|
Friends of
Hurricane Creek
P.O.
Box 40836
Tuscaloosa, AL
35404
12/25/06
To; Russell
A. Kelly, Chief
Permits and
Services Division
ADEM
1400
Coliseum Blvd.
[Mailing address: PO Box
301463; Zip 36130-1463]
Montgomery,
Alabama 36110-2059
From; John
L. Wathen,
Hurricane CREEKKEEPER®
Dear Sir,
Please accept the following
comments in reference to Veolia ES Eagle Bluff Landfill, inc. Permit #
63-16.
The permit renewal application for
Veolia ES Eagle Bluff Landfill (“facility”) must be denied for the following
reasons.
Ongoing Permit
Violations
There are many permit
violations currently ongoing at this facility.
Despite ADEM’s defense that there
are only two inspectors for the entire north Alabama area, the facility
maintains ongoing violations of state and federal law and continued
non-compliance conditions.
The facility’s non-compliance is cause for ADEM to close the
facility under Code of Alabama Section I, E, item 1 “Duty to comply”:
“Any permit noncompliance, other than noncompliance
authorized by a variance, constitutes a violation of Code of Alabama 1975, §§
22-27-1 et seq., as amended and is
grounds for enforcement action, permit suspension, revocation, modification,
and/or denial of a permit renewal application.”
It is vital to understand that there is an approved
T.M.D.L. for Hurricane Creek requiring a significant reduction in turbidity and
siltation. The permit, as written, does not adequately address TMDL and will
not prevent further degradation of Hurricane Creek.
A complete environmental impact survey should be
undertaken to show how Veolia could operate without such degradation.
As of now there is runoff leaving the site from all sides
and is not being treated except on the South flank. Water leaving the site from
the North, East, & West are running unabated into Hurricane Creek as well
as a lake owned by a local resident, then on to Hurricane Creek.
(SEE PHOTO North Face 02 &
03)
02
03
The Facility Fails to Maintain Proper Operation and
Maintenance
The facility is in violation of
Section E item 6 of the permit, which requires,
“The
Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of control (and related appurtenances) that are installed or used by
the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit.”
In violation of this requirement,
there are currently no access roads to the sediment basins for cleanout or
sampling. Both ponds are in need of proper maintenance as required by law.
Monitoring
Site is Inaccessible
The end of pipe location is so
heavily overgrown with briars and brush it is evident that no one has been
there for sampling in years. Any reported sampling, is questionable at best
given the inaccessibility of the sampling site. (See
photo # 1 End of pipe)
Certification
of Construction is Required
In violation of, Section I, E,
item 12, the facility has failed to provide “Certification of Construction.” We
submit that there has been no certification of the additional acreage being
constructed in any way that will prevent the eminent discharge of pollutants
into the receiving stream.
Furthermore, there are no containment ponds associated with the
additional acreage.
(See photo 2 Aerial violation 1, and
3 Aerial violation 2)
No waste can be placed on this increment
until containment ponds are constructed and the current illegal discharging
without a permit, and offsite damage, are mitigated. Photo 3 aerial violation
2, above, clearly shows siltation throughout the surrounding woods.
A complaint was made to ADEM field
inspector Jim Parker over a year ago who, in turn, called Paul Dabbs in
Montgomery. Mr. Dabbs told me on the phone on Dec. 12 that he never inspected
concerning that complaint. Therefore no N.O.V was issued. He told me at that
time he did not visit this site but “once a year or so”. Mr. Dabbs also
informed me that he thought all of the water from the borrow pit went through
the ponds. Mr. Dabbs could have never walked over this site and without knowing
it does not. I suggest that in the future, inspections be done on the ground
instead of from the office and car... All water leaving the “borrow pit” runs
unabated and untreated into an unnamed tributary of Hurricane Creek.
I walked this tributary out from
the pit to the confluence of another stream coming in from above. The stream
above had no siltation. The stream coming from the borrow pit was heavily
silted in and the remainder of the tributary all the way to the confluence with
Hurricane Creek proper was silted in. There is a large sediment build up at the
mouth of the tributary.
(SEE photos Borrow pit 01, Borrow
pit o2 fence, borrow pit 03 silted trib, Borrow pit confluence 01)
Borrow
pit 01 is looking out of the borrow pit towards the trib.
Borrow pit o2 fence is downstream
of the railroad tracks. Note the silt fence hanging 2 feet above the creek.
This is not proper BMP’s.
Borrow pit
confluence 01, is of the confluence of the two streams.
The one on the right is coming
from upstream and is clear. The one on the left is Veolia. You can plainly see
the difference.
