Columbia Packing attorney accuses Dallas officials of harassment

8/2/2019 Columbia Packing attorney accuses Dallas officials of harassment

1/21

DTPC

ATTORNE:YS& COUNSELORSDallas IHouston I Austin

March 15,2012Via Facsimi/e(214) 670-0622Electronic .Mail chris.bowerS@da/lascitvltalLcom &james.mcguire(ji)dal/ascitrltal/.comChristopher BowersFirst Assistant City AttorneyCity OfDallas1500 Marilla Rm 7DNDallas, TX 7520 IJames B. McGuireAssistant City AttorneyCity ofDallas1500 Marilla Street 7BNDallas, TX 75201

Re: Columbia Packing Co., Inc.Dear Counsel:

3800 Lincffin PfazaSO;} N. AKard Street

Dallas. Texas75201-1359'-fain 14855.7500Fax214.855.75


2/21

Bowersand i"1cGuireMarch 15, 20122

report detailing current and historical conditions the facility" is overreachingand unnecessary to anevaluation of the current situation. If the City has specific questions it should submit them toColumbia. If City does not have specific questions, it should simply admit Columbia hasconclusively and comprehensively cured all alleged violations at site and has documented such tothe Citymultiple times.The City's constant portrayal Columbia as an uncooperative and unresponsive entity isfactually incorrect and offensive. Specifically, the City's claims that Columbia has not acted in goodfaith or even done the bare minimum to address alleged code violations is simply untrue. Columbiahas taken extensivemeasure to address City allegations. Columbia applied for and obtained a permitto begin resolving this matter as early as January 20,2012; three days later, Columbia's permit wasinspected 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, CityRepresentatives expressly acknowledged that Columbia had. in fact, addressed many of the City'sconcerns. Columbiahas continued to quickly take extensive action to address City concerns at eachtum and with eachnew 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 previouslyunidentified issues. From the beginning of this process, Columbia has requested a comprehensiveletter listing the City of Dallas's alleged violations at the facility. which the City has refused toprovide. always reserving concerns and relaying additional lists that Columbiamust and does resolveand which then require additional documentation and inspections. Notably, Columbia has requestedgroup meetings with an necessary City personnel to ensure all concerns are collectively,efficiently, and completely addressed; the City of Dallas denied Columbia's most recent requestfor such a meeting.

constant mischaracterizationColumbia'sbutColumbia is ottensrve,


3/21

BowersandMcGuire2012

anything underlying the metal plate. Columbia, the same afternoon, exposed entirety ofunderlying pipe for inspection by tile City of Dallas and revealed there was nol:hirlg flowing throughthe pipe for quite some time.There is no documentation of the abandoned pipe on any forms submitted to the City ofDallas because, as was verified by the City of Dallas, piping was not used as a conveyance. Infact, pipe was not connected to any conveyance. It was, quite simply, an abandoned portion ofpipe, compacted at multiple points with dirt and brick, incapable of conveying any flow, all factsverified by City personnel. It is not necessary to document piping that is not in use on anyschematics or forms depicting active piping, nor is it a violation of any Dallas City Code to haveabandoned piping which does not convey wastewater under you facility. Furthermore, Columbia didnot refuse to inform its engineer of the piping but rather asserted that such information does not

the schematics depicting active plumbingon the property.In footnote 1 to your March 2012 letter you indicate that Columbia's response to yourrequest for an engineer to certify there are no more "unknown" pipes on the property implies thatthere are additional pipes. However, my February 24, 2012 correspondence continues on to note thatthere are no other known connected or unconnected pipes on facility. This information, combinedwith the fact that the City, along with Columbia, has videoed and dye tested an lines and dischargepoints 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 tothe City and has in fact done everything it can to make the property available for inspection andreview by City inspectors. However, the City is constantly, but unreasonably, demanding additionalconfirmation, requiring multiple tapings and testing and repeated inspections of areas

