The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20181226.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant DCP Operating Company, LP Case Number 2MJU R18-12-1792 Submitted or Prepared Prior to At Hearing Hearing 1 DCP Letter to SPOs dated February 27, 2018 X 2 SPO A. Banowetz electronic mail to DCP Midstream dated March 30, 2018 3 Email mitigation string and from landscaping, A. Banowetz, multiple SPO to dates DOE' Midstream regarding visual, 4 SPO T. Loose electronic mail to DCP Midstream dated March 88, 2018 5 SPO B. Wagner electronic mail to Planning Services received April 3, 2018 X 6 Mineral Certification, received April 3, 2018 7 SPO T. Loose Photographs and images, 4 pages, received April 3, 2018 8 SPO B. Wagner 2 Photographs, received April 3, 2018 9 SPO B. Wagner Email Correspondence 12-29-2014, received April 3, 2018 8 SPO B. Wagner Email Correspondence 11-11-2015, received April 3, 2018 SPO Monitoring Radiological April 3, B. Wagner 2018 study Health presented preparedDepartment Colorado by Sciences Graduate State p Students University of Environmental dated Environmental 5-6-2015, and received Noise 11 12 s I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to thersc eduled Planning Commissioners hearing. r Iiir .OglePlanner ) Midstream, February 27, 2018 Re: O'Connor 2 Dear Landowner, IDCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 I am writing to you to continue the commitment we previously made to keep you updated on the proposed O'Connor 2 project. The Use by Special Review ("U R") application has been submitted to Weld County and our Air Permit has been received from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. To ensure our neighbors surrounding the O'Connor plant are well informed of our progress, we are holding neighborhood meetings. It is very important to us that we continue to have an open dialogue and hear from our neighbors. At our first open house held January 18, 2018 we were able to answer questions and meet some of our community members face-to-face. We would like you to join us at our next open house. We know that your time is valuable, and we did our best to choose a location and time that works for as many people as possible. We look forward to seeing you at our next open house: March 19, 2018 5:00-7:30 PM A Gathering Place 24081 Co Rd 50 La Salle, CO 80645 If you are unable to attend this next meeting, we encourage you to reach out to us so we can schedule a one-on-one meeting. I will be happy to meet you at your home or another location convenient for you, so we can discuss the proposed project and any other questions you may have about our operations. Your feedback is very important to us, and we truly value your input, please feel free to contact us at D IPColorado( _ �DcPMid.!strearrtcom, (970) 378-8229 or on Facebook at http:/f ww.facebook.co in/groups/O cr'iriorComili t.rn city/. Sincerely, Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. EXHIBIT 1,42 mskyrieiGemirk 47e 49 From: Amy Banowetz [mai[io :banowetzfarrUIy1grnaiLcorr ] Sent: Friday/ March 30, 2018 1:45 PM To: m.ColoradoCornmunityFeedback <DCPCoIorado@dcprn dstrearn,.corn>► pcipark dcprnnidstre rr .com; Kim Ogle ckogle@weld ov.com> Subject: Re; Meeting next week? Hi Paul and Charlie, We wanted to express again our appreciation for DCP's and your personal willingness to talk to us and get our input for future visual and sound mitigation regarding the expansion of the O'Connor gas plant. We do see DCP's efforts with trying to be "good neighbors" by having the community outreach meetings held on January 18th and March 19th as well as meeting with us personally on March 21st. We also appreciate you choosing A Gathering Place to host these meetings! During our face-to-face meeting, we discussed our concerns for visual/sound mitigation on the west side of the existing O'Connor plant as well as for the proposed expansion and what we wanted to see DCP do to help screen the plant from our view looking east, Currently we have a horrible view which affects us both personally and business wise. We know DCP is aware of this from both past complaints from when the first plant was built to our new concerns. We also know you are trying to look for mutual benefiting ways to do this. During our conversation, we showed a diagram that proposed off -set berms be built up with trees planted on various levels to give dimension. The berms would provide added sound barrier as well as an appealing visual affect that would distract or avert attention away from the plant itself. It will be impossible to completely screen the O'Connor plants from our view as they are built on the highest hill in the vicinity. Our view looks slightly upward towards the location, but we are almost eye level with a valley in between our properties. Therefore, we know that no wall can be built high enough or trees grow big enough to completely screen the structures on your facility. All we ask is that something be done to distract our view to something more attractive. We also know it will take a combination of screening on our personal property as well as RCP's to mitigate this effectively. Although you agreed that our proposal was reasonable and acceptable, you told us that due to current pipelines running along the west border of the existing property, DCP did not currently have enough space along their west property line to do visual mitigation due to the layout of the new plant expansion and that moving the pipelines was not an option. You told us that visual mitigation could still be done to the south and east of the plants, but this still does not address our visual and sound concerns. We then suggested that you contact the owners (Boulter's and Thistle Downs) of the land to the west of the O'Connor plant to see if DCP could purchase a strip of land big enough to do the berm and trees. You guys stated that it was a reasonable idea and that you would check into that and get back with us, We are just wondering where things are currently in that process. Have you been able to reach any of the land owners? And if so, have they showed any interest in possibly selling some land? Another thing we thought of and discussed this past week, was the fact that this not only affects our event center business, but will also affect the future of our bed and breakfast business. We have a USR permit for our other house, currently under construction, to be a bed and breakfast. We got this USR permit the same time we applied for our event center permit. Because it is not up and running yet and we know it will still be some time before it's completed, we had not given much thought as to how this O'Connor plant would affect it. It wasn't until I was out there a few days ago when Virtus was working in it that I realized how bad the views were going to be from there as well. The worst part, is that because of the location of the house, there is absolutely no space to put trees on our property to screen because EXHIBIT c c Le iv i 141 S we have to leave an easement for the ditch road and then the ditch is right there. So, visual mitigation on your property would be the only way to help the