Borrow pit 03 silted trib, is just
that. The condition of the stream only worsens as it progresses toward
Hurricane Creek.
This has been reported to ADEM on
several occasions and still remains a chronic violation of the CWA and this
permits requirements. The lack of diligence on ADEM’s part, for whatever
reasons, has instilled an air of arrogance in this operator toward
environmental requirements and the welfare of our community. Since ADEM has
been less diligent due to “manpower” problems, we believe that ADEM needs to
issue less permits if they cannot adequately enforce the parameters of existing
permits. The reasoning of, “we don’t have the manpower or money to do a better
job” is simply admitting failure on the part of the State of Alabama. We
suggest to ADEM that if you do not have the manpower to enforce permits, Stop
issuing them. Before a permit is issued the data and surveys must be
ground-truthed for accuracy.
There is an old discarded waste
container that is being used as fuel containment. This does not meet designated
spill requirements. It has a full width, walk in gate on one end. It will not
contain potential spills. Fuel containment cells must be constructed all sides
contained and an impervious liner installed.
Failure to Achieve Inspection Requirements
The facility is also in
violation of Section I, E, item G, Line 2, and 3 “Inspection Requirements.” “The Permittee shall conduct random inspections of incoming
loads.”
No such random inspections of
incoming load are occurring at the facility. It has been observed that trucks come and go all day and no
one inspects the containers. The only person to see what is dumped is the bull
dozier operator. It is too late then. Most of the ground photographs included
here were taken while I was out there as a paying customer dumping limbs. I
have never seen such inspections. Drivers I have spoken with claim never to
have been inspected.
Confidential
Information
Section I item L, “Confidential
Information”
In certain circumstances, none of which apply here, the Permittee
may claim information submitted as confidential if the information is protected
under Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 22-39-18, as amended. However, given the history
of non-compliance at this facility, no information should be held confidential.
All information submitted should be available for public scrutiny.
The
Facility is in Violation of Open Burning Prohibition
Section II, “Open Burning”
states “The Permittee shall not allow
open burning without prior written approval from the Department and other
appropriate agencies. A burn request should be submitted in writing to the
Department outlining why that burn request should be granted. This request
should include, but not be limited to, specifically what areas will be
utilized, types of waste to be burned, the projected starting and completion
dates for the project, and the projected days and hours of operation. The
approval, if granted, shall be included in the operating record.”
There have been numerous incidents
where this facility has openly burned causing noxious odors to inundate the
entire area. Tuscaloosa fire Department has been called as well as ADEM. The
poisonous gases emitted during one of these burns causes great anxiety
throughout neighbors afraid of what they are being exposed to.
Prevention
of Unauthorized Disposal
The facility is in violation
of, Section II, C, “Prevention of unauthorized disposal “The Permittee shall follow the approved
procedures for the detecting and preventing the disposal of free liquids,
regulated hazardous waste, PCB's, and medical waste at the facility.”
On many occasions, Spanky’s Roto
Rooter trucks have been seen disposing material from their septic pumping
trucks and portable toilets in violation of Section II(C). Although raw sewage
is not considered a hazardous waste, it is a putrescible
material prohibited by the permit. On another occasion the City of
Tuscaloosa Sewer department disposed of several hundred cubic feet of contaminated
soil and material from a sewage spill estimated at over 1,000,000 gallons of
sewage.
Facility
Fails to Provide Requisite Boundary Markers
Under Section II, item E,
“Boundary Markers,” the facility is required to:
“
Ensure that the facility is identified with a sufficient number of permanent
boundary markers that are at least visible from one marker to the next.”
I have personally hiked around the
entire perimeter of the facility staying, as much as possible, off the
property. Since there were few boundary markers it was hard to tell when I
crossed the line, if at all.
I did find one property line that
was marked fairly well but not visible from the road. You have to go about 200
feet into the woods from 12th street. From there the line is marked
to the railroad crossing where the markers disappear. There are a few signs
along the tracks left over from the days when Superior owned the property. They
run about 50 feet from the railroad tracks on the opposite side from the ponds.
There are no markers anywhere around the pond. This leads me to believe that
the ponds may be located off the permitted property. There are no markers along
the Hurricane Creek side visible at all.
In my opinion it has been too long since any continuous
boundary markers existed. We request that a complete new survey be conducted to
insure no encroachment onto private property or over filling the new area. This
was observed along the line from 12th street. There were several
instances where construction steel has been pushed onto private land at some
time in the past. This facility has changed hands several times and I doubt in
anyone there knows, without doubt where any of the property lines are located.
