Lawsuit against Grand Central Sanitary Landfill over odors at site of proposed Synagro crap factory complicates picture

As reported in the Morning Call, a class action lawsuit has been filed in Northampton County Court over the increase in odors this past year at the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, owned by Waste Management.

The fact it is in the past year is critical, since the landfill has been producing odors that travel offsite for years.  That is what landfills do, and why the towns in the area are done putting up with people's shit.  Both figuratively and literally are dumped here daily in quantities over 100 tons each - which explains why nobody except Nolin Perin, Waste Management, Green Knights and Synagro thinks a proposed biosolids plant processing 400 tons of shit a day is a fantastic idea.  It is the change in level of odors that has harmed the plaintiffs - they can't sue for whatever odors have occurred beyond a statutory period, such one year.

"We can't breathe back here!"

How this could affect proposed Synagro shit bakery

Even though plaintiff Robert Huratiak is quoted in the article stating this is not about Synagro's application, it can be.  The article also states that DEP has taken note of the number of complaints registered by objectors at the November 7, 2018 hearing DEP held on the Synagro application:

"DEP officials told Waste Management in the Dec. 4 letter that the landfill odors and “potential future odors” related to the plant were a “consistent theme” among people who testified during a public hearing DEP conducted Nov. 7 regarding the proposed plant."

March 5, 2019 Morning Call web article 

In the event this crappy proposal is issued permits by DEP, citizens and towns and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network will be shoving themselves into line to appeal their issuance to the PA Environmental Hearing Board.  One ground for appeal could be that DEP is permitting an additional shit stank operation on a property that is already generating more than its share of shit stank, and ruining people's lives in the process.

First of multiple lawsuits?

The pooper scooper here at the Poop and Water Extraction blog has snagged some solids in its net - and in the process "caught wind" of some intelligence information.  There may be more lawsuits launched in the near future, like projectile diarrhea.

Anthony Salamone's informative article on the class action lawsuit is here:

How the fight over freshwater pond next to proposed Synagro facility in Plainfield Township may play out

As reported here, PA DEP (Don't Expect Protection) solid waste slinger Roger Bellas on February 14 retracted a letter he sent on August 10, 2018, in which he had stated that Synagro would be eligible for an extension of a waiver of a permit for encroachment and modification of water bodies that was originally granted Waste Management at the same site some 10 years ago.  At that time, DEP began considering the water body in question, former Doney Quarry #2, as a sedimentation basin - now known as sedimentation basin #2.

Plainfield Township appealed the determination in Bellas' August 10 letter, with a multi-pronged argument.  One is that there is no evidence that the engineering required for DEP to make the original decision was done.  Another is that whatever design was done, the construction was not as proposed.  For example, township consultant Jason Smith reported at the February 21, 2019 planning commission review that an outlet structure that was in the design was not installed.  Sedimentation basins are supposed to have outlets.  They are also supposed to trap sediment, which is periodically removed.  The township has suggested that evidence this is being done is lacking.  Note that the township was not appealing the original waiver.

Grand Central rep makes statement that appeal period has passed - so?

Waste Management/Grand Central representative Scott Perin made a statement at the February 21 meeting that whatever happened in 2007 or 2008, the appeal period has passed.  The township received notice, didn't appeal.  Tough cookies.

No shit.  That isn't the point.  Perin was also not on point at the very first review of Synagro's proposal in November 2016, "but we have over 300 acres" - which also wasn't on point.  They are now trying to cram this pile of crap into a postage stamp-sized property with less than 2 acres of open space.  Stay focused.

Apparently Perin believes the fact that DEP looked the other way 10 years ago means they can again.  It's just a hole in the ground - we fill in holes all the time.  Not holes that are ponds being used (allegedly) as sedimentation basins.  And no, not again, not with everyone in the community and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network ready to sue DEP's ass if they issue a permit.  DEP better move carefully, even though they are promoting this kind of facility and everyone knows they want to grant Synago permits.

New DEP regulations for sedimentation basins

A lot has changed on the regulatory front since 10 years ago.  For example - the first one and last one - since 2012 the bottom of sedimentation basins must be above the level of groundwater.   The surface of sedimentation basin #2 is at the level of groundwater - its height goes up and down with the level of the groundwater surrounding the basin (pond), since there is no outlet.

Synagro stated that when the proposed fill (100,000 cu yds) has been placed into the pond, the new depth of the pond will be about 90'.  A question that the township may be asking is, how can the bottom of a 90' deep sedimentation basin #2 be above the surface level of the water that is in it?  This assumes that such a significant modification would cause DEP to apply the latest criteria prior to granting the same waiver - a waiver that is issued for sedimentation basins that are properly engineered.  Point being, if you did or didn't properly engineer it 10 years ago may make no difference.  You need to engineer it today before you make substantial changes.

And whether or not it is actually functioning as a sedimentation basin is important.   If it isn't, then perhaps extending a waiver that never should have been granted in the first place won't even be possible.

Thus, there is quite a battle shaping up over the freshwater pond on the proposed Synagro site.  If Synagro can't fill it in because it can't obtain a waiver, its trucks will be driving in the pond, and employee parking will be below ground and water level.  They would need zoning variances for that for sure.

Let's not forget that even if Synagro receives DEP approval to partially fill the pond, the township is still arguing that its 50' open space buffer from a water body applies from its existing edge - this buffer would extend almost all the way to the north side of the proposed building!