view from the B&B. We took a drive out to a Martin Murrieta business located on CR 17 off of HWY 34 towards Loveland to see how they mitigated for visual/sound. They have a beautiful 251 or so wall with a berm and trees surrounding the entire facility. We would be totally agreeable to something of that nature! Again, we appreciate DCP's willingness to work with, us this time around. However, we still have very little trust in DCP's word to follow through with any verbal promises made. This distrust goes all the way back to how things were done in regards to the first O'Connor plant and basically none of the surrounding residents knowing it was going in until it was actually being constructed. Then, when the local residents joined together to express our concerns, a lot of promises were made regarding lighting, visual and sound mitigation to even structural damages done to homes due to the vibrations from when they first started up the plant. I can still remember all the pictures on my walls rattling for 2 hours one evening and thinking we were having an earthquake. Of course, none of these promises were ever put in writing. DCP did, however, react fairly quickly in trying to get the flare and it's vibrations reduced as well as toning down the light pollution. For this, we are greatly thankful! I'm mentioning all this to hopefully help you understand why we and so many of our neighbors are still frustrated and leery of trusting DCP's word to do and follow through with everything we've been told at these community meetings. Unless we can see things in writing, whether it's through county regulations specific to OCP's permit or from DCP personally, we really don't know how we can hold DCP or other oil companies accountable to be and continue to be "good neighbors" in our community. We truly want to have this trust and a good relationship with DCP and it's employees. We also know it will take time and effort on both sides to make this happen. Sincerely, Virtus & Amy Banowetz, Owners A Gathering Place Event Center 24081 CR 50, LaSalle, Co 80645 970-518-2925 E-mail string from Amy Banowetz, property owner to the west of the existing O'Connor Gas Plant and Charlie Job, DCP Midstream Operations Area Manager regarding meetings and landscape mitigation On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Amy Banowetz cbanowet familvl aci ail _cm> wrote: I don't. :4. I}II talk to Virtus. He usually handles getting materials for projects. }-). I'll try and get it to you soon. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2018, at .4O PM, m.ColoradocommunityFeedback c Colorado dcpr dstrea .op ? wrote: Amy, do you guys have a feel for what you think it might cost to get the work done on your property? I'm working on pulling together some costs, but I figured I might as well see if you guys have a feel for what you think it will take to get this done. Either way I should be getting back with you in the next couple weeks. I'll be out of town next week but I'm going to try and move this forward quickly. Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave. Greeley CO 60631 Office: (970) 378-8229 cimage002.jpg> From: Amy Banowetz [maluto=banowetzfarnalyl@gmailatom] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:29 PM To: m.ColoradoCornmunityFeedback <DCPColoracQ@r4 riicisfrearr cQ > Subject: Re: Meeting next week? Hi Charlie! So, Virtus used a previous drawing of our property used for our permitting process and drew in red where we want berms with trees on the north east side of our property to screen the gas plant. We would like a combination of evergreens and deciduous trees with a drip line system. Also, since we know traffic is going to increase during the building phase and has the potential for more truck traffic, we would also like to put up a wall along the south side of our event center. As for the landscaping of the gas plant, we would like to see staggered berms (triangulation) with a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees with drip lines to insure their growth and longevity. Let us know if you have any questions. Virtus can be reached at 970-302-0484. Thanks! Virtus & Amy EXHIBIT O n Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Amy Banowetz <bano etzfamiiyl@gmail,com> wrote: O k. I'll remind him again tonight. Maybe he can get started on it tonight. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone O n Mar 6, 2018, at 12:21 PM/ m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback cDCPCoiorado@dcpmidst.rearn.com> wrote: Anytime this week would be fine Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4t Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office: (970) 378-8229 <1 mag e002. j pg> From: Amy Banowetz [ma ilto banowtziamilyl gnail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 201810:10 PM To: rn.coloradoCornmunityFeedback <DCPColorac o@dcprnidstream.com> Subject: Re: Meeting next week? Hi Charlie! He hasn't had a chance yet. This last week was super busy. When is your meeting? I'll try to have him get it done before then and email you a copy. Thanks! Amy Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:33 PM, m.CororadoCommunityFeedbaek cDCPCoIorado@dcpmidstream.com> wrote: Hey Amy, have you and \irtus had a chance to draw something up? I'm setting up a meeting next week to discuss this with some folks and it would be really good to be able to show them what you guys are thinking about. Thanks! Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4tt1 Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office: (97 0) 378-8229 <image002.jpg> From: Amy Banowetz [maiIto:bariowetzfarnilyigmaiLcom] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 9:01 AM To: m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback <DCPColorado@dc midstrea cum> Subject: Re: Meeting next week? Great! See you then! Thanks! Sent from my Phone On Feb 19, 2018, at 6:21 AM, m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback cDCPColorado@de;prinidstrearmoorn> wrote: I'm usually in by 6am, so that works for me Amy, Thursday at 8 am. Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office: CFO) 378-8229 <image002.jpg> From: Amy Banowetz {mUto;banowetzfarnilvirnaU.cpm] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:17 AM To: m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback c DCPCoiorado@dcpr idstream.com> Subject: Re: Meeting next week? Hi Charlie! Thursday would work good. The earlier the better. Maybe 8 or 9am? Virtus s has a job he's working on, so if we do our meeting early{ he can just leave from there to go to work and not have to come back. ;-) Thanks! Amy Banowetz Sent from my iPhone on Feb 16, 2018, at 8:17 AM/ m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback <D pcoiorad @dcpmidstreanriacom> wrote: Amy, As we discussed several times we would like to talk to you guys about the O'Connor expansion/ the concerns you have, and how we can mitigate your concerns. Do you guys have any time next week to meet with us? I'm really open on Thursday if you guys have time, but we can work around your schedule. Let me know if there is a good time to come meet with you next week. Thanks! Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office: (97CD_3_7 -822 <image002 jpg> Todd Loose P.O. Box 418 Kersey, CO. 80644 Charlie Job DDCP Regional Manager OConner Plant Facility March 30, 2018 Dear Charlie, This letter is to communicate the ongoing concerns and disappointments shared by the neighbors of the DCP OConnor plant located on WCR 51 north of WCR 50. i appreciate your recent efforts to host a public forum for our community although I am concerned that this effort is being completed only as a requirement for USR submission to Weld County. I am also concerned that the information being represented at the meeting is not included in supporting documentation on the submitted USR. 1 have identified information submitted on the USR application that is not accurate. Historical Performance our disappointment comes from DCP's historical performance. The current and ongoing concerns remain substantially the sane as those identified to Mr, Paul Park (our DCP representative) at the inception of the OConner I plant in 2013 and 2014, Meetings were held at that time to express these concerns and seek relief from various existing conditions. Our local county commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer was invited and engaged in discussion at the first meeting. DCP presented themselves as a responsive and concerned enterprise at that meeting. DCP's lack of significant action since has proven this not to be the case, DCP made a number of promises that were never fulfilled. Over time Mr. Park just simply stopped returning our calls even though the issues remained{ Examples are as follows; Noise levels — Noise from the plant exceeds acceptable levels. These vibrations shake our windows and have cracked drywall in a number of our homes. DCP agreed to engage a sound engineer to address the issue at the plant. They provided a sign-up sheet for residents to host the engineering group and their equipment. Several of us signed up and agreed to provide access to DCP engineers. This was promised numerous times and never occurred. Summer nights on my patio include the continuous whine of compressor turbines. Flare Operation -- the existing flare was promoted during early conversations as the latest technology and claimed to have the most efficient burn available. The reality was that the flare has never worked to the expectation of DCP and created a large point source of pollution and various nuisance conditions since its inception. We were told the flare would be used in emergency situations only. In reality the flare burns significant volumes of gas non-stop. This Page lof5 EXHIBIT 4- burning is not scrubbed or monitored in its emission, We have video and numerous pictures of numerous contaminants being released into our neighborhood. Flare vibration damage — Several homes including my own have received damage from flare vibration. DCP admitted that the flare was not operating correctly and agreed to meet with owners who incurred damage. I provided my name and number and requested this evaluation. DCP simply ignored my request and the drywall damage at our home was never evaluated by DCP, Visual Screening — DCP indicated a willingness to provide screening evaluation for affected homes on several occasions, They stated that it would be more affective to provide screening at the of site locations than to install screening at the plant. Screening at either location has never been installed and only empty promises made, Lighting — Initial lighting at the plant could best be described as obnoxious. i live almost a mile from the plant in plain sight. We installed window shades on our west bedrooms that have solid darkening mats on the back of them to reduce the light coming in. DCP agreed to meet with affected residents and gather information on the lights that were the most problematic for that residence. This commitment was never followed up on and DCP has never discussed lighting issues at our home directly. It is our understanding that a number of downcast shields were installed (and there was some improvement) but the commitment to evaluate specific concerns was ignored. Open house and educational meeting — DCP promised repeatedly to host an open house and provide educational resources for our neighborhood. The objective was to build confidence in the environmental controls at the facility and a working relationship with plant management. DCP continued to push this back and ultimately never provided this opportunity. I believe they did, host an open house for Weld County Officials but did not invite local residents to attend. in summary DCP has continuously proven to the residents that they do not take our concerns seriously and they do not feel compelled to act on their own promises. -This is the disappointment shared by neighbors. Given the history of failed execution and response I must demand that the intentions to address these concerns be specifically documented in the USR and as a matter of conditions if approved. USR Application Submission I want to point out a number of data points included in the USR application that are not accurate and/or misleading. Current Management - During our last two community meeting you have indicated that DCP realized that they made a number of mistakes during the last process and representatives have specifically stressed over and over again that' management personnel involved last time are no longer involved" and that "none of those folks are around anymore". The signed DCP Authorized Agent on the USR application is Paul Park who also represented DCP to residents during the first oCo nnor plant Page2of5 discussions. This is not a personal attack on Mr. Park but rather a statement of fact that would lead us to assume that commitments to resident concerns will he treated similarly as in the past, and without resolution, Sound Mitigation -- In the USR introduction you make this statement. " DCP has developed a sound mitigation plan that will continue sound standard compliance". As you are aware, local residents engaged Colorado State University to perform site sound assessments. They have documented sound levels as high as 86dBC at a distance of 650 yards (1950 feet or over 3/8 of a mile) from the facility. This data was provided to DCP who chose to ignore it and has still not provided sound engineers as indicated above. Included Equipment - Sound Mitigation -- The USR application is very clear DCP intends to apply noise mitigation technology to ONLY the new equipment installed in the expansion. Our concern is that noise levels from the existing equipment are not being addressed. Included equipment - Lighting DCP has indicated that they will retrofit the existing plant with a dark skies technology that will greatly reduce lighting. We appreciate this promise; however, I was unable to find the commitment in the USR application for the existing site. We would like to see this commitment documented in the USR. Proposed Landscaping- Exhibit D section 12 a The statement "tDCP is working with neighbors and evaluating what, if any, landscaping would be appropriate" is both offensive and inaccurate. As indicated above visual