Legalectric

Alan Muller, Green Delaware, questioning and commenting at the meeting

Tuesday night, there was a meeting in Delaware City regarding the “Standard Chlorine of Delaware, a/k/a Metachem Superfund Site.”  This meeting was to gather comments on the “OU3 Proposed Plan.”

Here’s a link to the News Journal article about it — and the full story is below:

EPA: Metachem toxins will linger

Comments must be sent in by August 14, 2009, postmarked if mailed by that date, to:

thornton.hilary@epa.gov

Hilary Thornton, Mailcode 3HS23

US EPA, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA  19103

****************************************

Here are my comments, sent just now:

Overland Comments – Metachem

Now, take a few minutes and work on yours!

****************************************

The way they handle these proceedings, it’s misleading and diversionary, a false, technical compartmentalization of the problem and solutions, which leads to a preordained, incomplete, and probably ineffective “clean-up.”  Part of the problem is that it’s  not clear that cleaning up is a priority.  My impression is that they’re just interested in “dealing with it” in some way, the CHEAPEST way, checking off the “OU3 box” and moving on.

Their plan, their PREFERRED plan, is to cover it up and move on to “OU4.”  Their “Preferred Plan” is, direct from their powerpoint slide 8:

2A.  Surface Cap/Institutional Controls

Impermeable Surface Cap

• Cap materials TBD during Remedial Design Phase
• Cap materials and thickness would vary depending on future land use

Institutional Controls

• Future land use must not interfere with ongoing remedies

Five-Year Reviews

• Required for any Superfund Site where contaminants remain

Est. $11.5 – 18.5 Million

Why look! Imagine that!   This is the CHEAPEST of the options.  All options are “cap” crap, with “materials TBD” and, based on prior past bad experience with DNREC’s “hare-brained” ideas (yes, that’s a direct quote)for “beneficial use” and using coal ash and sewage sludge to cap the dump next to the river:

• I asked whether they’d use coal ash in the “TBD” cover material, and they would NOT commit to rejecting coal ash.
• I asked whether they’d use sewage sludge in the “TBD” cover material, and they would NOT commit to rejecting sewage sludge.

This is where that compartmentalization becomes a problem.  They said that was not an issue for “OU3” and that it would be addressed in the “design phase.”  Uh-huh, and the public is involved in that exactly HOW?  And hello — WHAT the impermeable surface is has much to do with the appropriateness of using an impermeable cover.  Rainfall on the impermeable cover will trickle off the cover over the edge, onto and into the ground, groundwater, etc.   Even if it’s asphalt, that should be considered.  Isn’t the EPA is in the process of addressing coal ash, and a rule pending?

Cost… Their “preferred” option 2A costs $11.5-18 million.   The others?

The other options, from their powerpoint:

2B Surface Cap/ICs, with Soil Vapor Extraction

Same surface cap and ICs as mentioned in 2A, plus an in Situ SVE system:

• Est. 200-500 air extraction wells at 50′ depth
• Treat contaminated air from beneath the cap
• treat off-gas from SVE system before discharge
• Additional sampling to identify “hot spots”
• Pilot study first, to test effectiveness
• Est. $19.1-20.2 Million

2B Surface Cap/ICs, with ISTD

Same surface cap and ICs as mentioned in 2A, plus in Sit thermal Desorption:

• Est. 2,800 heater and 1,400 heated vapor extraction wells, 8-12′ apart through 330,000 sq. ft. area
• Additional sampling to identify “hot spots” within 10′ of barrier wall
• Pilot study first, to test effectiveness
• Est. $92.8-99.8 Million

Let’s see… $11.5-18.5 v. $19.1-20-2 & $92.8-99.8.  Doesnt’ take a rocket scientist to see that the cheapest “option” is “preferred,” and since when is cost the primary driver?  Is this an indication of how they value those living here, drinking the water, breathing the air?