Blue line through shaded area just below building is the existing edge of the pond

Synagro may do a hydrogeological study

At the February 21 review meeting, township consultants again stated they felt an analysis of the existing conditions in the pond should be required, and planner Bob Simpson asked Synagro attorney Witmer "are you going to do a study or not, yes or no?", to which Witmer essentially replied "no".  Near the end of the meeting, Hecht asked meekly, "what would you like to see in a hydrogeological study?" which appeared to surprise both planners and consultants.  Not because he was indicating finally Synagro might do a study, but because this is a question for Synagro's engineers.

A few meetings ago, Synagro's engineer Pullar stated "we're looking at that", the last time the question was asked "are you going to do a study?"  The typical answer for a year and a half was "no".  Hecht should have had the "what would we test for?" discussion with Pullar over a year ago.  Pullar seemed surprised last fall though when planner Dingle asked about water quantity, and Pullar replied "so you care about both water quality and quantity in the pond?"  Perhaps Pullar isn't the expert to be asking...

Synagro attorneys piss off everyone attending proposed Plainfield Township crap bakery review, including Synagro representative

At this evening's continued review of Synagro's land development plan for a biosolids (shit) bakery in Plainfield Township, Synagro's attorneys managed a rare feat.  They caused their own client to be embarrassed, in the process of acting antagonistic, condescending and arrogant.  It's one thing to vigorously defend your client's interests - it's another thing to see that a board that is reviewing your client's application has all the information needed to give your client a favorable decision.  The latter is not happening.

Synagro had requested 15 minutes to give a presentation at the beginning of the meeting.  The township announced that after this, each of five of the township's consultants would go over the most important outstanding deficiencies in the application.

Synagro project manager Jim Hecht wasted the first 15 minutes giving a justification why this plant is needed.  Not in Plainfield Township, but in general.  At a critical juncture in the application, Hecht peed away 15 minutes speaking in generalities about why biosolids are the best thing to happen since wifi was invented.  Who was his audience - the reporter(s) in the room?  The only item of interest to this observer was that on one slide where the goal seemed to be to reassure the community biosolids are safe, it was stated "If an element in biosolids not currently regulated is found to be a risk, it will become regulated and we will test for it."  How reassuring!  Your husband and four others living nearby die of cancer a few years from now, and eventually the cause is found to be something in crap "fertilizer".  The gall.   Hecht did not waste even one second trying to argue that this plant would be good for this community.  Been there, done that.  The argument this project is green and good for the community was debunked many months ago, not the least of which was by Grand Central Landfill founder's granddaughter Lisa Perin - who informed the planning commission this project would be a negative for the community, and there would be no way to ever get rid of it.  $100,00 per year to three communities, MAXIMUM.  16 jobs pushing crap around, MAXIMUM.

As the planning commission readied to transition to its 5 consultants to give their top remaining unresolved issues, Synagro attorney Elizabeth Witmer got up and started presenting on a second overhead under the control of co-counsel Matthew Goodrich.  Witmer started talking over the chairman - not a good start.  Witmer insisted that Synagro should present a "list" of issues that it was addressing in a review letter sent to Synagro just today.  The chairman pleaded to let the township consultants each present their items, so Synagro could respond to them or make a note to reply later.  Witmer refused to change course, and began leading engineer David Allen P.E. representing Synagro through a list of items the planning commission was not even familiar with since they hadn't read these reviews yet.  Mind you, Synagro has been inundating the township with large piles of useless paper on average once a week - the last time this past Monday.  No one expected these items to be addressed this evening, and certainly not anyone responding to a review sent this same day.

The list of items Witmer went through was relatively trivial stuff like drafting errors and missing signatures on plans - minutia compared with larger issues everyone knows remain - and so should Witmer.  After 15 minutes, multiple planning commission members and Solicitor Backenstoe attempted to bitch-slap Witmer using a dose of common sense, and asked to proceed to the townships' consultants.  Planner Bob Simpson said "Look, it's you prerogative if you really want to do this.  Realize that you are demanding a decision from us by the end on March, and time is running out.  (It is the Applicant who approves extensions of deadlines) By not letting our consultants who advise us speak, you risk causing us not to hear what they have to say and you being unable to address their concerns - which in the long run is detrimental only to you."  Planner Robin Dingle echoed this, stating "it is our experts that we will largely be basing our decision on, not what you are telling us.  We need to hear from them."   Witmer ignored Simpson and pressed on for an hour total, accomplishing something only in her own mind.  It is possible she didn't want everyone in the room, including the stenographer Synagro is paying, to learn about the significant outstanding issues.  This would be a gross disservice to a typical applicant, in a normal circumstance where everyone is acting in good faith and you aren't attempting to erect a freshwater pond-side shit factory.