screening has been an unresolved condition since the inception of the first plant. No attempts have been made to screen or landscape the facility and to my knowledge DCP is not working with residents to evaluate this concern. Section 14 - specifically states "no screening is proposed as port of the expansion project". We believe that adequate screening must be included in the project, with the effectiveness of its function as a condition of approval. Traffic Concerns -. Engineering Questions - Section S — DCP has indicated verbally that they will install sign age to direct traffic south on road 51 to road 50 and west to WCR 49. Section 3 of your application specifically states that 67% of the traffic will come from the North. We are also uncertain why a facility with an ending potential value of over $700,000,000 would not be required to pave their access roads and road 51 from county road 50. Environmental concerns- Environmental Health Questions - Section S- discussions with DCP indicate that storage of petroleum products will be very minimal or non-existent on -site. Section 3 indicates 9 various proposed storage materials and uses the plural term "tanksTM. There are no quantities listed which could potentially leave the site approved to construct large storage vessels for hazardous substances. Section 4 - states clearly that "no storage of wastes will occur on sites/ but section 3 specifically lists proposed storage of both "waste water storage tanks" and "used oil tanks", Section 7 states `floor- drains will route fluids to partially buried double walled tank". What environmental monitoring will take place on this tank to protect groundwater? Quantities of stored petroleum products and hazardous chemicals is not well documented in your USR application leaving an open- ended interpretation in which future operators may have a right to construct and operate large storage vessels, which would inherently lead to substantial truck traffic. e Page 3 of 5 Summary of Concerns and Resolution Suggestions Noise Mitigation — Noise continues to be a primary concern for most residents. It was not resolved during the first phase of construction and technical data has been submitted to prove that. DCP has indicated that they intend to put new compressors associated with the expansion in a structure to prevent noise emission. We believe that noise sources at both the existing plant and proposed plant should be enclosed in structures to prevent noise emission. The relative size of the overall plant will result in an enormous noise source that cannot be mitigated any other way. The size of the plant will make it one of the largest point sources of noise in the county, We believe that noise mitigation for the complete plant should be required for the entire project, including existing equipment, and that the effectiveness of its function as a condition of approval. Lighting — Lighting continues to be a primary concern for line -of -sight homes. DCP indicates they intend to install a "dark skies" system to the entire facility. • We appreciate the commitment to installing this system plant wide. We believe this technology should be applied to every aspect of the facility, perimeter lighting, and any future changes within the plant. We ask that this be included in USR conditions of approval. Screening— DCP made a decision to build the plant on a hill and in a location where it impacts residents. They have both the ability and the resources available to provide a complete and adequate screening of the plant. From their own line -of -sight drawing you can see that berms located on a hill gain screening effectiveness from a lower vantage point. The stated obstacles of not having enough room, or having underground pipelines are only excuses and can be overcome through proper engineering and construction practices. We believe that complete and effective screening should be a requirement for approval. This screening should various applications including berms, landscaping, and large noise and visual walls.. It should be effective for all affected neighbors. We believe that adequate screening must be included in the project, with the effectiveness of.its function as a condition of approval. Flare Operation — DCP has indicated the o I d flare will be removed and replace with a latest technology and improved flare". Our obvious ,co rice rn is that the existing flare was promoted the same way. The flare failures in the past have damaged homes, started fires, and poured massive amount of pollution into our community. We appreciate the admission of past flare issues and the' commitment to a new flare. We do not believe the plant should be able to spend several years operating with a flare technology that doesn't work again. If the safety valve at the facility does not work, the plant should be completely shut down until such time as it is fully functional. Residents can provide hundreds of pictures of flare failure over the past S years. This should not jpe permitted to happen again. Page 4 of 5 Todd Loose The new flare will be the single clean release valve for a proposed capacity of 360 million cubic feet of gas per day, We believe a condition should be put on the plant requiring complete shutdown of the plant in the case the desired flare operation is not achieved. The plant should not be allowed to operate until the new flare can be proven completely effective in ongoing operations. Traffic Management - I have witnessed numerous requirements on industrial development sites to pave and improve traffic flow to and from a facility. Paving WCR 51 from the plant to the access point on WCR 49 would vastly improve safety and assist in ensuring traffic travels south from the plant as desired. • We believe a requirement should be placed on the USR to pave WCR SI from its gate to the access of WCR 50 to the south. We believe that the original USR for the ()Connor plant fell considerably short of considering community impacts. If a major expansion of the plant is approved the USR will be modified for the entire facility and should address the requirements of expansion and the unresolved issues of the existing operation. It is our request that DCP agree to the above conditions and improvements to both the new and existing plant, and have these commitments documented in the USR application. Page 5 of 5 From: k ► adwag@what-wirecorn [ma ilko:bradwag'@what-wire.com] Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 4:38 AM To: Kim Ogle c _ ogle weldgov.com> Subject: current planning case MJUSR18-12-1792 Hello Mr. Ogle, my name is Brad Wagner and it has come to my attention recently how I can have my voice heard on the current case up for review concerning the expansion of the Oconnor processing facility south of Kersey. To begin with, I think it important to give the commission a brief history of my involvement with DCP and most particularly the first O'Connor facility, originally the LaSalle U5R1792, approved October 12, 2011. At that time the plan to build went mostly unnoticed because the notification area outlined by the Use by Special Review requires, as you know, only notice to those property