already reviewed. Columbia not once during process refused a Inspector access toarea of property and been willing to provide all available records applicable to City 'sconcerns. It is hard to a more cooperative and to believe whatown have and it is

refusal to believe Columbiaoffered to undertake


4/21

January 20, 2012: Columbia applied for received a permit to relocate the City'smonitoring station, according to City of Dallas specifications, on the sanitary sewer line. Columbiarelocated City Monitoring Station. Videotaping of piping at facility was conducted, copies ofwhich have been provided to the CityofDallas.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, copiesof which have been provided to the City of Dallas. The City of Dallas conducted additional dyetesting of plumbing lines on site.

January 24, 2012: The City transmitted correspondence listing items to be addressed byColumbia. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary City personnel to resolve City concerns.January 25, 2012: A meeting between the City ofDallas representatives and Columbiawasheld to discuss City concerns. City representatives remarked that a number of the City's concernshad already been addressed. The City requested engineering calculations, schematics plumbingdiagrams, and additional updates to storm water pollution prevention plan paperwork. Columbiaproduced engineering calculations, videos of piping conducted on January 20 and 23, 2012, andschematics ofpiping at the facility.January 26, 2012: The City requested inspection of the RPZ backflow prevention device atthe facility. The City provided an application for a Significant Industrial User Permit, which notablycannot be finalized until Columbia is back in operation and which will not be necessary if Columbiais not conducting slaughtering operations as water usage below the threshold average of

25,000 gallons per day discharge. Columbia coordinating with Inspectiondepartment regarding additional work to be done at the property.January 27, 2012: Columbia forwarded requested storm water documentanon to the


5/21

Bowers and IIk


6/21

Bowers 'and McGuireMarch 15, 2012Page 6

February 15, 2012: The City ofDallas requested storm water documentation. Columbia hadpreviously supplied the requested information. Columbia requested a meeting with necessary Citypersonnel to review progress on site. The City of Dallas inspected and approved the awningconstruction. Columbia continued coordinating with the Building Inspection department regardingadditional work to be done at the property;February 16, 2012: Columbia supplied additional information requested for the SignificantIndustrial User Permit Application. Columbia applied for and received a permit to remove a storagetank from the facility. The City of Dallas Fire Department conducted a reinspection of the site andissued a notice that all previously noted hazards were corrected.February 17, 2012: 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 additional enlargements of schematics. The City requestedadditional information regarding facility processes for the Significant Industrial User Permit,Columbia produced requested additional process information. The City requested additional changesto the storm water pollution prevention plan. Columbia made requested changes while CityInspectors were on-site. A City Code Inspector toured the facility and did not note any additionalwork that needed to be accomplished for compliance. The City requested historical permittingdocumentation for the facility. City Pretreatment Inspectors further reviewed an area underlying ametal plate on the property 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 thesite and videoed the abandoned pipe to establish the pipe did not connect to any additional piping orconvey any discharge. Columbia informed the City Storm Water Inspector on-site that Columbiaintended to remove thc abandoned pipe immediately and inquired whether the City Storm WaterInspector desired to remain to witness the removal. The City Storm Water Inspector indicatedoversight was unnecessary. Columbia proceeded to remove the abandoned piping leaving a sectionin ground due to a concern that additional removal would damage surrounding trees. few hourslater the City Attorneys ' Office sent correspondence requesting City Personnel be present for removalof the pipe and that representatives could be available on February 20,2012 to witness removal of theremaining pipe. Columbia informed the City it had removed a majority of the pipe but that itintended to cap the remaining pipe in place to ensure no concerns regarding any use of the pipe andwould wait to do so until February 20, 2012 if City personnel wished to witness the activity.