At one point, Scott Perin representing the landfill got up to misrepresent what is in a letter that DEP sent on February 14, 2019 (new - see the letter here), in which it rescinded a letter issued on August 10, 2018 that indicated Synagro would be granted a waiver to not require a permit to partially fill in the pond adjacent to the proposed plant.  Perin claimed once again that the pond was properly engineered to become a sedimentation basin (there has been nothing produced to date to prove this), and in any event he stated the period to appeal a previous 2008 waiver for the same pond has long since expired.  Township consultant Jack Embick corrected some of Perin's misrepresentations, which caused Witmer to become agitated.  When Embick pointed out that he had requested Waste Management to provide said engineering during the appeal of the opinion in the August 10 letter, and has received NOTHING to date, Witmer went off on a rant that Embick was attempting to get information that he could use in a court case.  No, Embick was only mentioning he had requested what planners have been requesting for months - show us the conversion was properly engineered as required in the regulations to make it qualify for a waiver.  Not only the 2008 waiver, but a new one that would be needed for the proposed development.  Witmer was totally irrational - "there is nothing in the law that requires us to produce that!"  Maybe not, but the planning commission and its consultants are requesting it as part of their job, you thick-headed idiot.

At 8:15, Simpson looked at Witmer and Goodrich and said in restrained exasperation "I advised you an hour ago to start what we are now, and you said it would only take 15 minutes."  At this point David Allen P.E. and Jim Hecht remained standing at the podium, reluctant to give up their post serving Witmer's senseless charade.  Someone in the audience muttered "sit the hell down" and chairman Levitz looked at them as if to say "we''re moving on".  If Witmer thought that Synagro had to only address some issues brought up today and they would be home free, she was badly mistaken.

The first consultant to present was Jack Embick, who pointed out that months ago he had advised that Synagro provide an environmental impact statement.  At this point, Witmer climbed onto her "we ain't doing nothing that isn't required in your ordinance" horse, with Goodrich riding bareback - his arms tightly around her formidable waist. The problem is, Goodrich isn't a municipal law attorney, and Witmer doesn't appear to be competent.  Embick was going over how sections 4 and 5 of the township zoning ordinance lay out criteria and standards for protecting the health safety and welfare of the citizens.  Also, he mentioned the Environmental Rights Act and the PA Constitution, which guarantee citizens rights to clean air, water, etc.  Witmer sat looking around rather bored as Embick concluded that if Synagro will not submit an EIS, his advice will be the application should be denied.

Witmer claimed that PA DEP regulations will protect the citizenry - which is patently false.  First of all, the fact that DEP directed Syangro to apply for a general permit and not an individual one means that Synagro will not have to submit a Harms and Benefit Analysis.  Just look around at all the fuck-ups of DEP.  They don't protect anything except big business.  Look at how DEP garbage specialist Roger Bellas has ruled "just fill that pond in, we don't care."  Witmer demanded to know where in the ordinance there are specific requirements that Synagro had to meet.  Planner Robin Dingle told her - and then another planner pointed out that the Municipalities Planning Code provides for protection of the health safety and welfare of the community.  The township could potentially be sued if Synagro's proposed project causes pollution of the water supply.

Witmer then tried a new tack - this is new - why didn't you suggest an Environmental Impact Statement previously?  Why now late in the game?  Embick in frustration replied "I asked for it months ago".

At one point, Bob Simpson wanted to find out "are you going to do a hydrogeological study, or not?"  Witmer hemmed and hawed.  Simpson asked "yes or no?" and then gave up saying "I'll take that as a "no".

Witmer got so testy that eventually Chairman Levitz gave Synagro and its consultants a dressing down.  He pointed out that not a single person from Synagro lives in Plainfield Township.  "This is our town, we will have to live with this plant for generations.  You should come in here with some humility, but you are doing the opposite by attempting to set the agenda and tell us what we do and don't need."  Humility did not emerge as the evening wore on and more consultants spoke.

Next to speak was Jason Smith, wetlands specialist from Hanover Engineering for the township.  Smith's main issue was with the pond (big surprise).  Since the retraction of August 10 letter, there is no assurance that Synagro will receive a waiver to fill in the pond.  If a permit is required, more strict Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required by DEP.  Smith reported that data shows that 16,400 gallons of water a day infiltrates into a shallow aquifer and walls of the quarry, which ultimately is transferred to the Waltz and Little Bushkill Creeks.  Smith stated that sedimentation basin #2 was not constructed as such - an outlet was in the design but never installed.  How can one have a sedimentation basin with no outlet? 

Smith stated that a 50' open space buffer applies to the pond PRIOR to modification, which would fuck up Synagro's plans - destroy them in fact.  Witmer and Goodrich demanded to know where in the ordinance it is stated it must be prior to modification.  Township manager Petrucci provided the answer - in the Riparian Buffer section 22-1023.  It was then Goodrich's turn to become testy, demanding to know if Smith was familiar with something in a permit application.  Smith replied "I feel like I am being interrogated.  I have read part of it."  Goodrich continued "I am just asking for an answer!  Tell me the answer!"  Go fuck yourself - how is that for an answer?

During Smith's testimony, Witmer pulled another Witmer.  When pressed to provide as-built information on the sedimentation basin (since there is evidence it was not built as designed), the airhead said incredulously "We would not have that data - that is Waste Management/Grand Central - why are you asking Synagro?!"  Township Solicitor Backenstoe looked surprised, glanced at the Land Development Plan, and chuckled "Waste Management signed the application as the land owner."  Really not cool, Liz!

Next was the township's traffic consultant Peter Terry of Benchmark Engineering, who pointed out that the zoning ordinance requires a traffic hazard impact study.  Synagro's traffic consultant Jason Shelter had appeared earlier at the meeting, and claimed that the Grand Central haul road does not qualify as a street, so in his opinion a study of the intersection of the proposed entrance from Pen Argyl Road and the haul road does not need to be conducted as Terry had determined.  This access point looks prime for both hazards and impacts!  Terry stated he would defer to the PennDOT highway occupancy permit process to address some of the issues with this access point.  Looking at the diagram below, a marked-up version of Synagro's proposed access to Pen Argyl Road, what is your opinion?

