils and vegetation in rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- such a complex pattern that it is difficult to map them mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. separately. Potential production ranges from 2,500 pounds Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally per acre in favorable years to 1,500 pounds in unfavorable suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in years. As range condition deteriorates, the tall and mid establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- grasses decrease; blue grama, sand dropseed,sir and s tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of increase; and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation and annuals invade the site as range condition becomes may be needed at the time of planting and during dry poorer. Management of vegetation should be based on taking periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seed- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa ing is desirable only in areas large enough to interseed or Pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The to prepare a seedbed. Switchgrass, sand bluestem, sand shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- reedgrass, sideoats grama, little bluestem, blue grama, pu- an peashrub. bescent wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass are Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. suitable for seeding. This soil can be seeded by using an Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- interseeder or a firm, clean sorghum stubble. A grass drill game species can be attracted by establishing areas for is required. Seeding early in spring has proven most sue- nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed cessful. nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans This soil is generally not suited to the establishment for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive and growth of trees and shrubs. Onsite investigation is agriculture. needed to determine feasibility and possible tree and This soil has good potential for urban and recreational shrub species. development. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The 921114 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 17 Typically the surface layer of this Colombo soil is dark Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The grayish brown clay loam about 14 inches thick. The upper cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked 7 inches of the underlying material is pale brown pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can stratified clay loam and loam. The lower part to a depth be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape of 60 inches is very pale brown loam stratified with thin cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- lenses of fine sand, medium sand, and clay loam. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is low. attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops com- Where this soil is on flood plains and is susceptible to monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, flooding, it has poor potential for urban and recreational beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam- development. On the higher terraces, potential is fair. plc of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa Dwelling and road designs may need to be modified to followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, compensate for the limited capacity of this soil to support or beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing a load and to protect it against frost action. Capability pipelines may be needed for proper water application. subclass Ile irrigated, IIIe nonirrigated; Clayey Plains All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- range site. rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- 21—Dacono clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. deep, well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,550 In nonirrigated areas this soil is well suited to winter to 4,970 feet. It formed in mixed alluvium. Included in wheat, barley, and sorghum if it is summer fallowed in al- mapping are small, long and narrow areas of sand and ternate years. Winter wheat is the principal crop. The gravel deposits and some small leveled areas. predicted average yield is 33 bushels per acre. If the crop Typically the surface layer of this Dacono soil is gray- is winterkilled, spring wheat can be seeded. Generally ish brown clay loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. grayish brown clay loam about 15 inches thick. The sub- Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- stratum is very gravelly sand. lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Permeability is moderately slow. Available water Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to The potential native vegetation is dominated by 40 inches. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard western wheatgrass. Blue grama, switchgrass, sand is low. reedgrass, big bluestem, slender wheatgrass, indiangrass, This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It and green needlegrass are also present. Potential produc- is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- tion ranges from 1,000 pounds per acre in favorable years ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, to 600 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 deteriorates, the tall grasses decrease, blue grama and to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, buffalograss increase, and forage production drops. Un- sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Generally, such charac- desirable weeds and annuals invade the site and erosion teristics as a high clay content or a rapidly permeable can occur as range condition becomes poorer. substratum slightly restrict some crops. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. cial fertilizer are needed for top yields. Western wheatgrass, switchgrass, sand reedgrass, Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and sideoats grama, pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well wheatgrass, and blue grama are suitable for seeding. The suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing grass selected should meet the seasonal requirements of vegetation should be continued for as many years as livestock. It can be seeded into a firm prepared seedbed. possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and A grass drill should be used. Seeding early in spring has have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern proven most successful. redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, vegetation should be continued for as many years as and cottontail are best suited to this soil. Wildlife habitat possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and development, including tree and shrub plantings and have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern grass plantings to serve as nesting areas, should be suc- redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and cessful without irrigation during most years. Under ir- hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, rigation, good wildlife habitat can be established, benefit- lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. ing, many kinds of openland wildlife. 921114 18 SOIL SURVEY This soil has only fair potential for urban and recrea- prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven tional development. Above the sand and gravel sub- most successful. stratum the soil has moderate to high shrink swell, low Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and strength, and moderately slow permeability. These fea- shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well tures create problems in dwelling and road construction. suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing Excessive permeability in the substratum can cause con- vegetation should be continued for as many years as termination of the ground water supply from septic tank possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and leach fields. Sewage lagoons need to be lined. Capability have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern subclass IIs irrigated. redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and 22—Dacono clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, deep, well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,550 lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. to 4,970 feet. It formed in mixed alluvium. Included in Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, mapping are small, long and narrow areas of sand and and cottontail, are best suited to this soil. Wildlife habitat gravel deposits and some small leveled areas. development, including tree and shrub plantings and Typically the surface layer of this Dacono soil is gray- grass plantings to serve as nesting areas, should be suc- ish brown clay loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is cessful without irrigation during most years. Under ir- grayish brown clay loam about 15 inches thick. The sub- rigation, good wildlife habitat can established, benefiting stratum is very gravelly sand. many kinds of openland wildlife. Rangeland wildlife, for Permeability is moderately slow. Available water example, the pronghorn antelope, can be attracted by capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to developing livestock watering facilities, managing 40 inches. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. hazard is low. This soil has only fair potential for urban and recrea- In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops com- tional development. Above the sand and gravel sub- monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, stratum the soil has a moderate to high shrink-swell beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam- potential, low strength, and moderately slow permeability. ple of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa These features create problems in dwelling and road con- followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, struction. Excessive permeability in the substratum can or beans. Generally, such characteristics as a high clay cause contamination of the ground water supply from content or a rapidly permeable substratum slightly septic tank leach fields. Sewage lagoons need to be lined. restrict some crops. Capability subclass Ile irrigated, IIIc nonirrigated; All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- Clayey Plains range site. rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water 23—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- deep, well drained soil on terraces and smooth plains at cial fertilizer are needed for top yields. elevations of 4,500 to 5,050 feet. It formed in alluvium In nonirrigated areas most of the acreage is in small modified by thin eolian deposits. Included in mapping are grain and is summer fallowed in alternate years. Winter some small leveled areas and few small areas of a soil wheat is the principal crop. The predicted average yield is that is calcareous at the surface. 33 bushels per acre. If the crop is winterkilled, spring Typically the surface layer of this Fort Collins soil is wheat can be seeded. Generally precipitation is too low grayish brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is for beneficial use of fertilizer. brown and very pale brown clay loam and loam about 20 Stubble mulch fanning, striperopping, and minimum til- inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. fine sandy loam. The potential native vegetation is dominated by Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalograss is also high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is low. per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buf- is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- falograss sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals in- ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 Management of vegetation on this soil should be based to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- tion. Range pitting can help in reducing runoff. Seeding is tices are needed to maintain top yields. desirable if the range is in poor condition. Western All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- wheatgrass, blue grama, sideoats grams, buffalograss, pu- rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean, shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well firm sorghum stubble or it can be drilled into a firm suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing 921114 Hello