Columbia Packing attorney accuses Dallas officials of harassment
Content
DT
PC
ATTORNE:YS& CO UNSELORS
3800 Lincffin Pfaza
Dallas
I Houst on I Aus ti n
SO N. AKard Street -;} Dallas. Texas75201-13£59 '-fain £14855.7500 Fax 214.855.75<34
Amy R ickers Writer's Direct Dial: 214.880.7692 E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Fax: 2 14.978 A3 39
March 15,2012
Via Facsimi/e(214) 670-0622 Electron ic .Mail chris.bowerS@da/lascitvltalLcom & james.mcguire(ji)dal/ascitrltal/.com
Christopher Bowers First Assistant City Attorney City Of Dallas 1500 Marilla Rm 7DN Dallas, TX 7520 I James B. McGuire Assistant City Attorney City of Dallas 1500 Marilla Street 7BN Dallas, TX 75201 Re: Dear Counsel: I received your correspondence from March Columbia Packin g Co., Inc. (" Columbia") does not obj ect to the City's appropriate regulatory enforcement efforts to protect the public. In fact , in response to the City's claims regarding allegedly illicit discharges and purported public health or environmental violations Columbia established the City's allegations of intentional wrongdoing by Columbia are unfounded. TIle City has now eclipsed its enforcement authority in this matter and began harassing Colu mbia by fabricati ng hypotheti cal concerns with no basis for establishing a violation of applicable codes, a well as demanding a response from Columbia extending beyond any reasonable enforcement authori ty of the City of Dallas. Specifically, the City'S request for a comprehensive report is excessive and unnecessary. Despite your contrary contention a comprehensive report would not "assuage [Columbia's legitimate] worries that the City is 'hiding the ball' in an effort to delay Columbia's ability to comply;" rather, the only way to assuage Columbia's concerns is for the City to provi de a complete detail ed and final list of concerns the City requires to be addressed. Columbia has been cooperative in repeatedly supplying inform ation to the City. However, the City has provided no basis for requiring the information demanded in the comprehensive report. Further, the City' s request for "a comprehensive Columbia Packing Co., Inc.
Bowers and i"1cGuire
March 15, 2012
2
report detailing current and historical conditions the facility" is overreaching and unnecessary to an evaluation of the current situation. If the City has specific questions it should submit them to Columbia. If City does not have specific questions, it should simply admit Columbia has site and has documented such to conclusively and comprehensively cured all alleged violations at the City multiple times. Columbia as an uncooperative and unresponsive entity is The City's constant portrayal factually incorrect and offensive. Specifically, the City's claims that Columbia has not acted in good faith or even done the bare minimum to address alleged code violations is simply untrue. Columbia has taken extensive measure to address City allegations. Columbia applied for and obtained a permit to begin resolving this matter as early as January 20,2012; three days later, Columbia's permit was inspected and the work was verified complete. Thereafter, at a meeting with City personnel on January 25, 201 one day after receiving correspondence with the City's first list of issues, City Representatives expressly acknowledged that Columbia had. in fact, addressed many of the City's concerns. Columbia has continued to quickly take extensive action to address City concerns at each tum and with each new allegation.
Furthermore, any perception ofa piecemeal approach to compliance stems from the fact that, once Columbia addresses the City's noted issues, the City provides a new list of previously unidentified issues. From the beginning of this process, Columbia has requested a comprehensive letter listing the City of Dallas's alleged violations at the facility. which the City has refused to provide. always reserving concerns and relaying additional lists that Columbia must and does resolve and which then require additional documentation and inspections. Notably, Columbia has requested all concerns are collectively, group meetings with an necessary City personnel to ensure efficiently, and completely addressed; the City of Dallas denied Columbia's most recent request for such a meeting.
constant mischaracterization Columbia's but
Columbia is ottensrve,
Bowersand McGuire
2012
anything underlying the metal plate. Columbia, the same afternoon, exposed entirety of underlying pipe for inspection by tile City of Dallas and revealed there was nol:hirlg flowing through the pipe for quite some time. There is no documentation of the abandoned pipe on any forms submitted to the City of Dallas because, as was verified by the City of Dallas, piping was not used as a conveyance. In fact, pipe was not connected to any conveyance. It was, quite simply, an abandoned portion of pipe, compacted at multiple points with dirt and brick, incapable of conveying any flow, all facts verified by City personnel. It is not necessary to document piping that is not in use on any schematics or forms depicting active piping, nor is it a violation of any Dallas City Code to have abandoned piping which does not convey wastewater under you facility. Furthermore, Columbia did not refuse to inform its engineer of the piping but rather asserted that such information does not the schematics depicting active plumbing on the property. In footnote 1 to your March 2012 letter you indicate that Columbia's response to your request for an engineer to certify there are no more "unknown" pipes on the property implies that there are additional pipes. However, my February 24, 2012 correspondence continues on to note that facility. This information, combined there are no other known connected or unconnected pipes on with the fact that the City, along with Columbia, has videoed and dye tested an lines and discharge points at the facility clearly establishes the lack of cross connections or potential discharge lines. Columbia has never asked the City to rely on "blind trust" regarding Columbia's representations to the City and has in fact done everything it can to make the property available for inspection and review by City inspectors. However, the City is constantly, but unreasonably, demanding additional confirmation, requiring multiple tapings and testing and repeated inspections of areas already reviewed. Columbia not once during process refused a Inspector access to property and been willing to provide all available records applicable to City's area of concerns. It is hard to a more cooperative and to believe what own have and it is refusal to believe Columbia offered to undertake
January 20, 2012: Columbia applied for received a permit to relocate the City's monitoring station, according to City of Dallas specifications, on the sanitary sewer line. Columbia relocated City Monitoring Station. Videotaping of piping at facility was conducted, copies of which have been provided to the City of Dallas. •January 23, 2012: The City inspected and approved Columbia's work regarding relocation of the City Monitoring Station. Additional videotaping of piping at the facility was conducted, copies of which have been provided to the City of Dallas. The City of Dallas conducted additional dye testing of plumbing lines on site. January 24, 2012: The City transmitted correspondence listing items to be addressed by Columbia. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary City personnel to resolve City concerns. January 25, 2012: A meeting between the City of Dallas representatives and Columbia was held to discuss City concerns. City representatives remarked that a number of the City's concerns plumbing had already been addressed. The City requested engineering calculations, schematics diagrams, and additional updates to storm water pollution prevention plan paperwork. Columbia produced engineering calculations, videos of piping conducted on January 20 and 23, 2012, and schematics ofpiping at the facility. January 26, 2012: The City requested inspection of the RPZ backflow prevention device at the facility. The City provided an application for a Significant Industrial User Permit, which notably cannot be finalized until Columbia is back in operation and which will not be necessary if Columbia below the threshold average of is not conducting slaughtering operations as water usage 25,000 gallons per day discharge. Columbia coordinating with Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. January 27, 2012: Columbia forwarded requested storm water documentanon to the
Bowers and IIk<Juire
March 15,2012
Page S
February 1, 2012: Columbia applied for and received a permit prevention device at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with department regarding additional work to be done at the property.