owners within 500' from the proposed site. Unfortunately I and a large number of residents in the community live just beyond that notice area, my property being 1300 feet from the facility property. At that time 7 notices were mailed to surrounding owners, of which 4 were already listed as applicants for the permit, thereby profiting from the approval and not very likely to comment negatively. Two of the remaining 3 live out of state. Many of us feel slighted by the process as a project of this magnitude, with such far reaching results was certainly not addressed when the rules were made. However, the rules are what they are, and although we did not know of the first USR that is so affecting our lives, due to the many transgressions associated with this particular use, we have all become wiser and much better informed this time around. Firstly, but certainly not the most imposing of issues at the facility, is the lighting. Initially, the lighting was a glaring mess that went all the way to the tops of all the innumerable piping and towers. Later on, the lights were adjusted slightly in response to outcry from local community members after a meeting convened by DCP officials a scant month after plant startup. At that time some of the taller lighting at the top of the towers and a few of the lower parking lot lights etc. were turned off. After much correspondence back and forth with DCP personnel requesting that more be done, I still have some 40 + individual, recognizably unshielded lights/ pointing at my property. County Code 23-3-250, states that lighting be shielded to prevent beams or rays of light encroaching onto neighboring property, and although the initial USR 1792, as well as the subsequent MJUSR13-0009 (that added more equipment AND LIGHTS) both referenced this code, the existing O'Connorl has failed to observe the rules. The Current Planning case before the commission includes a light mitigation plan that mentions the existing lighting as a concern, it does not however, make the improvements to O'Connorl a matter of fact. I myself, would like to see some real physical improvement to the existing issue before granting another permit that may only perpetuate an overseen violation. The second issue I want to draw attention to is the noise. 24/7 noise that at times pushes the threshold of what is mandated. Through out the entire history of the processing facility the surrounding area has been invaded with a constant whine from some sort of ,motor/s. I have become more educated than ever thought, or wanted to be, on noise regulations, noise measurement equipment, and their use. I have bought equipment of my own and taken readings that are above regulated levels but without training or calibrated equipment no one with enforcement capabilities would take the findings to cause. I have furthermore gotten a CSU grad student to set up a small study with more official and expensive equipment that gives a closer detail of the noise levels at the plant. I am including the study as issued from CSU. Those results were also met with disappointment when they were debunked as unofficial by those at the Weld County Health Department. We were told the county did not have the funding for a study nor the reasoning behind them to seek the funds. Officials for the applicant in the past have EXHIBIT shown concern for the noise issues and have stated more than once they would study the levels. I however, have not seen any such activity, nor heard any change and during conversations of late with DCP personnel we once again are told that they are aware of the issue and will study it. However, their current plan for expansion does not state any changes to the existing plant in reference to noise. The addition of another, larger facility can only exacerbate the problem exponentially just adding to the problem, and without proper enforcement, I am fearful of further loss to my quality of life and quiet enjoyment of my residence. Thirdly, I would like to attempt to relay the dismay we the neighborhood deal with when the flare is in operation. During startup, and for the first three weeks following, being the most often and most violent occurances where the walls of our homes would vibrate, sometimes to the point where the dishes in the cabinets would rattle and the windows would creak in their frames, all -the -while hearing a low thumping sound like what I can only compare to a helicopter landing in the yard. These occurances did get better quickly as the plant operators got things dialed in and improvements were made to the flare (a new design). However, as it is a safety valve for proper operation and must react to imbalances in pressure, the flare does still go off now and then and we are subject to what is now know as "vibratory harmonics " which at one particular time lasted long enough I had a picture frame come apart and fall from the wall. These "flare off"'s have no similarities in relation to duration, size of flame, or whether or not it is accompanied by smoke/emissions sometimes burning cleanly, times with thick black smoke. I will forward emails ils where DCP says the existing flare is working the best its engineers can make it work, in spite of the drawbacks, they continue to install this type of equipment. My concern for the flare situation is where the application up for review includes a single new flare common to both facilities at the site. DCP is asking permission to increase their daily output from 16orncf/day to 390rncf'day requiring an increase of an additional 143% or 2.4 times. Will the new flare be 2.4 times the size of the existing one? If not, will it handle the scenario wherein both plants need balanced? If the new flare IS to be up sized 2.5 times its current flow, can my home handle the vibratory harmonics potentially associated? Lastly, I would like to address the concern we have for our property values that these sort of industrial uses absolutely have affect on. This expansion, if approved, along with the new compressor site under construction at rds 44&49, will make the third such facility in a three mile radius , In case the commission personnel aren't familiar with how home appraisals are done, let me detail how appraisers use the sold values of homes within a five mile radius of the subject property. Therefore, when one property in the affected area is sold at a reduced price caused by such an operation, any others within a 5 mile radius up for appraisal thereafter, be it for mortgage/refinance purposes, market analysis, or for outright sale, all are affected. In an area with already limited sales and additionally lowered appraised values we are getting effectively a doubling of depreciation with each subsequent facility. I hope I haven't taken too much of your time to spell out what we are up against just to ask for a denial of the permit, but these are the facts about what lasting affects we already endure. Please, pass this along to those thinking that another plant here is a good idea. Respectfully yours,.. BRAD WAGNER CERTIFICATION RE: NOTIFICATION TION OF MINERAL INTEREST OWNERS AND LESSEES The undersigned Applicant certifies compliance with