Synagro's traffic expert testified that a hazard impact study of the lower intersection is not required.

With the haul road used by all the trash haulers to and from the landfill.

1. Looks like a great design and will work with no problem
2. Looks like a truck can't get into a proper position as shown in red, to look both ways before exiting onto Pen Argyl Road, and if it did it would totally block the haul road.
3. Looks like a truck driver exiting will have to turn his head 190 degrees (more than all the way backwards) before committing to block the throat of the driveway - which will block any trucks coming north from turning into the entrance, and in turn create a hazard to vehicles following it travelling north on Pen Argyl Road.
4. It sucks, both 2. and 3. are true, and this proposal would create a highly hazardous situation..

The astute observer will recall that attorneys Goodrich and Witmer attempted to make the case that the haul road is a "street", in the fall of 2017.  Doh!  Not anymore.  Whatever is convenient for the current argument, whatever shit might stick to the wall and not slither off into a heap.

Highway Occupancy Permit scoping meeting with PennDOT has not taken place

Synagro traffic expert Shlter announced that an application for a scoping meeting with PennDOT was filed on January 17, 2019 to discuss access via Pen Argyl Road and Route 512.  This is the scoping meeting that Synagro stated on July 16, 2018 they would request.  They waited six months.  PennDOT is backed up two or three months, according to its highway occupancy permit manager.  Synagro placed no urgency on getting access to its site resolved - incredible, but true.

Next township engineering consultant Robert Lynn of Hanover Engineering spoke with some general and specific zoning and SALDO concerns.  He stated he believes that Ordinance 229 that addresses driveways in his opinion would call for the calculations at the haul road intersection as Terry advised.  Lynn pointed out that there are several locations where Synagro trucks will conflict with each other, and other trucks.  Where will trucks "stack," what specific signs will be posted and where to control traffic?   Lynn's colleague Farley Fry requested that Synagro provide data that shows Synagro's trucks covered with tarps will not affect the surroundings.  Synagro admitted at a previous review meeting that tarps will not block odors from truck as they pass through town, past homes and businesses, sit in traffic, travel in front of other vehicles.  Yikes - ever ride behind a "municipal waste" hauler on the highway?  Fry pointed out that in Hawaii at a Synagro facility, a regrowth of bacteria occurred after shit was baked.

Next was Mike Brunamonti, an environmental consultant with BCM Engineers.  Brunamonti had spoken with hydrogeologist Phil Gray, who found that Synagro's responses to requests for data and a hydrogeologic study did not satisfy his concerns.  Brunamonti stated that disposal of waste to an underground aquifer is potential pollution.  Further, sedimentation basin #2 in his opinion does not meet the requirements for a storm water control facility.

Brunamonti then made a reasonable suggestion - that runoff from roadways in the area not drain into the basin, but rather be collected and disposed of elsewhere.

Now it was time for EarthRes engineer for Synagro Thomas Pullar to take his turn at acting frustrated and indignant.  "We have provided you with everything you asked for.  Maybe you didn't read it.  We've submitted thousands of pages.  Baseline data on the creeks.  What more do you want?  Everything is contained - there will not be pollutants running into the sedimentation basin (pond)."  Well, you haven't provided any baseline data on the pond, and the baseline data on the creeks are standard water quality metrics - which do not include the nasty elements and compounds in biosolids.  As he spoke however, he tripped over his white lie about pollutants.  Planner Terry Kleintop questioned him on if the vegetated swale would really protect the pond.  Pullar stated that any pollutants should be filtered out by the swale.  Kleintop countered that the proposed route of trucks is through the current boundary of the pond, before it is partly filled.  Suddenly Pullar had his ass in a sling - both claiming there will be no pollutants heading towards the pond, but if they do (?) the vegetated swale should block them, and oh yeah they may infiltrate into the ground and into the pond before they ever get to the swale.  It's a crock of shit.

Synagro legal and engineering team recoil in disbelief that more than scrivener's oversights remain - why didn't someone tell us?

At about 9:20 pm, Witmer was seen chuckling with Goodrich while looking at the clock.  She looked very relaxed - which is odd under the circumstances.  Perhaps they were laughing about all the money they are being paid for sitting through meetings, because there is nothing funny about the prospects of Synagro's application.  Hecht is asking what would be required for a hydrogeological analysis (he was advised to ask his own hydrogeologist) and the planners are being advised to recommend disapproving the land development plan because Synagro has not done an Environmental Impact Statement.  The proposed Pen Argyl Road access is a pathetic joke.  Without approval from DEP to partially fill the pond, there isn't enough space to build the proposed plant.  What is funny about this situation,Ms. Witmer?

Next was Trudy Johnston, who had comments on the land development plan as well as the nuisance mitigation plan.  The most interesting factoid to this observer in her comments was when someone asked how odors from the landfill will be discriminated from those of the shit factory.  The answer was that an "odor observer" (human) uses a "smells like" test.  Smells like crap, smells like trash...

Johnston reported that ammonia, which will be produced as a byproduct in very large quantities, is not one of the substances that is covered by the nuisance mitigation plan draft, and she would like to see tighter controls on hydrogen sulfide.