Waste
Streams
Section III, item B, Waste
Streams” which prohibits unauthorized disposal of putrescible materials. “The
Permittee may accept for disposal non-putrescible and non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste including but not limited to wood, trees,
stumps, limbs, scrap metal, masonry, leaves, grass clippings, tires, paper,
cardboard, cloth scraps, yarn, discarded appliances and similar type of wastes
as allowed by ADEM.”
Old
tires are not approved C&D fill materials.
On many occasions, Spanky’s Roto
Rooter trucks have been seen disposing material from their septic pumping
trucks and portable toilets in violation of Section II(C). Raw Sewage is a
hazardous waste. On another occasion the City of Tuscaloosa Sewer department
disposed of several hundred cubic feet of contaminated soil and material from a
sewage spill estimated at over 1,000,000 gallons of sewage.
Appliances are not normally
allowed in a C&D landfill. ADEM and Veolia propose the disposal of
“discarded appliances.” While there is no formal mercury warning for Hurricane
Creek in place, the entire area and most of Alabama’s streams are impaired for
mercury pollution. Because
most appliances are equipped with mercury switches, which would further degrade
the waters with mercury pollution, they must not be allowed in the landfill
without proper impervious containment liners. Such containment liners must be installed anywhere
appliances may be placed. Whether or not Hurricane Creek is under a formal
mercury advisory, all precaution must be taken to ensure that no mercury what so ever be introduced into any
waterway of the United States.
Waste
Placement and Cover
The facility is in violation of
Alabama Code, Section III, item D, “Waste Placement and cover” which requires
that:
“All waste shall be spread in
layers two feet or less in thickness and thoroughly compacted weekly with
adequate landfill equipment prior to placing additional layers of waste or
placing the weekly cover. A minimum of six inches of compacted earth or other
alternative cover material approved by the Department shall be added at the
conclusion of each week's operation unless a variance is granted in Section
VIII”.
In violation of this requirement, no such variance exists
in this facility. It has been
observed and documented that no weekly compaction has occurred for weeks at a
time. The trash is placed as much as 10 to 15 feet thick and left for weeks
uncovered. With every heavy wind there is a shower of trash leaving the site.
(See Photos thick trash 01
office, 02, 03)
Thick trash 01 office was taken
in front of the office. The people running this operation know it is out
of compliance. They also know ADEM is not coming to inspect.
Thick Trash 02
Thick
Trash 04
The same location as 02, one week later. There is about 15 feet of new trash on
top of the 15 feet or so from prior weeks.
Thick Trash 03
Environmental Monitoring and
Treatment Structures
Section III, item I, “Environmental Monitoring and
Treatment Structures”
requires that:
“The Permittee shall provide protection and proper maintenance
of environmental monitoring and treatment structures.”
The facility is in violation of this requirement for
several reasons.
As was stated
above, there are currently no access roads to the sediment basins for cleanout or
sampling. The ponds are both in need of cleaning. The road leading to the ponds washed out
over a year ago.
The end of pipe location is
heavily overgrown with briars and brush making it quite evident that no one has
been there for sampling in years. Any reported sampling, in my opinion is
questionable at best. (See photo End of pipe 02)
Bulk or Non-Containerized
Liquid Waste Prohibition
The facility is in violation of Section III, item
K, “Bulk, or Non-containerized Liquid Waste” which states:
“The Permittee shall not dispose of bulk or non-containerized
liquid waste, or containers capable of holding liquids, unless the conditions
of Rule 335-13-4-.23(1)(j) are met.”
The disposal of effluent pumped from septic tanks by
Spanky’s sewer service violates this prohibition. I, and several of my neighbors have observed and documented
this.
Empty Containers
Prohibition
The facility is in violation of Section III, item L,“Empty
Containers,” which requires:
“Empty containers larger than 10 gallons in size must be
rendered unsuitable for holding liquids prior to disposal in the landfill
unless otherwise approved by the Department”.
In violation of this section of the code, several 50
gallon barrels, visible from the air as well as from the rail road tracks along
the back side of the site, have been observed on the facility property.
(SEE photo, barrels 01)
Litter Control
The facility is in violation of
Section III, item Q, “Litter Control” which states,
“The
Permittee shall control litter.”
In violation of this section, litter has been observed
scattered all around the outside of this site on several occasions. I found it
in trees surrounding the Northeast side all along the tracks and along the road
leading into the facility. There is a large amount of litter debris in and
around Hurricane Creek that stems from this site.
(SEE photos, Litter 01,02,03)
01
02
03
These photos were taken from
various positions around the site. Litter hanging in trees and on the ground.
The entire back slope along the tracks had trash scattered from top to bottom
blowing in the wind.