the provisions of C LR.S. § 24-65.5- 103(1), and in support thereof, states and certifies as follows: 1. That Applicant has provided notice, (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), containing the time and place of the initial public hearing on its application for Case Number 2 JL1 R18-12-1792, the nature of the initial public hearing, the legal description by section, township and range of the property which is the subject of the initial public hearing, and the name of the applicant; 2. That said notice was provided thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled public hearing, that it was provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier; 3. That said Exhibit A includes the list of the names and addresses of the surface owners. mineral estate owners and lessees of mineral interests to whom the notice was sent, including those persons who have requested receipt of such notices, pursuant to § 24-65,5-103(3). APPLICANT: Patrick M r rncv STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' ' day of April, 2018, by Patrick M. Groom, as Attorney for DCP Lucerne 2 Plant LL . SANDRA L. EVERITT NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 200 64039451 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 08-2102019 Notary Public Note: This Certification must be received by the Weld County Department of Planning Services prior to or at the initial public hearing. If the Certification is not received by that time, the hearing will be rescheduled to a later date, and Applicant must re -notify a,ll owners of mineral interests. NOTICE OF SURFACE DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5.103 Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103, the following notice of surface development is provided for Case Number: 2MJU RI 8-12-1792. There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning ommission on April 3, 2018, at 12:30 p.ni in the Weld County Administrative Building, [1 50 O St., Greeley, CO 80631. 1. Applicant and Owner: DCP Lucerne 2 Plant LLC and DCP Operating Company, LP, fikia DCP Midstream, LP, 3026 4th Ave., Greeley. CO 80631 2. Case No.: 2MJU R 18- 1 -1 7 92 Time and Place of the Initial Public Rearing: April 3, 2018, at 12:30 p.m., Hearing Room, Weld County Administrative Building, 1150 O St., Greeley, CO 80631 4. Nature of the Hearing: The Weld County Planning Commission shall consider a Site Specific Development Plan and 2nd Amended Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development Facilities, Oil and Gas Support and Service, and Natural Gas Processing Facility and the addition of new gas processing equipment to improve capacity and efficiency of Applicant's existing Natural Gas Processing Plant in the A. [Agricultural) Zone District 5. Location and Legal Description of the Property: Parcel No. 096331400003, LOT B of Recorded Exemption No. 0963- 1 -4 -RE 12- 0o 4, being a part of the SE 1/4, Section 31, Township 5N, Range 641N, Weld County, Colorado You may have an interest in the minerals located under the property. For additional information, please write or telephone Kim Ogle, Planner, at 970-3531- 6100, extension 3549, Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1555 North 17th Ave., Greeley, CO 80631, on or before the date of the public hearing. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1555 North 17th .Ave., Greeley, CO 80631 DATED: February 22, 2018 DCP Luc rp 2 Plant LLC f/ 1 By: Patrick rd. Groom, Attorney EXHIBIT A I Noble Energy Inc., cdo K E Andres & ampan 3615 S. Huron St., Ste 200 Englewood, CO 801 l0 Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP 1099 18th1 St, 41500 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Land Manager! attenb erg Noble Energy, Inc. Attn: Wattenberg Land Department 1625 Broadway, Ste. 2000 Denver, CO 80202 RIME Petroleum Company d o Anadarko Petroleum Corporation P.O. Box 9149 The Woodlands, TX 77387-9147 Attn: Tanager Land, Western Division 5 RIME Land Corp. do. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation P.O. Box 9149 The Woodlands, TX 77387-9147 Attn: Manager Property and Rights -of -Way 6 Prima Oil & Gas Company 1099 18th St., Ste. 400 Denver, CO 80202 '51 *r n4111 ra 5' ABOVE °ROUND E) KW " - ileum WC WC R 50 {E)SECTION I WEST EST (C) FENCE 1Y C $N) SECTION LOWINS WEST F R)id2'.`-11,4k, elsJ INTS st0C-a scat[ Mt3 (FWMo(asut AS fUC (Win s . J? 1 4• P 1 k_ Ski in 5' ASTWE GFWUNO If BERM Sirat LS . a -- 7 s r _j tt'J) MCC SLOG x (N) CONTROL *11$ P (N) FENCE. (N) 1�++ir" FILL • II Mt PS It COMPRESSLH BLOC 44. r) AIJ4IDN b ". n`.� l I'll; 17{}' �I trJe1_ lick 041 V IOWA (111) 45 r.�l'atY�N 4rt 'Cv riffI. 'VAR I h.1114 4 antis (j AfQiN RLOG r�1 t r ' N ' 4109 (MATCH CE1 11;1 i Wait it) - tct5nu; twJ-iw FLL- r„ 1 MJUSR18-12-179 O0' FLARE 1;1 ! OO COMkNUNrCAT!ONS TOWER IMP "L'O' AMINE STILL () x-651' smeatizril safej LI ! .GC1}APRESSOi f IIF} SHOP (r, FENCE J (rl) i Da' FLARE Mr. WY :hltil 'tIt AfIOVF. feI•tro 01 It f#iaJ1I0.r+4'I 1001 FLARE (E) 100' CQMIJUNICAT►ONS POWER -tt) NIeV PISAih£ SI1LL (t),.JI CRY DEMETHAMIZER -�--tt —651 '; IAIIILJZIER 111 } COMPRESSOR df f G 5110P / Ih1 FENCE ifien IT714.wirWilt 4 '4fi i 'VII la Ma 'F Yilttl A,r/* St ABOVE- GROUND (t M FFNCI' USR 1301UMQtn DCP OPERATING COMPANY, LP ins c uwrY. COLORADO C'C0HMUR z G'S PLAIT a Fig T PP 4 *4 L W fait • „• w.t rt..s.. From: l t•••etst mirk r_ ... a l le - • Y • 1.44 •e I • b4_4:, • J d M..• 1• • J FM b t o air • Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 6:37 AM To: Kuchinski, Joseph Subject: ongoing abuse at Oconnor plant a Hello Mr, Kuchinski, I would like to bring to your attention the ongoing problems at the Oconnor plant that we addressed some fourteen months ago. Some have continuously abused our neighborhood and others have just recently reappeared. I am aware that at the meeting on December 7th last year you asked that any future issues we residential owners should have, be addressed to Paul Park, However, shortly after that meeting, f for one, experienced a break down of confidence in that route ever providing any results what so ever. Mr. Park said to me at our last conversation, which probably was about March last year, that essentially, he was too busy on other projects to be helpful, I have left these ongoing issues ride awhile to allow DCP time to catch up, but now with the renewed instances of the flare fans vibrating our house, I need to renew my pursuit of the issues. In the recent past when the plant was being shut down for some repair/additions I found it necessary to call your plant supervisor Eric Edens and complain about the vibratory harmonics that was shaking my house. Some adjustments were apparently made at that time and the vibrations stopped. Then again this last Saturday the 27th during a flaring event I found it necessary to call Eric. This time though, it took quite some time for the vibrations to subside and then shortly afterwards the flare event was over. WHY should it be my responsibility to notify DCP there is an occurance ce of these vibrations? Are the plant operators aware of the immediate conditions during a flare off and the ramifications of poorly adjusted equipment? How long can my residence hold up to this abuse? 