"We've produced thousands of pages of answers."

Both Witmer and Pullar made reference to the stacks and stacks of paper that Synagro has submitted to the township.  This is true.  One planner was seen hauling an old milk crate full to the brim with submissions from Synagro.  But Pullar referred to what was contained in these pages "answers".   Quantity does no equal quality.  Bodacious girth does not imply "answers" or that all of them have been answered   Planner Dingle early in the meeting challenged Witmer and Daivd Allen P.E. - "You are providing answers to a few selected questions here.  Does this mean that you aren't going to address all these other unanswered questions, including important environmental ones "Applicant has provided no further information" (citing a consultant's review letter)?  Is that your position?  I just want to know for the record."  This wasn't being rude - but rather Dingle sees numerous outstanding unanswered questions, and according to Witmer, David Allen P.E. was only going to address "five or six" responding only to questions received that same day.  Witmer is acting like "we're at the end, dotting i's and crossing t's" when that clearly is not what the planners or their consultant see.

Synagro's attormeys and Mr. Pullar appeared taken off guard that at this late stage there could be significant differences of opinion.  But there are, and they shouldn't be surprised.  They have received numerous review letters.  They asked if planners were reading the voluminous submissions of crap they have generated.  Have they read the much shorter review letters they have received back?  Read the transcripts that Synagro itself is paying for?  Where is the environmental impact statement that can inform the planners that there will be no impact to the health safety and welfare of the public?

Synagro rep Jim Hecht finally asks what would have to be in a hydrogeologic study

Late in the meeting, Hecht almost inaudibly asked from the audience what the township would like to see in a hydrogeological study.  Apparently the obvious to everyone else except Witmer, is that without the pledge of the waiver from DEP that has been withdrawn, knowing something about that pond has increased importance.  The township has maintained this all along.  Hecht's questions were uninformed - and no one from EarthRes was able to assist him.  Synagro should have been starting this discussion over a year ago.

Synagro not ready to accept that only one more meeting will be sufficient

At the end of the meeting, Chairman Levitz asked "are you still planning for a decision from us in March?"  The answer after a pause was "we'll see".  Yeah, we'll see.

Synagro rep reportedly apologizes for attorney behavior

It was overheard following the meeting that a representative of Synagro had approached a planner and apologized for the behavior of their own attorneys at this meeting.   Yup, even Synagro saw what everyone else saw.

Synagro proposes to route all its Plainfield Township biosolids plant traffic to Pen Argyl Road in latest attempt to avoid a zoning variance - but not really

Tomorrow evening (see sidebar), Synagro will attempt to claim that they satisfy all township requirements, and that two zoning variances the township has determined are required are not really required (which is not Synagro's authority to determine).  Yesterday we looked at the fact that Synagro no longer has DEP's commitment to approve of a waiver to fill in a freshwater pond in order to obtain space to build a driveway and parking area, and also to meet the township's setback requirements and avoid a variance.  Today we look at the second variance, which involves access to the proposed plant.

On July 16, 2018, Synagro finally took a step to address the fact that a year earlier the Plainfield Township Zoning Officer had informed Synagro a year earlier that a zoning variance would be needed, since Synagro did not satisfy the specifications in the zoning ordinance for access to its site.  Synagro's engineer David Allen, PE (working for EarthRes Group) did a song and dance presentation that evening, in which he revealed an access point to Pen Argyl Road from the site - which is a collector road and would satisfy one criterion required by the ordinance.  David Allen PE hedged when asked if all of Synagro's trucks would use this new access point.  He said "some combination of this one as well as the entrance to the haul road from Rt 512."  In other words, this was tossing shit at the wall and hope someone would believe it.  The added access point is at the upper right:

Synagro's first attempt to provide an access that meets the ordinance

Here are the requirements of the ordinance Sec 27-316 specifically for a Material Separation Facility (which Synagro's use is if you read the ordinance definition - basically the reuse of crap through a heating process for use off site):

1. Entrances and exits to the facility shall be separated and clearly designated; 2. entrances and exits shall each be at least 30 feet in width and 3. shall be located along either an arterial or collector road.

There are three requirements for the the access drives, and Synagro has never met any of them and today still does not today as we shall soon see.

Both DEP and the township require a 50' throat length for "low volume" driveways, which Synagro's use would be at 37 trips per day.  A low volume driveway is a use of normally over 25 and under 750 trips daily, while a "minimum use" driveway is a use of normally 25 or fewer truck trips per day.  Throat length is the distance between the edge of pavement of the road and the first cross road on the site - in this case the landfill haul road.  David Allen PE stated back in July that the 30' throat length available was sufficient for a minimum use driveway but not a low volume driveway.  He proposed the new access point to Pen Argyl Road would be a minimum use driveway, and on the site plan depicted it as "Minimum Use Driveway" as seen here:

Minimum use driveway from Pen Argyl Road proposed July 2018
Does this look like separate entrances and exits, 30' in width?

Look at the kooky alignment vehicles would have to use to use this access point.  It had to be made 75' wide to allow trucks exiting and entering to not cross into oncoming traffic as they complete their turns.  They will still meet head-on as they travel through the throat.  Clearly, Synagro shit the bed with this first attempt.  It doesn't even satisfy the requirement to access the site from an arterial or collector road, because Synagro's total volume per day exceeds that of a minimum use driveway.

