Go to: OVERVIEW (SaveOurCounty)     DETAILS (listener)     PLANNING     SCHOOLS     ENVIRONMENT     EROSION     Report corrections+broken links to Webmaster     Get updates on local issues

State Response to Citizen Comments

 


west virginia department of environmental protection

 


Division of Water & Waste Management

601 57th Street SE

Charleston, WV 25304

304-926-0499

Fax 304-926-0496

Bob Wise, Governor

Stephanie R. Timmermeyer, Cabinet Secretary

www.wvdep.org

 

 

March 7, 2005

 

 

Commenter:  

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Re:              Underground Injection Control Permit

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Application #0797-04-037 for Commercial                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Fields, LLC, Jefferson County

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

Dear Sir or Madam:        

 

The Division of Water and Waste Management received an application for Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, reviewed the application and drafted a permit with the intention to issue a permit to authorize the injection of solely sanitary waste to a subsurface distribution system for Commercial Fields, LLC and this letter is to address your objections and public comments regarding the draft permit and it’s contents.  They are listed below:

 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT PERMIT FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTION BY COMMERCIAL FIELDS LLC, 0797-04-037

 

The permit proposes to put about 107,000 gallons per day (GPD) of treated sewage into the ground on the West side of the Rt 9 bypass, half a mile north of Flowing Springs Rd. There is no stream to use for a conventional sewage plant.

 

1.               COMMENTER:  Three problems may be insurmountable: the lack of proof that groundwater will be protected (state rules require this proof from the applicant), lack of capacity to handle rain loads, and lack of design to handle strong chemicals from a shopping center. Other problems below are real, but could probably be solved.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  Any comments addressing the design, construction, and siting of

the Commercial Fields LLC sewage treatment system is beyond the regulatory

authority of the WV DEP and the UIC permit issued to the operator of the system.

The UIC permit authorizes the operation, monitoring and discharge of treated sanitary waste, as defined in 47CSR 13, Section 2.54.  All comments concerning the design,

construction, and siting of the sewage treatment system and drain field area should

be directed to the Department of Health Services.  The UIC permit in accordance with

47CSR 13, Section 13.1.a only prohibits construction of the system until a UIC

permit is issued from the WV DEP.  The design, construction and siting of all on-site sewage disposal systems, including alternative technologies, are under the statutory jurisdiction of the State Health Department.  Any modification of the system is  prohibited without application being made to the State Health for modification of the system in accordance with WV Code, Chapter 16-1 et seq., and notification made to WV DEP as specified in the UIC permit, Part II, Section B, Subsection 1.

 

The permit application indicates that sanitary waste is the only influent being proposed for treatment by this system.  All on-site sewage disposal systems authorized by the State Health Department, including alternative systems, single family residential and clustered systems, for use in the State have the National Sanitary Foundation certification of approval.  The design, construction and siting of these systems in accordance with applicable State Health Department criteria has been proven and attested to by an independent third party per review to perform according to the manufacturers specifications.  The key to meeting this test is the proper operation and maintenance of the system.  The UIC permit by establishing limits on BOD and TSS, the WV DEP has set optimal standards for the proper operation and maintenance of the system.  The UIC permit also requires disinfection of the effluent prior to the release into the subsurface which 99% of the current conventional septic systems do not.  The establishment of total nitrogen criteria is in keeping with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) requiring the plant to treat 60% of the influent prior to discharge while allowing for a 40% up take of total nitrogen in the root zone allowed for by the shallow trenches in which the drip irrigation tubing is placed.  Over 7500 conventional on-site sewage disposal systems (septic tank/drain field) are installed every year in the State of West Virginia, none of which require any treatment if discharging to the subsurface.  These systems are outside the jurisdiction of the UIC program.  However, all alternative systems which discharge 3,000 gallons per day or more that do fall under the jurisdictional authority of WV DEP are required to treat effluent prior to discharge.  Based upon the specifications of the unit and the State Health Department acceptance that the unit can meet these specifications by issuing their construction permit, the permittee has met the burden of proof specified in 47CSR13, Section 13.1.b.  The monitoring requirements imposed on the system will measure the functionality of the system, as well as operation and maintenance.

