Boulder, CO - 11/11/1998

The Daily Camera

Chemical spill story surfaces slowly

By Katy Human
Camera Staff Writer

November 11, 1998 - Though more than 300 gallons of hydrochloric acid and another caustic substance spilled into Bear Creek in east Boulder on Nov. 4, it was Friday afternoon, two days later, before officials informed the public.

Most frightening to local resident Coral Bowman, people living adjacent to the creek immediately downstream of the spill were never informed about it, though a firefighter she queried the evening of the accident warned her against letting her dog drink creek water.

City Councilman Spense Havlick raised the issue at Tuesday's council meeting.

"There were residents living along the Bear Creek drainage who were very concerned they weren't notified about the spill," Havlick said.

The spill was discovered after University of Colorado workers scrubbed heating boilers in the Williams Village residence hall. The cleaning fluids, about 220 gallons of hydrochloric acid and another caustic chemical, ended up in the creek. The workers were unaware that Williams Village drains in to the creek.

At least 160 small fish died as toxic water swept downstream from the discharge point of 37th Street and Baseline Road.

City, county and University of Colorado officials cited several reasons for the delay.

The Wednesday spill came from a CU building, but CU released no information until Friday because "we didn't want to put out a release until the city did," said Jeannine Malmsbury, spokeswoman for the university.

The city delayed putting out a news release because a public relations specialist was out sick.

CU, city and county officials stressed that most importantly, emergency workers on the scene Wednesday evening determined the spill would not be harmful to human health. They also decided to wait to get more details on the incident rather than reporting it prematurely.

The highest pH level measured was about 12, said Boulder fire Capt. Steve Stolz. Measurements of pH range from 1, extremely acidic, to 14, extremely basic.

"Evidently, the battalion chief and the HAZMAT (hazardous material) individuals felt the pH was low enough and hazards reasonable enough ... that there would be no realistic harm," Stoltz said to explain why neighbors downstream of the spill were not contacted. "And if the public's not at risk, it's no use raising their concern."

"There could have been risk probably to animals," he added. "The people that did walk past were notified."

Bowman was one of those people and she worried about the spill because of what a hazardous materials worker told her when she walked by the site.

"He said 'There was a spill in the creek and we don't know what it is,' " Bowman said. The worker then told her not to let her dog drink the water, she said.

Allen Medine, a consultant with Boulder firm Water Science and Engineering, said he would have at least walked down the creek to inform anyone near the water of the danger.

"They certainly should have gone downstream to see if there was someone who had been exposed to the material," he said, upon hearing that workers recorded a pH level of 12.

"That's certainly a caustic environment," Medine said. "A pH of 12 is certainly not something you would like to be exposed to."

He said the length of time it would take for creek water to dilute the chemical to a minimal risk would depend upon the flow rate.