Go to: OVERVIEW
(SaveOurCounty) DETAILS
(listener)
PLANNING SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENT EROSION
Report corrections+broken links to Webmaster Get updates on local issues
COMMENTS OF P. BURKE, S.
FAULKNER, AND V. FAULKNER 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.
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.
OVERALL OUTPUT
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.
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.
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.[1] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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[2] and that sampling devices can measure pollution.[3] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
These
comments are provided by the individuals below. Thank you for your
consideration of them.
Paul
Burke
PO Box
1320
Shepherdstown
WV 25443
Scot
Faulkner and Vicki Faulkner
253 Prospect Ave
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
APPENDIX ON "FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY" OF
JEFFERSON UTILITIES
The following information is from a 7/2/01 PSC
recommended decision on who would provide potable water for Huntfield, http://www.psc.state.wv.us/orders/2001%5F07/001492ac.htm
... The Meadowbrook [Jefferson Utilities
Incorporated, JUI] system had a cash flow deficit of over $25,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. ... Mr. Snyder indicated that JUI was
his “favorite charity.” (Tr. II 168).
The Walnut Grove JUI system for the year ending
September 30, 2000, had a net cash loss of $l13,115. (Tr. II 169)...
Absent a benefactor willing to make large gifts to
the utility, the utility could not sustain the financial losses as evidenced in
this proceeding by JUI and continue to operate....
JUI is a small utility with only 800 existing
customers. It has no assets other than the five small utility systems it uses
to provide service to its existing customers. Most of those systems are in poor
condition and need substantial work. It has only a single employee. It has a
debt to equity ratio of over 90%. JUI lost substantial money in both 1999 and
2000. It was sustained only by large gifts from Snyder Environmental. See
FootNote 38...
... little more than a bait and switch where
customers are attracted by a low rate which quickly disappears after losses
mount and JUI goes to the Commission for rate relief ...
55. JUI’s own accounting witness could not assure
the Commission that JUI has the financial wherewithal to serve Huntfield. (Tr.
II 71).
Footnote 38: Mr. Snyder was quite frank at hearing
in indicating that JUI was his “favorite charity.” Commission Staff is rightly concerned
about a utility that is in the apparent financial condition of JUI. Depending
on gifts to keep operating does not bode well for the long term security or
stability of a company that is providing an essential public service to the
citizens of West Virginia. The public interest requires that the utility
providing service to Huntfield be on sound financial ground so that it will
continue to provide utility service for the indefinite future. One could
experience a fair amount of concern whether JUI will be around in five years
given its current financial condition.