 

 

 

2.         COMMENTER:  The proposed plant has limits on three pollutants: 5 milligrams/liter of biodegradable material (BOD), 10 milligrams/liter of suspended solids, and 22 milligrams per liter of Nitrogen. It needs limits on all other health dangers, such as bacteria, nitrates, and chemicals which can come from the shopping center. DEP normally sets  limits based on the carrying capacity of a stream. Underground there is much less volume of water to dilute the pollutants, and flows are carried away more slowly than in a stream, only 150-235 feet per day, or .8-1.3 miles per month, as discussed below. Therefore all drinking water limits must be imposed on the effluent. A convenient list of drinking water limits is at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html, and it lists over 50 limits.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:

The commenter is proposing that WV DEP impose all drinking water limits on the proposed effluent being discharged from the system.  The permit application requests permission to discharge sewage into the subsurface.  The draft permit was issued to allow for the discharge of “solely sanitary waste”.  Sanitary waste is defined in 47CSR13, Section 2.54.  No other waste streams are permitted to be discharged through the UIC permit.  Additional waste streams, if indicated in the future, would require a modification to the UIC permit.  If at such time the WV DEP receives an   application for modification of the UIC permit to add additional parameters, the waste stream characteristics will be analyzed and permit limits will then be imposed at the appropriate drinking water limit to be met prior to discharge.  If the waste stream cannot be treated to meet the limits imposed, then the discharge of that waste stream into the system will be prohibited.  The applicant will then have to make other arrangements to dispose of or eliminate that waste stream.  Thus unless there is a proposal to discharge a waste stream other than “solely sanitary” waste, the sampling and monitoring imposed by the UIC permit is indicative of the monitored activity.  Since the effluent is being treated prior to discharge, including disinfection, there is no need for the effluent to be diluted prior to reaching the ground water.  All other comments relative to design, construction, and siting should be referred to the State Health Department.

 

3.         COMMENTER:  Limits are also needed to protect cave dwellers, such as Stygobromus gracilipes (Shenandoah Valley Cave Amphipod), Caecidotea pricei (Shenandoah Valley Cave Isopod), and bats. The Amphipod and Isopod are listed in the 1994 County Comprehensive Plan as Rare and Endangered species, and are presumed to be still present underground. They are also both identified by DNR at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/divplan_inverts.pdf, and S. gracilipes is marked as "Listed." The limits needed to protect cave life need to be researched by the applicant and DEP before issuing the permit. This whole area is pocked with caves, shown in publications of the WV Geological and Economic Survey and speleological societies, including a large cave nearby, under downtown Charles Town. Any of the caves may provide habitat for these species.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  The intent of the UIC permit is to protect underground sources of drinking water within the proscribed area of review.  Affidavits submitted by the applicant and supported by WV DEP inspectors have indicated that no public or private sources of drinking water were found in the ¼ mile area of review as specified in 47CSR13, Section 5.3.c.1.  Also, a report submitted to the agency on December 21, 2004 by Specialized Engineering, signed by Mr. Robert K. Denton, Jr. C.P.G. (Certified Professional Geologist) specifying that on October 16, 2003, “no caves, surface expressed or incipient sinkholes, or other types of subsidence structures were observed at that time” on the site of the proposed project.  Mr. Denton also stated that “in Jefferson County, prominent Karst features such as caves, sink holes and collapse lineaments are most strongly developed near active drainages and incised stream valleys, especially the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, and their major tributaries.  In addition, Karst development may be accelerated by the steepening of the hydraulic gradient induced by man-made dewatering (e.g. quarries, community wells).  It is of note that none of these aforementioned conditions are present at the subject property”.  Mr. Denton also stated later in the report that “these observations verified data compiled by Mark Kosar of the United States Geologic Survey, and summarized in 1990 report on the sink holes of Jefferson County”.  In addition, all comments made by Mr. Denton and the permit applicant have been field verified by the Groundwater/UIC inspector in the area.

 

 

4.         COMMENTER:  MONITORING

The plant will take 4 samples per year of the effluent going into the 46 miles of pipe, and report them at the end of the year. DEP needs to require more frequent samples of many more items, and immediate reporting of problems to DEP and local media. People drink this, within the multi-mile radius where the groundwater flows. The proposed sampling plan does not comply with 47 CSR 13-13.12.j.1 "Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity." Representativeness needs to be shown by a confidence interval around the observations sufficiently narrow to ensure pollutants will not endanger health of well users and cave life. DEP needs to estimate the standard deviation of each parameter and set a limit and sample size sufficient to ensure the 95% confidence interval on the parameter is below the limit. This means at least daily samples for the first two months, and after every problem is found, until the process is shown to be working well.

