The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20181227.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case 2MJUSR18-12-1792 - DCP LUCERNE 2 PLANT, LLC Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation B. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 4/3/2018) C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation D. Harry Strohauer Letter of Support, dated 4/20/18 E. Fred Svfcozic Letter of Support, dated 4/20/18 Dennis and Christine F. Winn Letter of Support, dated 4/22/18 G. Amy Banowetz (SPO) Correspondence, dated 4/20/18-4/22/18 H. Fred Krumpeck Email Request for Continuance, dated 4/23/18 I. John Moser Letter of Support, dated 4/22/18 J. Brad Wagoner Videos of Flare, dated 4/24/18 K. Rocky Rissler Email Request for Continuance, dated 4/23/18 L. Jack Mount Email of Support, dated 4/24/18 M. Renee Perkins Email Correspondence, dated 4/25/18 N. Carol Boulter Thompson Email of Support, dated 4/25/18 8 Plan Sheets and 1 high view pictures, submitted O. Applicant 4/25/18 Multiple pictures (2 - 11X17 sheets) and a letter, P. Amy Banowetz submitted 4/25/18 PowerPoint slides and 6 supporting packets, submitted Q. Todd Loose 4/25/18 R. Todd Loose 6 Letters/emails from SPOs, submitted 4/25/18 S. Applicant Sound reading maps, submitted 4/25/18 T. Applicant Vicinity photos with site renderings, submitted 4/25/18 U. Brad Wagoner PowerPoint slides of Flare incidents, submitted 4/25/18 V. W. 2018-1227 Public hearings concerning this + �roperiy will be heard before the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Both hearings will be held at. WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1150 Street • Greeley, CO 80631 Planning Commission Hearing will be held on Board of County Commissioner Hearing 2011i App;scan A Site Specific Development Plan and 2nd Amended 92 for Use by Special Review Permit No. USR-1792 Resource Development Fa Support and Service, Natural Facilities, Oil and Gas .., Gas Processing facility, one (1) up to one hundred (100) feet in height communications tower, and the addition of secure processing equipment to improve new gas efficiency of the existing p capacity and --- in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. (DCP O'Connor Gas Pl ant) Case Number i Request FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT M. �" AT THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES AT 970-353-5100, Additional ext. I for Information visit www.weldeountypianningeases.org pianntn .'.I rl3 ,r »,•�. .,�•, .'-Cre'''.a:.;.y�r .r. 1!S• :"41MA wrrnrciga -•4'hl.tw, ?y' '.t.... rr1)'keY-cal. h.-r,-.....� .f%'!1 r1' 1}r biro ,ign3;tcit+.tr•1 t:1.:I ,:u;1ffy.r-in Public hearings concerning this property wilt be heard before the County Ptarrning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Both hearings wilt be held at WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDiNG 1150 "O°, Street • Greeley, CO 80631 Planning Commission Hearing will be held on za1�; at 21aP Board of County Commissioner Hearing wilt be held on Ategittsa%______20111 at: tsoithi Applicant: WC Request: A Site Specific Development Plan Use by Special Review and 2nd Amended Permit No. USR-1792 for Mineral Resource Development Faci ' S,��l�tres, Oil and Gas Support and Service, Natural Gas Processing (1) up to one hundredf n�earc lit � (100) feet in height secure communications tower, and the addition processing equipmentof new gas P to improve capacity and efficiency of the existing plant in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. MCP O'Connor Gas Plant) Case Number: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON PLEASE CONTACT ATTHEWELDCOUNDEP PLANNING SERVICES, �F SCEs, AT 970-35.3-6100, east. For Additional Information visit vomv ATTENTION:. w�a,ld�cou nt�rp�lara Il l r�gca se s. C� r Proposed C�ondlrforrs 'elated to r�rrs Site Specific brut to, nttrrrber of d employees,� Dereeopmen r Plan card else by Special rtli iced to, t en rrpf,er ar rrmoa�raeecrt pole oursof er fddot ebeeF*Mv vehicles an including, e rheoperation, screening, r+r�d'ra�.m�e,rof�►!loawab�r ve�ar�c� and vehicle Planning r i►ITI'5.SFoR and Boor€1 of Cv+unry Commissioners hearings. 10 1/4' -+gal K..1;1-.70 .4,441 to a-4 4• Sign Planting 1 • ... •4_J. - - Via l i ':r -r ii ;,i•7 ' ,I .b J " ` „,' r 14,'� - 'r . '� . b Tr, o ' _ 1� • !! I' 1 I 11;......) tN'J IJ 11 1 i'• .. • .t....-.'�.../r! :,Y .♦ ter. .ter. I 1' � •{ 1f 4 1O y. J '.f L i • -1 I,. •:' a . cttsc -jar. rs;; J S a a .y _ r m - ant tom... aS e. 9 ✓ it 1' .' w { -,. \I..% (%; 11 \-.44K as - .1 • • • �•� r.d� .�' s• ais !t Mk A ' b -' .r. • I •t _ • -4 _ . t . . I.% 44 "•'i 6 • • _ = w - _- ; „R. *{ w rt ' • c• oNAWJP ....a.a - -sue•~ - ' , r _ — r Tir~die .� r� a s y'. to t yt • ars .• eat alma tars gliditi v• • ejz;b4sirPS: sat r. 'p J - - - - 4 15.1 T V . l _, -- -- eafrair _.e tat._ "K • J'•i ,s4.+--_ f:444' JI 0'CONN0R CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING/BERMS/SPLIT RAIL FENCING AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST PROPOSED 0'C0NN0R 2 SITE O'CONNOR lir VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST r I P Y 1 a • ..T , 4 kits- I . 1. • - ,M I ite t is F C s a salt t M e or • t . 1 I a ' f 1 1 11`I �•lei r i C�*_ k�t i ,1 ; '1 * f' � �.ik-/ r %t �i Ifs i .i L• l{ - Ia a W- .1. V - M1 'c 1 O'CONNOR VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST so O' NNOR VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kim Ogle Friday, April 20, 2018 2:51 PM Esther Gesick; Tisa Juanicorena Emailing - signed letter to commissioner.pdf signed letter to commissioner.pdf Hello Please add to the case file for DCP O'Connor Gas Plant 2MJUSR18-12-1792 Thank you Kim Ogle Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.3549 Direct 970.353.6100 x 3540 Office kogle@weldgov.com To: Weld County Commissioners PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners, You have the unique opportunity to approve the O'Connor 2 natural gas processing plant that is being proposed by DCP Midstream. I urge you to do so for the following reasons: 1. There is a major bottleneck in the oil and gas production industry in Weld County these days. The problem is a lack of capacity for Midstream. We need to have this additional capacity to have new drilling and have other already drilled wells completed. 2. I farm thousands of acres in the general area. I can tell you personally that royalty income is very important to the health of my farming operation and to the health of every other farmer who receives royalties. I can tell you that farming didn't send my 3 kids to fine universities — royalties did! 3. I believe that DCP is doing a good job of appropriately mitigating the impacts of the additional plant. As I understand it, the new plant will be quieter via insulated buildings containing the equipment that produces noise. A new flare will be installed to handle noise/vibration issues the old one had. Landscaping mitigation will be significant both on site and on neighbor's properties -with their approval. Finally, DCP is installing a dark skies lighting program that will cause the night lights at the site to be minimal. 4. Agriculture and oil and gas have at times been somewhat contentious. Changing land uses often are. I can assure you that oil and gas is a significant partner in the economic health of Weld County's agriculture and we need to have this additional capacity permitted to continue this thriving partnership! Harry Strohauer, President of Strohauer Farms 970-371-0011 PS. Thank you for your investment in WCR 49, it is a great addition to our County and provides a tremendous future! Strohauer Farms 19595 Weld County Rd 50 , aS ally C.() 8064i n5_(. Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Paulinem81623@Rmail.com 970-384-2512 526 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Cheryl Hoffman Friday, April 20, 2018 3:50 PM Karla Ford Esther Gesick; Tisa Juanicorena Phone call from Fred Svfcozic Calling to voice their support of DCP Midstream plant; land use hearing 4-25-18. They are also writing a letter addressed to Steve. Cheryl Hoffman Deputy Clerk to the Board Weld County Clerk to the Board Office 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 970.400.4227 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. N d D EXHIBIT 011141.)6 l 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Esther Gesick Clerk to the Board Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Esther Gesick Sunday, April 22, 2018 8:07 PM Tisa Juanicorena Fwd: DCP Midstream From: Sean Conway <sconway@weldgov.com> Date: April 22, 2018 at 8:03:17 PM EDT To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: Fwd: DCP Midstream Esther - please add this to the public comments on this USR. Thanks, Sean Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Winn <liberty5@q.com> Date: April 22, 2018 at 1:20:00 PM MDT To: sconway@weldgov.com Subject: DCP Midstream Weld County Commissioner Please vote yes for DCP Midstream oil and gas processing plant. Infrastructure = economy = taxes. Thank you. Dennis and Christine Winn 916 Pershing Street Craig, CO 81625 970-824-2049 N D 2 EXHIBIT >liu5Ltb- 1 From: Amy Banowetz [mailto:banowetzfamilyl@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 2:27 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: Fwd: More Concerns Ili Kim! Here's the last string of conversation between us and DCP regarding what we want to see done and arranging for a group meeting with neighbors instead of them meeting with us individually. Thanks for all your help with getting all our information into their file. We really appreciate it. Amy Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Job, Charles A" <CAJob@dcpmidstream.com> Date: April 21, 2018 at 6:20:31 PM MDT To: Amy Banowetz <banowetzfamily 1 @gmail.com> Subject: Re: More Concerns Sounds great, thanks for being so flexible and arranging everything with the other neighbors! Charlie Job Area Manager North Region DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office: (970) 378-8229 On Apr 21, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Amy Banowetz <banowetzfamily1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Charlie, Sorry it took so long to get back with you. I was waiting to hear back from everyone to see what day and time works best. We can all do Tuesday evening at 6:30p at our place. Virtus and I can meet Tuesday before that either at fpm or sometime after 4pm before the group meeting. Thanks, Amy On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Job, Charles A <CAJob@dcpmidstream.com> wrote: A group meeting would be great, can we do it Monday or Tuesday evening? I unfortunately can't make Sunday evening and we'll have much more solid information to share after Monday. We may want to move our meeting with you and Virtus to either later in the day on Monday or to Tuesday to make sure we have everything lined up on our end before we get together. Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave Greeley CO 80631 Office. (970) 378-8229 <image002.jpg> From: Amy Banowetz[mailto:banowetzfamily1@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 5:08 PM To: m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback <DCPColorado@dcpmidstream.com> Subject: Re: More Concerns Hi Charlie, Thanks for getting back so quickly. First, it's not that landscaping on our individual properties is less desirable. It's not one or the other, it's mitigation on both sides that's being requested. For us personally, we desire to see 20ft offset berms with a 20ft sound proof wall on top of them. If you would choose to do landscaping on your berms, then the only compensation we would request is for the wall we want put up along road 50 to block the truck traffic. Otherwise, if you chose not to landscape on your berms, then we would ask for additional compensation for berms, trees, drip lines, etc. on our property as well as the wall along 50. As far as the group meeting is concerned, it was not to discuss individual compensation, but rather to express as a group what we want to see done on your property. We have already discussed as a group that we will not discuss individual compensation, but that we do want to know that everyone is satisfied with their offers before any of us will sign anything. Virtus and I can still meet at 1 pm on Monday if that still works. Thanks, Virtus and Amy Sent from my iPhone On Apr 20. 2018. at 3:46 PM. m.ColoradoCommunity>~eedback <DCPColorado@dcpmidstream.com> wrote: Amy, I completely understand where you're coming from. Would late Monday afternoon/evening work for you? We are working on a few items that I hope will alleviate your concerns. We just need till Monday to get all the details worked out and get the needed approvals to move forward. You are correct that we didn't directly approach the Boulters. When the possibility was looked at on the DCP side it seemed possible that we could buy more land, but at the time there was no support for purchasing more land so we did not pursue it. It seemed to DCP that the best approach was to mitigate visual impacts on property owners' land and we thought that would be received well by you and others near the plant. We honestly thought that our proposal would be a good one, but the feedback we received from you and others is that mitigation on your properties is not as desirable (in fact most seemed insulted), so we took that feedback and are working on some new ideas that I hope will be more to your liking. When you say a group meeting are you talking about a meeting with other neighbors as well? I'm not opposed to that at all, but we would not be able to discuss any specific deals that might be made with DCP and you as those are specific to you and the business you run on your property and would not necessarily apply to other neighbors. I do want to assure you that your concerns have been very clearly communicated and understood. We have taken detailed notes on the concerns of all the neighbors and have communicated those concerns with very specific information up to the highest levels of management in the company. I hope that on Monday we'll be able to come back to you with a plan that will start to show you that we are listening. We know that we need to address: Visual impact and specifically screening on our property Sound impacts Light impacts Traffic Flare noise/vibration Communication and follow through I want to reinforce that we will continue to work with you whether we come to some official agreement before the hearing or not. I was attempting to make sure that you understood you were in a better bargaining position before the hearing, but I know that is a difficult message to communicate without sounding like it's an ultimatum, and it appears that I did a poor job of communicating that. We will absolutely keep working to try and come to an agreement that you can