By October, Synagro's Traffic Engineer Jason Shetler on October 8 admitted this access to Pen Argyl Road to meet the requirements of the ordinance won't even be used and will be gated!

Testimony from October 8, 2018 planning commission review
That driveway... it isn't a driveway

Synagro then went back to the drawing board and pulled a new one out of its ass, realizing the "minimum use" emergency vehicle gated entrance wasn't going to win the day.
,
The latest is that the proposed access point to Pen Argyl Road was moved east to where a 50' throat length could be obtained.  Actually, the throat length is only 43' but Synagro's engineer appears to be suggesting installing curbing over existing pavement on the haul road to make it look like 50'.

Current proposed access to Pen Argyl Road

A closer look at this late term abortion:

Synagro is now proposing a Low Use Driveway

Notice how a truck (red) blocks the entire haul road if oriented normally

If you are following along, Synagro previously had a minimum use driveway to Pen Argyl Road as a smoke screen to make it look like they satisfied the ordinance requirement to be from a collector road - but they intended to put a gate across it and it would only be for emergency vehicles, and even if used could not handle the daily traffic.  Notice this proposal retains the bizarre approach angle, which would require a truck driver exiting to see traffic to the left at about a 190 degree angle from in front of his truck.  He would of course time share his attention to southbound traffic with being alert for northbound trucks entering that would plow right into him.  What the fuck is the "STOP" bar for, parallel to Pen Argyl Road?  An exiting truck can't possibly use it, as the movements on the diagram show.

Now they propose a low use driveway, which could handle all of their daily trip proposed volume.  But everyone knows they don't plan to use it.  This is just an extension of the smoke screen, which has already been revealed as nonsense.  The improvement here is Synagro might argue they can route all their traffic from this point.  Do you see separate entrances and exits 30' wide each?  Bwa ha ha. 

Let's see what is written in the report that Synagro's traffic engineer Traffic Planning and Design submitted in December 2018:

Word salad in the conclusion of Synagro's Traffic Engineer report
Note the white space - the report doesn't indicate that a human prepared it

This report continues to play both sides of the fence.  We did an analysis which uses Pen Argyl Road only, but we recommend that access be from Route 512.  The last paragraph begins by stating what is obvious - Pen Argyl Road access is only being provided to claim that access is from a collector road as required.  But in the very next sentence, we're back to assuming all traffic will access from the Route 512 access point.  No one from Traffic Planning and Design had the guts to even put their name on this report!

If they tell PennDOT "we don't plan to use it, except for in case of emergency" PennDOT should not issue a low use permit.  That is a minimum use.  The only reason they want it to be considered low use is so they can act like it satisfies the township requirement to route their trucks through it.  Then put a gate across it.  We see what you're doing.  Look at this other truck turn diagram from the current truck turns submission, which in fact shows all trucks using Route 512 and no trucks using the Pen Argyl Rd access point.  You just could not make this shit up:

Question Mark Guy sees an issue

You should ask yourself, would PennDOT issue a Low Use Highway Occupancy Permit for Pen Argyl Road?  Highly doubtful.  PennDOT should laugh Synagro out of the room. There is a scoping meeting that has been requested between PennDOT and Synagro that Plainfield Township will attend that has not yet taken place (Synagro stated that it would request this meeting way back in July) to start that discussion.

Note that the latest proposal does nothing to provide separate entrances and exits, 30' wide each, even if PennDOT were to approve this driveway.  They still need the zoning variance.

Question Mark Guy sees bidirectional truck traffic in current plan, when entrances and exits must be separated

Plainfield Township's consultant points out glaring deficiency

What to expect at the February 21 meeting

Synagro is pushing for only two more meetings, on February 21 and March 11.  At this point, there is no summary of all the outstanding deficiencies in their application.  Tomorrow, expect Synagro to claim they have met all requirements and answered all questions, and expect the township's consultants to summarize outstanding deficiencies in each of their respective specialties.  One consultant who has gotten very little time at meetings is Trudy Johnston, who has been reviewing Synagro's Nuisance Mitigation Plan - a thick document that has gone through multiple reviews and updates off-line.

The zoning variances are game changers - Synagro can't meet the ordinance requirements of the open space around water bodies or the access road.  But there are numerous outstanding items that must be discussed as well.  It's time for an itemized list, so that the commission can make a recommendation.  Here's one - take your shitty project elsewhere!

DEP retracts letter indicating Synagro will be granted waiver in Plainfield Township to fill in freshwater pond without a waterways permit

DEP Solid Waste guru Roger Bellas has retracted his opinion by letter dated August 10, 2018 that Synagro would be granted a waiver to fill in a portion of a waterway - a former quarry that is now a freshwater pond - that is within 10 feet of Synagro's proposed biosolids (shit) bakery in Plainfield Township.  He did this retraction via a letter dated February 14, 2019.  A Valentine's for Plainfield Township.  Was a red rose included?  Yellow for friendship?  Bwa ha ha - he is no friend.