 

There is no sampling of the groundwater under the system. There have been some discussions that effluent entering the distribution system need not meet drinking water standards, because it will be treated further in the soil before it reaches groundwater. If that is the theory, DEP needs to require underground ports to sample the effluent reaching the groundwater. Otherwise the samples do not show whether the system fully works.  While the rules do define "Point of Injection" as the last accessible sampling point, they do not use this definition in any rule, while the rule does require representativeness. The rules emphatically do not say that the applicant can sample at an accessible but unrepresentative point, and then take on faith that things will get better later.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  The WV DEP agrees with the commenter that WV DEP needs to require more frequent sampling of the monitored activity.  Therefore, WV DEP will increase the sampling and monitoring of the effluent from quarterly to daily for a period of two months at such time and if the system is operating per the manufacturer’s specifications and within WV DEP’s established limits, the permittee may petition the WV DEP to relax the monitoring requirements.  Daily monitoring of the discharge on this system will not commence until the operational flow is 25% of the design flow or 30% of the estimated average flow, this will allow the system to stabilize prior to commencing monitoring because data gathered early in the operation of a plant like this would be skewed.  After a period of time the system will be sufficiently populated with organisms to allow for aerobic disgestion and treatment.  At this time the discharge characterization will be more representative.  WV DEP refers the commenter to WV DEP’s Comment #2, concerning 47CSR 13, Section 13.12.j.1, “Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity”.

 

The UIC permit is contingent upon the design, construction and siting permit issued by the State Health Department.  State Health engineers have determined by the issuance of their permit that the plant can meet the performance measures specified by the manufacturer.  However, if compliance monitoring samples indicate a problem with the operation or maintenance of the system, WV DEP can require ground water monitoring through the facilities GPP, 47CSR 58, Section 4.9.c.

 

5.   COMMENTER:  DIRECT CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER

The diagrams show four valves in each septic tank to allow groundwater to enter the septic tanks, to prevent high groundwater from floating the tanks out of the ground. These valves seem to have no instrumentation to show how much water they let in, and the inflows potentially exceed the daily design flow. The plan to prevent flotation, for tanks which themselves are half full of water, shows that groundwater is expected to cover the tank area at least occasionally, apparently also covering the distribution lines. This expectation proves that effluent entering the distribution lines does indeed sometimes enter the groundwater without further treatment.

 

DEP needs to require the sand filters to have barriers preventing high

 groundwater from entering, and carrying away partly treated sewage.  Similarly

 NPDES permits near a stream require protection from flood waters.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP refers the commenter to DEP’s Comment #1.

 

            6.  COMMENTER:  OVERFLOWS

 

The DEP draft permit puts no limit on maximum or average flow. The Health permit mentions 107,000 GPD, without saying whether this is a maximum or average. DEP needs to impose a limit on maximum flow, related to the design of the plant.

 

DEP also needs to limit customers to ensure the maximum flow is not exceeded, even during holiday sales, or other peak uses, and/or needs to specify an overflow tank to hold excess flows until they can be treated. One advantage of the customer mix for this plant is that shops can be closed in an emergency, such as after heavy rain, to reduce flows to what the system can handle. DEP needs to put a provision in the permit requiring the operator to close businesses when needed to meet flow limits, and a provision that customers must agree to these potential closures before connecting.

 

The sand filters appear to cover 2 acres and to be unroofed. So every 2-year storm (3.1 inches in 24 hours) will add 6.2 acre-inches (168,000 gallons) of direct rain to the daily flow. This rain is far above the 107,000 gallon capacity of the plant, and is added to infiltration throughout the extensive collection system, which would happen simultaneously. The same 2-year storm will add 38.1 acre-inches (1,035,000 gallons) to the 12.3 acres of adsorption area (535,000 square feet; p. 12 of permit). This probably exceeds their percolation rates, and again infiltration and ground water will be high at the same time.

 

Every year there is a 2% chance of 6.6 inch storm in 24 hours, generating more than

twice these loads. DEP and the applicant need to demonstrate the plant can effectively operate with infiltration and direct rain from 3.1" and 6.6" storms.

 

DEP’S ANSWER: WV DEP refers the commenter to DEP’s Comment #1.  Also the draft permit will be amended to reflect a monitor only for maximum daily flow, as stated on Health Department Construction Permit #16,245.

 

7.  COMMENTER:  HISTORIC AND TOURISM IMPACTS

     The size and location of the 2 acres of sand filters and the other visible and sometimes smelly parts of the facility will be very apparent to people traveling on Route 9, one of the busiest roads in the county. Smells will be released when sludge is trucked out, and when systems malfunction. Historic areas and tourism businesses will be affected by the appearance of the system, as well as smells, and any problems ground water pollution causes. The Charles Town historic district is nearby. Even nearer are the Charles Town Races track and the Shenandoah Downs track, both of which are important parts of our history. DEP needs to prevent or mitigate historic impacts as part of its duties in issuing the permit.