hopefully feel comfortable with whether that happens before the hearing or not. Let me know if Monday would work as I think we'll have more to share with you then. If it needs to be Sunday evening that is ok as well, we just won't really have anything new to share. Charlie Job Operations Area Manager, Weld Co. DCP Midstream 3026 4th Ave. Greeley CO 80631 Office (970) 378-8229 <image001.jpg> From: Amy Banowetz [mailto:banowetzfamilyl@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 12:56 PM To: m.ColoradoCommunityFeedback <DCPColorado@dcpmidstream.com> Subject: More Concerns Good afternoon, Paul and Charlie, Virtus told me yesterday that he talked to Paul and told him we all just needed to start over. We have become increasingly frustrated at the fact that DCP just doesn't seem to understand and has still not done anything to fully or even adequately address all our past or present concerns in a way that will truly benefit us or our neighbors. Despite our willingness to work with DCP, we feel all of our suggestions on how DCP could mitigate for visual esthetics and sound have been met with "we can't do it" or "DCP has no interest in doing it". It is not our fault or problem that DCP did not allow for potential and proper landscaping mitigation along their west border, or any of their borders for that matter. When you told us several weeks ago that DCP just did not have the room to put berms with trees or even a wall, we suggested that you contact the Boulter Family that owns the land between the O'Conner Plant and our property. You told us you would check into seeing if they would be interested in selling. Then, this past Tuesday, you told us that DCP had no interest in buying more land. Imagine our surprise and then immediate anger when we discovered that you never even called the Boulter Family. Virtus called Michael Boulter on Wednesday and he met with us on Thursday. He told us that no one from DCP ever tried contacting him. We also found out that he has since bought his siblings out and is now the sole owner of all the land between us. He also assured us that should DCP contact him, he would be more than willing to sell DCP whatever amount of land they would need to mitigate screening for sight and sound. Should DCP decide to pursue this, Mr. Boulter can be reached at 701- 770-1238 or at 970-330-8251. We also felt uncomfortable and upset when we were told that we should really consider signing an agreement with DCP before the Commissioner's Meeting on the 25th or otherwise DCP could not guarantee the same proposal would be presented after the 25th. That does not sound like someone who is trying to be a "good neighbor". Therefore, as neighbors and in the interest of time, we would like to suggest a group meeting with DCP on Sunday afternoon at 4 pm at our place. We feel like maybe we can do a better job of making our needs and concerns understood in a group setting. Thank you, Virtus and Amy Banowetz Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Esther Gesick Monday, April 23, 2018 3:35 PM Tisa Juanicorena FW: O'Conner expansion From: Julie Cozad Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:26 PM To: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Sean Conway <sconway@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Rick Krumpeck <fkrumpeck@peakrc.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: Re: O'Conner expansion Please add the email below to the official record for this case. Thank you. Julie From: Rick Krumpeck <fkrumpeck@peakrc.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:26:29 AM To: Mike Freeman; Julie Cozad; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway; Steve Moreno Subject: O'Conner expansion To Weld County Commissioner's: Please review my comments regarding the DCP O'Conner plant expansion and place them in the record. I am requesting a continuance for the DCP O'Conner plant expansion to allow DCP to meet with the whole neighborhood to conduct meetings on who best to proceed with their planned expansion. In reading thru their USR I have been unable to find working hours, haul routes, a hard number on noise abatement or anything on landscaping. These items need to be addressed in the USR or the area neighbors will be left with a noisy eyesore. Again please continue this matter brought before the BOCC on April 25, 2018 Fred Krumpeck r 4=t/zz/,a AS yot-c4Cree (A. L.t.; ccAr-e., 1C(S ptocccc 'T wY ' U`ias � N<.-escLed 4 Asa t w •iz P hC& �--�- irk Ci is kck r--eo e v - G ---e (LA- .-k.- 6 4 lv--eu d y -�-U Car k ve. tO £_t_teso-S' est hS C7 eci en ran is' en 4_, let, 4 kicky c e:c 4- • �C i c° e [or fro h; Q C 1 Is Csc,dIy f ccit 170-(.2 S' k e e Cry \- C 4-k.c Ccid ( A cy.,%--- Ic , ogovrt e..44,2-3 a Cj 4 7 ry S3C1 i-Pii RECEIVED (a(Qdb cam. aoS� gp�o 3 / (�rQe�� co w •-Q 1 EXHIBIT -t w� APR 242018 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (tip O'Connor 2 Plant Expansion Project Information DCP Midstream is building a new O'Connor 2 Plant adjacent to its O'Connor Plant to add needed gas processing capacity to its natural gas gathering system in the DJ Basin in and around Weld County. The location is north of WCR 50 between WCR 49 and 51 west of Kersey. The existing plant processes 160 million cubic feet of gas per day (MMcfd). The new plant will add 230 MMcfd of processing capacity, which DCP expects to fully utilize by late 2019 due to increasing natural gas production. The O'Connor plants will process natural gas delivered by high-pressure pipelines from field booster stations to produce residue gas, natural gas liquids, and finished condensate. Residue gas is utility -quality natural gas which will be pipelined to interstate pipeline markets for delivery to local utilities and industrial users. Natural gas liquids will be pipelined to downstream facilities which will further process the hydrocarbons for use as fuel, chemical feedstocks, and refinery feedstocks. Finished condensate will be pipelined and trucked for use as refinery feedstock. DCP Midstream currently employs ten full-time employees at the O'Connor Gas Plant. Five additional employees will be added to operate the O'Connor 2 Plant. DCP plans to begin construction late -spring 2018 and expects the new plant to be in-service summer 2019. Major rotating equipment for O'Connor 2 will be enclosed in insulated buildings to reduce sound impact. DCP plans to mitigate light at the plant by installing downcast lighting on both O'Connor 1 & 2 and going to dark skies at night. Dark skies means lights will be off at night except walk ways and when operators are working on equipment. DCP is currently meeting with engineering firms to retrofit O'Connor 1 for the Dark Skies initiative. Disclaimer: To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate and reliable as of the date of publication; however, without final approval of the Use by Special Review permit, project specifics may change and effect the accuracy of the above information. Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Tisa Juanicorena Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:50 AM Tisa Juanicorena The link for the DCP items is provided below. CTB will also retain them in our file room on a flash drive marked as an Exhibit. https://weldcounty.sharefile.com/d-s2a29c92f23246409 Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street I P.O. Box 758 I Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 as Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Tisa Juanicorena Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80634 tivanicorena@weldgov.com tjuanicorena @co.weld.co.us tel: 970.400.4217 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Julie Cozad Monday, April 23, 2018 5:03 PM Steve Moreno; Sean Conway; Mike Freeman; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Kim Ogle; Rocky Rissler; Esther Gesick; Tisa Juanicorena; Torn Parko Jr.; Kim Ogle Re: 2MJUSR18-12-1792 Please make the email below a part of the official public record for this case. Thank you. Julie Cozad From: Rocky Rissler Sent: Monday, April 23. 4:18 PM Subject: 2MJUSR18-12-1792 To: Julie Cozad, Steve Moreno, Sean Conway, Mike Freeman, Barbara Kirkmeyer, Kim Ogle Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to request that a continuance is granted in reference to the above USR. I believe a continuance would allow DCP the opportunity to meet with neighbors effected by the proposed O'Connor expansion. As you must be aware, the O'Connor plant has had, and continues to have, significant operating issues. The residents are dealing with shaking windows, cracking foundations, cracking floors, and certainly the biggest problem is the grass fire started by the O'Connor flare. I strongly suggest that the current plant should be brought up to industry standards before an expansion is approved. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Rocky Rissler Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Jack Mount <mount@m5-consulting.com> Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:19 AM Tisa Juanicorena DCP Midstream O'Connor 2 hearing 4-25-18 I want to write a short email to voice my support of the continued build out of our natural resources infrastructure. These facilities are important in the overall economic performance of Weld County and the long term sustainability of our local and national economies from affordable energy supplies. Having come from Oklahoma, the overall benefit of facilities such as these to create jobs and continued gathering of supplies of energy for the use in clean generating electric plants with natural gas and the continued production of necessary fuel for our nations growth, we here in Weld County should not pass up the opportunity to be the benefactors of these facilities. Thank you, Jack Mount Jamie "Jack" Mount m5 Consulting Ph: 970-580-3395 Cell: 970-397-7055 Fax: 866-556-9627 :a .O EXHIBIT - Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Perkins, Renee <RPerkins@houseloan.com> Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:23 AM Tisa Juanicorena Brad Cell 2MJUSR18-12-1792 Good morning, I would like to grant my public comment minutes for this topic to Brad Wagner. Please contact me with any questions regarding this at 970-590-2119. Thank you Renee Perkins 21131 County Road 53 Kersey, CO 80644 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone a Confidential & Proprietary to Cornerstone Home Lending, Inc. This email and any files attached with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error delete this message and notify the sender. If you are not the named recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachment. For further assistance, contact the Cornerstone Information Technology Department at it@houseloan.com EXHIBIT D V r '.9 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Carol Thompson <thymetreas@aol.com> Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:31 AM Tisa Juanicorena DCP To whom it may concern, I am a property owner a id mineral rights owner whom is directly effected by the building of the second plant. It appears to me that ever ' thing that can be done to make this plant acceptable to the surrounding properties is being done. I applaud the lengths they are willing to go to to make the plant as user friendly as is possible. Weld county needs this ?lant expansion to better utilize the huge gas and oils reserves that we are blessed with. As a 5 generation Coloradan I believe in using our resources for the good of our people and nation. We should limit the import of oil. Keep American dollars in American hands. Thank you . Carol Boulter Thompson 303-289-2555 Sent from my iPad 1 Q W CAST CONCR a All LEI I. LNI ANENT CHAIN FENCING TO /C TAN SLATS 486$14 “:€ ENTlON NO BUILD F0 - - -• SS. r -.►e NEW O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT (N)20'PRECAST •f•_ CONCRETE WALL • • 6 6 TUR&BTORMWAT ST• ... sr -1a• CFT 10 I1 (N) 20 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL II (N) 20' PRECAST CONCRETE WALL (NI WATER QUALITY PEATURE/STORMWATER DETENTION. NO -BUILD OR STORAGE AREA TOTAL IN) VOLUME • I11.000 CFT IE1 FIRE HYDRANT W.C.R. 50 TN) CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE -/7 13 14 1 16 (El WATER QUALITY FEATURE INO•BUILD OR STORAGE AREA 70 n 77 '-I 7.1 "S if p CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO SE REORADEL AND RESEEDED WITH NATIVE GRASSES (NI CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE (E) WATER QUALITY FEATURE (NO -BUILD OR STORAGE AREA) INI CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE (E) FIRE HYDRANT AEI MAIN ENTRANCE SAP12.00259 NSW N11M (141 CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PL/ ` 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL EXAMPLE CONCRETE SPOT RAIL FENCE N NOT TO SCALE a LEGEND EXISTING NEW PERMANENT FENCE (N) CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL (N) 20' PRECAST CONCRE (N) COLORADO BLUE SPIT = (N) ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUt PLANT UST SYN. OTY SOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME * 58 PICEA PUNOMS COLORADO SLUE SPRUCE O 14 AINIPO 7b 6CCPULORUY ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUICER I QENERAL NOTE$, • PRECAST CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE - OR SIMILAR (SPECIFIC FINAL DESIGN AN0/OR COLOR MAY VARY) • ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER -OR SIMILAR (ACTUAL TREE SPECIES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON LOCAL AVAILABILITY) • COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE - OR SIMILAR (ACTUAL TREE SPECIES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON LOCAL AVNLABIUTY) • TREE. BERM, AND FENCE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE IN) CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE VI`rA.nh4c [ n x. Jf20 M 10w'it fr c...„, CO 60134 S03-610-1221 DCP OPERATING COMPANY MELD COUNTY, COLORADC O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 2MJUSRIB-12-17A2 NO MJUSR-L-I /Y x1 SOLE DM1 as Cal NOYIS st 2 3 4 7 '0 I n 12 u 14 u ID I• 20 21 22 1 r. / VIEWPOINT ® 5' ABOVE GROUND NLt SECTION LOOKING WEST .•,,NtA. ;CAIt. NTS .A: SCALt NTS ;EXAGGERATED x I•UR CLARIFY., VIEWPOINT 0 5 / ABOVE GROUND (N) BERM I) SECTION LOOKING WEST SIGHT LIB (N) 20' TALL PRLCASI CONCRETE WALL (N) MCC BUILDING x 2 (N) CONTROL BUILDING (N) SH )P F',LL - (N) BY-PASS COMPRESSOR BUILDING (N) TANKS (F) TANKS (E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (N) 120' DEMETHANIZER TOWER (N) 45' TEG CONTACT() (N)COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING E) TANK ELEV 4809 MATCH (E) PLAN ) LEGEND (E) = EXISTING (N) = NEW 2MJUSR18-12-17 (L) 1OU , LA,4 (E) -100' AMINE STILL (E) -100' DEMETHANIZER (F) -65' STABILIZER (E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) WAREHOUSE (E) FENCE (N) 100' FLARE (F) 100' FLARE � VIEWPOINT ABOVE GROUT (E) FENCE USR BOUNUAI 1 .J� (E) ,100' AMINE STILL (E) -100' DEME1 HANIZER (E) -65' STABILIZER (F) 60' COMMUNICATIONS (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (N) 20' Ti (f) WARE HOUSE,/ ------ PRECAST CONCRE if TOWER VIEWPOIN I 4 ABOVE GROL (E) FENCL uSR BOUND. WE MIDI 1*100F MMIAIas&MI 01 00101 DCP OPERATING COMPANY WELD COUNTY. COLORADO O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT SITE SECTIONS 2MJUSR18-12-1792 c 4/24/16 slap. SAGAS as AXEL 20• AIAu w DRAFTED BY: a22 DATE 1x/19/Iv APPROVAL BY ca CHECKED BY NIMI SCAB AS NOTED DATE. a AR A u DAR n WONTED R1111 RCM WED 1AMOSCAPMO ocscaencei W CAI APGD ISSUE DWG NO. YJUSR-C 4 Y 10 '3 .4 10 16 17 /is Ip 20 21 V 2-12 2! 