install a baekflow Building Inspection
February 2, 2012: City produced storm water sampling results from January 23, 2012. Columbia produced additional storm water related documents to respond to City requests. Columbia applied for and received a permit to install an additional interceptor at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 3, 2Ol2: The City of Dallas Fire Department conducted an inspection of the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 6, 2012: The City of Dallas inspected and approved the installation of the backflow prevention device at the facility. The City of Dallas inspected and approved the installation of floor drains and capping of other drains at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 7, 2012: 'TheCity forwarded requests for additional storm water information along with a copy of dye testing documentation and the Fire Inspection Report from February 3, 2012. Columbia obtained a permit to construct awnings to address potential inflow concerns of the City of Dallas. City of Dallas inspected and approved the replacement of the 6 inch piping from the cleanout to the on sanitary sewer line with 8 inch piping. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. Notably, the City produced a Storm Water Inspection report indicating the inspector had on site on February 6, 2012 from to a.m, and the representative was Carl Ondrusek. Ondrusek was not contacted by any Storm Water Inspector on inspector's presence was not on at February 8, 2012:
storm water
Bowers 'and McGu ire March 15, 20 12 Page 6
February 15, 2012: The City of Dallas requested storm water documentation. Columbia had previously supplied the requested information. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary City personnel to review progress on site. The City of Dallas inspected and approved the awning construction . Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection depart ment regarding additional work to be done at the property; February 16, 2012: Columbia supplied additional inform ation requested for the Significant Industrial User Permit Application. Columbia applied for and rece ived a permit to remove a storage tank from the facility. The City of Dallas Fire Department conducted a reinspection of the site and issued a notice that all previously noted hazards were corre cted . February 17, 20 12: A meeting was held on site with Pretreatment, Storm Water, Code, and City Attorney representatives. The City requested additional enlargements of piping schematics. Columbia produced the requested additio nal enlargements of schematics. The City requested additional information regarding facility processes for the Significant Industrial User Permit, Columbia produced requested additional process informati on. The City requested additional changes to the storm water pollution prevention plan. Columbia made requested changes while City Inspectors were on-site. A City Code Inspecto r toured the facility and did not note any additional work that needed to be accomplished for compliance. The City requested historical permitting documentation for the facility. City Pretreatment Inspectors further reviewed an area underlying a metal plate on the pro perty and it was determined an abandoned pipe remained under the property. Columbia uncovered the abandoned pipe. A City Storm Water Inspector and camera crew visited the site and videoed the abandoned pipe to establish the pipe did not connect to any additional piping or conve y any discharge. Columbia informed the City Storm Water Inspector on-site that Columbia intended to remove thc abandoned pip e immediately and inquired whethe r the City Storm Water Inspector desired to remain to witness the removal. The City Storm Water Inspector indicated oversight was unnecessary. Columbia proceeded to remove the abandoned piping leaving a section in ground due to a concern that additional removal would damage surrou nding trees. few hours later the City Attorneys ' Office sent correspondence requesting City Personnel be present for removal of the pipe and that representatives could be available on February 20,2012 to witness removal of the remaining pipe. Columbia informed the City it had removed a majority of the pipe but that it intended to cap the remaining pipe in place to ensure no concerns regarding any use of the pipe and would wait to do so until February 20, 2012 if City personne l wished to witness the activity. Februa ry 20, 2012: Columbia was finalizing preparations for capping the pipe upon City personnel arrival when the remaining pipe section moved as the surrounding dirt was being excavated for access to the pipe. It was determined the remaining pipe section was small and removal could be accomplished without damage to surrounding trees. City personnel from the City Attorneys' Office and torm Water Section arrived and confirmed the pipe had been completely removed from the ground. City personnel indica ed they were satisfied with the remo val and they did not have any additional items to be addressed. Columbia provided histori cal permitting documents for the facility as requested on February 17,20 i 2.
Bowers and Mi.-'Guire
A/arch 15, 20]2 7
February 23, 2012: The City of Dallas provided regarding calculations produced by Columbia. The City requested additional schematics of the plumbing with a date subsequent to February 17, 2012 and information regarding Best Management Practices. City raised concerns regarding alleged observations on 20,2012 (previously undisclosed to Columbia). The City requested an update on the status of implementation of erosion control not mentioned measures, also apparently a concern from the February 20, 2012 site visit, while present on the site. Prior to February 23, 2012 the erosion control measures could not be put in place due to the weather and work in the area. February 24, 2012: Columbia provided newly dated engineering schematics. Columbia provided information regarding Best Management Practices. Columbia removed debris from the storm wateroutfall vicinity. Columbia placed Curlex in the outfall area at the City of Dallas' request. The City responded with additional questions regarding engineering calculations and Best Management Practices. February 27, 2012: Columbia provided additional engineering calculations and information regarding Best Management Practices. Columbia proposed the City inspect the site to verify requested work had been completed. The City to date has declined to undertake such on-site inspection. February 28" 2012: The City inspected and approved Columbia's removal of the storage tank from the property. Columbia requested a meeting with City of Dallas representatives. The City declined such meeting. March 2, 2012: City questioned the of additional piping on the property. As person and correspondence, Columbia is not aware of any previously stated, numerous times unidentified pipes on the property.