 

DEP’S ANSWER: This type of system is not exclusive to Jefferson County, these system are used in other populated areas of the State, some of which serve communities larger than Commercial Fields, L.L.C., especially in the southern counties.  These operating systems have been under evaluation and observation not only in West Virginia, but throughout the country.  To date there have been no reported problems with odors.  It is WV DEP’s contention that if the system is operated and maintained properly, it will have less odors than a normal subdivision operating on individual septic systems left to homeowner maintenance with virtually no pre-treatment prior to the effluent reaching the drain field.  However, WV DEP agrees with the commenter and will change the permit to require daily inspections of the system for visual failures of the drain field or olfactory detections of odors.  The aesthetics of the system is beyond the scope of this permit.  All draft UIC permits are also made available to the West Virginia Preservation Unit of the Department of Culture and History, Division of Natural Resources, Fish and Wild Life Section, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services , and other applicable federal and state agencies for comment.

 

 

8.  COMMENTER:  EXTENT OF GROUND WATER DANGER

 

This karst area is full of limestone fissures which transport injected fluids over wide areas. The injected fluids will put wells at risk in large parts of the county.

 

The flow of water underground in this area is shown by figure A-1 of Geohydrology, Water Availability, and Water Quality of Jefferson County, West Virginia, with Emphasis on the Carbonate Area by Kozar, Hobba, and Macy, 1991, of the US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4118. The figure shows an injection point North of downtown Ranson, and West of the proposed plant. Injected dye went under the proposed plant location, and in virtually all directions measured. Dye was detected at 4 out of 6 stream locations tested, four out of four springs tested, and one out of one well tested in the area. The study estimated groundwater flow rates of 150 to 235 feet per day in various directions. This is .8 to 1.3 miles per month, and the study found dye traces miles away, after 1-3 months. This was just from 2 quarts of dye. The injection of 107,000 gallons of effluent every day will be devastating if the effluent ever violates any of the drinking water standards

 

Many people depend on well water in this area. There are private wells especially North of Briar Run and East in the direction of Breckenridge North, Route 230, Halltown, and South of 340. There are also public wells operated by Jefferson Utilities, which tests for only some of the contaminants that this effluent could contain. Many other people depend on the Shepherdstown and Harpers Ferry water treatment plants; these use surface water which could be contaminated from contaminated groundwater. The dye test mentioned above showed up in both Flowing Springs Run and Evitts Run.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  The system was designed for, constructed and sited to meet applicable design standards for on-site systems as set for in Chapter 16, Article 1, Section 9 of the WV Code.  According to the issuance of the Health Department permit, the design, construction, and siting of this system are within acceptable design standard ranges as indicated by soil evaluations and percolation rates.   The WV DEP does not anticipate an impact to the existing quality of ground water in Jefferson County from the system.  However, if monitoring indicates that there may be a potential impact to ground water then the WV DEP will take the necessary steps to remove or mitigate that source of impact in accordance with Chapter 22, Article 12, Section 4(b).

 

9.   COMMENTER:  BURDEN OF DRINKING WATER STANDARDS

 

                 47 CSR 13-13.1.b says the applicant has "the burden of showing that" the system does not allow "the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR Part 142 or promulgated pursuant to W. Va. Code §16-1-1 et seq., or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons." The referenced part, 40 CFR 142 covers "implementation and enforcement of the national primary drinking water regulations contained in part 141 of this chapter" (40 CFR 142.1). The website mentioned earlier, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html shows these regulations. They are extensive, and the applicant has the burden of showing that none of them will be violated.
 

     Nothing in the application shows the system will prevent violations of any of these regulations, let alone all of them. The applicant must prove that it will not "cause a violation." (It is not up to the public to prove that the system will cause a violation.) The applicant provided many pages of design specifications, but no studies, no biology, physics, or chemistry, no tests of actual groundwater results under similar systems. As far as we know, there are no systems of similar size and customer mix,

     and we know of no tests of groundwater under any of Ashco's systems, so we do not see how they can meet "the burden of showing."

      When and if they do meet "the burden of showing," then we can review the kind of proof   they offer, and comment on its strengths and weaknesses. Standard references show that soil augers can take samples to inspect biomats and that sampling devices can measure pollution.[i] DEP needs to require the applicant to demonstrate by thorough research from similar situations, that no violations will be caused. This may or may not be stricter than the burden of proof on NPDES permits. Regardless of what NPDES requires, the underground injection rule requires this burden, because underground injection has so much potential to put water users and cave life at risk.
 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP refers the commenter to DEP Comment #2.

 

10.  COMMENTER:  OPERATOR AND PERMITTEE

 

DEP draft permit p. 12 says Jefferson Utilities will operate the plant. 47 CSR 13-13.10.b says "it is the operator's duty to obtain a permit." This permit is improperly being applied for and issued to "Commercial Fields LLC." An application is needed from Jefferson Utilities. The state rules clearly require that responsibility must rest with the operator, so there is no finger-pointing or shuffling of blame among different parties. Since Jefferson Utilities has a certain reputation in the community, which Commercial Fields does not, different people may wish to comment when Jefferson Utilities is listed as the permittee.