24 » 26 2/ 29 » 50 31 St PLOT DATE: CAD INDIA S 9 IC I, 12 IS 1• lb 19 I/ IS IS 20 22 2S 2a S SIGHT LINE SECTION LOOKING NORTH AA..:,L' A:tD X 5 FOR CLARITY) (N) 120 DI_Mt.IHANIZER OWL I.< (N) 100' FLARE R V!_WPCIN1 CAD 5' '\ABOVE GROUND (N) 45' TEG- GONTA COMPRESSOR - BUILDING (N) 20' TALI PRECAST CONCRETE WAI. L (N) BY-PASS COMPRESSOR BUILDING I) SECTION LOOKING NORTH <.,...�:. .i ALL Fly (t)AutakAlLL 2c D ION CLArfflY) (E) 100' FLARE (E) r 100' AMINE STILL (N) 65' STABILIZER (E) AMINE BUILDING (E) 100' DEMETHANIZER (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) 100' FLARE (1) ^-100' AMINE STILL (N) 65' STABILIZER-\\, (N) CONTROL BUILDING (N) SHOP •(N) MCC BUILDING x 2 809 MATCH (E) PLANT) (E) AMINE BUILDING III (E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (E) FENCE (E) -100' DEMETHANIZER f (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (L) WAREHOUSE Sickle �N (E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL f (E) ADMINISTRATION / BUILDING LEGEND (E) = EXISTING (N) = NEW (E) WAREHOUSE 2MJUSR1 8-12-1 i -VIEWPOINT © 5' ABOVE GROUND NW.C.R. 51 USR BOUNDARY (N) BERM VIEWPOINT CW 5' ABOVE GROUND >.r(N) SPLIT -RAIL =ENCE W.C.R. 5' USR BOUNDARY Non ink 111.00+11 1NUIIMM' d uwu DCP OPERATING COMPANY C •/N/Ii IMPS 3/1401 a 9 AA a9 MO WD 1I SCUD W au iitallta RA O PSO►L IRD IN09Cac OLSCSISICI CAN CAI Y►D ISSUE WELD COUNTY. COLORADO O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT SITE SECTIONS 2WOSRIB-12-1792 ORPFTED BY 21k PTE Is/tin? APPROVAL BY Cal DWG NO hum -C-5 RICKED Br Poe SG L As MDE® 4 s 10 '2 IS IC Iy 20 21 22 I 33 24 20 29 30 SI 32 PIG? DATE: AGO rA.LNA J 5 ! 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 19 9 7n 11 u 73 2• (L) (F) 100' FLARE -100' AMINE STILL (E) -100' DEMETHANIZER (E) -65' STABILIZER (E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (E) ii-UiN• 0 5' •VL G"tOuNC FENCE IJOuNDARY (f) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (f ) ADMINISTRATION WARE HOUSE BUILDING (E) FENCE -\ :) SECTION LOOKING EAST ',CA; SCALE NTS (EXAGGERATED X 5 FOR CLARITY) U' RI I PRE CAST- CONC;RIII WAI VEWPOINI ® 5'\ ABOVE GROUND (E) FENCE -N JSR BOUNDARY (' ) 100' AMINE STILE (E) -100' DEMETHANIZER (1) -65' STABILIZER (E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) ADMINISTRATION -� BUILDING (E) WAREHOUSE (N) 100' Fl_ARE (t) 100' FLARE -� I) SECTION LOOKING EAST 21,1.A1. �CAu. NIS (E,AI.GEkAILL X 5 FOR CLAk11Y) FILL (N) 120' ULMETHANIZE.R TOWER / ELEV 4809 (MAC - (N) 45' IEG CON 1ACTOR -(N) COMPRESSOR .it DING (N) BY-PASS COMPRESSOR BUILDING (N) TANKS (N) MCC BUILDING x SICK r oNE 2 \T Cm.(N) CONTROL BUILDING (N) SHOP -+- (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL LEGEND (E) = EXISTING (N) = NEW 2MJUSR1 8-12-1 i VIEWPOINT ® 5' ABOVE GROUND (N) CONCRETE SPLIT -RAIL FENCE VIEWPOINT 0 5 ABOVE CROuND (N) BERM W.C (N) CONCRI SPLIT RAII ft W.C.R. M01L OriIA A&110001. MMALLYIMI 'I CHAMU DCP OPERATING COMPANIE t 4/7•/10 1/27/10 AAA /14 AA COED 20 wt 9 AA WOOED PLAIT Pnu CA. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT SITE SECTIONS 2YJUSRI8-12-1792 GRAFTED Sc: as DATE 12/19/17 APPROVAL BY co CHECKED BY Na SCALE AS MOM DATE A sit POND LAOYAPOC w AO 0411 9. set ISSUE DWG NO. MJUSR-C-6 3 e Ie 11 12 13 I l4 17 1e 19 210 21 r 22 23 14 25 a 1/ 29 30 PLOT OA7[: 31 32 ICAO FILtw Y • 5 4 7 0 'o 'I 12 13 14 15 19 I? fe ID aD 2) 2] (E) CONTROL BUILDING (E) MCC BUILDING (E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (E) WAREHOUSE vIEWPOINI 0 5' ABOVE GROUND :) SECTION LOOKING SOUTH - .. �: itICA. St:ALE NTS (EXAGGERATED X 5 ;OR CLARITY) WPOINI 5' AB3Vt GROUND N' CONCRETE - ^cAI. E: NCE (E) FENCE (E) CONTROL BUILDING (1) MCC BUILDING\ (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL (L) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (E) WAREHOUSE I) SECTION LOOKING SOUTH tLt (E) 60' COMMUNICAT IONS IOWER (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) DEMETHANIZER (E) 100' FLARE (L) 100' AMINE STILL (N) 65' STABILIZER (E) AMINE BUILDINC III !I!!'illlllllll iii IIllllillf! 1111111'■ 111 lii tititiii hill' IIRIIIIII IIIIII IIII S IIIHI!I IS III U1��_III ■I II IIIIIIII4IIIIIIII' III (E) 60' COMMUNICAT IONS TOWER (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING c'ICHT LINE 7 (E) -100' DEMETHANIZER ( E ) 100' FLARE (E) --100' AMINE STILL (N) 65' STABILIZER (E) AMINE BU WING I� I fi (N) SHOP (N) MCC BUIE DING* (MATCH (E) PLA LEGEND (E) = EXISTING (N) = NEW 2MJUSR18-12-1 (N) 120' DL ME IHANIZER lOWER - (N) 100' FLARE LOCATION (N) 45' TEG CONTACTOR - (N) COMPRE SSOR BUILDING (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL (N) BY-PASS COMPRESSOR BUILDING NOR MIIA NN MDSI YN*AUWN1 CO 414112 I)CI' OPERA'T'ING COMPAN\ WELD COUNTY, COLORADO O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT SITE SECTIONS 2NJUSR18-12-1792 L x/2./1! 1/72/14 .1116/111 lw' AA A LA JAI PIP AWED 2C .'DATED "Mt R1ii( AUD .uaxorw: RSW P ISSUE a* ae DRAPED BY 11.2 DALE 12/teh, APPROMAt BY Ca CrtCC 8T w2e SCALE Ai NOTED NJUSR C 7 IA T 1E 19 20 N 22 23 2. 2:. lb a 711 2V w J1 $2 PLOT Oat[: ACAD /IIw 4 s $0 1. II 14 , Ip a a I? A 10 ]0 ao 24 I? Ab -IUCI FLARE'. 1N) BY-PASS OMPRESSOR BUILDING (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL (N) COMPRESSOR BUILDINGS (N) SHOP (E) -100' FLARE (N) 120' DEMETHANIZER WEST-' 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE W/3 'h.IN(,AP" I INF STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE. w/ TAN SLATS LEVATION LOOKING NORTHEAST (E) DEMETHANIZE (E) 45' TEG CONTACTOR (E) -65' COMPRESSOR STABILIZER BUILDING --nw ....H.,..,,...,,,. (E) COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) -100' AMINE STILL (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL '•nilL>N 11) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Suit DING WAHt I-a)USI a TO WCR 51 LEVATION LOOKING SOUTHEAST COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE ---W C R 50- (E) TANK BATTERY (N) BERM & CONCRETE SPLIT -RAIL FENCE IN FOREGROUND NORTH BOUNDARY LINE ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER (E) DEMETHANIZER (E) -100' AMINE STILL SOUTH UOUNUARY LINE-' (E) WELLPAD ENTRANCE, UPGRADED FOR (N) CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE W/60' RADIUS (E) DEMETHANIZER (E) -100' FLARE (N) 120' DEMETHANIZER (E) 45' TEG CONTACTOR (E) -65' STABILIZER 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE W/3 STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE, W/TAN SLATS CONCRETE SPLIT RAIL FENCE (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL f(E) 60' COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (N) BERM & CONCRETE SPLIT -RAIL FENCE IN FOREGROUND / -(N) -100' FLARE (E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (E) WAREHOUSE (N) 20' TALL PRECAST CONCRETE WALL (N) SHOP (N) COMPRESSOR BUILDINGS (N) BY-PASS COMPRESSOR BUILDING (E) DCP MAIN ENTRANCE INTERSECTION OF W.C.R 50/51 W.C.R. 50 -- TO W.C.R 50 White r,nclneenn . 3620 a IOU St Suer f41 Greeley. CO 80634 503-819-1222 MAIL 1104 •rM0001 111104011111 a 001112 DCP OPERATING COMPANY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO O'CONNOR 2 GAS PLANT ELEVATIONS 2MJUSRI8-12-1792 DRAFTEE BY as DAVE •/1•/17 APPROVAL BY Ca OIECUED BY UV SCALE 4s DOTED DATE. • 4/14/10 2mn• a AR Wilt AMID LAIDXAiwa C SOOPip ISSUE CAP CAS DWG NO MJUSR E-2 4 S e a • 10 II r ' 44 1! 1• 17 Ib 10 20 21 22 )] 14 1 76 7/ 7A 70 1 .10 31 32 t ONNOR CON( LPTLIAL LANDSCAPING'BERMS/SPLIT RAIL FENCING \I RI \L VIM LOOKING NORTHWEST PR( )1)( )�1 D ,0' PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PROPOSED O'CONNOR ) � I kZ I ( C ()NNOR 2 SITE \J \AJ acirov-y\ ctinci dc \\/ I 4 diorie-3 9 T I Ts I; F :Pa r r-� e.,)00 --CCo Ck_ C K c tten.d iTh 'La e S maabr Sk LLvi (4niAA -6anv eQe.t etc-ittkrts Commissioner's Meeting Concerning DCP Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns today. We really aren't wanting to be here today because we're just not the type of people to complain about every little thing. So, the only reason we are all here today, is that we did not have the opportunity almost 5 years ago to express our concerns regarding the first O'Conner Plant going in. None of us here knew it was going in until they were breaking ground on the facility. Shortly after the plant went into operation, a neighborhood meeting was arranged to meet with DCP and County Commissioner Kirkmeyer in order for all of us to express our concerns. At that time, the primary concerns were lighting & sound, safety (regarding the flare and the severe vibrations that caused structural damages to neighbor's homes, as well as how gases were handled and the effects on the environment due to pollution coming from the flare), and of course, visual esthetics. At the neighborhood meeting, DCP made many promises including mitigating the lighting, hiring structural and sound engineers to come into individuals homes to assess damages and to help mitigate screening on individuals properties. We do credit DCP with mitigating the lighting fairly quickly, however, it still has not been entirely addressed to the neighbor's satisfaction. As far as we all know from talking to one another, no sound or structural engineers were ever hired to meet with the neighbors. None of our concerns have changed, but now we are even more fearful that if DCP is allowed to proceed with this expansion project, not only will our past concerns not be addressed and mitigated adequately or at all, but now we will have potentially more problems and more broken promises. We would now like to pass around some pictures from our property to give you a little idea of what we have been dealing with the past almost 5 years. They show views from all different vantage points on our property. We have owned our property for nearly 20 years. My husband built our dream home with his own two hands. In fact, everything on our property has been done through our own blood, sweat and tears. We also own and operate an event center on our property that we have had since before DCP ever moved in. Our main business is outdoor weddings and receptions. Imagine how we and our clients feel when they come out to have a beautiful country wedding only to feel like they are in the middle of an industrial park. We have DCP to the northeast, soon to be PDC on the north and Anadarko to the west of us. We have been able to mitigate a little around the courtyard area where the ceremonies are held, however, when guests are just mingling and visiting outside under the portico, the view is unsightly and the constant hum of motors can be heard. This view is now going to be more than double in size and there is potential for more noise. We also have a bed and breakfast currently under construction that will be affected by this as well. Unfortunately, for all of us, they have taken away our tranquility and peacefulness in our neighborhood. We all moved to the country so that we could have peace and quiet and beautiful unobstructed views. Not only did we not get a choice or voice when the first plant went in, but now, we will have to live with this for the rest of our lives. I know we are only few in number here today, but we do represent many of our fellow neighbors who could not be here. Again, we will credit DCP with reaching out to neighbors this second time around to host a couple of community open houses to explain their plans and what they intend to do to mitigate lighting, sound and visual esthetics on the new plant as well as the existing plant. They have even met with all of us individually. Initially, my husband and I were optimistic that this time would be different. However, we and our neighbors do not feel like they have truly taken our concerns to heart, as it has taken weeks to get any real solutions offered and we just finally met last night to hear their latest proposal for mitigation that now, finally, includes them putting a 20' wall up around the perimeter of most of the plant. For this we are grateful, however, we asked for this from day one only to be told that it just wasn't possible to, we'll check into it, to now we will do it. This back and forth negotiation has been extremely frustrating and stressful. (I don't know if you were all able to read through everything submitted into their file, but we did send to the County copies of our conversations through email showing the suggestions we have made regarding mitigation on their property as well as what we would need on our own property) We know that screening in the form of a wall will not screen the plant entirely, however, it will divert attention away from any exposed portions of the plant while we wait for our individual trees and landscaping to mature over the next 10 plus years to be truly beneficial. Past interactions with and behaviors of DCP has proven to all of us that they cannot be trusted at their word and that they have not been good neighbors. Even Mr. Groom has admitted at the planning committee meeting held on April 2nd that DCP had not been a good neighbor and has dropped the ball. We know that individually we cannot hold them accountable to do anything or follow through with any promises. That is why we need your help. You as Commissioners of this county, have been given the authority to inforce what is put into the USR permits you issue. We'd like to ask for a denial or a continuance until proper wording and requirements can be added that will insure accountability and that sufficient and mutually agreed upon mitigation on their property as well as our individual properties will occur. My husband and I personally would like to see a pictorial view of the 20' wall in relation to the elevation from our event center. We then could see just how much the wall would conceal of the existing plant and the new proposed expansion. We believe a 20' wall on at least a 10' berm would provide more adequate screening than a wall by itself. We would also like to see the existing flare entirely dismantled. We have been told that it will be disconnected, therefore, we do not see why it should remain as one of the tallest structures when it will not be used. Again, a denial or continuance will allow all the unknown questions to be addressed as well as us to all come to mutual agreements regarding visual and sound mitigation on theirs and our properties. Thank you again for your time. DCP OConnor 2 USR Weld County Commissioners April 25, 2018 I expect to hear a lot of discussion today about the need for gas capacity. a a a No matter how great the need for something we don't turn our back on long time residents or jeopardize the health and safety of workers, neighbors, and the public. Oil and gas operations can coexist if the operator takes their responsibility as a neighbor seriously and interacts with integrity. DCP used the notification rule of 500 ft to their advantage for the original ()Connor 1 plant. No one here today was notified of the original USR. We found out about it after construction began a Our voices were not considered in the first USR. They have been ignored now for the past 4 years. a I have lived in the area for over 40 years. I have owned my current location for over 18 years. a DCP came to our neighborhood but never intended to be a good neighbor. What makes a good neighbor - Transparency? Honesty? Follow Through? a a le a a Our community has heard years of empty promises from DCP. The applicant spoke openly about the damage the vibrations from the plant and flare have caused to our homes and how the company has made promises it didn't keep. (planning commission notes) USR 5MJUSR17-83-542 - DCP Mewbourne Plant - Commissioners heard the same information about broken promises and disingenuous communication. We have tried to communicate with DCP in the past about these issues and they have refused to investigate or resolve the issues. We need your help in addressing these issues. If it is not documented in the USR we have learned it will not be completed. Recent example is the lighting. They are not in compliance with lighting code. Statements from DCP as recently as last night indicate that they will not address the lighting issues if the USR expansion doesn't get approved. These pictures are from last week • I 4► +w' ' i ';,. Whats wrong with this picture? 