Bowers and McGuire March 15,2012
Page S
Additionally, the City requested supplemental information regarding Best Man agement Practices. Columbia does not deny that the City, pursuant to Dallas City Code Section 49-48(b), has the ability to require best management practices (BMPs) be implemented. What Columbia disputes is that the City should undertake direct oversight of the contents of those BMPs . However, the City indicated it would like such oversight and Columbia will work with the City to develop acceptable BMPs. To ensure this issue is adequately addressed will require a meeting between the City of Dallas Pretreatment Section and Columbia to ensure the City unde rstands Columbia's processes. Such meeting is hereby requested. Furthermore, the zero tolerance policy for Columbia is a new version of the previous BMP policy. The document is undat ed because it has not been signed; these are to be used in training of persons reem ployed at the facility. On March 2, 2012, the City also produced as Exhibit D, a Storm Water Inspection report. In the report, the inspector indicates tha t I was the citizen contact he met with on s ite. Disturb ingly, the inspector never actually spoke with me or any of the Columbia representatives when he was on site and did not discuss any of the findings he noted in the repo rt, despite repeated requests regarding whether there were additional concerns that needed to be addressed. The City also raised questions regarding the results of sampling it performed on January 23, 2012, after Columb ia ceased operations. Columbia has a number of concerns regarding how those samples were taken. Columbia had not been in operation for a number of days and the only materials that could have been flowing through the lines was flushing water from the City of Dallas fire hydrant and the dyes that were used to dye test the plumb ing lines. To the extent there was any flow through the outfalls it could only ha ve come from those sources. However, Columbia does not believe there was any actual flow through the lines at the time and therefore no " storm water discharge" was available to sample. A sample of standing water wou ld undoubtedly result in a high E. Coli count. Furthermore, sampling taken during a time when the facility is not in operati on and a storm event is not occurring is not a representative sample that would constitute any bas is for determi ning comp liance with a storm water discharge permit or applicable reg ulations.
Furthe rmore, the City alleges Columbia has not com plied with the Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") requireme nts promu lgated by the Texas Commission on Enviromn ental Quality ("TC EQ") on May 11, 20 ] I. First, app ropriate storm water sampl ing has not indicated a violation of TMDLs. Secondly, the TMDL promulgated on May 11, 20 11 itself indicates the spec ific measures to be utilized for compliance with TMDLs have not been finalized and esta blished and therefore there are no monitoring requi rements with which to comply. Columbia is in compliance with Section 7(d) of TXR050000. 3
Further, on March 2, 2012, the City enunciated four additional, previously undisclosed concerns.
3
A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is available on site and " ill be made available within 2 hours of any request for review on-site in compliance with applicable torm water regulations.
and j';1cGuire
March 15, 2012
UJ
Columbia has conclusively addressed the City of Dallas' concerns and complies with allowed to restart operations. Dallas City Code. Columbia again, respectfully requests it appropriate City representatives to progress Columbia further requests a meeting with in this matter. I appreciate your attention to this matter and eagerly await your prompt response. Very truly yours,
MUNSCH HARDT KOPf' & BARR, P.C.
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns Concern Date City made Columbia aware of concern January 20,2012 Relocation of City Monitoring Response Action Response Date Additional Notes
Relocate City Monitoring i Station
,
Applied for permit to relocate monitoring station on January 20,2012; relocation inspected and approved on January 23,2012
",,""---"'~~'~'~~-
January 19, to Sewer and points
Dye testing and video taping of camera inspections of all active pipmg on facility
Dye testing and camera inspections began on January 19, 2012 and continued through January 23, 2012 - videos of lines were produced to the City on January 25,2012 1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24, 2012
1) a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer
to wastewater
1
H
Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns interference by Dallas of
January
2012
Alleged violation ofDCC19118.2(a) discharge not entirely storm water
1) As a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer drains
2) Columbia obtained permits and City approval for 2 awnings to prevent inflow and infiltration
1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24,2012
2) Awning penn it application was submitted on February 7, 2012; the City inspected and approved awnings on February 15, 2012
January 24,2012
Alleged violation ofDCC 19~ 118.2(f)(2) potential discharge of industrial waste to storm water drainage
1) As a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer drains 2) Columbia obtained permits and City annroval
1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24,2012
January 25, 2012 City representatives noted concern addressed
2) Awning permit application was submitted on Fehruarv 7,
2 awnings
2
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns pennits and City approval for 2 awnings to prevent inflow and infiltration January 24,2012 Alleged violation File SIU ofDCC 49-46(a) Permit requirement for a application Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit based on quantity of wastewater discharge February 7, 2012; the City inspected and approved the awnings on February 15, 2012 City provided application on January 26,2012, Columbia submitted an application to the City on February 14,2012 with supplemental information provided on February 16, 2012 and February 17, 2012 Compliance with the Dallas Fire Department Inspection report was documented by the Dallas Fire Department on February 16,
January 24,2012
Alleged violation Secure or remove of Section containers 3003.5.3 of Chapter 16 of the Uniform Code, containers not secured
3
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns potable water contamination device backflow prevention device; The City of Dallas approved the installation of the backflow prevention device on February 6, 2012 Permit to complete installation of floor drains and cover other drains was obtained on January 31, 2012; Installation and modifications were approved by the City on February 6, 2012. Columbia applied for permit on January 31, 2012 ; The City approved the completed replacement of the pipe on February 7, 2012 On February 1, 2012, Columbia applied for a permit to install a
January 24, 2012
Alleged violation of Section 402. 1 ofDCC Chapter 54 plumbing fixtures not constructed of approved materials
Install floor sinks and modify drains
January 24,2012
Alleged violation of Section 704.2 ofDCC Chapter 54 the size of drainage is reduced in direction of flow
Replace 6inch pipe with 8-inch pipe
January 24, 20 12
Alleged violation of Section 801.2 of DCC Chapter 54 no protec tion against backflow
Install backflow prevention
backflow
prevention device ; The City of Dallas approved the installation of the bac1d1ow prevention device on February 6,
Page 4 of 11
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns 2012 Install floor sinks and cover drains Applied permit for installation of floor drains and covering drains on January 31, 2012; City approved installation and covering of drains on February 6, 2012 Applied for permit for installation on February 2, 2012; City approved installation of interceptor on February 10, 2012 Dye testing and camera inspections began on January 19, 2012 and continued through January 23, 2012 -videos of were produced to on