 

Commercial Fields LLC does not appear to have a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the WV Public Service Commission (PSC) to operate as a utility serving individual homeowners and businesses, so DEP cannot issue it a permit until it applies to the PSC for a certificate of convenience and necessity.

 

DEP’S ANSWER: At the time of the permit application Jefferson Utilities was incorrectly listed as the operator of the system.  The applicant subsequently reported the error and the draft permit was amended to reflect Commercial Fields LLC is the owner/operator of the system.  If at sometime in the future, Commercial Fields, LLC would like to contract with a separate entity to operate the system, then WV DEP will take into consideration the transfer of the UIC permit to the appropriate operator of the system.  The WV DEP has documented confirmations from Mr. Michael Mercer, Operations Superintendent for Snyder Environmental Services, Inc. to Mr. Michael Rielly, Commercial Fields, LLC, as well as Mr. Peter L. Chakmakian, Attorney at Law, stipulating that Snyder Environmental Services Inc. is willing to provide operating services for the proposed system, at sometime in the future.  The owner of the system, Commercial Fields L.L.C. will be required to maintain financial responsibility by means of a letter of guarantee or bond in the amount of approximately $80,000.00 to comply with 47 CSR13, Section 13.7.g.

 

The WV DEP disagrees with the commenter that “DEP cannot issue a permit until it applies to the PSC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity”.  The WV DEP is not required to apply to the PSC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity.  In fact the WV DEP UIC permit issuance is not contingent upon Commercial Fields LLC being issued a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity.  Although PSC approval is necessary to establish a utility, it is also not contingent upon the issuance of the UIC permit.

 

         11. COMMENTER:  FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

47 CSR 13-13.7.g requires evidence of financial responsibility from the permittee. This includes evidence that they have,

 

"financial responsibility and resources to close, plug, and abandon underground injection wells in a manner prescribed by the Director.  The permittee must show evidence of financial responsibility to the Director by submission of a surety bond, or other adequate assurance, such as a financial statement or other material acceptable to the Director."

 

No bond, financial statement or other material relevant to financial status was provided in response to Burke's 11/18/04 and 11/23/04 requests for a copy of the application. Hopkins said in an email 12/16/04, two days before the comment deadline, that evidence had been submitted and would be provided to Burke. A package arrived 12/17/04. It still did not include any such information. It included an unsigned legal document showing that Commercial Fields LLC has only $1,000 of capital. It also has a signed letter saying that Snyder Environmental Services will operate the plant and a signed agreement saying Commercial Fields LLC will operate the plant. Several other legal documents are unsigned.

 

The application has no mention of Jefferson Utilities. Nothing in the application supports the draft permit statement that Jefferson Utilities will operate the plant. Nothing shows financial strength of any potential permittee or operator.

 

DEP needs to determine who will actually operate the plant, verify they have the right to do so under PSC rules, require them to apply for the DEP permit, and require the financial documents listed in the state rule. All this information needs to be distributed for public comment. Jefferson Utilities' ability to provide evidence of financial responsibility is questionable, as shown in the Appendix to these comments.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  See comment #10. 

 

 

12.    MISSING AND FALSE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC

 

It is worth commenting that the original announcement 11/18/04 said a copy of the application would be sent on request. Burke asked for the "application" that very same day. He had to request it again 11/23/04, when the first package arrived without it. To be told four weeks after the original request that there are other parts of the application which have never been sent is grounds to extend the comment period.

 

DEP draft permit p. 12 says it will only serve "various businesses." Health permit p. 1 says it will also serve numerous private homes in phase V of Briar Run, and phase I of "Lakeland Place at Fairfax Crossing." Legal documents in the application also mention these two subdivisions, besides the shopping center, Potomac Marketplace. Presumably the statement in the DEP permit is false, and seriously misleads the public. Burke circulated publicity 11/23/04 relying on the statement in the DEP draft permit, since DEP had not at that time provided the application or health permit. DEP needs to correct the permit and re-advertise.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP disagrees with commenter that a copy of the application would be sent upon request.  There is nothing in the announcement nor certificate of publication stating that a copy of the application would be sent upon request.  In fact, the announcement states that “the application, draft permit, or fact sheet may be inspected by appointment at the Division of Water and Waste Management, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days”.  This is WV DEP policy and will be strictly adhered to in the future.