2 :7 i • • r /i /• (N/ O'CONNOR ? GAS WANT OWAN5ION nLjk >X A 74 14 I / 1, O' My Ulw.11. an:c'f1 'e i 'et j-V • �r rc ry t «♦ 1& Z .- et?: IIIII., Oil EH _ritti • .•• •— ,O• • .t• Tr,. - • Y.I la I! M••1 1 1 1�1 1 �i y' 1 1 1 1 I I I I J I >Li.. 41I. no 01ANNOn sits 7C /2 • • :y 1!•" C.,' •.w .• wow r PUNT SOT .1-W AS • fl. .. a AO. ...•• • •, •^••I.�.-J I YI . ,I..•.. I. • d a' • !f•• WY m. S i• .....M Ida it! gdei.‘41.svae .F • A 2MJUSR1B-12-1792 � `JIM C,'€.'•C #. •••••i • I It ..•2.' tt"ar 'mil C s Knrr.. ..I .I e. IM .f COW W 1, d .X ••ti M••.%.r .. w. WA1 •.' • RS .• , a w♦ . a..:1 ig. i`in t.:;%: - IXI• CI'•NA 1KC CtW'1V• UI +Y. .N a J M a .I.. • • n ILI Mir., t atit• it C•.•I< a W ••..VI •v a•• CCit3 -1 •R 9 tie.. lwF.•• u l• _ •. I.4 am. .• orN. Whats wrong with this picture? a The applicant prepared a very detailed map of the proposed facility - yet they left out one important structure - How the gas leaves the site. a They are planning a major metering station within the boundaries of the USR to feed an outbound 36" high pressure line. a Meter stations can be significant sources of noise - so much so that a noise study was completed to understand noise contribution and ambient levels at the Oconnor plant. Some equipment proposed has 90 dBa levels before mitigation. a DCP is one of TWO developing partners for the Cheyenne Connector pipeline. See Submission 1,2, and 3 a DCP contracted its gas to be delivered out of this pipeline in 2017. a This pipeline is expected to receive approval from FERC with EMINENT DOMAIN and start construction in 2018. Whats wrong with this picture? a a a a The applicant will argue that this pipeline is another entity and that they don't have anything to do with it. a Again - they are listed as one of two developing partners a They have hosted meeting with the pipe contractors at the Oconnor plant a They have a noise study done at the plant that models the noise emissions after the inclusion of the new meter station. And the most interesting - DCP holds an option to purchase their equity position in the pipeline once its completed. DCP gets to codevelop a pipeline - get the federal government to provide eminent domain, and add it to the plant expansion under the USR being discussed today without any local involvement. This is the type of misdirect the residents have been living with for years now. a a a a a a Noise Levels should be Residential as defined under 25-12-103 CRS Staff provided recommendations to the planning commission that a RESIDENTIAL standard should be applied to this expansion. The applicant presented a well crafted argument about how their commitment to reduce and address neighborhood concerns would include a reduction from their current standard to a ight industrial standard. Acquired noise studies (conducted within the DCP plant) show that they can easily meet residential standards. - HOOVER AND KEITH STUDY - submission 4 ow Hoover and Keith recognized as leading expert in noise and acoustics The noise study includes modeling of additional expansion equipment planned at the plant (to be introduced shortly) Even after the inclusion of added equipment the studies by Hoover and Keith show they can meet residential levels - page 3 The applicants request for light industrial is actually an INCREASE from their current ambient level as shown in the Hoover and Keith study for the pipeline. a The applicant committed to installing all rotational equipment in the expansion and existing plant into enclosed noise insulated buildings. (stated by Mr. Groom at the planning meeting) a a a a le le la Can we please get this in writing and added to the USR? COGCC regulations state that when agricultural or residential zoning applies as designated by the county designated representative that residential noise levels shall apply. Ben Frissell Environmental Health recommended development standards of residential zoning. We believe weld county code indicates that all undeveloped land in the county shall be considered residential zoning. Conversations with Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission confirm residential noise levels can be achieved at processing plants like Oconnor. They require 50 and 55 as maximum levels. Residential noise levels also benefit the employees of the plant who work in it every day. The planning department has confirmed to us that new gas plants built after 2016 shall adhere to a 50 dBa level. USR 17-0059 Discovery DJ and USR 16-0031 Discovery DJ was RESIDENTIAL noise levels a We believe there is basis and need for a development standard of Residential Noise levels to be added to the USR. Whats wrong with this picture? 3,e1 t\hcS Co✓v�O.�& �kc/` \�- SkU,�.�' our kes 7 Additional Engineering Information a a a a a I have engaged in conversations with two separate engineering firms. They paint an interesting picture but are not willing to submit information today because they do significant amounts of work with the oil and gas industry. They contend existing flare and its issues are design failures. It was undersized from the beginning. Flares with flow velocity under l 00fps don't have noise and vibration issues. There are numerous noise reduction technologies that are economically viable to reduce sound. www.riusesolutions.com - specifically for the oil and gas industry and used by these engineers Common practice for producers to exceed permit conditions and just pay the fines. I have requested specifications on the proposed flare from DCP. This is unanswered to date. Health and Safety a le a The applicant has presented that they will remain in compliance. We contend that they are not in compliance in several areas including lighting. The Oconnor plant was part of a ESA agreement DCP entered into with the State of Colorado on January 3, 2017 - See your Submission ESA - The parent plant listed on this USR as DCP Lucerne failed to limit VOC emissions, exceeded emissions limits for 12 consecutive months. a DCP spindle plant in Fort Lupton reported 23 occurances where they had to use their emergency flare in a 6 month period. a DCP Roggen plant exceeded annual limitations for 11 straight months. a "DCP Oconnor exceeded monthly emissions limits on four separate occasions." a "DCP failed to comply with the monthly emission limits, Number 11WE1481 WE1481 in violation of Permit condition 6." This is a quote in the ESA. DCP agreed to a fine of $219,100 for various violations including the ones above. See attached ESA submission Health and Safety a DCP has 39 Environmental Fines over the past 10 years. Most of them are direct fines from the EPA. See submission a These additional fines total $2,814,296 not including the recent $219,100. This is over $3,000,000 in environmental fines. I believe there are only two choices today - you have an applicant who; a le MIID a a Chose to leave out significant information in their USR application including intended eminent domain noise sources to be located within the USR boundary. Has not met the "spirit" of regulations placed on its existing USR Has failed to negotiate in good faith regarding mitigation of screening and noise after direction from the planning commission. Has a minimum of 39 document environmental violations within 10 years. Has neglected to share with residents or the county ongoing air emissions violations that resulted in a $219,100 fine. (we all know that fine was not levied without multiple violations not just a record keeping oversight) Presents unknown health risks due to the flare issues both historical and proposed. I believe there are only two choices today - you have an applicant who; III a i Has not disclosed that it is one of two developing partners in the eminent domain, FERC pipeline. Has misled neighbors continuously over the past five years by the applicants attorneys own admission. Has not worked with neighbors to construct a mitigation plan that meets individual residence needs. a The only two choices we have today are denial or continuance with a demand of full disclosure to understand the true community risks and to address residents mitigation concerns fully. Business Wire Tallgrass Energy Announces Open Season to Link Natural Gas from the Denver-Julesburg Basin to Markets Across the Country September 12, 2017 04:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time LEAWOOD, Kan. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: TEP) is pleased to announce the launch of an open season to transport natural gas on the Cheyenne Connector pipeline ("Cheyenne Connector") from the Denver-Julesburg Basin ("DJ Basin") to the Rockies Express Pipeline ("REX") Cheyenne Hub just south of the Colorado -Wyoming border. Cheyenne Connector has signed long-term precedent agreements to transport 600 MMcf/d of natural gas with affiliates of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC) and DCP Midstream, LP (NYSE: DCP). Cheyenne Connector will provide takeaway solutions for DJ Basin gas producers, connecting natural gas to REX's Cheyenne Hub where it can then be delivered to numerous demand markets across the country on either REX or other interconnected pipelines. "We believe this project is another important step in developing and expanding market access to serve our customers and meet their DJ production growth" Tweet this Cheyenne Connector, to be operated by Tallgrass, will be a large -diameter pipeline approximately 70 miles long, with an initial capacity of at least 600 MMcf/d and significant capability for expansion. Tallgrass is jointly developing the pipeline with Western Gas Partners, LP (NYSE: WES) as and DCP, who both hold an option to invest in Cheyenne Connector at a later date. Cheyenne Connector is expected to be in service in Q3 2019, subject to certain conditions, including required approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "We are pleased to support this takeaway solution which will facilitate continued growth of the DJ," said Scott Moore, Senior Vice President for Anadarko. "We believe this project is another important step in developing and expanding market access to serve our customers and meet their DJ production growth," said Don Baldridge, President of Commercial for DCP. Kallanish Energy https://www.kallanishenergy.com/ Tallgrass launches open season for Cheyenne Connector September 14, 2017 Cuurpan\ Ness. Natural (,a'.. cas. North America. Onshore. Pipeline. Steel In Energy. t nconsentionals 0 Midstreamer Tallgrass Energy Partners announced Wednesday an open season to flow natural gas on the proposed Cheyenne Connector pipeline from the Denver-Julesburg Basin to the Rockies Express Pipeline's Cheyenne Hub just south of the Colorado -Wyoming border. Cheyenne Connector has signed long-term deals to transport 600 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of natural gas with affiliates of Anadarko Petroleum and DCP Midstream, Kallanish Energy reports. Cheyenne Connector, to be operated by Tallgrass, will be a large -diameter pipeline roughly 70 miles long, with an initial capacity of at least 600 MMcf/d and significant capability for expansion, according to Tallgrass. "As production increases in the basin, additional pipeline capacity is needed, and by taking gas to the REX Cheyenne Hub, Cheyenne Connector will further link Rockies gas to diverse end -user markets across the country," said Tallgrass Energy's chief commercial officer Matt Sheehy. Tallgrass is jointly developing the pipeline with Anadarko affiliate Western Gas Partners and DCP, both holding an option to invest in Cheyenne Connector at a future date. Cheyenne Connector is expected to be in service in Q3 2019. Eminent Domain Law in Colorado A pipeline company is authorized to bring an eminent domain action in either state or federal court pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 38-1-101 et seq. and the United States Code 15 USC Section 717(h) once the company is issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Generally, whether the action is brought in federal or state court the legal proceedings are similar. Before a petition to condemn property may be filed, the pipeline company must make an attempt to reach agreement concerning compensation with the landowner. Where the landowner does not respond to a written offer within a reasonable time, or responds with a counter-offer that the pipeline reasonably deems unacceptable, inability to agree is deemed to have been established. Condemnation proceedings are filed by the pipeline company in either the federal court or the state district court of the county where the property is located. The pipeline company may seek immediate possession of the property to be condemned by making a deposit with, and in an amount determined by, the court. The landowner may request a jury trial, but if such a request is not made, the compensation to which the landowner is entitled will be determined by a board of commissioners appointed by the court. Each party has the opportunity to present witnesses or other evidence as to market value. The fundamental question to be decided is the compensation to be awarded for the taking of the property and any reduction in value of the remaining property. Fair market value is the criterion of compensation to be awarded to the landowner. 