Feb ruary 20, 2012: Columbia was finalizing preparations for capping the pipe upon Citypersonnel arrival when the remaining pipe section moved as the surrounding dirt wasbeing excavatedfor access to the pipe. It was determined the remaining pipe section was small and removal could beaccomplished without damage to surrounding trees. City personnel from the City Attorneys' Officeand torm Water Section arrived and confirmed the pipe had been completely removed from theground. City personnel indica ed they were satisfied with the removal and they did not have anyadditional items to be addressed. Columbia provided histori cal permitting documents for the facilityas requested on February 17,20 i 2.


7/21

Bowers andMi.-'GuireA/arch 15, 20]2

7

February 23, 2012: The City of Dallas provided regardingcalculationsproduced by Columbia. TheCity requestedadditional schematics of the plumbingwith adate subsequent to February 17, 2012 and information regarding Best Management Practices.City raised concerns regarding alleged observations on 20,2012 (previously undisclosed toColumbia). The City requested an update on the status of implementation of erosion controlmeasures, also apparently a concern from the February 20, 2012 site visit, not mentionedwhile present on the site. Prior to February 23, 2012 the erosion control measures could not be put inplace due to the weather and work in the area.February 24, 2012: Columbia provided newly dated engineering schematics. Columbiaprovided information regarding Best Management Practices. Columbia removed debris from thestorm wateroutfall vicinity. Columbia placed Curlexin the outfall area at the CityofDallas' request.

The City responded with additional questions regarding engineering calculations and BestManagementPractices.February 27, 2012: Columbia provided additional engineering calculations and informationregarding Best Management Practices. Columbia proposed the City inspect the site to verifyrequested work had been completed. The City to date has declined to undertake such on-siteinspection.February 28" 2012: The City inspected and approved Columbia's removal of the storagetank from the property. Columbia requested a meeting with City ofDallas representatives. The Citydeclined suchmeeting.March 2, 2012: City questioned the of additional piping on the property. Aspreviously stated, numerous times person and correspondence, Columbia is not aware of anyunidentifiedpipes on the property.


8/21

Bowers andMcGuireMarch 15,2012Page S

Additionally, the City requested supplemental information regarding Best ManagementPractices. Columbia does not deny that the City, pursuant to Dallas City Code Section 49-48(b), hasthe ability to require best management practices (BMPs) be implemented. What Columbia disputes isthat the City should undertake direct oversight of the contents of those BMPs . However, the Cityindicated it would like such oversight and Columbia will work with the City to develop acceptableBMPs. To ensure this issue is adequately addressed will require a meeting between the City ofDallas Pretreatment Section and Columbia to ensure the City understands Columbia's processes.Such meeting is hereby requested. Furthermore, the zero tolerance policy for Columbia is a newversion of the previous BMP policy. The document is undated because it has not been signed; theseare to be used in training ofpersons reemployed at the facility.

On March 2, 2012, the City also produced as Exhibit D, a Storm Water Inspection report. Inthe report, the inspector indicates tha t I was the citizen contact he met with on s ite. Disturbingly, theinspector never actually spoke with me or any of the Columbia representatives when he was on siteand did not discuss any of the findings he noted in the report, despite repeated requests regardingwhether 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 Columbia ceased operations . Columbia has a number of concerns regarding how thosesamples were taken. Columbia had not been in operation for a number of days and the only materialsthat could have been flowing through the lines was flushing water from the City of Dallas firehydrant and the dyes that were used to dye test the plumb ing line s. To the extent there was any flowthrough the outfalls it could only have come from those sources. However, Columbia does notbelieve there was any actua l flow through the lines at the time and therefore no "storm waterdischarge" was available to sample. A sample of standing water wou ld undoubtedly result in a highE. Coli count. Furthermore, sampling taken during a time when the facility is not in operation and astorm event is not occurring is not a representative sample that would constitute any basis fordetermining compliance with a storm water discharge permit or applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the City alleges Columbia has not complied with the Total Maximum DailyLoad ("TMDL") requirements promulgated by the Texas Commission on Enviromnental Quality("TCEQ") on May 11, 20 ] I. First, app ropriate storm water sampl ing has not indicated a violation ofTMDLs. Secondly, the TMDL promulgated on May 11, 2011 itself indicates the specific measures tobe utilized for compliance with TMDLs have not been finalized and established and therefore thereare no monitoring requi rements with which to comply. Columbia is in compliance with Section 7(d)ofTXR050000.