of Section 802.1 ofDCC Chapter 54 food-handling equipment allegedly not discharged through an indirect waste pipe
January 24,2012
Alleged violation of Section 1003.1 ofDCC Chapter 54 interceptors and I separators not provided
Install additional interceptor
January 24, 2012
Alleged violation Dye testing and video of Section taping of 1104.2 of DCC camera Chapter 54 inspections of sanitary and all active storm discharge lines not entirely piping on
5
Table Summarizing Columb ia's Responses to City Concerns January 24,2012 Alleged violation of DCC Section 19-19(a) operation of slaughterhouse as an alleged nuisance Alleged violation of Section 271l(b)(9) ofDCC holes, cracks, loose surface materials that are health or safety hazards in or on floors , walls , or ceilings Alleged violation of Section 19118.8(b)(2) of DCC, Notice of Intent (NO!) not available for review within two hours of request Alleged violation of Section 30 1.1.1 Chapter 52 building without permit Patch holes in Co lumbia immediately walls and began address ing floors and remo ve ceiling concerns on January 25,201 2 tiles with and continued holes work through February 17, 20 12
-
City has not produced any nuisance complaints on file with the City
January 24, 2012
During a Code Inspector's inspection on February 17, 2012 the Code Inspector noted compliance
Jan uary 24, 2012
Provide Copy ofNOI as submitted to TCEQ
Provided during inspection on February 17, 2012
January 24, 2012
erncc
Systems reviewed by Building Inspection
Columbia worked of Dallas; Building Inspection Department from January 25 February 15, 2012 to review and address these
issues. The
Building Inspection Department indicated tasks were completed . January 25, 20 12 Requested Engineering Produce engineerin g Engineering calculations were
Page 6 of l l
Table Summarizing Columbia' s Respons es to City Concerns Calcu lations calculations provided to the City on January 25,20 12 Plumbing schematics were initially provided on January 25, 20 12; Revisions based on work at the site were produced on February 14, 2012, February 17, 20 12, and February 24, 20 12 Provided documentation to City on January 27,2012 Columb ia ' s RPZ backflow preventio n device passed inspection on January 30 , 2012 Provided response on March 2, 20 12 indicating sampling was not compliant with requirements for analysis of storm water compliance Inspection report was supplied to Col um bia on February 7, 20 12; Colum bia passed reinspection on I ~ v~'~~J 16,
I .... ,
~-
January 25, 2012
Requested Schematics of Plum bing
Provide plumb ing schematics and updates to same
January 25,20 12
Requested additional.storm water docum entation Requested inspection of RPZ backflow prevention device
Compl ete and provide add itional documentation Particip ate in inspect ion of RPZ backflow prevention device
January 26, 2012
February 2, 2012
City produced sampling results from January 23, 2012
Review results
February 3, 2012
City Fire Department Inspec tion
Comply with notations from ins pection report
Page 7 of 11
Tab le Summarizing Columbia' s Responses to City Concern s 2012 February 7, 2012 Requ ested additional storm water documentation Provide additional storm water documentation Provided documentation on February 8, 2012 , on February 14, 20 12, and on February 17, 2012 Provided documents on February 20, 2012 Piping was exposed for inspection and videoing on February 17, 2012; Piping was removed (save one small end secti on) on February 17, 2012; Fina l portion of piping was removed on February 20, 2012; City of Dallas repre sentatives inspected and reviewed removal of piping on February 20, 2012 and indicated satisfaction with the removal While the City of Dallas inspector on site declined to remain on site to witness remo val on February 17, 20 12 the City subse quen tly, and after the removal had occurred, requested the removal be witnessed by City of Dallas representatives. On February 20,2012 City of Dallas representatives indicated the City was satisfied with the removal.
February 17, 2012
Requ ested histo rical permit information
Provide historical permit informat ion Unearth piping for inspecti on and video taping by City of Dallas; Remove piping from ground
February 17,2012
Concerns regarding aband oned piping
I
February 23 and 24,20 12
Requ ested addi tional
engineenng
calculation
Provide additional information
Provided add itional information on February 27,
Page 8 of 11
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns information February 23, 2012 Requested additional schematics Provide additional schematics 2012 Provided additional schematics on February 24, 2012 Provided additional information on February 24, 2012 and February 27, 2012 Debris was removed on February 24, 2012 Erosion controls were placed at outfalls on February 24, 2012 Erosion controls could not be placed in area previously to work in the area and weather
February 23,2012
Requested Best Management Practices (BMP) information
Provide additional information
2012
Debris in storm water outfall Vicinity
Remove debris
2012
Requested update on erosion control measures
Place erosion controls at outfalls at City'S request
Questions
Respond to questions
Questions were responded to on March 15, a
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns ng verified. March 2,2012 Requested additional information regarding BMPs Respond to questions BMPsand request meeting with City of Dallas Review and respond Additional response offered on March 15, 2012 and meeting requested with City of Dallas to resolve concerns Responded on March 15,2012 noting noncompliance of sampling with regulations for determining compliance with storm water regulations on March 15,2012 thatTMDL regulations do not establish particular practices or methods compliance at this time Columbia is
March 2, 2012
Questions regarding January 23, 2012 sampling results
March 2, 2012
.TMDL
I comp lance I
r
Review TMDL regulations
March 2,
Compliance
10
I
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Conce rns and regulations 2012, Columbia applied for a permitto install a backflow prevention device; The City of Dallas approved the installatio n of the backflow prevention device on February 6, 2012. Additi onally, City of Dallas service connections are maintained on site. Responded on March 15,2012 verifying the water well is not located within 500 feet of an animal feed lot Responded on March 15,2012 indicating Columbia does not fall within solid wast e regulations due to lack of production of hazardous or acutely hazardous waste or greater than 220 pounds per month of Class 1 industrial waste insufficient to provide a basis for a more complete response
March 2, 2012
Water Well Locat ion within 500 feet of animal feed lot
Review location of water well
March 2, 2012
Solid Waste Disposal registrations
Review Solid Waste Disposal Regulations
I I
Page 11 of l I
Attachment A
PC
ATTORNE:YS& CO UNSELORS
3800 Lincffin Pfaza
Dallas
I Houst on I Aus ti n
SO N. AKard Street -;} Dallas. Texas75201-13£59 '-fain £14855.7500 Fax 214.855.75<34
Amy R ickers Writer's Direct Dial: 214.880.7692 E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Fax: 2 14.978 A3 39
March 15,2012
Via Facsimi/e(214) 670-0622 Electron ic .Mail chris.bowerS@da/lascitvltalLcom & james.mcguire(ji)dal/ascitrltal/.com