Oh, and did I mention they admitted, finally, that the contamination goes down at least 140 feet!  That’s something they haven’t wanted to talk about before.

These options are the only ones looked at, the only ones that are under consideration.

CONSIDER THIS: One other option I want them to consider is to dig up part of the site, the cleaner part, and put a liner down there and take the contaminated dirt from the rest of the site and bury it there with the solid multi-layer liner, and then cover it.

Here’s an example of that in Minnesota, showing that it can and should be done.  This is a scenario where it’s been sitting there since before the mid 70s, it has contaminated ground water in Lake Elmo and Oakdale, Minnesota.  They’re using three layers of liner over packed clay and another three layers of plastic, plus sand with a collection and draingae system.  In the Metachem case, they know groundwater is contaminated, that it’s seeping down, so what, short of this, will stop it?  Take a look — Tom Meersman did a very good job on this:

History-making landfill do-over in Washington County

Hazardous 3M trash buried decades ago in Washington County is being dug up and will be reburied with a protective lining.

By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune

In a $20 million job that’s the largest of its kind in state history, workers in protective suits are unearthing trash in Lake Elmo that hasn’t seen the light of day for more than three decades.

Their mission is not to burn the wastes or haul them off to another state, but to rebury them in a state-of-the-art pit that will keep chemicals that went into Scotchgard and other 3M products from getting into any more drinking water.

Excavating 33 acres of garbage, and then putting it back in the same place, may seem like a curious way to handle trash that has rested undisturbed since 1975.

However, the former Washington County landfill is not your typical dump. Wastes taken there from the 3M Co. in the early 1970s have contaminated groundwater in nearby Lake Elmo and Oakdale.

That has led to one of the biggest attempts to go back and undo decades-old environmental practices that the metro area has ever seen.

Read the rest of this entry »

WE WON A SMALL WIN — A START ON PREVENTION OF EXPANSION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY’S HERC BURNER!

Now and then, it sure helps to win, and Neighbors Against the Burner is on a roll here!

Here’s Alan Muller, testifying about specifics, noting that the areas of greatest concentration shown in the “ballpark EIS” were NOT in the ballpark, and the City has not addressed these impacts in any way:

Muller’s HERC Plume cover letter

Plume Predictions from 2007 baseball stadium EIS

In the meantime, here’s his letter to the Commission prior to the last meeting with a graph showing emissions:

Muller – HERC letter

Rep. Karen Clark came in to testify about her opposition to the project, citing the impacts of pollution on Hennepin County, armed with graphic graphics showing how bad the situation is already, and testified about specific impacts in her district, the Phillips neighborhood, particularly arsenic impacts, and other harmful pollutants.

Rep. Frank Hornstein also testified against the project, as did John Schatz, Leslie Davis, and the most bizarre HERC cheerleading twit, Mary deLaittre, who has actually written THIS (be sure to check the links.. “unique waste to energy facilities, oh pleeeeeze, pass the barf bag)– PARAGRAPH BELOW IS LINKED TO SITE:

A HERCulean effort

Because repetition is our friend, we feel the need to re-visit HERC (Hennepin Energy Recovery Center) and extol its virtues again. We sense that many have been missing the forest for the trees with respect to our pal HERC. HERC is a neighborhood amenity that provides an invaluable community service by disposing of 356,000 tons of garbage a year for Hennepin County. This garbage is converted into enough electricity to power 25,000 households, or 1/5 of all the residences in Minneapolis. Not only is it a 24/7/365 powerhouse, it is also a green building, to boot. Powerful as it is, HERC could do even more. HERC’s operators cite the plant’s unused capacity, and desire to contribute additional steam/water heating and cooling for the North Loop neighborhood. Like any building over 20 years old, it needs a bit of updating. A proposed makeover by Hennepin County and Covanta Energy, originally designed by students from the University of Minnesota, shows how the building and grounds could be transformed. So, as a city that touts itself as being green and wanting to be more sustainable, we should be celebrating HERC and supporting its efforts to become a better neighbor and community landmark. Visit our expanded collection of images featuring unique waste to energy facilities from around the world.