DEP R. Bellas Withdrawal of... on Scribd

The retraction

Oops - I did it again

Click to see existing freshwater pond boundary 10' from proposed crap bakery

DEP Letter to Synagro/Waste... on Scribd

The August 10, 2018 Bellas Letter

Synagro has argued for over a year that the pond was engineered as a stormwater management facility,  as reviewed and approved by the DEP.  Such a waiver requires an engineered plan.  Indeed DEP granted a similar waiver after the landfill gas to energy plant was built to partially fill in the pond.  Bellas stated in his August letter that DEP had previously reviewed engineered plans and based on that would extend the waiver to cover a significant amount of fill that Synagro proposes to add, to obtain the space it needs to develop its project.  However, neither the DEP, Waste Management who owns the property and would lease land to Synagro, or Synagro has presented evidence that this engineering was done.  This was the basis for a lawsuit by Plainfield Township against the DEP, arguing that the engineering was not done.

On January 28, the court hearing the township's appeal denied a request by Waste Management and DEP to dismiss the appeal, specifically citing the fact that DEP has presented not a scintilla of evidence to support that the engineering was done.  Now Bellas retracts his letter - which ostensibly will terminate the case before the Environmental Hearing Board.  Bellas' letter has not yet been entered into the docket, and the case is still open.  Do the math - once the court ruled the appeal should move forward, the DEP folded its "the engineering was done" tent and evacuated the area.

Significance of this retraction

First off, this would seem to indicate that DEP and Roger Bellas did not previously issue the same waiver on this water body after review of the required documentation.  They probably thought "hey, it's a frickin hole in the ground - go ahead and fill it in".  This could be cured of course by Synagro doing the required testing and engineering (planners have requested for many months that Synagro do hydrogeological testing to characterize the flow of water into and out of the pond), and DEP determining after a real review that the impact on the pond is within acceptable limits.  Synagro has repeatedly stated it would not do such testing.  Bellas states in his February 14th letter that DEP will continue to review the applications from Synagro - a threat perhaps that it could reverse course and issue said waiver later in the process.  DEP is now fully on notice citizens aren't going to take this crap lying down, and if operating permits for the plant are ultimately issued they can expect an appeal on this and/or other issues.  The township, Pen Argyl, Delware Riverkeeper, and private citizens will be queuing up to file a complaint.

Quite simply, if Synagro doesn't obtain permission to partially fill in the pond, it doesn't have a driveway to get trucks to and from the proposed building.

The local significance is that without partially filling the pond, the open space required by the township (50') adjacent to water bodies is not available.  In fact, Synagro proposes to build its parking lot in the pond.  Synagro would require a zoning variance - a variance it can not possibly obtain - the property is generating millions of dollars in revenue currently, so there is no hardship on its owner.  This is why Synagro has not applied for variances, like any other applicant would have over a year ago.  Synagro has been on notice since July 2017 these variances are required!  Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent since then on this absurd proposal, without going and (trying to) getting the zoning required zoning relief.

The township maintains currently that an open space buffer can not be obtained by filling in the very body that the required 50' buffer is designed to protect.  Common sense isn't so common - evidenced by Synagro claiming that they meet the ordinance when they clearly do not.  The waiver would not negate the township's ability to enforce its ordinance, but it is easier when the applicant can't argue that it is a stormwater basin.

Next meeting is Thursday February 21 (see sidebar)

At the February 21 Synagro review meeting, you can bet that Synagro will claim it does not need this 50' open space buffer, or that it meets the requirement, or some other line of rancid bullshit spewed out by a tap dancing carnival barker.  Who will draw the straw to do the dirty work?  Synagro project manager Jim Hecht?  EarthRes engineers David Allen orThomas Pullar?  That dreadful, irritating "we aren't going to do a Q&A here" smirking attorney Elizabeth Witmer for Synagro?  When will the Synagro reality series "Slate Belt Shitstorm" be released on tv?

Synagro certainly won't be happy about this development.  No longer can they claim that DEP will consider the pond a stormwater management facility after Synagro modifies it, or even that DEP will grant them a waiver to partially fill it.

Next we will look at the other zoning variance Synagro needs to just access its site, and the bizarre argument they hope will daze planners into believing that this variance is not required.

Waste Management/Synagro's motion to dismiss appeal of DEP permit waiver for Plainfield Township crap bakery is DENIED

One principal issue with the proposed Synagro biosolids plant in Plainfield Township is the fact that it would located a mere 5 to 10 feet from the boundary of a former quarry that is now a man-made pond. Sheet flow, or rather shit flow of runoff from the loading, unloading, truck maneuvering, and truck wash areas will all flow towards this water body.  While Synagro is proposing that there will be safeguards to prevent liquefied shit from entering the pond, anyone with half a brain knows full well it will happen regularly.  Even Syangro's consultant Tom Pullar has stated it is a hope that a vegetated buffer adjacent to the pond will filter out any shit that comes its way.

DEP has been working with Synagro to slam approval of this project through, and doing whatever it can to make it easier for Synagro and pave the way for more shit bakeries the breadth of Pennsylvania.  The DEP instructed Synagro to apply for a General permit instead of an Individual permit, which would make it easier to approve permits for future similar projects across the state.

Another helping hand that DEP has lent to Synagro is to grant a waiver so that a water quality permit will not be required for the pond.  This pond exchanges water with two nearby high quality creeks.   DEP appears to not give a shit, pun intended.  The township appealed this decision, and you can find the docket and background here.

Legal issues involving the DEP are handled in a special court - the Environmental Hearing Board.  The township appealed a statement by DEP that this waiver would be granted, and Grand Central (Waste Management - owner of land that would be leased to Synagro for its plant) filed a Motion to Dismiss.