(SEE photos back slope)
Back Slope 
Back Slope 2 
Note the trash in the tops of
the pine trees and the visible houses in the upper left corner. They get a
bird’s eye view of the trash as it blows their way.
Groundwater Monitoring is
Required
Section IV “Section
IV, Groundwater Monitoring Requirements,”
“Groundwater
monitoring is not being required at this landfill provided that the waste
stream is in accordance with Section III.B. Should any waste be disposed other
than the waste streams indicated in Section III.B, the Department may require
that groundwater-monitoring wells be installed.”
In violation of this requirement, “groundwater monitoring
is not being conducted at this landfill provided that the waste stream is in
accordance with Section III.B. Should any waste be disposed other than the
waste streams indicated in Section III.B. the Department may(must?) require
that groundwater-monitoring wells be installed.”
The waste stream does not comply with permit standards
thereby requiring groundwater-monitoring wells. Because ADEM has permitted the
disposal of certain appliances containing mercury switches, treated lumber
containing arsenic, copper and other toxic chemicals, a lined containment area
is also required.
Additionally, the landfill, according to their signs at
the gate, accepts old automobiles (also containing mercury switches) and tires,
adequate landfill liner must also be installed to prevent the seepage of oils,
antifreeze, gasoline, and other toxic products associated with oil bearing
equipment into the soil and thereby contaminating ground water. There is
evidence of heavy oil sheen on the top of the water in the pond. (SEE photo, Sign 01, oil sheen 01, oil sheen 02)
01
02
We further request that, should this permit be renewed,
monitoring wells be placed surrounding the entire site to detect any seepage
and illicit discharges through groundwater.
Surface Water Management
Under Alabama Code Section
VI, “Surface Water Management,”
“The Permittee shall construct and maintain run-on and
run-off control structures to control the discharge of pollutants in
stormwater. Any discharges from drainage control structures shall be permitted
through a discharge permit issued by the ADEM Water Division.”
In direct violation of this requirement, there are no such
structures to control the discharge of pollutants in stormater. There are no containment ponds on the
planned expansion. In accordance with statutory requirements, adequate ponds
must be placed on site before any trash can be discarded there.
The expansion of this permit with this many compliance
issues is ludicrous! Until the permit is brought back into complete and total
compliance there should be no more acceptance of any trash.
It should be noted that the road leading into this site is
not wide enough for two trucks to pass without one leaving the road or stopping
all together.
There are 27 houses adjoining 12th street with
most close enough that mail boxes have been knocked down by trucks pulling over
to pass. The county widened the road as much as possible but it is not enough.
Some mailboxes now hang over the pavement making it treacherous for residents
to get their mail, especially the elderly. Many of these houses are homes of
elderly with health and hearing problems. The constant stream of trucks now
entering this complex is unbearable. Landowners constantly have to pickup trash
that has fallen from passing trucks.
There is a cemetery adjacent to the gate to the dump with
graves, literally 3 feet from the road. Passing garbage trucks rumble past
covering grieving families with dust and trash. In one incident a mother was
burying her young daughter. Trash trucks backed up at the gate halted the
procession. One driver refused to move and blew his horn until the hearse
backed around into the cemetery to let him pass. The whole procession was
halted while this man broke a young girl’s funeral procession for a load of
trash.
In conclusion;
This landfill facility has outlived its safe existence. To
increase the size will require dirt to be hauled in to cover “EVERY WEEK”. The
number of trucks will double with this increase. It is only a matter of time
before someone is killed there by one of these inconsiderate drivers.
Landfills are necessary. They should, however be located
in places where they have safe access and pose no threats to the environment.
This one does neither of these things. It has chronic history of non-compliance
and lack of diligent enforcement issues. The entire area of Holt is
economically distressed, with this facility located in a densely populated
predominately black neighborhood. This is a classic example of environmental
injustice at best.
This landfill has become a trash mountain, visible for
miles around. People should not have to invest their life’s savings into a home
only to have a trash mountain rise up from the treetops in full view and smell
of such facilities. When this place burns, as it does at times, the smoke can
be seen and smelled by hundreds of citizens in the area.
It is time to close Veolia ES Eagle Bluff Landfill
forever.
We respectfully request a public hearing to present our
case. We further request that said hearing be held in close proximity to the
permit so the elderly involved can attend.
Sincerely,
John L. Wathen,
Hurricane CREEKKEEPER®
Friends of Hurricane Creek
to join FoHC visit
www.hurricanecreek.org
Hurricane CREEKKEEPER®
Friends of Hurricane Creek
to join FoHC visit
www.hurricanecreek.org
Who has the authority to say someone else
is not being a good steward of the environment?
is not being a good steward of the environment?
Anyone who notices
No comments:
Post a Comment