Christopher Bowers First Assistant City Attorney City Of Dallas 1500 Marilla Rm 7DN Dallas, TX 7520 I James B. McGuire Assistant City Attorney City of Dallas 1500 Marilla Street 7BN Dallas, TX 75201 Re: Dear Counsel: I received your correspondence from March Columbia Packin g Co., Inc. (" Columbia") does not obj ect to the City's appropriate regulatory enforcement efforts to protect the public. In fact , in response to the City's claims regarding allegedly illicit discharges and purported public health or environmental violations Columbia established the City's allegations of intentional wrongdoing by Columbia are unfounded. TIle City has now eclipsed its enforcement authority in this matter and began harassing Colu mbia by fabricati ng hypotheti cal concerns with no basis for establishing a violation of applicable codes, a well as demanding a response from Columbia extending beyond any reasonable enforcement authori ty of the City of Dallas. Specifically, the City'S request for a comprehensive report is excessive and unnecessary. Despite your contrary contention a comprehensive report would not "assuage [Columbia's legitimate] worries that the City is 'hiding the ball' in an effort to delay Columbia's ability to comply;" rather, the only way to assuage Columbia's concerns is for the City to provi de a complete detail ed and final list of concerns the City requires to be addressed. Columbia has been cooperative in repeatedly supplying inform ation to the City. However, the City has provided no basis for requiring the information demanded in the comprehensive report. Further, the City' s request for "a comprehensive Columbia Packing Co., Inc.
Bowers and i"1cGuire
March 15, 2012
2
report detailing current and historical conditions the facility" is overreaching and unnecessary to an evaluation of the current situation. If the City has specific questions it should submit them to Columbia. If City does not have specific questions, it should simply admit Columbia has site and has documented such to conclusively and comprehensively cured all alleged violations at the City multiple times. Columbia as an uncooperative and unresponsive entity is The City's constant portrayal factually incorrect and offensive. Specifically, the City's claims that Columbia has not acted in good faith or even done the bare minimum to address alleged code violations is simply untrue. Columbia has taken extensive measure to address City allegations. Columbia applied for and obtained a permit to begin resolving this matter as early as January 20,2012; three days later, Columbia's permit was inspected and the work was verified complete. Thereafter, at a meeting with City personnel on January 25, 201 one day after receiving correspondence with the City's first list of issues, City Representatives expressly acknowledged that Columbia had. in fact, addressed many of the City's concerns. Columbia has continued to quickly take extensive action to address City concerns at each tum and with each new allegation.
Furthermore, any perception ofa piecemeal approach to compliance stems from the fact that, once Columbia addresses the City's noted issues, the City provides a new list of previously unidentified issues. From the beginning of this process, Columbia has requested a comprehensive letter listing the City of Dallas's alleged violations at the facility. which the City has refused to provide. always reserving concerns and relaying additional lists that Columbia must and does resolve and which then require additional documentation and inspections. Notably, Columbia has requested all concerns are collectively, group meetings with an necessary City personnel to ensure efficiently, and completely addressed; the City of Dallas denied Columbia's most recent request for such a meeting.
constant mischaracterization Columbia's but
Columbia is ottensrve,
Bowersand McGuire
2012
anything underlying the metal plate. Columbia, the same afternoon, exposed entirety of underlying pipe for inspection by tile City of Dallas and revealed there was nol:hirlg flowing through the pipe for quite some time. There is no documentation of the abandoned pipe on any forms submitted to the City of Dallas because, as was verified by the City of Dallas, piping was not used as a conveyance. In fact, pipe was not connected to any conveyance. It was, quite simply, an abandoned portion of pipe, compacted at multiple points with dirt and brick, incapable of conveying any flow, all facts verified by City personnel. It is not necessary to document piping that is not in use on any schematics or forms depicting active piping, nor is it a violation of any Dallas City Code to have abandoned piping which does not convey wastewater under you facility. Furthermore, Columbia did not refuse to inform its engineer of the piping but rather asserted that such information does not the schematics depicting active plumbing on the property. In footnote 1 to your March 2012 letter you indicate that Columbia's response to your request for an engineer to certify there are no more "unknown" pipes on the property implies that there are additional pipes. However, my February 24, 2012 correspondence continues on to note that facility. This information, combined there are no other known connected or unconnected pipes on with the fact that the City, along with Columbia, has videoed and dye tested an lines and discharge points at the facility clearly establishes the lack of cross connections or potential discharge lines. Columbia has never asked the City to rely on "blind trust" regarding Columbia's representations to the City and has in fact done everything it can to make the property available for inspection and review by City inspectors. However, the City is constantly, but unreasonably, demanding additional confirmation, requiring multiple tapings and testing and repeated inspections of areas already reviewed. Columbia not once during process refused a Inspector access to property and been willing to provide all available records applicable to City's area of concerns. It is hard to a more cooperative and to believe what own have and it is refusal to believe Columbia offered to undertake
January 20, 2012: Columbia applied for received a permit to relocate the City's monitoring station, according to City of Dallas specifications, on the sanitary sewer line. Columbia relocated City Monitoring Station. Videotaping of piping at facility was conducted, copies of which have been provided to the City of Dallas. •January 23, 2012: The City inspected and approved Columbia's work regarding relocation of the City Monitoring Station. Additional videotaping of piping at the facility was conducted, copies of which have been provided to the City of Dallas. The City of Dallas conducted additional dye testing of plumbing lines on site. January 24, 2012: The City transmitted correspondence listing items to be addressed by Columbia. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary City personnel to resolve City concerns. January 25, 2012: A meeting between the City of Dallas representatives and Columbia was held to discuss City concerns. City representatives remarked that a number of the City's concerns plumbing had already been addressed. The City requested engineering calculations, schematics diagrams, and additional updates to storm water pollution prevention plan paperwork. Columbia produced engineering calculations, videos of piping conducted on January 20 and 23, 2012, and schematics ofpiping at the facility. January 26, 2012: The City requested inspection of the RPZ backflow prevention device at the facility. The City provided an application for a Significant Industrial User Permit, which notably cannot be finalized until Columbia is back in operation and which will not be necessary if Columbia below the threshold average of is not conducting slaughtering operations as water usage 25,000 gallons per day discharge. Columbia coordinating with Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. January 27, 2012: Columbia forwarded requested storm water documentanon to the
Bowers and IIk<Juire
March 15,2012
Page S
February 1, 2012: Columbia applied for and received a permit prevention device at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with department regarding additional work to be done at the property.