 

WV DEP will amend the draft UIC permit to list the facilities to be served by Commercial Fields LLC (Briar Run Subdivision, Phase V, Lakeland Place at Fairfax Crossing, Phase I, and the Potomac Marketplace), as listed in the State Health Department permit #16,245.  However, WV DEP contends that the UIC permit is drafted to allow “Solely Sanitary” waste from these facilities and any other waste streams not covered under the definition of sanitary waste is prohibited.  The application requested permission to discharge sanitary waste and the UIC permit was drafted on that request.  For waste streams other than sanitary waste, the WV DEP would refer commenter to WV DEP’s comment #2.

 

 

13. COMMENTER:  TYPE OF WASTE WATER

 

DEP draft permit p. 7 says it is "only for the treatment of sanitary wastes." This is either a false statement or totally impractical. While sanitary wastes are not defined in the permit, 47 CSR 13-2.54 defines them,

 

               Sanitary waste" means liquid or solid waste originating solely from humans and human

activities, such as wastes collected from toilets, showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and utensils are cleaned.

 

However a shopping center generates numerous stronger wastes: pharmaceuticals, photo-processing chemicals, detergents for washing windows, floors, and sidewalks, and wastes from cleaning up spills in stores. Potomac Marketplace hopes to have a Lowe's or Home Depot, and even if they do not have those particular large stores, they could certainly have a hardware store and/or garden center. These would sell, periodically spill, and have to clean up: paints, thinners, glues, pesticides, herbicides,  fertilizers, roofing and paving tars. Virtually every shopping center has a pharmacy, which will also spill both prescription drugs and over-the-counter items of all kinds. Even if there is no hair dresser, the pharmacy and grocery store will sell, spill, clean up, and flush hair and clothing dyes, bleaches, coloring and other hair dressing products. There is no practical way to exclude all these toxics from the waste stream. The plant is not designed to treat them. The permit needs monitoring for these chemicals, and needs to forbid their sale until another treatment process is available for them. The Shepherdstown  NPDES sewer permit specifically limits photo-processing, even though it is a substantial conventional treatment plant.

 

NPDES permits require DEP approval for commercial customers before they are

connected, and this underground permit also needs to require DEP approval for

commercial customers before they are connected.

 

Overall the permit is self-contradictory, saying it will serve "various businesses" but only  "sanitary wastes." Since it does in fact serve businesses (as well as houses), it needs to have a treatment system that can handle commercial wastes as well as sanitary wastes.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  The WV DEP agrees with the commenter and will include a definition of sanitary waste” in the UIC permit (47CSR13, Section 2.54), which is defined as: liquid or solid wastes originating solely from humans and human activities, such as wastes collected from toilets, showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and utensils are cleaned.  Sources of these wastes may include single or multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, schools, ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, campgrounds, picnic grounds, day-use recreation areas, other commercial facilities, and industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed with industrial waste.

 

The WV DEP agrees with the commenter without supposition that the possibility of stronger wastes could elude detection prior to any commercial facility connecting to the system.  Therefore, WV DEP will require a condition in the permit whereby the permittee shall notify the WV DEP on it’s intent to connect such a facility to further remind the permittee of it’s obligation to inform the WV DEP of any new customers prior to connection so that WV DEP can evaluate the facilities’ waste stream prior to authorizing connection.

 

The WV DEP has no authority to forbid the sale of any chemicals.  The facilities GPP will address the storage, transfer and disposal of chemicals with the potential to contaminate ground water, as well as any other aspects of the site. 

 

 

14.       COMMENTER:  INCOMPLETE MAP OF WELLS AND SPRINGS

 

The "Location Map" in the application package does not depict as required (47 CSR 13-13.10.d.6) "those wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells listed in public records or otherwise known to the applicant in the map area." Hopkins' email 12/16/04 said they must only show wells within ¼ mile of the subsurface distribution system. That does not comply with the regulation, which says "in the map area." The "Location Map" provided by the applicant goes much farther than ¼ mile, and groundwater flows go even farther. The map area includes, but the map does not depict, at least the following wells and springs "listed in public records":

 

(a) the source wells of Jefferson Utilities for its Walnut Grove system.

 

(b) wells 69, 70, 72, 89, 90, 91, 92, 108, 109, 110 shown in Ground-Water Hydrology of Jefferson County, West Virginia by William A. Hobba, Jr., 1978, of the WV Geological and Economic Survey.