3

Further, on March 2, 2012, the City enunciated four additional, previously undisclosedconcerns.

3 A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is available on site and " il l be made available within 2 hours ofany request for review on-site in compliance with applicable torm water regulations.


9/21

and j';1cGuireMarch 15,2012

UJ

Columbia has conclusively addressed the City of Dallas' concerns and complies withDallas City Code. Columbia again, respectfully requests it allowed to restart operations.Columbia further requests a meeting with appropriate City representatives to progressin this matter. I appreciate your attention to this matter and eagerly await your prompt response.Very truly yours,MUNSCH HARDT KOPf' & BARR, P.C.


10/21

Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns

Date City made Concern Response Response Date AdditionalColumbia aware of Action NotesconcernJanuary 20,2012 Relocation of Relocate City Applied forCity Monitoring Monitoring permit to relocatei Station monitoring, station on January

20,2012;relocationinspected andapproved onJanuary 23,2012

" , , " " - - - " ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ -January 19, Dye testing Dye testing andto and video cameraSewer taping of inspections beganand camera on January 19,points inspections of 2012 andall active continued through

pipmg on January 23, 2012facility - videos of lineswere produced tothe City onJanuary 25,2012

1) a 1) Temporarytemporary measures weremeasure installed onColumbia January 24, 2012blocked thestorm sewer

towastewater

1 H


11/21

Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Concerns

interference byDallas of

January 2012 Alleged violationofDCC19-118.2(a)discharge notentirely stormwater

1) As atemporarymeasureColumbiablocked thestorm sewerdrains2) Columbiaobtainedpermits andCity approvalfor 2 awningsto preventinflow andinfiltration

1)Temporarymeasures wereinstalled onJanuary 24,2012

2) Awning pennitapplication wassubmitted onFebruary 7, 2012;the City inspectedand approvedawnings onFebruary 15,2012

January 24,2012 Alleged violationofDCC 1 9 118.2(f)(2)potentialdischarge ofindustrial wasteto stormwater drainage

1) As atemporarymeasureColumbiablocked thestorm sewerdrains2) Columbiaobtainedpermits andCity annroval2 awnings

2 1

1) Temporarymeasures wereinstalled onJanuary 24,2012

2) Awning permitapplication wassubmitted onFehruarv 7,

January 25,2012 Cityrepresentativesnoted concernaddressed


12/21

Table SummarizingColumbia's Responses to City Concerns

January 24,2012

January 24,2012

Alleged violationofDCC 49-46(a)requirement for aSignificantIndustrialUser(SIU) Permitbased on quantityofwastewaterdischarge

Alleged violationofSection3003.5.3 ofChapter 16of theUniformCode, containersnot secured

pennits andCity approvalfor 2 awningsto preventinflowandinfiltrationFile SIUPermitapplication

Secureorremovecontainers

February 7, 2012;the City inspectedand approved theawnings onFebruary 15,2012City providedapplication onJanuary 26,2012,Columbiasubmitted anapplication to theCity on February14,2012 withsupplementalinformationprovided onFebruary 16,2012 andFebruary 17,2012Compliancewiththe Dallas FireDepartmentInspection reportwas documentedby the DallasFireDepartmentonFebruary 16,

3 1


13/21


potable water device backflowcontamination preventiondevice; The CityofDallasapproved theinstallation of thebackflowprevention deviceon February 6,2012