install a baekflow Building Inspection
February 2, 2012: City produced storm water sampling results from January 23, 2012. Columbia produced additional storm water related documents to respond to City requests. Columbia applied for and received a permit to install an additional interceptor at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 3, 2Ol2: The City of Dallas Fire Department conducted an inspection of the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 6, 2012: The City of Dallas inspected and approved the installation of the backflow prevention device at the facility. The City of Dallas inspected and approved the installation of floor drains and capping of other drains at the facility. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. February 7, 2012: 'TheCity forwarded requests for additional storm water information along with a copy of dye testing documentation and the Fire Inspection Report from February 3, 2012. Columbia obtained a permit to construct awnings to address potential inflow concerns of the City of Dallas. City of Dallas inspected and approved the replacement of the 6 inch piping from the cleanout to the on sanitary sewer line with 8 inch piping. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regarding additional work to be done at the property. Notably, the City produced a Storm Water Inspection report indicating the inspector had on site on February 6, 2012 from to a.m, and the representative was Carl Ondrusek. Ondrusek was not contacted by any Storm Water Inspector on inspector's presence was not on at February 8, 2012:
storm water
Bowers 'and McGu ire March 15, 20 12 Page 6
February 15, 2012: The City of Dallas requested storm water documentation. Columbia had previously supplied the requested information. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary City personnel to review progress on site. The City of Dallas inspected and approved the awning construction . Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection depart ment regarding additional work to be done at the property; February 16, 2012: Columbia supplied additional inform ation requested for the Significant Industrial User Permit Application. Columbia applied for and rece ived a permit to remove a storage tank from the facility. The City of Dallas Fire Department conducted a reinspection of the site and issued a notice that all previously noted hazards were corre cted . February 17, 20 12: A meeting was held on site with Pretreatment, Storm Water, Code, and City Attorney representatives. The City requested additional enlargements of piping schematics. Columbia produced the requested additio nal enlargements of schematics. The City requested additional information regarding facility processes for the Significant Industrial User Permit, Columbia produced requested additional process informati on. The City requested additional changes to the storm water pollution prevention plan. Columbia made requested changes while City Inspectors were on-site. A City Code Inspecto r toured the facility and did not note any additional work that needed to be accomplished for compliance. The City requested historical permitting documentation for the facility. City Pretreatment Inspectors further reviewed an area underlying a metal plate on the pro perty and it was determined an abandoned pipe remained under the property. Columbia uncovered the abandoned pipe. A City Storm Water Inspector and camera crew visited the site and videoed the abandoned pipe to establish the pipe did not connect to any additional piping or conve y any discharge. Columbia informed the City Storm Water Inspector on-site that Columbia intended to remove thc abandoned pip e immediately and inquired whethe r the City Storm Water Inspector desired to remain to witness the removal. The City Storm Water Inspector indicated oversight was unnecessary. Columbia proceeded to remove the abandoned piping leaving a section in ground due to a concern that additional removal would damage surrou nding trees. few hours later the City Attorneys ' Office sent correspondence requesting City Personnel be present for removal of the pipe and that representatives could be available on February 20,2012 to witness removal of the remaining pipe. Columbia informed the City it had removed a majority of the pipe but that it intended to cap the remaining pipe in place to ensure no concerns regarding any use of the pipe and would wait to do so until February 20, 2012 if City personne l wished to witness the activity. Februa ry 20, 2012: Columbia was finalizing preparations for capping the pipe upon City personnel arrival when the remaining pipe section moved as the surrounding dirt was being excavated for access to the pipe. It was determined the remaining pipe section was small and removal could be accomplished without damage to surrounding trees. City personnel from the City Attorneys' Office and torm Water Section arrived and confirmed the pipe had been completely removed from the ground. City personnel indica ed they were satisfied with the remo val and they did not have any additional items to be addressed. Columbia provided histori cal permitting documents for the facility as requested on February 17,20 i 2.
Bowers and Mi.-'Guire
A/arch 15, 20]2 7
February 23, 2012: The City of Dallas provided regarding calculations produced by Columbia. The City requested additional schematics of the plumbing with a date subsequent to February 17, 2012 and information regarding Best Management Practices. City raised concerns regarding alleged observations on 20,2012 (previously undisclosed to Columbia). The City requested an update on the status of implementation of erosion control not mentioned measures, also apparently a concern from the February 20, 2012 site visit, while present on the site. Prior to February 23, 2012 the erosion control measures could not be put in place due to the weather and work in the area. February 24, 2012: Columbia provided newly dated engineering schematics. Columbia provided information regarding Best Management Practices. Columbia removed debris from the storm wateroutfall vicinity. Columbia placed Curlex in the outfall area at the City of Dallas' request. The City responded with additional questions regarding engineering calculations and Best Management Practices. February 27, 2012: Columbia provided additional engineering calculations and information regarding Best Management Practices. Columbia proposed the City inspect the site to verify requested work had been completed. The City to date has declined to undertake such on-site inspection. February 28" 2012: The City inspected and approved Columbia's removal of the storage tank from the property. Columbia requested a meeting with City of Dallas representatives. The City declined such meeting. March 2, 2012: City questioned the of additional piping on the property. As person and correspondence, Columbia is not aware of any previously stated, numerous times unidentified pipes on the property.