 

(c) wells 69, 70, 71B, 90, 91A, 107 109B, 110A, 111, 126, 248, 250, 260, 290 shown in Geohydrology, Water Availability, and Water Quality of Jefferson County, West Virginia, with Emphasis on the Carbonate Area by Kozar, Hobba, and Macy, 1991, of the US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4118

 

d) springs in Springs of West Virginia by McColloch, 1986, of the WV Geological and Economic Survey, Volume V-6A

 

     DEP needs to require a complete map, and improve its review procedures to ensure maps match public records, such as those of the Geological Surveys.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP agrees with the commenter that a location map is required to be  submitted with the permit application.  WV DEP is in possession of

topographic maps and aerial photographs depicting all springs and surface

water bodies within the one-mile extension beyond the property boundaries.

The WV DEP would also refer the commenter to WV DEP Comment #3.

        

 

15.            COMMENTER:  GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLAN OMISSIONS

 

The Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP) says it addresses "a commercial outlet mall" without mentioning the two subdivisions involved. This is the first indication that it will be an "outlet mall" rather than a general shopping center, and is probably an error. It also continues the false story excluding the two subdivisions. The GPP needs to cover the subdivisions and describe the shopping center correctly.

 

The GPP needs "a location map and a site diagram or plan showing the location of GPP elements." No such map was provided. The GPP also requires potential contamination sources including "unlined ponds." There will be separate storm water facilities, since these are forbidden to drain into the treatment plant, and such water draining off roads and parking areas has the potential to contaminate, so storm water needs to be addressed in the GPP. The GPP also needs "Specific inspection, maintenance, and cleanup procedures." No specific procedures were included, and they need to be. This project has significant sources of contamination from spills and chemical use, which must be kept separate from the Ashco plant as discussed under "Type of Waste Water." The GPP needs to address potential chemical contaminants, and all shopping center staff who clean or use other chemicals need training on how to keep chemicals separate from the sanitary sewer.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  A generic small business Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP) document is sent out with all UIC permit application forms as a matter of convenience to the applicant.  The generic small business GPP is not always applicable in all situations.  The applicant is then referred to WV DEP’s Ground water Program for the proper documents.  The GPP is then submitted to the WV DEP Groundwater Program for review and approval.  The issuance of the UIC permit is not contingent upon approval of the facilities GPP. 

 

16.       COMMENTER:  INCOMPLETE PUBLIC NOTICE

 

The public notice (47 CSR 13-13.25.a.2) needs to include the name and address of the facility, not just the applicant. It had no name for the facility, and the only address was "Ranson"

 

The public notice (47 CSR 13-13.25.a.3) needs to include a brief description of the "business conducted at the facility." The only description it gave was "wastewater treatment housing retail outlet." This string of nouns is unintelligible. If  "housing retail outlet" means anything, it would be a neighborhood shopping center, much smaller than what is actually proposed.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  The WV DEP disagrees with the commenter, that the public notice is unclear.  In fact the public notice is very clear and contains the name of the permittee, the mailing address of the permittee, and an address for the location of the facility.  The public notice also contains the “Business Conducted” description, and the activity for which the permittee applied.  The business in this instance is the wastewater treatment facility, as stipulated in the UIC permit application and Health Department’s construction permit #16,245.  WV DEP’s UIC permit is to operate and discharge effluent from this facility, thus the public notice adequately describes the intent of the permit.

 

 

16.       COMMENTER:  INCONSISTENT PERMIT

 

DEP draft permit p. 7 says the "injection horizon" is specified on p. 1 of the permit. It is not specified anywhere, and needs to be. This involves depth from surface, depth above subsurface features, and degree of slope allowed in the lines. With 12 acres of distribution lines, it is crucial to specify the injection horizon, and it will be extremely hard to have even distribution.

 

DEP draft permit p. 12 says liquid capacity is 222,400 gallons in each of 4 tanks (total 889,600 gallons). The health permit says liquid capacity is 55,600 gallons in each of 4 tanks (total 222,400 gallons). DEP's specification is a much more stable system, with 8 days average retention at 107,000 gallons per day, but is DEP's specification false?

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP agrees with the commenter that the “soil horizon” is not listed on page 1, as the permit instructs.  Therefore, WV DEP will amend the permit on page 7 to reflect the “injection zone” as the regolith on page 12.

 

WV DEP agrees the description of the system on page 12 is incorrect and will amend the permit to show that it’s tanks are 55,600 gallons each for a total of 222,400 gallons.  WV DEP also refers the commenter to WV DEP’s comment #1.