January24, 2012 Alleged violation Install floor Permit toof Section 402.1 sinks and completeofDCC Chapter modify drains installation of54 plumbing floor drains andfixtures not cover other drainsconstructed of was obtained onapproved January 31, 2012;materials Installation andmodificationswere approved by

the City onFebruary 6, 2012.January 24,2012 Alleged violation Replace 6- Columbia applied

of Section 704.2 inch pipe with for permit onofDCC Chapter 8-inch pipe January 31, 2012 ;54 the size of The Citydrainage is approved thereduced in completeddirection of flow replacement ofthe pipe onFebruary 7, 2012

January 24, 2012 Alleged violation Install On February 1,of Section 801.2 backflow 2012, ColumbiaofDCC Chapter prevention applied for a54 no protec tion permit to installaagainst backflow backflow

preventiondevice ; The CityofDallasapproved theinstallation of thebac1d1owprevention deviceon February 6,

Page 4 of 11


14/21


2012

of Section 802.1ofDCC Chapter54 food-handlingequipmentallegedly notdischargedthrough anindirect wastepipe

Install floorsinks andcover drains

Appliedpermit forinstallation offloor drains andcovering drainson January 31,2012; Cityapprovedinstallation andcovering ofdrainson February 6,2012

January 24,2012

January 24, 2012

Alleged violationof Section1003.1 ofDCCChapter 54interceptors andI separators notprovided

Alleged violationof Section1104.2 ofDCCChapter 54sanitary andstorm dischargelines not entirely

Installadditionalinterceptor

Dye testingand videotaping ofcamerainspections ofall activepiping on

5

Applied forpermit forinstallation onFebruary 2, 2012;City approvedinstallation ofinterceptor onFebruary 10,2012Dye testing andcamerainspections beganon January 19,2012 andcontinued throughJanuary 23, 2012-videos ofwere produced toon


15/21

Table Summarizing Columb ia's Responses to City Concerns

January 24,2012 Alleged violation City has notofDCC Section produced any19-19(a) nuisanceoperation of complaints onslaughterhouse file with theas an alleged Citynuisance

January24, 2012 Alleged violation Patch holes in Columbia During a Codeof Section 27- walls and immediately Inspector's1l(b)(9) ofDCC floors and began addressing inspection onholes, cracks, remove ceiling concerns on February 17,loose surface tiles with January 25,2012 2012 the Codematerials that are holes and continued Inspector notedhealth or safety work through compliancehazards in or on February 17,floors , walls , or 2012ceilings -

January 24, 2012 Alleged violation Provide Copy Provided duringof Section 19- ofNOI as inspection on118.8(b)(2) of submitted to February 17,DCC, Notice of TCEQ 2012Intent (NO!) notavailable forreview withintwo hours ofrequest

January 24, 2012 Alleged violation Systems Columbia workedof Section reviewed by of301.1.1 erncc Building Dallas; BuildingChapter 52 Inspection Inspectionbuilding without Department frompermit January 25 -February 15,

2012 to reviewand address theseissues. TheBuildingInspectionDepartmentindicated taskswere completed .

January 25, 2012 Requested Produce EngineeringEngineering engineering calculations were

Page 6 of l l


16/21

Ta ble Summarizing Columbia 's Responses to City Concerns

Calcu lations calculations provided to theCity on January25,20 12

January 25, 2012 Requested Provide PlumbingSchematics of plumb ing schematics werePlumbing schema tics initially provided

and updates to on January 25,same 20 12; Revisions

based on work atthe site wereproduced onFebruary 14,2012, February17, 2012, andFebruary 24,2012

January 25 ,2012 Requested Complete and Providedadditional.storm provide documentation towater add ition al City on Januarydocumentation documentatio n 27,2012

January 26, 2012 Requested Participate in Columbia 's RPZinspection o f inspection o f backflowRPZ backflow RP Z backflow prevention deviceprevention prevention passed inspectiondevice device on January 30 ,