Bowers and McGuire March 15,2012
Page S
Additionally, the City requested supplemental information regarding Best Man agement Practices. Columbia does not deny that the City, pursuant to Dallas City Code Section 49-48(b), has the ability to require best management practices (BMPs) be implemented. What Columbia disputes is that the City should undertake direct oversight of the contents of those BMPs . However, the City indicated it would like such oversight and Columbia will work with the City to develop acceptable BMPs. To ensure this issue is adequately addressed will require a meeting between the City of Dallas Pretreatment Section and Columbia to ensure the City unde rstands Columbia's processes. Such meeting is hereby requested. Furthermore, the zero tolerance policy for Columbia is a new version of the previous BMP policy. The document is undat ed because it has not been signed; these are to be used in training of persons reem ployed at the facility. On March 2, 2012, the City also produced as Exhibit D, a Storm Water Inspection report. In the report, the inspector indicates tha t I was the citizen contact he met with on s ite. Disturb ingly, the inspector never actually spoke with me or any of the Columbia representatives when he was on site and did not discuss any of the findings he noted in the repo rt, despite repeated requests regarding whether there were additional concerns that needed to be addressed. The City also raised questions regarding the results of sampling it performed on January 23, 2012, after Columb ia ceased operations. Columbia has a number of concerns regarding how those samples were taken. Columbia had not been in operation for a number of days and the only materials that could have been flowing through the lines was flushing water from the City of Dallas fire hydrant and the dyes that were used to dye test the plumb ing lines. To the extent there was any flow through the outfalls it could only ha ve come from those sources. However, Columbia does not believe there was any actual flow through the lines at the time and therefore no " storm water discharge" was available to sample. A sample of standing water wou ld undoubtedly result in a high E. Coli count. Furthermore, sampling taken during a time when the facility is not in operati on and a storm event is not occurring is not a representative sample that would constitute any bas is for determi ning comp liance with a storm water discharge permit or applicable reg ulations.
Furthe rmore, the City alleges Columbia has not com plied with the Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") requireme nts promu lgated by the Texas Commission on Enviromn ental Quality ("TC EQ") on May 11, 20 ] I. First, app ropriate storm water sampl ing has not indicated a violation of TMDLs. Secondly, the TMDL promulgated on May 11, 20 11 itself indicates the spec ific measures to be utilized for compliance with TMDLs have not been finalized and esta blished and therefore there are no monitoring requi rements with which to comply. Columbia is in compliance with Section 7(d) of TXR050000. 3
Further, on March 2, 2012, the City enunciated four additional, previously undisclosed concerns.
3
A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is available on site and " ill be made available within 2 hours of any request for review on-site in compliance with applicable torm water regulations.
and j';1cGuire
March 15, 2012
UJ
Columbia has conclusively addressed the City of Dallas' concerns and complies with allowed to restart operations. Dallas City Code. Columbia again, respectfully requests it appropriate City representatives to progress Columbia further requests a meeting with in this matter. I appreciate your attention to this matter and eagerly await your prompt response. Very truly yours,
MUNSCH HARDT KOPf' & BARR, P.C.
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns Concern Date City made Columbia aware of concern January 20,2012 Relocation of City Monitoring Response Action Response Date Additional Notes
Relocate City Monitoring i Station
,
Applied for permit to relocate monitoring station on January 20,2012; relocation inspected and approved on January 23,2012
",,""---"'~~'~'~~-
January 19, to Sewer and points
Dye testing and video taping of camera inspections of all active pipmg on facility
Dye testing and camera inspections began on January 19, 2012 and continued through January 23, 2012 - videos of lines were produced to the City on January 25,2012 1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24, 2012
1) a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer
to wastewater
1
H
Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns interference by Dallas of
January
2012
Alleged violation ofDCC19118.2(a) discharge not entirely storm water
1) As a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer drains
2) Columbia obtained permits and City approval for 2 awnings to prevent inflow and infiltration
1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24,2012
2) Awning penn it application was submitted on February 7, 2012; the City inspected and approved awnings on February 15, 2012
January 24,2012
Alleged violation ofDCC 19~ 118.2(f)(2) potential discharge of industrial waste to storm water drainage
1) As a temporary measure Columbia blocked the storm sewer drains 2) Columbia obtained permits and City annroval
1) Temporary measures were installed on January 24,2012
January 25, 2012 City representatives noted concern addressed
2) Awning permit application was submitted on Fehruarv 7,
2 awnings
2
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns pennits and City approval for 2 awnings to prevent inflow and infiltration January 24,2012 Alleged violation File SIU ofDCC 49-46(a) Permit requirement for a application Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit based on quantity of wastewater discharge February 7, 2012; the City inspected and approved the awnings on February 15, 2012 City provided application on January 26,2012, Columbia submitted an application to the City on February 14,2012 with supplemental information provided on February 16, 2012 and February 17, 2012 Compliance with the Dallas Fire Department Inspection report was documented by the Dallas Fire Department on February 16,
January 24,2012
Alleged violation Secure or remove of Section containers 3003.5.3 of Chapter 16 of the Uniform Code, containers not secured
3
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns potable water contamination device backflow prevention device; The City of Dallas approved the installation of the backflow prevention device on February 6, 2012 Permit to complete installation of floor drains and cover other drains was obtained on January 31, 2012; Installation and modifications were approved by the City on February 6, 2012. Columbia applied for permit on January 31, 2012 ; The City approved the completed replacement of the pipe on February 7, 2012 On February 1, 2012, Columbia applied for a permit to install a
January 24, 2012
Alleged violation of Section 402. 1 ofDCC Chapter 54 plumbing fixtures not constructed of approved materials
Install floor sinks and modify drains
January 24,2012
Alleged violation of Section 704.2 ofDCC Chapter 54 the size of drainage is reduced in direction of flow
Replace 6inch pipe with 8-inch pipe
January 24, 20 12
Alleged violation of Section 801.2 of DCC Chapter 54 no protec tion against backflow
Install backflow prevention
backflow