1 already have enough damages to be of major concern. The weatherproof integrity of my home is deteriorating at an accelerated rate with every instance of these vibratory harmonics. The ongoing noise from the plant on a daily basis is still very annoying and I have, through the use of my own noise meter, shown that the decibel level coming from your gas plant is at times above allowable limits. I have been waiting for DCP to honor its promise to be a good neighbor and address this issue. WHEN is DCP going to do something about it? The plant lighting is also a huge abuse of our night time privacy. At our first meeting we discussed the use of shields to bring the lighting into compliance with the expected result. At our second meeting, the one in late March, we were told that the back order of parts was holding up the completion of the install of shields on the lights, but from my view here, now nearly ten months later, I only see three fights with shields. Leaving a remaining fifty plus lights still shining into my home. WHEN is DCP going to install the light shields we were promised? The smoke emissions from the plant, is however of the most concern. We are all told by experts that exhaust emissions from a car is bad for our health and that second hand smoke can kill and that clean air is a must for us and future generations. There is even a commercial on the radio recently on the cautions of using the wrong fuel in outdoor power equipment. Would you like to see some pictures of your flare stack emissions during the events of the last year??? YOU told us at the very first meeting that there was only to be water vapor during flare events. I can step aside of a car if I happen to be next to it and inhale the exhaust, there are emission standards in place to minimize those exposures. I can move away from a smoker to a safer place if I am in their exhaust, there are restrictions on their conduct to minimize the risk of my exposure, I find the concerns about emissions from outdoor power equipment to be valid and by the same actions I can avoid my exposure, but when compared to what I have to breathe within my own home and upon my own property from your flare the rest of these seem ludicrous to even rnention,..One of the good things about my rural living is the ability to avoid the brown cloud l see almost daily along the foothills and the river basin. After a year of living under the Oconnor plant, I wo Dear Mr. Wagner Let me first apologize for any inconvenience that the O'Connor Plant has caused you and your neighbors. I share your frustration with the amount of time that has elapsed regarding the completion of the necessary work to address on -going concerns such asnoise, vibration and lighting. Since our last conversation, Mr. Park did recruit two acoustical engineering firms to evaluate the source and nature of the noise at the O'Connor Plant. We have received their report and are currently evaluating their recommendations to determine the best course of action on the identified sources. As previously discussed, one of those sources is the plant flare, which emits the harmonic vibration that you reference in your a -mail. As you know from our previous discussions, the purpose of the flare is to allow safe operation of the plant under certain conditions or in response to certain events, and it signifies that the plant is working properly under those circumstances. I am aware of a recent power outage that resulted in significant flaring episode. Following this event, we have modified the controls to prevent automatically depressurizing the plant to the flare during power outages. This approach is more consistent with our typical operating protocols. To address the issue of allowing the harmonic vibration to persist during more routine events, Eric and the plant operators have adjusted their flare monitoring efforts to allow quick recognition of the potential problem so adjustments can be made to avoid a prolonged harmonic situation., We will develop a plan to address other noise sources to the extent feasible. In regards to lighting, Eric and his team have worked diligently to greatly reduce the amount lighting visible from outside the facility. They have installed over 150 light deflectors since the last time we spoke. We have identified as many as SO additional fixtures on elevated platforms that we may be able to take out of service; however, additional work is required to verify and confirm that these recommendations can be implemented without adversely impacting safety and security, which is the purpose of such lighting, In response to your concerns about emissions, the State of Colorado has reviewed our permit application and has determined that O'Connor Plant is a minor source of emissions. M can state with confidence that we operate well within our permitted emission limits. Please understand that we are working on these issues, and we believe we have made significant progress, but as you and I have seen, successful mitigation will take some time. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph Kuchinski Brad In response to your questions, I would say the plant is mostly complete, probably not what you wanted to hear. At this point, DCP and the flare manufacturer have done everything we can think of to improve the flare performance, Speaking to the morning of the tenth/ the facility operators were adjusting the air flow to the flare in an effort to prevent the flare from being too rich and smoking, and as a result of the air flow adjustments, the flare could have momentarily been on the lean side of the combustion equation, thus causing the flare to possibly vibrate. I understand your frustration, but please try to understand that we make every effort to maintain acceptable flare air flow, and that from time to time the needed adjustments might take more than one attempt to find the appropriate lean/rich ratio for combustion with no smoke or vibration, Regarding the status on Joe Kuchinski, he left the company in late January/early February of this year, so please feel free to contact me as needed should issues arise. Thanks Paul From: bradwag@what-wire.com [mailto: brad wag ©what -wire .corn] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 9:54 PM To: Park, Paul D Subject: RE: oconnor update Hello Paul, I was planning on contacting you to see what stage you would call the plant i.e. still in the working stage or mostly complete. But last morning the tenth I got my answer when we had the first flare event for some time and there was some buffeting via the vibratory harmonics we have experienced so much of. Is there still some work to be done on that portion of our burden? It appears to me while watching the flame during a flare event, the fire is blowing itself out and relighting again and again. The associated "pop" with each lighting is similar to a propane barbeque grill when it first ignites and a person will get a"whoosh" with a small shock wave. Not to mention the size of the flare compared to a BBQ grill, but then at a frequency over and over again enough to causing the vibration, I