2012February 2, 2012 City produced Re vie w results Providedsampling results response on

from January 23, Ma rch 2, 20122012 indicating

sampling was notcompliant withrequirements foranalysis of stormwater com pliance

February 3, 2012 City Fire Co mp ly with Inspection repor tDepartment notations from was su pplied toInspection inspection Columbi a on

report Februar y 7, 20 12;Columbia passedreinspection on

I .... ,I v ' ~ ~ J 16,

Page 7 of 11


17/21

Table Summarizing Columbia' s Responses to City Concerns

2012February 7, 2012 Requested Provide Providedadditional storm additional documentation on

water storm water February 8, 2012,documentation documentation on February 14,2012, and onFebruary 17,2012

February 17, 2012 Requested Provide Providedhistorical permit historical documents oninformation permit February 20,information 2012

February 17,2012 Concerns Unearth Piping was While the Cityregarding piping for exposed for of Dallasabandoned inspectionand inspection and inspector onpiping video taping videoing on site declined to

by City of February 17, remain on siteDallas; 2012; Piping was to witnessRemove removed (save removal onpiping from one small end February 17,ground section) on 2012 the CityFebruary 17, subsequently,2012; Final and after theportion of piping removal hadwas removed on occurred,February 20, requested the2012; City of removal be

I Dallas witnessed byrepresentatives City of Dallasinspected and representatives.reviewed removal On Februaryof piping on 20,2012 CityFebruary 20, of Dallas2012 and representativesindicated indicated thesatisfaction wit h City wasthe removal satisfied withthe removal.

February 23 and Requested Provide Provided24,2012 additional additional additionalengineenng information information on

calculation February 27,

Page 8 of 11


18/21


information 2012February 23, 2012 Requested Provide Providedadditional additional additional

schematics schematics schematics onFebruary 24,2012

February 23,2012 Requested Best Provide ProvidedManagement additional additionalPractices (BMP) information information oninformation February 24,2012 andFebruary 27,

20122012 Debris in storm Remove Debris waswater outfall debris removed on

Vicinity February 24,20122012 Requested Place erosion Erosion controls Erosionupdate on controls at were placed at controls could

erosion control outfalls at outfalls on not be placed inmeasures City'S request February 24, area previously2012 to work inthe area and

weather

Questions Respond to Questions werequestions responded to on

March 15,a

1


19/21


ng verified.March 2,2012 Requested Respond to Additionaladditional questions response offered

information on March 15,regarding BMPs BMPsand 2012 andmeetingrequest requested withmeetingwith City ofDallas toCity ofDallas resolve concernsMarch 2, 2012 Questions Review and Responded onregarding respond March 15,2012January 23, 2012 noting

sampling results noncompliance ofsampling withregulations fordeterminingcompliance withstorm waterregulations

March 2, 2012 .TMDL Review onI r TMDL March 15,2012comp lance

regulations thatTMDLregulations do notestablishparticularpractices ormethodscompliance at thistime

March 2, Compliance Columbia is

10 I


20/21

Table Summarizing Columbia's Responses to City Conce rns

and 2012, Columbia insufficient toregulations applied for a provide a basispermitto install a for a morebackflow completeprevention responsedevice; The Cityof Dallasapproved theinstallation of thebackflowprevention deviceon February 6,2012.Additionally, Cityof Dallas serviceconnections aremaintained onsite.

March 2, 2012 Water Well Review Responded onLocation within location of March 15,2012500 feet of water well verifying theanimal feed lot water well is notlocated within500 feet of ananimal feed lot

March 2, 2012 Solid Waste Review Solid Responded onDisposal Waste March 15,2012registrations Disposal indicatingRegulations Columbia doesnot fall within

solid wasteregulations due tolack of productionof hazardous oracutely hazardouswaste or greaterthan 220 poundsper month of

I Class 1 industrialwasteI

Page 11 of l I


21/21

Attachment A

Documents

Columbia Packing attorney accuses Dallas officials of harassment