The Court was underwhelmed by Grand Central's motion to dismiss

A week ago, Grand Central's motion was denied by the court.  Interestingly, the court found the same deficiency with the motion that the township has found - there are few to no details known about the sedimentation basin, how it is currently being used or how it will be used.  And the only details in this lawsuit thus far have been supplied by the township.  The motion was dismissed without prejudice that Grand Central might supply more detail in a later filing.

"Our issue with Grand Central's motion is that it provides almost no contextual or background information on its site or the sedimentation basin addressed in the letter.  Grand Central has not explained what the site is, what happens at the site, or how Sedimentation Basin No.2 fits in at the site.  We are told that Sedimentation Basin No. 2 is currently covered by Solid Waste Permit No. 100265 and NPDES Permit No. PA0074083, but we do not know what that means exactly, or how that relates to what the Department is saying in its letter."

"Only the township has taken the time to address in even remote detail what it contends is the function and history of Sedimentation Basin No. 2" 

In other words, Grand Central's argument sucks just as badly as Synagro's presentation to the planning commission, and the EHB isn't buying it the same way the planning commission and township consultants didn't.

This means that the discovery phase of this case, already underway, will continue.  What should be produced in discovery is what Grand Central should have included with its motion to dismiss to demonstrate to the court that everything is hunky-dory.  Instead they produced roughly zero.

Denial of Grand Central&#39... by on Scribd

Deficiencies in Synagro Land Development Plan to be reviewed at Tuesday Planning Commission meeting in Plainfield Township

--- RESCHEDULED TO FEBRUARY 21, 2019 ----

Reports from the various consultants working to assist Plainfield Township planners in assessing compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and SALDO (subdivision and land development ordinance) are on the agenda to be reviewed on Tuesday, January 29, at 7pm at the Plainfield Township Fire Company on Sullivan Trail in Wind Gap.

These are attached below, and include:

• Material Matters remaining deficiencies in Nuisance Mitigation Plan dated Dec 17
• Benchmark Civil Engineering traffic review dated Dec 21
• Plainfield Township Zoning Office review dated Dec 21
• Material Matters general comments on application dated Dec 28
• BCM Engineers comments dated Jan 17
• Hanover Engineering general zoning comments (Robert Lynn) dated Jan 17
• Hanover Engineering wetlands specialist comments (Jason Smith) dated Jan 18

The challenge for Plainfield's planners is to figure out what to do with this hefty pile of crap.  Synagro has refused to accept that the township Zoning Office has determined that variances are required*.   Any other Applicant would either walk away (Synagro can't possibly show the hardship needed for the variances), or file an Application for an Interpretation and in the alternative a Variance with the Zoning Hearing Board.  Synagro has done neither.  The Zoning Hearing Board is the venue to determine if the Zoning Officer erred in determining that a variance is required, so it is unclear what Synagro's strategy is.  Sooner or later, they will have to appear before the ZHB.  

*In its December 21, 2018 review, the Zoning Office identified a third variance that may be required - see the very bottom of this post for an explanation.

Why did Synagro and Waste Management spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an application in which the Zoning Officer has determined that Synagro can't even access the proposed site?  The answer is this plant will be highly lucrative and it is impossible to find locations that permit such a shit factory.  This opportunity is too damned good to pass on, and a three or four hundred grand is nothing in comparison to the income this would generate for both Synagro and Waste Management.

On Tuesday evening, the charade will continue, as planners begin the process of plowing through the reports listed above.

Endgame

How does this end?  Currently, Synagro has allowed through February 28th for planners to finish their review and make a recommendation.  This will not be sufficient.  The reviews pending discussion have found significant deficiencies remain, and when the planners are ready to discuss a recommendation it will likely require more than one meeting to agree on its terms.  Planners have two choices when the make their recommendation on the Preliminary Land Development Plan:

• Recommend approval of the Plan, with a lengthy list of conditions that all reamining deficiencies be addressed and additional conditions be met (for example)
• Recommend the BOS deny the plan, with justifications

It will likely require at least three more meetings including the Tuesday meeting for this shitshow to reach a conclusion.

Update: The deadline for a decision from the planning commission has been extended by Synagro to March 31.

Reviews on tap to be discussed Tuesday

Material Matters Remaining ... by on Scribd

Benchmark Dec 21 2018 Revie... by on Scribd

Plainfield Township Zoning ... by on Scribd

Material Matters General Co... by on Scribd

BCM Jan 2018 Review Synagro... by on Scribd

Hanover_Lynn January 17 201... by on Scribd

Hanover_Smith Jan 18 2019 R... by on Scribd

Third variance identified in Zoning Office review letter dated Dec 21

In the Synagro application for a General Permit for its facility (click to see document), Form L contains a Contingency Plan in case of emergencies.   There are several references in Form L, including Form L Figure 2 Facility Plan (pdf page 99 in the document linked to), to sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide being stored in above ground storage tanks (ASTs) "adjacent to" the dryer building - outside.  Plainfield's ordinance permits above ground storage tanks of up to 600 gallons of regulated liquids.  Note that Synagro's site plan being reviewed by township planners does not show these tanks outside the building, and in other places the tanks are shown inside the drier building.

Graphic in Synagro's DEP General Permit application - Form L Figure 2

At a minimum, Synagro would need to inform DEP that its Contingency Plan isn't accurate if the AST's are inside.  A portion of the text of Form L is shown below:

Contingency Plan for Emerge... by on Scribd