still find my windows rattling and creaking in their frames during flaring. Lastly, although I am using a previously good address for Joe Kuchinski, I have gotten some mail returned as undeliverable. Has there been some changes to his situation that would require new contact information for him? Please pass along my observations to whomever it may concern and thanks for the response...BRAD --- PDF'arkr c cpmidstream.cor wrote: From: "Park, Paul D" <PDPark@dcpmidstreammo EXHIBIT _tL _ C; To: "brad�waa .what-wire,com" <bradwa9 a ! hat-wi re cow>, Joe Kuchinski `kuchinsk (dcpmidstreamton> Subject: RE: oconnor update Date: Fn, 30 Oct 2015 19:27:41 +0000 Brad We have recently completed the installation of a wall at the east end of the compressor area. The wall was built during the summer, and recently the contractor finished installing the doors and sealing off the wall penetrations with insulation and corrugated sheet metal covering. I will try to get out there in a week or two and verify that the wall was built per design specifications. For now, that is about all I have. Respectfully Submitted, Paul D Park From: Dradwag@what-wire.com [�nailto: bradwacj©wht- rre.com] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:39 PM To: Jae Kuchinski; Park, Paul D Subject: oconnor update Hello D eers, I was just wondering if I could get an update on the upgrades/fixes that affect us in the neighborhood around the oconnor plant. I still am getting a lot of noise at times. Respectfully yours} Brad Wagner To: Brad Wagner 25455 County Road 50 Kersey, CO 80644 From: Cameron Radtke, Maggie Escobar, and Chris .inn-Vawter Graduate Students Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Subject: Environmental Noise Monitoring Date: May 6, 2015 Univc' I y Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences Fort Collins, Colorado 805234681 Executive Summary Per Mr. Wagner's request, area noise monitoring was completed on April 14, 2015 by CSU Industrial Hygiene graduate students to measure the environmental noise received at his residential property located at 25455 County Road 50 in Kersey, CO. Mr. Wagner expressed concern about the noise from an oil and gas processing plant near his property. Noise measurements were made using the ,- and - weighted scales. The A -weighed scale measures that sound in the relatively higher sound frequencies and the -weighted scale includes the lower frequency sounds. This is important because the Weld County Noise Ordinance only addresses noise limits using the A -weighted scale. Daytime noise measurements complied with the Weld County maximum permissible noise levels as found in Table 1 below, The average sound level during daytime hours was 47 dBA. However during the evening, a 30 -minute noise average (or equivalent sound pressure level, Leg) of 60 dBA was recorded which exceeded Weld County Noise Ordinance. According to the Ordinance, the maximum permissible noise levels may only be exceeded by 10 dB for up to fifteen minutes in any one -hour period. In addition, the &weighted noise measurements were relatively excessive. Over the 27 -hour sampling period, the average C - weighted noise level was 72 dBC, Table 1. Maximum Permissible Noise Levels for Weld County aT'#atiu v Noise (dB(_4)) 7:00 a. mm, — 9:00nn. Maximum u m Noise 9:00 7:00 00 (dB(A?) ant Land Use Ant. • }i . m. - Residential Property or Commercial Area 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Industrial Area or Construction Activities 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Nonspecified Areas Methodology Two Larson -Davis noise dosimeters (Spark model 7068 were attached to a tripod at a height of five feet located 33 yards from the back porch of the residence and 650 yards from the oil and gas plant. One dosimeter was used to measure noise on the A -weighted scale and the other to measure noise on the &weighted scale. The noise dosimeters were activated at 9:30 a.m. and turned off at 12:39 p.m. the following day, allowing for EXHIBIT 2.14(311SR, la'alefq 4 27 -hour samples. Both dosimeters were pre- mid post -calibrated using the Larson Davis Blaze software before sampling at 94 dBA and 114 dBA and were found to be within calibration limits. In addition, both dosimeters were set on slow response and an exchange rate of 5 dB. Thirty -minute time Servals were selected from the dosimeter data where the average noise level was the greatest. Using the Larson Davis Blaze software, intervals of peak noise levels were identified from the entire 27 -hour sample. The 30 -minute maximum equivalent sound pressure level was extracted and is reported below. A Larson Davis System 824 Class I. Sound Level Meter/Octave Band Analyzer (SLMIOBA) (Serial Number: 310632963C), was used to measure a brief 15 -minute sample vile the investigators ere on site. In this 15 - minute time period, the A -weighted sound -pressure level was 44 dBA and the C - weighted hted sound -pressure level was 55 dB C. The sound levels did not exceed the Weld County Noise Ordinance limits at that point in time. Results Measurement Type E quiva nt Sound Pressure Level (dBA Equivalent Sound Pressure Level (dUC) 30 Minute Maximum Leg 60 86 49 72 24 Hour Leg 15 Mill to LI I "OBA Measurement (Hand-held measurement while investigators were on site) 44 55 The A -weighted 24 -hour equivalent sound -pressure level (Leg) (or average noise level) was 49 dBA. The measured Leg from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. was 47 dBA and the Leg from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 am. was 50 dBA. The Ceweighted 24 -hour equivalent sound -pressure level was 72 dBC. The measured Leg from 7:00 an. to 9:00 p.m. was 73 dBC and the Leg from 9:00 pm. to 7:00 a.m. was 74 dBC, During a 3 -hour period in the even* from 20:17 to 23:17 (8:17p.m, to 11:17p.m.) the average sound pressure level was 56 dBA. . 30 -minute maximum Leg was analyzed from that 3 -hour time frame. The time frame at which the 30 -minute maximum, sound -pressure levels occurred was 21:03 to 21:33 (9:03 p.m. to 9:33 p.m.). During this 30 -minute time period, the average sound -pressure level was 60 dBA. This sound level exceeded the nighttime maximum allowable perm. ssibl a noise level, which only allows a 10 -decibel increase for 15 minutes. Throughout a 6 -hour period in the p.m. hours (19:164:16) the average C -weighted noise level was 78 dBC. Within a 30 -minute interval from 20:58-21:28 (8:58 p.m. - 9:28 p.m.) the average sound -pressure level peaked at 86 d8C. Discussion The 24 -hour average A -weighted sound -pressure level was within. maximum permissible limits, however there were periods throughout the course of sampling when sound levels exceeded the permissible lim its mandated by the Weld Comity Noise Ordinance. Sound -pressure levels increased during the evening hours. The land owner mentioned that sound levels seemed to be higher at night while trying to sleep. The findings support his comments. AIt ough there are no regulations regarding -weighted sound pressure levels, measured sound levels ranging from 72 dBC to 86 dBC are significant enough that a noticeable disturbance can be experienced. Hello