77ii≤ wag 147flW QS per4 0-C Mole doen-f5 re ceiVed by I &Adowners -{ter 411e Chce'ne Conorfor epeiine. HOOVER & KEITH INC. ACOUSTICS & NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING TX Office: 11381 Meadowglen, Suite I, Houston, TX 77082 CO Office: 1680 Northwestern Rc4, Longmont, CO 80503 CO Phone: 303-834-9455 TX Phone: 281-496-9876 Subject: Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project"): Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations associated with the Project (Weld County, Colorado) Prepared for: Cheyenne Connector, LLC ("Cheyenne Connector") Project Applicant: Cheyenne Connector, LLC, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Tallgrass MLP Operations, LLC 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 H&K Report No. 3694 H&K Job No. 5182 Date of Report: February 9, 2018 Submitted by: Paul D. Kiteck, P.E., Hoover & Keith Inc. (H&K) 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following report provides the results of an acoustical assessment (i.e., noise impact analysis) of the natural gas meter stations ("MS" or "meter station") associated with the proposed Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project"). The purpose of the acoustical assessment is to estimate the sound contribution of each Project MS at the nearby noise -sensitive areas (NSAs), such as residences, hospitals or schools, for those meter stations that have NSAs within approximately 0.5 mile, and provide noise control measures to meet applicable sound level criteria. In addition, ambient sound surveys were conducted to document the noise environment around the Project MS sites and verify nearby NSAs around the site of each Project MS. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE METER STATIONS There are three (3) planned new meter stations associated with the Project (i.e., O'Connor MS, Mewbourn MS and Latham MS) that have NSAs within approximately 0.5 mile of the meter stations, noting that the Mewbourn MS and Latham MS are basically located on the same property. Consequently, a noise impact analysis was conducted for these meter stations with NSAs within approximately 0.5 mile of the MS. We understand that there are other meter stations associated with the Project but those meter stations do not have NSAs within 0.5 mile. and therefore, a noise analysis is not required. In general, a meter station is utilized to measure and regulate the gas flow and pressure to the respective customer gas pipeline system. Each MS will consist of meter runs with gas flow meters (i.e., metering skid), "regulator runs" designed with flow -control valves ("FCVs") employed for gas flow -control and gas pressure regulation, isolation block valves, associated instrumentation and possible gas line heaters (if required). -Page 1- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) The following Table A summarizes the meter stations associated with the Project, general location (i.e., state, county and closest town). observed closest NSA(s) to each MS. and distance and direction of the closest NSA. Table A also includes the referenced drawing (i.e., "Figure") for the MS that has NSAs within approximately 0.5 mile of the MS site. Project Meter Stations ("MS") County/State/Town and Other Comment(s) regarding Site Location Brief Description of MS Design/Equipment Closest NSA and Type of NSA Distance & Direction of Closest NSA Reference Drawing (Figure) J Connor Meter Station (MS) Weld County, CO (near La Salle, CO) Regulator skid with regulator runs (flow & pressure control regulators) and metenng skid Residence 2,700 ft (SE) Figure 1 (p 6) Mewbourn MS and Latham MS Weld County, CO (near Platteville, CO) Regulator skids with regulator runs (flow & pressure control regulators) and metering skids Residence 2,100 ft (NE) Figure 2 (p 7) Table A: Summary of the Project Meter Stations along with Distance/Direction of the Closest NSA(s) to each MS with NSAs within approximately 0.5 Mile. 3.0 SOUND CRITERIA/GUIDELINES, TYPICAL METRICS AND TERMINOLOGY For the reader's information, a summary of applicable acoustical terminology and description of metrics used to measure/regulate environmental noise is provided at the end of report (p. 10). 3.1 Federal (FERC) Sound Level Guideline/Criterion The Office of Energy Projects (OEP) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) require that the sound level attributable to the natural gas compressor station should not exceed a day -night average A -weighted (A -wt.) sound level (expressed as "dBA") of 55 dBA (i.e., Ldn) at any nearby NSA. The FERC may impose a sound guideline/requirement for a meter station. and a sound level contribution of 55 dBA (Ldn) at any nearby NSA is typically used as a "benchmark sound guideline/criterion" for assessing the noise contributed by an MS. For an essentially steady sound source that operates continuously over a 24 -hour period and controls the environmental sound level, the Ldn is approximately 6.4 dB above the measured Led. As a result, an Ldn of 55 dBA corresponds to a Leg (e.g., Ld) of 48.6 dBA. If both the Ld and Ln are measured and/or estimated, then the Ldn is calculated using the following formula: /,d„ = 101ogtj15l0Ldhb0+ —9 10(42+io)iio �4 24 3.2 State, County and/or Local Noise Regulations State of Colorado: The COGCC has the responsibility for regulating noise from natural gas facilities in the State of Colorado (e.g., typically utilized for facilities not under jurisdiction of the FERC), and Series 800 of the COGCC Rules and Regulations ("Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations"; Section 801 & 802) address allowable sound levels for oil and gas facilities. The -Page 2- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) following summarizes our interpretation of COGCC sound requirements that could be applicable for the Project meter stations: • Where there is no reasonably proximate occupied structure or designated outside activity area and there are no noise complaints from a nearby property owner regarding noise related to oil and gas operations, the "light industrial standard" may be applicable. Consequently, the Cheyenne Hub noise level should not exceed an A -wt. sound level of 70 dBA (daytime) and 65 dBA (nighttime) at 350 feet from meter station site center (i.e., area of noise sources). • If the property adjacent to the Plant property line is zoned "residential, agricultural & rural" and/or there are noise complaints from a nearby property owner or local governmental designee, the Plant noise contribution at 350 feet from the site center (i.e., location of noise - generating equipment) should not exceed a sound level of 55 dBA (daytime) and 50 dBA (nighttime). This is the chosen sound requirement for any residence near the Plant. There is also a "dBC" requirement (i.e., 65 dBC at 25 feet from exterior wall of residence), although in our opinion, if the nighttime sound level is achieved, the "dBC requirement will also be met. County/Township: No applicable noise regulations for the Weld County or nearby Township have been identified, as related to site construction and operation of the Project meter stations. 4.0 AMBIENT SOUND DATA AND MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY Ambient daytime sound measurements (Li) and verification of the NSAs around the MS sites were performed by Paul Kiteck of H&K during daytime sound surveys conducted Jan. 25. 2018. During the daytime sound tests on Jan. 25 (2018), the temperature was 30 to 40 deg. F. there was a light variable wind and the sky was partly cloudy. Ambient sound tests were conducted during the daytime near the closest NSA to the respective MS sites with NSAs located within approximately 0.5 mile of the MS site(s). At each sound measurement location. the ambient A -weighted (A -wt.) equivalent sound level (i.e., Leq) and ambient unweighted octave -band (O.B.) sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured. Periodic samples of the ambient noise level were typically performed at the chosen sound measurement positions. To measure ambient levels that are representative of "long-term average" ambient levels, the sound measurements attempted to exclude "extraneous sound" such as a vehicle passing immediately by the sound measurement location or other intermittent sources. The acoustical measurement system consisted of a Larson Davis (LD) Model 2900 Sound Level Meter -Analyzer (a Type 1 "SLM" per ANSI S1.4 & S1.11) equipped with a 1/2 -inch condenser microphone with a windscreen. The SLM was calibrated with a microphone calibrator (calibrated within 1 year of the sound test date). -Page 3- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project 5.0 Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) The following Table B provides a summary of the measured ambient daytime Leg (Li) and estimated nighttime Leg (La) at the closest NSA(s) to each respective MS site(s) along with the resulting ambient Ldn, as calculated from the measured Ld and estimated Ln. Project Meter Stations Closest NSA and Type of NSA Distance/Direction of Closest NSA Measured Ambient Ld Estimated Ambient Ln Resulting Ambient Ldn O'Connor MS 2.700 ft. (SE) 52.6 dBA Residence 48.6 dBA 45 6 dBA Mewboum MS and Latham MS Residence 2,100 ft. (NE) 52.7 dBA 52.7 dBA 59.1 dBA Table B: Summary of the Measured Ld, Estimated Ln and Resulting Ambient Ldn at the Closest NSA(s) to Each Respective Project Meter Station. It is our opinion that the measured sound level data adequately quantifies the existing ambient sound level for the meteorological conditions that occurred during the ambient sound surveys. The ambient La were not measured but were estimated based on site observations to provide a more accurate representation of the "long-term average" ambient Ldn (i.e., ambient nighttime levels could be lower than the measured daytime sound levels). ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT 5.1 General Description of the Acoustical Assessment In general, the noise generated by a meter station is typically related to the noise generated by the FCVs (i.e., valve -generated noise) that is radiated from the aboveground gas piping. and the level of piping noise is directly related to the pressure drop ("PD") and gas flow across the FCVs for the regulator runs. In addition, there could be some noise generated by other site equipment (e.g., line heaters, if employed). For the assessment of the potential noise emitted by each Project MS, we have evaluated the operating condition that could generate the highest amount of noise (i.e., so-called "worst case" condition). The predicted sound contribution was performed only for the closest NSA(s) since the sound contribution at other more distant NSAs should be less than the sound contribution at the closest NSA(s). A description of the acoustical analysis methodology and source of sound data is provided at the end of the report (pp. 8-9). 5.2 Calculation of the Sound Contribution of each Respective Meter Station The calculation (i.e., spreadsheet analysis) of the A -wt. sound level contribution and unweighted O.B. SPLs at the closest NSA for each respective meter station(s) within NSAs within approximately 0.5 mile is provided on Table 1 (p. 8) and Table 2 (p. 8), assuming "worst case" operating conditions (i.e., maximum gas flow and associated PD across the FCVs). The analyses assumed that the gas piping run(s) employ a FCV designed to meet 90 dBA at 1 meter for the "worst -case" operating conditions. To reduce computation. it is assumed that the sound level contributed by a MS at more distant NSAs will be equal to or less than the resulting MS sound level contribution at the closest NSA(s). -Page 4- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) The following Table B summarizes the estimated sound level contribution (i.e., Ldn; as calculated from the estimated A -wt. sound level) for each MS at the closest NSA(s) assuming "worst -case - operating conditions and ambient sound level (i.e., ambient Ldn). The presented results in Table B assume the operating conditions that could generate the maximum amount of noise. In addition, the spreadsheet analysis for each respective MS is referenced in Table B. Project Meter Stations Closest NSA and Type of NSA Distance & Direction of Closest NSA Calc'd Ldn of the MS (via Est'd A- Wt. Sound Level) - dBA Ambient Level (Ldn) - dBA Level (Ldn) of the MS plus Ambient Level - dBA Increase Above Ambient - dB Reference Table O'Connor MS) Residence 2,700 ft. (SE) u 1 Table 1 (p. 7) 35.7 52.6 52 7 Mewboum MS and Latham MS Residence 2,100 ft. (NE) 42.9 59.1 592 U 1 table 2 (p. 7) Table B: Summary of the Estimated Sound Level of each Meter Station at the Closest NSA(s) during "Worst Case" Operation (i.e., Operating Conditions that Generate Maximum Noise). It is assumed that valve -generated noise will not be notably higher than predicted by the valve manufacturers (e.g., within +/- 5 dB of the estimated noise levels by the valve manufacturer). 