 

17.       COMMENTER:  IMPRACTICAL DESIGN

 

DEP draft permit p. 12 says each tank will be precast concrete 32' x 24' x16'. The application says the plant is provided by Ashco, which says on their website that they cast their own components in Morgantown. How will such huge tanks be delivered from Morgantown? How will they be delivered from anywhere without cracking, which would then leak raw sewage? Small Flows Quarterly Summer 2004, p. 12 discusses the serious dangers of concrete cracks even in small home tanks, let alone monsters like these. Ashco says on their website, http://ashco-a.com/  that their experience with systems ranges from 300 gallons per day to 70,000 gallons per day. Their website also says their experience with concrete tanks ranges "from 150 gallon grease traps to >5000 gallon septic tanks." The proposed plant seems to be beyond their experience in both plant design and tank construction. DEP approval is unrealistic and/or requires stringent design and monitoring limits.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP will amend the permit on page 12, Construction Requirements to reflect that the tanks will be cast in place.  This should relieve the concern of the commenter concerning tank damage during delivery.  WV DEP will not comment on the qualifications of the manufacturer/installer which are beyond the scope of this permit and at best inappropriate.

 

 

COMMENTER -   This it appears that insufficient information has been made available to the public about the true nature of this undertaking.  I concur with Mr. Surkamps opinion that public hearing is necessary in order to fully inform the public of the nature and scope of this undertaking so that the public may comment in an informed manner.  Thus, I respectfully request that your agency schedule a public hearing before acting on the permit application.

 

DEP’S ANSWER: WV DEP disagrees with the commenter “that insufficient information has been made available to the public about the true nature of this undertaking”.  The public notice was very clear and so was the draft permit.  The notice and the draft permit indicate the permit would authorize the discharge of “solely sanitary waste”.  Also the notice stipulated that the application, draft permit or fact sheet may be inspected by appointment at the Division of Water and Waste Management, between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm on business days.

 

In regards to your request for a public hearing, the Director does not feel that four individual requests for a public hearing constitutes a significant degree of public interest, therefore, WV DEP will not hold a public hearing on the issue of the Commercial Fields, LLC draft UIC permit,

 

COMMENTER-  I am particularly concerned about the current proposal from Jefferson Utilities to place treated sewage on 12 acres in Jefferson County.  In addition to all the usual concerns about untested and poorly described system, I am concerned about the lack of regular daily testing and the half-life of such a system.  Will the developments also have such a short half-life?

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  WV DEP would refer the commenter to the State Health Department for any questions regarding the specifics of the system’s design, construction and siting.  WV DEP does agree with the commenter’s concern over the “lack of regular daily testing”, therefore the draft permit will be amended to increase the frequency of monitoring to daily until such time as the plant is fully operational and functioning as required in the permit.  The monitoring frequency can be re-evaluated by WV DEP upon petition by the permittee.

 

Commenter -  The application is for commercial development, not residential, a very large shopping center.  Unfortunately the conventional sewage infrastructure is capacity limited for the foreseeable future, so there are going to be a number of efforts similar to this to keep development projects moving forward.  I remain skeptical that an Ashco system can provide the kind of water quality that we need going back into our shallow karst aquifer.

 

DEP’S ANSWER:  Alternative systems are or may be the next best answer in areas that do not have sewage infrastructure.  Federal dollars for sewer projects are dwindling and several projects will not get funding.  Expansion and development is going to occur as surely as the sun coming up tomorrow.  All the presentations and conferences that we have attended on alternative systems emphasizes the technologies capabilities to treat influent to achieve a measure of reduction in parameters, such as BOD, TSS, Total Nitrogen, and Fecal Coliforms.  The alternative to these systems are large capacity septic systems and individual residential systems, which treat absolutely nothing, assuming that the County Planning Commission has authorized the project to go forward.  Given the circumstances and the alternative, the ASCHO system is the best solution to a problem that will not go away until centralized sewage is made available.

 

COMMENTER - I don’t think this is a good idea.  There are too many people in this area who get their drinking water from wells, and we have a tremendous number of underground streams and aquifers – all of which would eventually get polluted.

 

                DEP’S ANSWER: The WV DEP would refer the commenter to WV DEP’s Comment #3.
 
     The WV DEP would like to thank all the commenters for their insightful and timely comments. Many of the comments were constructive and intuitive, while others were repetitious, therefore WV DEP has amended the UIC permit to reflect those comments that were applicable.

 

     If you need assistance in the future, you may contact me at 304-926-0499, e-mail address: dwatkins@wvdep.org or Evelyn Hopkins at 304-926-0499 ext. 1059, e-mail address: ehopkins@wvdep.org.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

David P. Watkins, Section Manager

Regulatory Programs/UIC

 

 

 

CC:      District OEE Inspector

            Dave Watkins, Regulatory Programs Section Mgr.

            Cheryl Mansley Ford

            Joseph Hankins

            Paul Rosa

            Joel Garner

            Paul Burke

            Marian Buckner

            Paul Ashburn, Ashco-A-Corp.

Henry Resnikoff, Developer

Commercial Fields, LLC

L. Evelyn Hopkins, WV DEP