prevention device ; The City of Dallas approved the installation of the bac1d1ow prevention device on February 6,
Page 4 of 11
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns 2012 Install floor sinks and cover drains Applied permit for installation of floor drains and covering drains on January 31, 2012; City approved installation and covering of drains on February 6, 2012 Applied for permit for installation on February 2, 2012; City approved installation of interceptor on February 10, 2012 Dye testing and camera inspections began on January 19, 2012 and continued through January 23, 2012 -videos of were produced to on
of Section 802.1 ofDCC Chapter 54 food-handling equipment allegedly not discharged through an indirect waste pipe
January 24,2012
Alleged violation of Section 1003.1 ofDCC Chapter 54 interceptors and I separators not provided
Install additional interceptor
January 24, 2012
Alleged violation Dye testing and video of Section taping of 1104.2 of DCC camera Chapter 54 inspections of sanitary and all active storm discharge lines not entirely piping on
5
Table Summarizing Columb ia's Responses to City Concerns January 24,2012 Alleged violation of DCC Section 19-19(a) operation of slaughterhouse as an alleged nuisance Alleged violation of Section 271l(b)(9) ofDCC holes, cracks, loose surface materials that are health or safety hazards in or on floors , walls , or ceilings Alleged violation of Section 19118.8(b)(2) of DCC, Notice of Intent (NO!) not available for review within two hours of request Alleged violation of Section 30 1.1.1 Chapter 52 building without permit Patch holes in Co lumbia immediately walls and began address ing floors and remo ve ceiling concerns on January 25,201 2 tiles with and continued holes work through February 17, 20 12
-
City has not produced any nuisance complaints on file with the City
January 24, 2012
During a Code Inspector's inspection on February 17, 2012 the Code Inspector noted compliance
Jan uary 24, 2012
Provide Copy ofNOI as submitted to TCEQ
Provided during inspection on February 17, 2012
January 24, 2012
erncc
Systems reviewed by Building Inspection
Columbia worked of Dallas; Building Inspection Department from January 25 February 15, 2012 to review and address these
issues. The
Building Inspection Department indicated tasks were completed . January 25, 20 12 Requested Engineering Produce engineerin g Engineering calculations were
Page 6 of l l
Table Summarizing Columbia' s Respons es to City Concerns Calcu lations calculations provided to the City on January 25,20 12 Plumbing schematics were initially provided on January 25, 20 12; Revisions based on work at the site were produced on February 14, 2012, February 17, 20 12, and February 24, 20 12 Provided documentation to City on January 27,2012 Columb ia ' s RPZ backflow preventio n device passed inspection on January 30 , 2012 Provided response on March 2, 20 12 indicating sampling was not compliant with requirements for analysis of storm water compliance Inspection report was supplied to Col um bia on February 7, 20 12; Colum bia passed reinspection on I ~ v~'~~J 16,
I .... ,
~-
January 25, 2012
Requested Schematics of Plum bing
Provide plumb ing schematics and updates to same
January 25,20 12
Requested additional.storm water docum entation Requested inspection of RPZ backflow prevention device
Compl ete and provide add itional documentation Particip ate in inspect ion of RPZ backflow prevention device
January 26, 2012
February 2, 2012
City produced sampling results from January 23, 2012
Review results
February 3, 2012
City Fire Department Inspec tion
Comply with notations from ins pection report
Page 7 of 11
Tab le Summarizing Columbia' s Responses to City Concern s 2012 February 7, 2012 Requ ested additional storm water documentation Provide additional storm water documentation Provided documentation on February 8, 2012 , on February 14, 20 12, and on February 17, 2012 Provided documents on February 20, 2012 Piping was exposed for inspection and videoing on February 17, 2012; Piping was removed (save one small end secti on) on February 17, 2012; Fina l portion of piping was removed on February 20, 2012; City of Dallas repre sentatives inspected and reviewed removal of piping on February 20, 2012 and indicated satisfaction with the removal While the City of Dallas inspector on site declined to remain on site to witness remo val on February 17, 20 12 the City subse quen tly, and after the removal had occurred, requested the removal be witnessed by City of Dallas representatives. On February 20,2012 City of Dallas representatives indicated the City was satisfied with the removal.
February 17, 2012
Requ ested histo rical permit information
Provide historical permit informat ion Unearth piping for inspecti on and video taping by City of Dallas; Remove piping from ground
February 17,2012
Concerns regarding aband oned piping
I
February 23 and 24,20 12
Requ ested addi tional
engineenng
calculation
Provide additional information
Provided add itional information on February 27,
Page 8 of 11
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns information February 23, 2012 Requested additional schematics Provide additional schematics 2012 Provided additional schematics on February 24, 2012 Provided additional information on February 24, 2012 and February 27, 2012 Debris was removed on February 24, 2012 Erosion controls were placed at outfalls on February 24, 2012 Erosion controls could not be placed in area previously to work in the area and weather
February 23,2012
Requested Best Management Practices (BMP) information
Provide additional information
2012
Debris in storm water outfall Vicinity
Remove debris
2012
Requested update on erosion control measures
Place erosion controls at outfalls at City'S request
Questions
Respond to questions
Questions were responded to on March 15, a
1
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns ng verified. March 2,2012 Requested additional information regarding BMPs Respond to questions BMPsand request meeting with City of Dallas Review and respond Additional response offered on March 15, 2012 and meeting requested with City of Dallas to resolve concerns Responded on March 15,2012 noting noncompliance of sampling with regulations for determining compliance with storm water regulations on March 15,2012 thatTMDL regulations do not establish particular practices or methods compliance at this time Columbia is
March 2, 2012
Questions regarding January 23, 2012 sampling results
March 2, 2012
.TMDL
I comp lance I
r
Review TMDL regulations
March 2,
Compliance
10
I
Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Conce rns and regulations 2012, Columbia applied for a permitto install a backflow prevention device; The City of Dallas approved the installatio n of the backflow prevention device on February 6, 2012. Additi onally, City of Dallas service connections are maintained on site. Responded on March 15,2012 verifying the water well is not located within 500 feet of an animal feed lot Responded on March 15,2012 indicating Columbia does not fall within solid wast e regulations due to lack of production of hazardous or acutely hazardous waste or greater than 220 pounds per month of Class 1 industrial waste insufficient to provide a basis for a more complete response
March 2, 2012
Water Well Locat ion within 500 feet of animal feed lot
Review location of water well
March 2, 2012
Solid Waste Disposal registrations
Review Solid Waste Disposal Regulations
I I
Page 11 of l I
Attachment A