6.0 EQUIPMENT SOUND REQUIREMENTS AND FINAL COMMENT It is recommended and assumed that the FCVs associated with each MS be designed to achieve a maximum 90 dBA for the full range of operating conditions (i.e., A -wt. sound level generated at 3 feet from the gas piping; downstream of the FCV). In addition, to reduce pipe/valve—radiated noise associated with the regulator skid (e.g., if FCVs are not capable of meeting the 90 dBA sound requirement for the design operating conditions), it may be necessary to cover aboveground gas piping and associated piping components with a type of acoustical insulation and/or enclose the regulator skid/piping with an "off -skid" type of building. The results of the acoustical assessment indicate that the sound level attributable to the respective meter station(s) associated with the Project should be lower than an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearby NSAs if the current design conditions do not change substantially and the anticipated - recommended noise control measures are employed successfully. It is also expected that the MS sound levels during normal operation will meet any applicable state, county and/or local noise requirements. -Page 5- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project I APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 500 1000 2000 OCONNER METER STATION Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) LEGEND f - NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING - - HOUSE OR MOBILE HOME NSA- NOISE SENSITIVE AREA A - MEASUREMENT POSITION IQ - TREES OR HEAVY FOLIAGE Figure 1: REX Cheyenne Connector PL Project (O'Connor MS): Area Layout showing Location of the Nearby NSAs and NSA Sound Measurement Position(s) near the Closest NSA(s). -Page 6- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project MEWBOURN GAS PLANT APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET MEWBOURN METER 0 500 1000 Figure 2: 2000 Hoover 8, Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) LEGEND D - NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING - HOUSE OR MOBILE HOME NSA- NOISE SENSITIVE AREA - MEASUREMENT POSITION !1- TREES OR HEAVY FOLIAGE REX Cheyenne Connector PL Project (Site of Mewbourn MS & Latham MS): Area Layout showing the Location of the Nearby NSAs and NSA Sound Measurement Position(s) near the Closest NSA(s). -Page 7- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) SOURCE PWL AND SPL CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE RESPECTIVE NSA DUE TO THE FACILITY Unweighted SPL or PWL in dB per O.B. Center Freq. (Hz) A -Wt. Level 31.5 , 63 125 1_ 250 1 500 11000 2000 4000 8000 Source 1 PWL for Regulator Run(s) & associated Piping 84 82 82 84 94 101 102 96 90 106 Source 2 PWL for Noise of Misc. Equipment & Piping 80 80 82 84 85 90 90 85 80 95 Total PWL of Meter Station (Sources 1 & 2) 85 84 85 87 95 101 102 96 90 106 Atten of Noise Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. Atten. (Foliage, Land Contour, Obstructions) 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -6 Hemispherical Radiation (2,700 Ft.): Note (1) -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 Calc'd Attn. Due to Atm. Absorption (60 Deg, 70% RH) 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -4 -8 -21 -37 Ldn Est'd Total Sound Contribution at Closest NSA: Note (2) 19 18 17 18 23 27 23 3 0 29.3 35.7 Table 1: Ambient Sound Level (Ldn) per a Recent Sound Survey 52.6 Est'd Total Sound Level during Operation of Meter Station 52.7 Potential Increase above the Ambient Level (dB) 0.1 REX Cheyenne Connector PL Project (O'Connor Meter Station): Estimated Sound Contribution due to the MS at the Closest NSA (i.e., Residences approximately 2,700 feet SE of the Meter Station) assuming Operating Conditions that could generate the "Maximum" Noise Contribution. In addition, Estimated Potential Increase above the Ambient Sound Level during Normal Operation of the MS. Note (1): Hemispherical Sound Radiation = 20'log(r) - 2.3 dB (where "r"=distance to source in ft.) Note (2): SPL = PWL - (Hemispherical Sound Radiation) - (Atten. Due to Noise Control) - (Atm. Absorption) - (Misc. Attenuation) SOURCE PWL AND SPL CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE RESPECTIVE NSA DUE TO THE FACILITY Unweighted SPL or PWL in dB per O.B. Center Freq. (Hz) A -Wt. Level 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Source 1 PWL for Regulator Runs & Piping (Both Facilities) 87 85 85 87 97 104 105 99 93 109 Source 2 PWL for Noise of Misc. Equipment & Piping 83 83 85 87 88 93 93 88 83 98 Total PWL of Meter Station (Sources 1 & 2) 88 87 88 90 98 104 105 99 93 109 Atten of Noise Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc Atten. (Foliage, Land Contour, Obstructions) 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Hemispherical Radiation (2,100 Ft.): Note (1) -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 Calc'd Attn. Due to Atm. Absorption (60 Deg, 70% RH) 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -4 -8 -21 -37 Ldn Est'd Total Sound Contribution at Closest NSA: Note (2) 24 23 23 25 30 34 30 11 0 36.5 42.9 Table 2: Ambient Sound Level (Ldn) per a Recent Sound Survey Est'd Total Sound Level during Operation of Meter Station Potential Increase above the Ambient Level (dB) 59.1 59.2 0.1 REX Cheyenne Connector PL Project (Mewbourn & Latham Meter Stations): Estimated Sound Contribution due to the MS at the Closest NSA (i.e., Residence approximately 2,100 feet NE of the Meter Station) assuming Operating Conditions that could generate the "Maximum" Noise Contribution. In addition, Estimated Potential Increase above the Ambient Sound Level during Normal Operation of the MS. -Page 8- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) Description of Acoustical Assessment Methodology and Source of Sound Data In general, the predicted sound level contributed by a new meter station was calculated as a function of frequency from estimated unweighted octave -band (O.B.) sound power levels ("PWLs") for the meter station. in which the PWL values were designated to meet the design noise goal (i.e., source of sound data). The following summarizes the acoustical analysis procedure: Initially, unweighted O.B. PWL values of the significant noise sources were determined from equipment manufacturer's sound data and/or actual sound measurements performed by H&K at similar type of natural gas compressor facilities (i.e.. meter station): Then, expected noise reduction ("NR") or attenuation in dB per O.B. frequency due to any noise control measures, hemispherical sound propagation (discussed in more detail below*) and atmospheric sound absorption (discussed in more detail below**) were subtracted from the unweighted O.B. PVVLs to obtain the unweighted O.B. SPLs of each noise source. Since sound shielding by buildings can influence the sound level contributed at the NSAs, we also included the sound shielding due to buildings, if appropriate. Sound attenuation effect due to foliage/trees was also considered in the analysis since there probably will be some sound attenuation due to foliage/trees; Finally, the resulting estimated unweighted O.B. SPLs for all noise sources associated with the new meter station (with any noise control and other sound attenuation effects) were logarithmically summed, and the total O.B. SPLs for all noise sources were corrected for A -weighting to provide the estimated overall A -wt. sound level contributed by the meter stations at the closest NSA. If necessary, the predicted sound contribution of the new meter stations at the closest NSA was utilized to estimate the noise contribution at the other nearby NSAs that are more distant that the closest NSA. *Attenuation due to hemispherical sound propagation: Sound propagates outwards in all directions (i.e.. length, width, height) from a point source, and the sound energy of a noise source decreases with increasing distance from the source. In the case of hemispherical sound propagation. the source is located on a flat continuous plane/surface (e.g.. ground). and the sound radiates hemispherically (i.e.. outward, over and above the surface) from the sound source. The following equation is the theoretical decrease of sound energy when determining the resulting SPL values of a noise source at a specific distance ("r") of a receiver from the estimated PWL values: Decrease in SPL ("hemispherical propagation") from a noise source = 20*log(r) - 2.3 dB where "r" is distance of the receiver from the noise source. **Attenuation due to air absorption: Air absorbs sound energy, and the amount of absorption ("attenuation") is dependent on the temperature and relative humidity (R.H.) of air and frequency of sound. For example, the attenuation due to air absorption for 1000 Hz O.B. SPL is approximately 1.5 dB per 1,000 feet for standard day conditions (i.e., no wind, 60 deg. F. and 70% R.H.). -Page 9- REX Cheyenne Connector Pipeline Project ("Project") Acoustical Assessment of new Meter Stations for the Project Source of Sound Data Hoover & Keith Inc. H&K Job No. 5182 H&K Report No. 3694 (02/09/18) In general, the sound data for estimating the source sound levels and O.B. PWL values utilized in the acoustical analyses are based primarily on measured sound data by H&K at similar installations. For a gas pipeline facilities used solely to regulate gas flow and control gas pressure, the primary source of noise can be valve -generated noise radiated from gas piping, and the level of piping noise is directly related to the pressure drop across the flow-control/regulator valve(s). In addition, if necessary. we utilized the Fisher Sizing Computer Program to substantiate the calculation of valve/piping noise since the primary noise contributor at a typical meter station is valve -generated noise. Note that the predicted noise level for a meter station is generally higher than the sound level requirement for the station equipment and components to insure that the design incorporates an acoustical "margin of safety." Summary of Typical Metrics and Acoustical Terminology (1) Daytime Sound Level (Ld) & Nighttime Sound Level (La): Ld is the equivalent A -weighted sound level, in decibels. for a 15 hour time period. between 07:00 to 22:00 Hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). L is the equivalent A -weighted sound level, in decibels, for a 9 hour time period, between 22:00 to 07:00 Hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). (2) Equivalent Sound Level (Lq): The equivalent sound level (Leg) can be considered an average sound level measured during a period of time, including any fluctuating sound levels during that period. In this report, the Lq is equal to the level of a steady (in time) A -weighted sound level that would be equivalent to the sampled A -weighted sound level on an energy basis for a specified measurement interval. The concept of the measuring Leg has been used broadly to relate individual and community reaction to aircraft and other environmental noises. (3) Day -Night Average Sound Level (Lit,): The Ldt, is an energy average of the measured daytime Leq (Ld) and the measured nighttime Leg (L) plus 10 dB. The 10 -dB adjustment to the Lt, is intended to compensate for nighttime sensitivity. As such. the Ldt, is not a true measure of the sound level but represents a skewed average that correlates generally with past sound surveys which attempted to relate environmental sound levels with physiological reaction and physiological effects. For a steady sound source that operates continuously over a 24 -hour period and controls the environmental sound level, an Lin is approximately 6.4 dB above the measured Consequently, an Ldn of 55 dBA corresponds to a Leg of 48.6 dBA. If both the Ld and Lr; are measured, then the Ldn is calculated using the following formula: (15 14 I 0 ,n + 9(11+10)11O = 10 log,,,10 \24 24 (4) Sound Power Level (Lw or PWL): Ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of the total acoustic power radiated by a sound source to a reference power. A reference power of a picowatt or 10-12 watt is conventionally used. End of Report Filename Proi.r4orchTaiTasii. LnergySCheyenne Connector PL ProjecnReportsti&K Report - Meter Stabons tor Cheyenne Connector PL Prolect Norse Analyses) doc -Page 10- Printed from Electronic Record • COLORADO Department of Public Health Fr Environment Dedicated to protecting and improving the health End environment of the people of Colorado January 3, 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7015 0640 0006 6104 181C DCP Midstream, LP 3026 4" Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposed Early Settlement Agreement in the Matter of DCP Midstream, LP AIRS Nos.: 123-9012; 123-0049; 123-0015; 123-0107 Case Nos.: 2016-114; 2016-115; 2016-116; 2016-124 Dear Mr. Pete Stevenson: DCP Midstream, LP ("DCP") owns and operates the following Facilities: Spindle Gas Processing Plant, a natural gas processing facility, located at Sec 34 T2N R67W, Ft. Lupton, Weld County, Colorado ("Spindle"). Spindle is subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Operating Permit Number 95OPWE039 first issued to DCP on May 1, 1999 and East renewed on July 1, 2012 ("Operating Permit 95OPWE039"), Colorado Air Quality Control Statutes, and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission ("AQCC") Regulations. Roggen Natural Gas Processing Plant, a natural gas processing facility located at 35409 CR 18, Weld County, Colorado ("Roggen"). Roggen is subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Operating Permit Number 95OPWE055 first issued to DCP on May 1, 2001 and last revised on August 29, 2005 ("Operating Permit 95OPWE055"), Colorado Air Quality Control Statutes, and AQCC Regulations. Roggen was subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Construction Permit Number 10WE1659 Issuance 4, issued to DCP on July 31, 2013 ("Permit Number 10WE1659"). Permit Number 10WE1659 Issuance 5,was issued to DCP on March 18, 2015. O'Connor Gas Processing Plant, a natural gas liquid extraction facility located at Sec 31 T5N R64W, Weld County, Colorado ("O'Connor"). O'Connor was subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Constructic n Permit Number 11WE1481, Issuance 2, issued to DCP on May 9, 2013 ("Permit Number 11WE1481"). Permit Number 11WE1481 issuance 3, was issued to DCP on February 28, 2014. O'Connor is subject to Colorado Air Quality Control Statutes and AQCC Regulations. Lucerne Natural Gas Processing and Gathering Plant located at Sec 28-T6N-R65W, Weld County, Colorado ("Lucerne"). Lucerne is subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Operating Permit Number 95OPWE100, first issued to DCP on November 1, 1998 and the last complete renewal application was received on April 5, 2012 ("Operating Permit 95OPWE100"). The Facility and equipment are subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Air Quality Control Statutes and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission AQCC Regulations. Lucerne was subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Construction Permit Number 12WE2024, Issuance 2, issued to DCP on September 4, 2014 ("Permit Number 12WE2024"). Permit Number 12WE2024 Issuance 3, was issued to DCP on September 28, 2016. Lucerne is subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Construction Permit 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record 96WE905, Initial Approval, Modification Number 1, issued to DCP on February 2, 2010 ("Permit Number 96WE905"). DV' Lucerne Natural Gas Processing and Gathering Plant On September 9, 2015, Mr. James Flores, of the Air Pollution Control Division ("Division"), inspected Lucerne. Based on Mr. Flores' inspection, and a review of records related to Lucerne, the Division issued a Compliance Advisory to DCP on June 17, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the Division and DCP met to discuss the issues identified in the Compliance Advisory. Based upon a review of Mr. Flores' inspection, records related to Lucerne, and the information provided by DCP, the Division has determined the following: A. DCP failed to limit VOC emissions from AIRS No. 123-0107-014 to 13.78 toy. DCP reported that AIRS No. 123-0107-014 exceeded VOC emission limits for the following rolling 12 -month periods, in violation of Permit Number 96WE905. Condition 6: Robing 1;2=monthr3fz�i 1 n, -. 6. petnod.enn 1. 'r:� ..a:a- r. • ..