Response to NOV comments

 Response to NOV comments

To,

Scott Hughes, Derrick Houston,

08/25/21

Please accept the following comments on Quick Trip NOV response and citizen complaints for ALR10BHQ0 on behalf of John L. Wathen, Hurricane Creekkeeper and Friends of Hurricane Creek.

 

In the response to the NOV crafted by Mr. Duane Ensor he makes several statements, which are partially true.

 

1. Page 01. He shows a photo from a vantage point I have already submitted to ADEM of that same day showing runoff from the sprinkler system. His photo doesn’t really show the whole picture. The fact is that this had happened several times and was the source of a complaint to ADEM. He states “Minor sediment accumulation”. Most of his photos were taken in a public ROW and off of the permit boundaries in some cases. The BPM requirement for any project is to keep the sediment onsite not out in the road. He also did not mention that all of the gravel seen in the road in his photos and mine is construction debris washed out of their poorly implemented BMPs.

 

Same site as above 4 hours later. 

His inspection was on the 19^th at 09:30. My photos on that day start a couple of hours later and go through the thunderstorm that afternoon. If the engineer was anywhere near the site he could have witnessed it himself and seen the huge load of mud, gravel and concrete waste that flowed down the street, into 3 separate private driveways and up onto the homes porches and carports. He could have seen the wave of red mud that almost breached the shop area behind the house again. This residence has flooded 7 times that I know of, 3 just since July 22/ 2021. The problem with this engineer not being onsite is that it is too far from Greenville SC to here for him to adequately inspect after major rain events. I can’t see how he knows what the conditions are or how much sediment has left the site. The site was chronically out of compliance when I filed my first complaint in July and it is still out of compliance. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

EVERY rain event floods the streets and homes along Valley Lake Rd. However his comment about it simply being sprinkler water is an admission that the BMPs are inadequate. If sprinklers were the only problem it would not be so bad but the situation is far worse than some sprinkler water!

2. Page 2 of the response bottom photo shows a triple silt fence but he did not show the corners, which are not joined properly, or the holes under the fence and in the newly installed perimeter fencing as already noted in a previous complaint. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

3. Page 3 top photo says it will be graded and sodded as expediently as possible. As of today, 03:22 PM no work was being done to the BMPs. In fact there has been no work done on stabilization that I can see. Some of the sediment has been removed from the failing drop inlet near the road but the silt fence wasn’t removed and changed. The response to the NOV stated the area would be sodded and the fence removed. That is not the case. On the 19^th when he visited there were several rolls of sod along the Hargrove Road entrance. Today all of the sod is gone but none was used on the grounds that I can find. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

PM 5 hours after QT claimed "Minor Sediment"

4. Page 04. Top photo he shows a photo of the failing drop inlet as well as the failing silt fence. Photos taken later in the day after he left show large clods of clay coming from under the fences in several places. If clay balls will wash under the fences, they are not installed properly and do not meet the requirements of the permit or the TMDL requirements for Cottondale and Hurricane Creek. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

This is not "minor sediment

The bottom photo where he again says “ Minor sediment” was taken during a period of no rain. His photos were taken AFTER the landowner used his tractor and box blade to remove the sediment from the doorway and drive. He has to clean up loads mud after every major rain event. He would be happy to submit a deposition to that effect. This is NOT “Minor sedimentation”. Mr. Ensor makes the statement about the bottom photo “Area of minor sediment accumulation on neighbor’s property.

This is not "minor sediment"

Area to be seeded/stabilized at conclusion of construction.” He doesn’t get to make that decision. The private landowners will have final say in what will happen on their land. The company stopped offering to help right after I was asked to come and document the activity by the landowner. They knew they were in the wrong and have been for months. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

No NPDES posted

5. On page 5 he states that the permit sign WILL be placed on the gate Mon. Morning “Facility ID to be displayed first thing Monday morning 8/23”. As of 03:34 PM today, 08/24/21 there is no permit placard on the gate. This is simply inexcusable. They have had a permit since August of last year. That’s a full year to do the simplest possible act. Put up the permit! The fact that they continuously disregard and refused to post the permit, complaints, as well as an NOV from ADEM suggests that they have no intent to comply and should be penalized to the maximum extent for their negligence.

 

Improperly built sediment basin

In his report he makes no mention of the retention pond not being built to specs.  As of today, there was no activity in or around the pond to install the Faircloth skimmer, stabilize deep rills in the slopes and they have some sort of makeshift device at the bottom of the overflow pipe to the POD. It looks like a band of erosion fabric and a pile of rocks. That is not what the BMP plan or the handbook calls for. The pond must be reconstructed to meet handbook requirements with a Faircloth screen in place at once. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.

 

The concrete washout he mentions being “Moved onsite” is not onsite as far as I can see. It doesn’t matter. The plan stated a year ago that a concrete washout must be constructed. As of August 20 they had refused to follow the plan and were washing out concrete trucks in a public ROW. Where is the new washout located? That needs to be taken into account when ADEM considers the amount of penalty.

 

He makes no mention of the unpermitted discharge along the I-59 ROW as it still does today. This site has been dumping tons of mud out into the state ROW for months. No activity could be seen at that kocation as of this writing. No attempt to set up BMPs or mitigate the offsite sediment buildup. ADEM must consider this when making a penalty determination.

 

No stabilization ongoing.

The final comment in his report is as follows “Per discussion with McCrory Construction, the site will continue to be permanently stabilized on Monday, August 23rd. Everyone understanding of the expediency in which the State’s concerns need to be addressed and have already performed multiple BMP installations/alterations to prevent sediment from discharging downstream. It should be noted that although sediment is still leaving the site, it is leaving the site is less than what is show in the NOV dated August 3rd due to the improvements and permanent stabilization that is occurring on-site."

 

His sense of expediency is lost on me. Why are they not working on the issues in the NOV instead of installing more irrigation pipe? The lack of sincerity shown by the contractor is unacceptable. His comment about there being less mud leaving the site than before the NOV is false. I’d like him to show us any calculations he used and how he managed to come up with that comment. The new BMPs that were installed were not set up properly and now have gaps, holes and nonexistent BMPs. If a BMP is not properly installed it is simply solid waste.   ADEM should issue a stop work order at once until all items in the NOV, the response, and the original BMP plan are brought up to date and repaired.

 

I have included a PDF with photos ranging from July 22 until Aug 19^th when Mr. Duane Ensor visited the site. He claims that there is less sediment leaving than before the NOV. He hasn’t been here on a regular basis and hasn’t seen the place often enough to make that determination. I have been documenting flooding and offsite sediment and construction debris with every major rain event since July 22. The NOV was generated based on my complaint.

 

Sediment in wetland around 680 feet from the site

The NOV also noted that a mitigation plan and calculation for offsite sediment must be submitted to ADEM. He makes no mention of that document and must be compelled to present a plan ASAP. ADEM must take this into consideration when calculating any penalty associated with the NOV.