I’m speechless… too bizarre…

And alsoin the bizarre category, Asst. City Attorney wrote an opinion as to the City’s authority to adopt more stringent air emissions standards, a blatant attempt to quash their desire to act, to LAWFULLY act:

Asst. City Atty. Memorandum re: HERC

It was a hoot that he cited, offpoint, from Jimmy Jam Harris’ tax case in Hennepin County — when I looked that one up, right below it was Terry Lewis’ tax case! I can’t imagine why he’d cite these cases, as they didn’t make a useful argument for his view of statutory interpretation or lack thereof…

Anyway, I had a few minutes to blast off a reply:

Overland Memorandum re: City Authority

From the article about it in the STrib, and note they’re clear about their authority:

“We’re well within our authority to say no,” Commissioner Carla Bates argued before the vote. Commissioners cited the admission of Covanta’s environmental director, Jeffrey Hahn, that burning more trash will result in a small amount of additional plant emissions, but he said that pollutants will remain far below limits set by the state. Hahn said the plant has already added some equipment and would add more to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are closest to the current limit.

Here’s the full article:

Bid to burn more trash near ballpark turned down

The Minneapolis Planning Commission, citing health effects, rejected Hennepin County’s bid to allow more garbage to be burned daily.

By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune

Hennepin County’s bid to burn more garbage next to the new Minnesota Twins stadium crumpled Monday in the face of skepticism from Minneapolis planning commissioners over the potential health effects.

The county had sought approval of a 21 percent increase in the daily average tonnage of garbage burned at the downtown facility. But on Monday evening, the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to deny an amendment to the facility’s zoning permit that would have allowed the burning of more than 1,200 tons of trash daily.

A majority of commissioners said they’re not convinced that increasing the plant’s burning of trash is consistent with a required finding that such an action isn’t detrimental to public health.

But the debate may not be over. The commission’s decision can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days, and it runs counter to the advice of the city attorney’s office. The county and incinerator operator Covanta Energy referred a reporter to each other on the question of an appeal.

Carl Michaud, the county’s environmental services director, said he needed to “go back and talk to a few folks” before commenting on an appeal. He disputed the assertion of planning commissioners that there was insufficient analysis of the plant’s environmental effects.

“We’re well within our authority to say no,” Commissioner Carla Bates argued before the vote. Commissioners cited the admission of Covanta’s environmental director, Jeffrey Hahn, that burning more trash will result in a small amount of additional plant emissions, but he said that pollutants will remain far below limits set by the state. Hahn said the plant has already added some equipment and would add more to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are closest to the current limit.

An opinion by the city attorney’s office warned that “anecdotal testimony that more throughput equates to more pollution which equates to bad health effects is not a sufficient basis to deny.” But commissioners also found that burning more trash runs counter to city sustainability and growth policies.

The burner was constructed in the 1980s with a state limit that it could burn an average of 1,000 tons of trash per day incorporated into its city zoning permit. The state cap was increased to the plant’s 1,212-ton-per-day design capacity in 2000. One of the legislators involved, Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis, said that the intent was to make use of unused capacity, and that the plant burns cleaner than in its early days.

But the North Loop Neighborhood Association, which reviewed the proposal, said it would favor a 10 percent increase in the plant’s processing only if there was no increase in pollutants released. The plant generates enough electricity to power the equivalent of 25,000 homes and also supplies steam for downtown heat.

The county and Covanta relied heavily on a finding in ballpark environmental studies that the incinerator’s health effects are below levels at which concern for ballpark users would be triggered under federal standards. But opponents argued that health effects on a broader area of emission dispersion need to be measured and considered.

The Minneapolis City Council hasn’t weighed in on incinerator capacity issues for more than 20 years.