- •.Yti-C.s{,._¢„rs lr-.rr_• ; iReportea•voc {.tpy) _. Permrtted� Aug-14 14.4 13.78 Sept -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14 Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 June -15 July -15 Aug -15 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 16.1 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 13.78 B. DCP was required to limit emissions of air pollutants to the specified emission Limits contained in Permit Number 12WE2024, Condition 7. DCP was required to calculate monthly emissions and keep a compliance record on site for Division review upon request. The Division determined the following compliance issues: 1.. DCP was required to limit monthly emissions of VOCs from AIRS No_ 173- 01C7-O47 to 1,181 lbs/mo. On October 1, 2015, DCP reported VOC emissions of 1,212 lbs/mo for MRS No. 123-0107-047 for the month of August 2015. On April 29, 2016, DCP clarified that the 1,212 lbs/mo em ssion figure was calculated by utilizing information found on the 'Amine Readup Sheets,' which were completed by plant operators. On April 7, 2.016, DCP provided historic electronic DCS records indicating that 610 lbs of VOC emissions for August 2015 resulted from normal operation of the amine unit and 612 lbs of VOC emissions resulted from a claimed RTO malfunction event. ii. DCP was required to include control device downtime and uncontrolled emissions from malfunctions in the emissions calculations. Several reported malfunctions occurred during the compliance period that resulted in -1300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692.2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Fiickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record control device downtime from the amine unit, dehydration unit, and condensate tanks; however, DCP did not include the control device downtime or the uncontrolled emissions from the malfunctions in the original emissions calculations. On April 7, 2016, DCP provided revised emission calculations. DCP shall include control device downtime and uncontrolled emissions from malfunctions in the emissions calculations. DCP failed to include malfunction emissions in the emissions calculations. As a result, the Division determined that with the inclusion of the missing data, DCP exceeded its monthly V0C limit for the month of August 2015. DCP failed to accurately calculate emissions and exceeded V0C emission limits, in violation of Permit Number 12WE2024, Condition 7. DCP's Position on Violation B: DCP believes that emissions attributed to the malfunction were not authorized by the permit and that DCP was in violation of AQCC Regulation No. 3, Part B, Sg iL.A.1 and II.A.4 rather than Permit Number 12WE2024. Condition 7. C. DCP is required to demonstrate compliance with the facility emissions timitaton of 25 tpy of hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs"), and is required to track emissions from all insignificant activities at the facility on an annual basis. An inventory of al! insignificant activities and the associated emission calculation shall be made available to the Division upon request. At the time of the inspection, DCP failed to provide these records to the Division inspector upon request, in violation of Permit Number 12WE2024, Condition 8. DCP provided the emissions calculations from all insignificant activities on April 8, 2016. D. DCP is required to limit visible emissions to twenty percent (20%) opacity during normal operation of the Facility. On August 21, 2015, DCP reported that the combustor controlling the dehydration unit, load -out, and condensate storage tanks exceeded 20% opacity on August 20, 2015. DCP failed to limit visible emissions to 20% opacity, in violation of Permit Number 12WE2024, Conditions 34 and 48(b)(h). At the Compliance Advisory meeting on August 17, 2016, DCP stated that the opacity exceedance was caused by a malfunction. The Division determined that the events occurring on August 20, 2015, were not consistent with a valid malfunction. Based on information provided by DCP, the Division will no longer pursue enforcement for the issue identified in Paragraph A of the Compliance Advisory issued on June 17, 2016. DCP Spindle Gas Processing Plant On May 5, 2015, Ms. Jennifer Morse, of the Division, inspected Spindle. Based on Ms. Morse's inspection, and a review of records related to Spindle, the Division issued a Compliance Advisory to DCP on June 8, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the Division and DCP met to discuss the issues identified in the Compliance Advisory. Based upon a review of Ms. Morse's inspection, records related to Spindle, and the information provided by DCP, the Division has determined the following: .1300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenl000er, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record E. DCP shall comply with opacity emissions limitations whereby no owner or operator of a smokeless flare or other flare for the combustion of waste gases shall allow or cause emissions into the atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of thirty percent (30%) opacity for a period or periods aggregating more than six (6) minutes in any sixty (60) consecutive minutes. DCP reported opacity from the emergency flare in excess of 30% for more than 6 minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes on the following dates: Dates Visible Emissions ?30%.:.. _. ' ."-I June 5, 2014 September 9, 2014 July 10, 2014 September 10, 2014 July 12, 2014 September 23, 2014 July 16 2014 September 25, 2014 July 21, 2014 September 26, 2014 July 30, 2014 September 30, 2014 August 1, 2014 October 20, 2014 August 4, 2014 October 21, 2014 August 11, 2014 October 25, 2014 August 18, 2014 November 4, 2014 August 25, 2014 I December 10, 2014 September 8, 2014 The Division determined that each event did not meet the criteria for a valid malfunction_ DCP failed to comply with opacity emission limitations on the dates listed above, in violation of AQCC Regulation No.1, 5 II.A.5. and Operating Permit 95OPWE039, § IV, Condition 16. F. DCP reported the following in its Semi -Annual Report ("SAR") for the reporting period of July 1 -December 31, 2014: the catalyst inlet temperature for AIRS No. 123-0015-059 was not recorded on a monthly basis in August and September of 2014; the catalyst inlet temperature for AIRS No. 123-0015-075 was not recorded on a monthly basis in October 2014; and the catalyst pressure drop for AIRS No. 123- 0015-075 was not recorded on a monthly basis in October 2014. DCP failed to record the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperatures on a monthly basis, in violation of Operating Permit 95OPWE039, S II, Condition 2.9. DCP Roggen Gas Processing Plant On May 5, 2015, Ms. Morse inspected Roggen. Based on Ms. Morse's inspection, and a review of records related to Roggen, the Division issued a Compliance Advisory to DCP on June 8, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the Division and DCP met to discuss the issues identified in the Compliance Advisory. Based upon a review of Ms. Morse's inspection, records related to Roggen, and the information provided by DCP, the Division has determined the following: G. DCP is to ensure that the gas processed by AIRS No. 123-0049-130 shall not exceed 912.5 MMscf/yr. A 12 -month rolling total shalt be maintained to verify compliance with annual limitations. From March 2014 through January 2015, AIRS No. 123-0049- 130 exceeded the annual natural gas throughput limit for every rolling 12 -month period (See table below). DCP failed to comply with annual natural gas throughput limits, in violation of Operating Permit 95OPWE055, § II, Condition 11.2. 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.cotorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record Rotting 12 -Month Peciod Ending:: Throughput (MMscf/yr) March 2014 1,090.2 April 2014 1,094.8 May 2014 1, 087.8 June 2014 1,065.1 July 2014 1,059.0 August 2014 1,055.0 September 2014 1,028.0 October 2014 964.0 November 2014 943.0 December 2014 958.0 January 2015 958.0 Limit`r t T _:" - aL} ._ =-.: i..t _ 912. 5 At the Compliance Advisory meeting on August 17, 2016, DCP stated that it requested a throughput increase via a Title V permit modification. Additionally, DCP stated that the request was included as part of its Title V renewal package, which was submitted to the Division in April 2005. The Division determined that the renewal application did not contain all the required information to effectively modify the Title V permit. DCP failed to provide documentation supporting its requested throughput increase, failed to include an updated APEN, and failed to submit proposed permit language, which is required for a minor modification. DCP submitted a construction permit application on July 25, 2014, which requested the increased throughput; however, the construction permit application itself does not meet the requirements of a Title V minor modification application. Permit Number 01 WE0208 Issuance 1, issued to DCP on March 18, 2015, contains an increased throughput limit for AIRS No. 123-0049-130. H. DCP reported the following in its SAR for the reporting period of July 1 -December 31, 2014: the weekly air/fuel ratio ("AFR") controller set point and indicator readings for AIRS No. 123-0049-110 were not recorded for the weeks of June 19, 2014, and June 29, 2014; the weekly AFR controller set point indicator readings for AIRS No. 123-0049-115 were not recorded for the weeks of April 6, 2014, and May 24, 2014; and the weekly AFR controller set point and indicator readings for AIRS No. 123-0049-119 were not recorded for the week of January 5, 2014, in violation of Operating Permit 95OPWE055, S II, Condition 17.1. I. DCP failed to maintain the catalyst inlet temperature for AIRS No. 123-0049-110 to the manufacturer's recommended temperature on July 27, 2014; DCP failed to record the catalyst inlet and outlet temperatures for AIRS No. 123-0049-110 on a monthly basis in December 2014; and DCP failed to record the inlet and outlet pressures for AIRS No. 123-0049-110 on a monthly basis in May, June, July, September, October, November, and December of 2014, in violation of Operating Permit 95OPWE055, S II, Condition 17.2. J. DCP shalt comply with opacity emissions limitations whereby no owner or operator of a smokeless flare or other flare for the combustion of waste gases shall allow or cause emissions into the atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of 30% opacity for a period or periods aggregating more than 6 minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes. DCP reported that the flare used to control AIRS No. 123-0049- 130 and AIRS No. 123-0049-136 emitted opacity over 30% on February 16, 2015 (for 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2C00 www.colorado.gov/cdphe :ohn W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry V/olk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record in event duration of two hours), and again from February 27, 2.015 through March 2, 2015 (an event duration of three days). DCP reported the events to the Division as malfunctions. DCP failed to operate the control equipment such that visible emissions do not exceed 30%, in violation of Operating Permit 950PWE055, 5 IV, Condition 16, and Permit Number 1OWE1659, Condition 17. At the Compliance Advisory meeting on August 17, 2016, DCP asserted that these opacity events were due to a malfunction. The Division reviewed the malfunction reports and the additional information provided by DCP. The Division determined that each event did not meet the criteria for a valid malfunction. Based on information provided by DCP, the Division will no longer pursue enforcement for the issue identified in Paragraph C of the Compliance Advisory issued on June 8, 2016. DCP O'Connor Gas Processing Plant On February 12, 2015, Ms- Morse inspected O'Connor. Based on Ms. Morse's inspection, and a review of records related to O'Connor, the Division issued a Compliance Advisory to DCP on June 8, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the Division and DCP met to discuss the issues identified in the Compliance Advisory. Based upon a review of Ms. Morse's inspection, records related to O'Connor, and the information provided by DCP, the Division has determined the following: K. DCP is required to limit visible emissions to twenty percent (20%) opacity during normal operation of the Facility. During periods of startup, process modification, or adjustment of control equipment, visible emissions shalt not exceed 30% opacity for more than 6 minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes. DCP reported opacity from the process flare in excess of 30% for more than 6 minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes on December 14, 2014, and January 8, 2015- DCP reported the events to the Division as malfunctions. The Division reviewed each of the events and determined that the they do not meet the criteria for a valid malfunction. DCP failed to operate the control equipment such that visible emissions do not exceed 30%, in violation of AQCC Regulation No. 1, § iI.A.5. and Permit Number 11WE1481, Condition 15. L. DCP was required to limit monthly emissions from AIRS No.123-9012-003 to 187 lbs/mo of NOx and 306 lbs/mo of CO. AIRS No. 123-9012-003 exceeded the monthly emission limits on four separate occasions (See table below). DCP failed to comply with the monthly emission limits, in violation of Permit Number 11WE1481, Condition 6. Month I NOx (Ibs/mo) . CO (lbs/mo) November 2013 239 lbs 401 lbs December 2013 239 lbs 401 lbs January 2014 265 lbs 445 lbs February 2014 245 lbs 412 lbs Limit'- : 187 lbs/mo . 306 lbs/mo Permit Number 11WE1481 issuance 3 was issued to DCP on February 28, 2014 and contains increased emission limits based on 8,760 hr/yr. 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S.. Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record • M. DCP was required to limit the monthly consumption of natural gas for AIRS No. 123- 9012-003 to 3.6 MMscf/mo. AIRS No. 123-9012-003 exceeded the monthly consumption limits on four separate occasions (See table below). DCP failed to comply with the monthly consumption limits, in violation of Permit Number 11 WE1481, Condition 6. • Month Throughput.(MMscf/mo)• November 2013 4.8 MMscf December 2013 4.8 MMscf January 2014 5.3 MMscf February 2014 4.9 MMscf Limit: 3.6 MMscf/mo Permit Number 11WE1481 issuance 3 was issued to DCP on February 28, 2014 and contains increased consumption limits based on 8,760 hr/yr. The Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, at 5 25-7-122(1)(b), C.R.S., specifies that the oenalty for such violations may be up to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per day for each violation. The monetary amount of the Division's settlement offer specified below is derived from a pre -established schedule of penalties, which takes into account, among other factors, the magnitude and severity of the violation, cooperation of the company, as well as the prior history of violations of air quality requirements associated with any of the company's facilities/operations in the State of Colorado (including a company's parent or subsidiary relations, if applicable). Settlement offers are based on the evaluation of the same factors and criteria in all cases. Based upon DCP's cooperation, and its efforts to bring its operations into compliance with the regulations and permit conditions identified above, the Division acknowledges that DCP has appropriately and adequately addressed all compliance issues identified above. In the interest of settling the matters cited herein, the Division therefore offers the following settlement in accordance with the Division's settlement policy. 1. Payment of a reduced penalty in the sum of Two Hundred Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($219,100.00). Payment of the penalty precludes further enforcement by the Division for the above -described violation against DCP. The Division retains its authority to take enforcement actions based on any and all violations not specifically described above. 2. Entering into this settlement shall not constitute an admission of violation of the air quality taws, or the alleged facts relating thereto, nor shalt any third party infer it to be such an admission in any administrative or judicial proceeding. Notwithstanding the above, DCP does not admit to any of the factual or legal determinations made by the Division herein, and any action undertaken by DCP pursuant to this settlement shall not constitute an admission of liability by DCP with respect to the conditions alleged. In addition, and without limitation as it relates to other disputed claims, DCP specifically does not concede, admit or agree with the Division's factual or legal determinations in Paragraphs B.i, B.ii or B.iii above. However, DCP agrees not to challenge the factual or legal determinations herein, the Division's authority to bring, or the court's jurisdiction to hear, any action, insofar as it pertains to the matters contained herein, to enforce the terms of this settlement agreement. The described violation will constitute part of DCP's compliance history for any purpose for which such history is relevant. This letter constitutes an offer of settlement and is not a demand for payment. Please contact me if you wish to discuss this offer of settlement. We remain willing to consider any information you wish to submit related to the violation. Please be advised, however, that the offer of settlement 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, Co 80246.1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hicken(ooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Printed from Electronic Record contained in this letter is predicated on resolving this matter within fifteen (15) days of the date of this settlement proposal letter. If you elect to continue the negotiation of this matter beyond that date; this offer shall be deemed withdrawn, and any penalty mitigation built into this settlement proposal may be revoked. If you require additional time to evaluate this settlement proposal or discuss remaining issues with the Division, however, please contact me regarding your request for an extension of the offer. Any extension of the offer, if agreed to by the Division, must be confirmed, in writing, by the Division. If the above terms are acceptable to you, please have the appropriate person sign and return this letter and send a check in the sum of $219,100.00, made payable to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to Air Pollution Control Division Attn: Heather Wuollet 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South APCD-SS-B 1-1400 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 This offer of settlement, upon being fully endorsed by both the Division and DCP, shall constitute full and final resolution of the noncompliance issues identified herein and in the Compliance Advisories issued to DCP. You may write or call to request a settlement conference if you wish to discuss the matter with representatives of the Divisicn's compliance staff. If we do not receive a response from you within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, we will assume that you are not interested in resolving this matter as outlined above and may refer the violation to a formal enforcement process. Please call me, at 303-692-3259. if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, N0 ha non McMillan Compliance and Enforcement Program Manager I certify that I am authorized by DCP to execute this settlement agreement and bind DCP, and any affiliated entities, to the terms and conditions of this agreement. I have read the above settlement and agree to the terms and conditions of this offer. Name: et.". 1c.11 ct> ► Title: Cct.,..) trot /IQ-, e -- Signature 97(,) --373 -aits is /MA Telephone Number One cc: Shannon McMillan, APCD Jennie Morse. APCD Heather Wuollet, APCD Scott Patefield, EPA (Region VIII) File Alex Scherer, APCD Jen Mattox, APCD Michael Stovern, EPA (Region VIII) Torn Roan, Attorney General's Office 440 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 8O246 -153O P 3O3 -692-200O vw+rw.colorado.govrcdphe John w. Hioceniooper, Governor I Lam; Woik. MD, MISPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer i GOOD JOBS FIRST Subsidy Accountability Tracker Resources tt Return to search form Smart Growth Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary Newsroom Parent Company Name: DCP Midstream Partners Ownership Structure: lomt venture (owned 55-50 by Phillips 66 and Enbridgei Headquartered in: Colorado Major Industry: oil and gas Specific Industry: oil & gas Penalty total since 2000: $2,814,836 Number of records: 35 Corporate Research Project Sign up for E-mail Updates Support Us Publications Violation Tracker Top 10 Primary Offense Types environmental violation Penalty Total Number of Records $2.386,866 32 energy market violation $360,000 1 workplace safety or health violation labor relations violation 568,484 $6,487 S 1 Notes: Parent -subsidiary linkages are based on relationships current as of the latest revision listed in the ; ?,:'r i.f.r;, which may vary from what was the case when a violation occurred. The penalty dollar total above may be adjusted to account for the fact that the list of entries below may indude both agency records and settlemen! announcements for the same case; or else a penalty covering multiple locations may be listed in the individual records for each of the facilities Duplicate penalty amounts are marked with an asterisk in the list below. Associated Names: DCP LUSK BOOSTER STATION, DCP MIDSTREAM. DCP MIDSTREAM AND PARNELL CONSULTANTS ST EMPLOYERS; DCP Midstream Partners, DCP MIDSTREAM PECOS DIAMOND GAS PLANT; DCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT; EAST TEXAS GAS PLANT; GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT, PORT ARTHUR NATURAL GAS PLANT Links: Subsidy Tracker data on financial assistance to this company by federal, state and local government agencies can be found c:ere Individual Penalty Records: Download results as ' or Company Primary Offense Type Year Agency Penalty Amount GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violator 2011 EPA $755,251 EAST TEXAS GAS PLANT environmental violation 2012 EPA $631,628 DCP Midstream. LLC energy market violation 2008 FERC $360,000 DCP Midstream LP environmental violation 2015 EPA $141,525 PORT ARTHUR NATURAL GAS PLANT environmental violation 2002 EPA $137,880 DCP - LUSK BOOSTER STATION environmental violation 2015 EPA $97,283 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2015 EPA $89,817 DCP OPERATING CO - ENTERPRISE C.S. environmental violation 2017 EPA $51.450 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2008 EPA $42,014 i Company Primary Offense Type Year Agency Penalty Amount PCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT environmental violation 2007 EPA $41,440 PCP MIDSTREAM - EUNICE GAS PLANT environmental violation 2017 EPA 140.294 PCP OPERATING CO - LIBSAGK C,S. environmental violation 2014 EPA $39,713 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2013 EPA $39.375 PCP OPERATMIG CO - BERNHARDT C.S. environmental violation 2017 EPA $28,000 PCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT environmental violation 2013 EPA $25,000 DCP OPERATING CO - LUCERNE environments violation 2016 EPA $24,300 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2011 EPA $23,875 DCP MIDSTREAM environmental violation 2008 PHMSA 523,800 PCP OPERATING CO - BERNHARDT C.S. environmental violation 2014 EPA $21,938 PCP MIDSTREAM LP workplace safety or health violation 2014 OSHA $20,000 DCP MIDSTREAM. LP workplace safety or health violation 2012 OSHA $19,334 PCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT environmental violation 2002 EPA $18,500 EAST TEXAS GAS PLANT erwirainental violation 2012 EPA $14,001 PCP OPERATING CO - SLW C.S environmental violation 2017 EPA $14,000 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2015 EPA $10,447 PCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT environmental violation 2011 EPA $10,179 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2009 EPA $10,000 DCP MIDSTREAM environmental violation 2011 PHMSA $8,000 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT environmental violation 2008 EPA $7,950 PCP OPERATING CO -SULLIVAN C.S. environmental violation 2016 EPA $7,700 PCP MIDSTREAM SHERHAN PLANT environmental violation 2009 EPA $7,800 PCP OPERATING CO LP / COYOTE CMPSR STA environmental violation 2016 EPA $7,350 PCP MIDSTREAM - PECOS DIAMOND GAS PLANT environmental violation 2015 EPA $7,200 DCP MIDSTREAM. LP workplace safety or health violation 2016 OSHA $7,150 DCP MIDSTREAM. LP workplace safety or health violation 2014 OSHA $7,000 DCP OPERATING CO - SULLIVAN C.S. environmental violation 2017 EPA $7,000 DCP Midstream and Parnell Consultants Inc (JI Employers) labor relations violation 2013 NLRB $6,487 EAST TEXAS GAS PLANT environmental violation 2010 EPA $5,355 PCP MIDSTREAM LP workplace safety or health violation 2013 OSHA $5,000 Download results as • or XML O SHARE or gici / 29(0 Note our penalty amounts include not only fines and monetary settlements but also costs such as supplementary environmental projects or consumer relief that companies are often compelled to undertake as part of settlements If the settlement includes fines paid to state governments those are included as well Home i About Us I Contact Us I Site Map CD 2018 Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First Connect with us on: LaDonna Bast 304 North 23`d Ave Place Greeley, CO. 80631 April 24, 2018 County Commissioners, Please accept this letter of concern regarding the operations and expansion of the DCP OConnor plant near Kersey. I watch children at a residence near the plant and would like to make sure that DCP does everything possible to keep the community safe. I cannot attend the meeting but would like to provide my public comment time to Todd Loose who will present concerns of the neighborhood. Thank you, if‘W\C'SBCrit LaDonna Bast Marci Jacobs -Loose 25201 WCR 53 Kersey, CO. 80644 County Commissioners, I am very concerned about expanding the OConnor gas plant. We have experienced numerous occasions when the flare has shaken our house and darkened our skies with soot. I am unable to speak at the hearing but would ask that my allocated time be dedicated to Todd Loose to speak on my behalf. Marci Jacoby Loose Dennis Loose 22035 Weld County Road 52 Greeley, CO. 80631 April 24, 2018 County Commissioners, Please Accept this letter of concern regarding the operations and expansion of the DCP OConnor plant near Kersey. I live near the site and would like to make sure that DCP does everything possible to insure that safety of this area is its highest concern. As seen on area TV shows, the oil and gas industry is not very popular with the citizens of this state at this point and time. I cannot attend the meeting, but would like to provide my proxy comment time to Todd Loose, who will present the concerns of this neighborhood. Thank You, Dennis Loose Todd Loose From: Sent: To: Subject: Mrs. Sharlene Loose 22035 Road 52, Greeley Greeley, CO. 80631 April 24, 2018 County Commissioners, DI <mugsyinco@aol.com> Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:38 PM Todd Loose Letter, Please reprsent all of my family interests at the propossed meeting. As the Grandparent and parent to a family in the immediate area of the DCP O Connor plant, south of Kersey, CO I am very concerned that the safety and security of my grandchildren, children and all children in the area be top concern for the Commissioners to consider. I also live in close proximity to the plant and have witnessed very concerning procedures at the plant. It is imperative that this plant not be enlarged. I am unable to attend this meeting but have requested that Todd Loose represent my interests in this matter. Mrs Sharlene Loose 1 4/25/2018 Print Window Subject: Re: DCP Plant From: a.kramer@hotmail.com To: advantagehoodworks@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 8:36:59 AM MDT Luke and Abby Gardner 23158 cr 51 Kersey CO 80644 We would like you to speak on our behalf. From: Scott McGregor <advantagehoodworks@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:16 AM To: a.kramer@hotmail.com Subject: DCP Plant Hi Abby, I talked to Luke briefly this morning. Can you email me your names and address and say that you would like us to speak on your behalf. This will get us three more minutes of speaking time per person. We are in a bit of a time crunch and have to leave for the meeting in a few minutes Scott McGregor Advantage Hood Works L.L.C. 970 506-1144 1/1 4/25/2018 Print Window Subject: From: isabelgarcia5615@yahoo.com To: Advantagehoodworks@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 8:45:32 PM MDT To whom it may concern Israel and Isabel Guevara on CR51 would like to extend our 3 minute speaking time to the group that will be addressing the issue for the DCP operation on CR. 50. Thank you Isabel 1/1 • .�.++ it } cwt rirj ;' 1:.1•�cuttt ��.'�y.��L,c(re UCaF=ti7tames tab e expansion=view looking Southwest from r residence PROPOSED 20' PRECAST CONCRETE WALL View looking northeast from Utz residence etpansion view looking t from Banowetz residence Wall 20' tall Pre -cast concrete screening wall 41%•7 tic '� JY_^ • .e• • : --•�_J��_...- ... ::_ ..� ':d,,,. • ., • .. .frst - •S. c i id?1 ?$U11} •.1. C• 1r• I alba 1 * 1 IOW a - tit ' • • • % • .f ' r. gab s.to gia-N it.i • pm- - ir • O'Connor 1 Historic Flare Operation And the associated damages EXHIBIT is Hello